1606.] Sugge/tions to Mr. Pytehes on bis projeticd Didtionary. 
of independant. fortune having devoted 
fo great a portion of his life to the ftudy 
and illuftration. of the ftructure of our 
language ; and this confidence derives con- 
fiderable increafe from the liberal mode in 
which he intends to publifh the refult of 
his labours. Lexicography, efpecialiy on 
the enlarged fcale which M:. Pytches pro- 
poles, is perhaps a fubject on which it 
may be faid more truly than on any other 
(in the words of Junius), every man 
can contribute fomething to the common 
ftock, and no man’s contribution fhould 
be rejected.” I fometimes dabble a little 
in the inferior departments of philology 
mylelf; and the reception with which you 
lave oceafionally honoured my trifles, has 
induced me to venture the above cblerv- 
ations. In addition to thefe, the candid 
and condetcending manner in which Mr, 
Pytches invites communications of every 
nature on the fubject of his plan, encou- 
ragesme further co fubmit to that gentle- 
man’s confideration the following exten- 
fions of it. I am confcicus that, frem 
the long period waich its formation and 
execution have occupied (fo far exceeding 
the ** nonum prematur in annum’ of Ho- 
vace), it might appear ablurd to fuggett 
any thing radical in this refpeét; buc the 
obje&s which Ihave in view are of com- 
paratively humble confideration, requiring 
little more than the manual labour of brief 
infertions. : 
So much has been lately done in the way 
ef pronouncing-diéticnaries, and in pro- 
jects for reducing the founds of our words 
to a pertect graphic Gelineation, that per-- 
haps a dictionary of magnitude can hardly 
any longer be confidered as complete with- 
cut embracing. in its fcope fomething of 
this kiud. This flrould be done, of courfe, 
without at all entering into detailed fate- » 
ments on the  fubjeét under particular 
words, as in Walker's diftionary; dut 
merely by giving each properly charac- 
terifed, adding alfo fuch varied or doubt. 
ful inftances as might feem worthy of that 
notice. Thefe pronunciations might be 
introduced rather as a regifter cf the ge- 
neral ufage at the time when the Dictionary 
appeared, than asa dogmattcal ftandard: 
which poffibly is’ almof all that can be 
firigtly accomplifhed even by the defini- 
tions, in either this or any other under- 
taking of the fame nature; for T fulpe& 
that words are continually, though unper- 
ceivedly, tending to variations in both 
‘their found and their meaning. I troubied 
you a fhoit time fince with a fcheme of the 
vowels, which could perhaps be found 
ufefulin forming a more Simplified clafi- 
491 
fication of them in fuch a view, than has 
hitherto been adopted; * and I have in con- 
templation fomething of the fame fort 
with refpe& to the confonanis, which I 
fhall fubmit to you at a future day. 
Much, I think, might be done toward 
reprefenting the pronunciation, by merely 
an appropriate divif: n ef the fyllables in 
that view; thus, after obferving (as I 
have exprefled on another occafion) that 
‘“ unaccen’ed fyliables are only diminu- 
tives of accented ones,’” it feems to me 
that nothing more would be neceffary in 
the following two words for inftance, than 
to make the divilion and place the accent: 
‘‘ jep/-ar-ate, arc’-hit-eét.” 
The other point which I have to take the 
liberty of fuggelting to Mr. Pytches, is. of 
not quite fo eafy explanation, It may be 
ftated as follows. Johnfon diftinguifhes the 
different fignifications of each word by the. 
numbers 1, 2. 3, &c,!—- ow tothe word 
that is ufed for defining another, it might 
be ufeful to add a numerical reference, 
pointing out which of its fenfes the ex- 
planatory word is to be taken in. I do 
not fay that this would always be impor- 
tant, nor always of much apparent utility 5 
but this is equally true with refpect to 
the definitions themfelves of a vaft num- 
ber of words, which, being the fimpleft 
that are applied to their refpective figni- 
fications, ferve more to perplex the lexi- 
cographer than to affift his readers: yet it 
might give an air of method, and occa- 
* In the Number of this Magazine pub- 
lifhed.on the 1% of February laft, pages 9 to 
163 and the additions and correéfions to that 
communication, in page 132 of the next 
Number. I may take this opportunity of 
making the following further additions :-=Jn 
the Table in pages 10 and x1, in the vacant 
divifion of column XIII. on the line numbered 
15, infert ‘¢ feod?”: which will make it 
neceflary, in the Abftraé&t I. (page 16), in 
the line denoted by ¢* uw,” to add “ eo 5°” and 
in the Abftraé&t If. in the line denoted by 
‘<< eo,” to add $6 uy. J had this inftance 
fully in my mind at the time of drawing up 
the Table, but was’ mifled ¢as I now think it) 
by the ftatement of Perry; who gives * feod, 
feodal, and feodary,”” as (in the charaéters 
which I have ufed)  féd, fédal, and fédary.” 
T have fince, however, met with authority 
which I think better than his, for the found 
which I now aflign.—-There may alfo be in- 
troduced in the divifion of column IIf. on the 
line numbered 7 (befides the word © plaifter,” 
which I have mentioned among the former 
additions), the reference ** 323" and in the 
32nd line of that column, the furname of 
¢ Pitcairn >” ‘ 
gR2 fionally _ 
