1806.] 
baker ; from to brew, brewer. 
quently, from to govern, governer; from 
to tranflate, tranjlater; from to ad?, adler. 
Wherever the verb, whence fuch fubftan- 
tives mafculine are formed, pre-exifts in 
the language, the termination ought to be 
in er, as Middleton, Lardner, and the 
heterodox fcholars of the laf age always 
wrote ; but where no verb pre-exifts, thofe 
fubftantives which are imported directly 
fromthe Latin, may with propriety retain 
their Latin termination, orator, pertur- 
bator, preior. Thole fubitantives from 
the French, where no verbal etymon pre- 
exits in our language, fuch as author, 
chancellor, ambaffador, may alfo fitly be 
{pelled with or.. An obfervance of the 
fame uniform analogical formation of the 
male agent from the verb, may be recom- , 
mended in all cafes: from to beg, berger, 
not beggar; from to lye, lyer, not Liar; 
from to pave, paver, not paviour. 
IIL. Mr. Pytches wifely intends to omit 
the d in alledge, colledge, knowledge, 
pidgeon : but why does he intend retain- 
ing it in judgement ? This dis not-only 
a cumbrous deformity, but an ignorant 
violation of etymology. . 
IV. Mr. Pytches is for effacing the 
in mufick, critick, mathematicks. Surely 
the c, not the &, ought to be effaced. (1) 
Thefe words are derived from the Greek, 
in which language thefe is noc: this let- 
ter is ah unmeaning intrufion. (2) To 
the argument from etymology may be 
added an argument from the general ufage 
of Europe: all the nations fpeaking gothic 
dialects borrow their words directly from ' 
the Greek, and not through the medium 
of a Latin tranflation of fuch words ; 
thus mujfik, crittk, mathemattk, logik, are 
words common to all the Gothic nations : 
—why fhkould Britain depart from the fa- . 
mily-rule? (3) There is a further argu- 
ment from univerfal grammar: the c is 
fo vitious a letter, that it impedes and 
poltpones the acquifition of the art of read- 
ing more than any other in the alphabet. 
It ftands fometimes for s, as in rice, 
price, chaife; fometimes for fs, as in 
rich, much, cherry; fometimes for hk, as 
in card, cenotaph, canobite, chimara, 
chemifiry, cold, cucumber. It is impor- 
tant therefore to the facilitation of acquire. 
ment, and confequently to the diffufion 
of our Janguage, that the ¢ fhould be 
progreffively dilufed, where it ftands for 
&, or for s. 
There is fome flight etymological pre- 
text for retaining the ¢ in public, colic, and 
other words which come to us from the 
Latin ; but in Saxon words, Such as brik, 
Remarks on Mr. Pytches? projefied Diétionary. 
Confe- lik, thik, bak, fiak, flak, the eye would 
ef any author, nor 
493 
fooner be accuftomed to part with the c 
than with thek, Why not fubftitute, ia 
all cafes, to the barbarous, hybrid, tauto- 
logous termination ck, a termination in 
the fingle confonant &§ 2 
V. Mr. Pytches talks of including 
compound epithets, fuch as gzddy- headed, 
tafe pleafiag, fua-rfiting ; and of ex- 
cluding the compounds formed by means 
of the adjectives well and ii]. There is 
no grounl affigned for this diftinétion. 
Well-pleafng may be a filly pleonafm, 
but itisa compound epithet ; il-favoured 
may bea bull, but it is a compound ept- 
thet. All compound epithets are fuper- 
fluous in a diftionary 5 they increafe its 
bulk, not its explanatory value. 
VI. Mr. Hyeehes undertakes to retrieve 
many eminently ufeful words. Among 
thefe he reckons to folute. The Latin in- 
finitive folvere has folutus for its partici- 
ple: we may fay to folve, and, if we want 
the participial adjective, we may fay the 
Solute {alt ov the folved falt fufpended.ia 
fea-water; but we cannot fay to felute: 
this would be like faying to miffaken, for 
to miftake. Hewho fancies that etymo~ 
logy depends on conjecture, muft not 
ftrive to appretiate the purity of words. 
Vil. Mr. Pytches fays that many of 
the antique words of Chaucer will be ad- 
mitted into his dictionary. Is antique- 
nefs to conftitute the claim to admiffion? 
If fo, he undestakes both a gioflary and 
a dictionary. Is the repetition of thefe 
words by Spenfer and Milton to conftitute 
the claim to admiffion? If fo, it was 
needlefs to notice the authority of Chan- 
cer, which is to weigh as nothing, He 
further fays, that many of the novel 
words of Dr. Johnfon will be omitted ia 
this dictionary. Beit {. But he ought 
not to emunerate, among werds that have 
‘* neither the prefcription of any age, nor 
of any language,”* 
obambulation,  Claudicate,  collineation, 
which are needlefs, but not impure, 
words. 
The late Dr. Geddes left an interleaved 
copy uf Johnion’s Digtionary, in which 
he had infected in their proper places fuch 
omitted words, chiefly gleaned from the 
oriental travellers, as bis peculiar line of 
ftudy led him progreffively to colleé. 
Who poffeffes this valua>le fuppleméntary 
matter?’ Will Mr. Pytches be-its edi cr?: 
this would be rendering a great fervice vo 
our language. 
I remain, Sir, &c. 
Th: Axsthor of Defultory Comments 
on Mafon’s Supplement. 
For 
— 
