Am.  Jour.  Pharm.  ) 
August,  1920.  ) 
Editorial. 
modifications  proposed,  such  as  "thru,"  "thoro"  and  "tho."  A  few 
phave  not  only  advocated  and  used  in  their  pubHcations  the  sim- 
Hfied  and  phonetic  spelHng  proposed  for  common  words,  but  have 
assumed  the  authority  to  add  other  changes  in  support  of  erratic 
personally  made  rules. 
A  rule  of  grammar  that  was  firmly  impressed  upon  the  mind  of 
the  writer  in  his  school-days  reads  "A  Regular  Verb  is  one  that  forms 
its  Past  Tense  and  Perfect  Participle  by  the  addition  of  ed  to  its 
present  tense."  Doubtless,  the  same  rule  is  still  extant  in  English 
grammars.  In  one  of  our  magazines  we  note  the  continuous  use 
of  such  words  as  "accomplisht,"  "warpt,"  "helpt,"  "suckt,"  "in- 
creast,"  "rankt,"  "publisht,"  "distinguisht,"  "discust,"  "focust," 
"talkt,"  "decreast,"  "kilt,"  etc.  Every  one  of  these  quoted  words 
are  regular  verbs  and  every  such  deliberate  infraction  of  gram- 
matical rules  becomes  a  mutilation  of  standard  English. 
It  must  be  viewed  as  an  unjustifiable  assumption  that  the  Edi- 
tor's knowledge  and  authority  is  superior  to  that  of  grammarians 
and  lexicographers.  It  may  be  construed  as  a  lamentable  exhibition 
of  affectation  or  of  self-satisfaction  mistaken  for  editorial  service. 
No  one  will  object  to  good  English  or  take  exception  to  the  use  of 
accepted  and  authoritative  spelling,  and  it  does  not  appear  to  the 
writer  as  coming  within  editorial  propriety  and  good  taste  for  an 
editor  to  offend  continuously  by  such  atrocities  a  large  portion  of  his 
readers  whose  education,  love  and  loyalty  thereto,  cause  them  to  ad- 
here closely  to  the  standards  for  purity  of  our  language.  It  is  not 
the  province  of  an  editor  to  destroy  the  Nation's  language  or  to  take 
uncalled-for  liberties  therewith  any  more  than  he  could  with  the 
property  of  the  Nation. 
We  cannot  believe  that  such  pedantry  is  helpful  to  the  promiscuous 
class  of  readers  of  a  magazine.  Imagine  a  reader  in  South  America 
or  in  France  trying  to  read  the  article  referred  to  in  which  "kilt" 
appeared;  he  turns  to  his  English  dictionary  for  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "kilt"  and  learns  that  "kilt,  is  to  truss  or  gather  one's  clothes 
in  a  bunch ;  a  kind  of  short  petticoat  worn  by  men  in  the  Highlands 
of  Scotland"  instead  of  the  past  tense  of  kill,  as  was  here  intended. 
Our  conception  of  an  editor's  duties  leads  us  to  believe  that  he 
should  have  a  due  regard  for  the  feelings  of  his  readers. 
The  attitude  of  the  Editor  referred  to  is  comparable  to  the  anec- 
dote of  Nancy  who  was  saying  her  prayers.  "And  please  God,"  she 
petitioned,  "make  Boston  the  capital  of  Vermont." 
