On the first particular I would observe, that many words now used by some or all the nations in Europe, which are of Gothic and Teutonic origin, are found to be common words in Persia to this day. Such are father, mother, brother, daughter, the verb bind, and many others. We know that migrations of men have been almost uniformly from the East; and hence we infer with certainty that our ancestors were once inhabitants of Persia; that the Gothic and Teutonic tribes had a common origin with the Persians. The word God is also Persian, but not found in the languages of Shem's descendants.

There are some words in vulgar use which afford decisive evidence of the same facts. The word chuk, which is used in calling swine, is a Persian word, signifying a hog. Hence the name wood-chuk. Our farmers, in calling cows, utter the word koh or ko, which is the Persian pronunciation of cow.

By means of language also we trace the progress or course of migrations. Thus the promontory Cragus, in Asia Minor, mentioned by Pliny, Lib. v. xxvii. is doubtless the English word crag, which we have received from the Welsh ; a fact indicating that the ancestors of that nation were once inhabitants of Cilicia. So Perga in Pamphylia, is, doubtless, the modern word berg or bergen.

In regard to the second particular, it may be observed, that etymological researches are necessary to the discovery of the primary sense of radical words. Words used to express moral or abstract ideas, have their origin in terms first used to denote physical objects or action. This field of inquiry has yet been scarcely occupied; and the little that has been done in exploring it has produced no very valuable information.

An example, or two, will show the importance of this subject. The connection between the moral and physical sense of right is very obvious. In a physical sense, right signifies straight, as a right line; and this, in a figurative sense, is straight in morals. But the Latin verb rego, whence rectus, signifies to rule, govern, guide, and this implies restraint. Hence the primary sense is to strain, to stretch. This physical action makes straight, and it restrains, in governing. Hence the Latin regio, region. If this word was first applied to a limit or border, the sense is, the utmost stretch. If it was in general, extent or tract of country, still the sense was taken from stretching, extending. All this is too obvious to require proof. But let any person look at Ainsworth's explanation of the etymology of regio, and observe how wild and improbable are his opinions, and those of the author from whom he borrows them.

No person would, without examination, suspect the word dress, in the sense of putting on clothes, or of preparing food for the table, to be derived from the Latin dirigo, rego, and that the primary sense is to make straight. Yet this is certain. The sense of straight, gives that of right, and from this is derived the sense of preparing, or fitting for proper use.

I was formerly unable to understand the connection between the French heure, an hour, and heureux, fortunate, happy; or why tide, in Anglo-Saxon, should be made to signify tide in English; or how the word tempest could rationally be deduced from the Latin tempus, time.

These and a thousand similar difficulties vanish, when the original sense of words, and the manner of deducing moral from physical senses, is clearly understood.

The original signification of hour, heure, is time; and the primary sense of time, is a falling, happening, or coming, like event from evenio. The original sense of happy is fortunate, or lucky, and luck is that which comes or falls to us; the word being used in a good sense. So happy in English, is from happening, from the Welsh hapiaw, to happen.

Tid

A similar process of derivation is found in the words tide and tempest. in Saxon, is time, that which comes; in English, tide is a coming of the sea. And here let it be observed, that as wpa in Greek is primarily time, and this gives the sense also of beauty or comeliness; so the Saxon tid, time, gives tidy, that is, seasonable, in good time, hence fit, hence neat. So tempus in Latin, gives tempestivus, seasonable, and tempestas, a tempest, from the original sense of the root, to come, fall, or rush. So betide in English retains the original sense of the radix, to fall, or come upon. Let these examples suffice to illustrate this point.

Another imporant use of etymological inquiries, judiciously conducted, is to illustrate the affinity of languages. In order to determine the identity of words in different languages, the principal points to be observed are, the sameness of the radical letters, and the sameness of signification. But such is the aptitude of men to vary in the enunciation of sounds, that the letters of one language are in another often changed into their cognates, that is, different letters of the same

organs. Thus b, p, f, and v, being all formed by the lips, are often interchanged; as are d and t; g and k; s and z; l and r; the latter, however, being less frequent.

But many words occur in our language, and probably in all others, in which such alterations of orthography have taken place, that their identity with others, cannot be known, without a particular knowledge of the whole process of change, or its several steps. Thus we could not determine the French bras, English brace, to be derived from the Latin brachium, without knowing that bras is formed from the Spanish brazo, and this from the Italian braccio; the letter z in Spanish, having formerly the force or sound of c. So we should not be able to refer the French congé to its true source, unless we had the Italian congedare, to give leave, which is evidently an alteration of the Latin concedo. But in this instance, we have additional evidence from the fact that the Celtic nations often used g, where the Latins used c; for cedo in Welsh is gadaw; and calo, to call, is galu. By extensive researches we obtain another advantage; that of finding the radix and primary sense of words which, in one language, are detached from their root. Thus bright, in English, is unconnected with any radix now existing in the Teutonic dialects; but the whole family, stock and branches, are found in the Ethiopic. Bright is the participle of the verb barah, to shine, or to illuminate; and written in Ethiopic precisely as it is in our mother tongue, berht or beorht.

One of the first things which arrests the attention of the learner of English, is the imperfection and anomalous character of our alphabet. We have thirty-six or thirty-seven distinct sounds and articulations, to represent which we have no more than twenty-six characters. Of course, the same character must represent more sounds or articulations than one. In addition to this, different letters are, in some instances, used to express the same sound.

Of these irregularities, none are more perplexing than the use of c as a close articulation, like k, before a, o and u; and as the sibilant s before e, i and y-the use of g as a close palatal articulation before a, o and u; and sometimes before e and i; while in other words it has a compound sound, before e and i, like j. Nothing can be more absurd and perplexing than to give to a letter one name or sound by itself, and another name or sound in combination with other letters in words. To name the letter c, se, and then to give it the power of k, as in cap, cope, cup, is intolerably absurd, and none but the teacher and the pupil, can justly estimate the trouble, perplexity and delay, which it occasions to the young learner.

This evil, however, admits an easy remedy. The method I have adopted is, to use a small mark across the c, when it is used as a palatal letter, like k, before a, o and u. This form of the letter is called ke. Before e, i and y, it retains its usual form and name. Thus also g without a point, I call by the sound it has be fore a, making it a palatal letter; but with a point over it, it is called jee, as it has precisely the use of ja.

The letter w is called double u, as it is composed of two v's; being the Latin form of u. That this letter should continue to be thus named, is an astonishing evidence of the force of habit. The sound of w is nearly the same as our oo, the French ou, and it ought to be so named. Several other slight alterations in naming the letters of the alphabet might be made with advantage.

No essential alteration of the characters in our alphabet can, or ought ever to be made. New characters cannot be introduced. The introduction of a new alphabet would render all our present books useless to the next generation; or our people would be obliged to learn two alphabets instead of one; nor could our children read French, Spanish, Italian, or Latin, without learning two alphabets. But in addition to these considerations, the Roman characters now used are the best characters that have been invented; the most simple in form and most easy to the eye; and ought never to be exchanged for others.

The only practicable remedy for the imperfections of our alphabet seems to be that which was adopted in the Hebrew, and which is, to some extent, used in certain languages on the continent of Europe. This is, the use of points above or below the letters. These do not disfigure the letters so as to render them obscure; nor do they offend the eye. These points may be few in number, and used only to mark the more anomalous sounds of the letters. This is the mode I have adopted, and it is sufficient to ascertain the sound of letters in most of the anomalies. As to such words as are too irregular to admit of this remedy, they are not very numerous, and may be collected into separate tables, in elementary books, with directions for the pronunciation. These tables, such as are formed in my Elementary Spelling Book, should be repeated by pupils, till they become

sour,

as familiar as the letters of the alphabet. It is for this reason that a good Spelling Book is the most important class book for young learners that is ever used. Notwithstanding all that has been done by lexicographers to reduce our orthography to some uniformity, it still remains in an unsettled state,-irregular, and, in some cases, erroneous. There are, probably, two thousand words which are differently written by different authors. In some classes of words, there is neither system nor consistency. From the old orthography of authour, ancestour, succes&c. the letter u has been discarded; but it is retained in honour, ardour, candour, and several others of this family, without the shadow of reason. While honour and honourable retain u, honorary has lost it; vigour is written with u; invigorate, without it; inferiour, superiour with u; inferiority, superiority without it; labour with u; laborious without it; musick with k, musical without it; and in like manner, hundreds of other words of like orthography. From this class of words, however, most writers have rejected the k; and had it not been, for the influence of Walker's Dictionary, which has brought into schools, in some elementary books, this antiquated spelling, our language would have been, ere this, wholly purified from this deformity. But we have diversities of other kinds in constant use; risk and risque; gulf and gulph; surprise and surprize; enterprise and enterprize; artisan and artizan; bark and barque; diocese and diocess; blamable and blameable; methodize and methodise; and others, too numerous to be here recited.

In determining the orthography of certain classes of words, I have adopted the rule of uniformity in words of like formation. This prevents exceptions which are more troublesome to learners than rules.

EXAMPLES.

1. Ardor, armor, candor, favor, color, clamor, error, honor, labor, parlor, rigor, rumor, splendor, terror, tenor, vapor, valor, vigor, inferior, exterior, interior, superior, savior, endeavor, &c. are written without u; there being no good reason why u should be retained in any of these words, rather than in author, predecessor, and successor. This obviates the inconvenience of writing u in labour and omitting it in laborious; u in vigor and not in invigorate; u in inferior, and not in inferiority, &c. These irregularities are perplexing to the learner.

2. Cubic, music, public, rhetoric, and hundreds of similar words, of Greek and Latin origin, and others formed in analogy with them, are written without k; for it is incovenient, not to say absurd, to write the primitives, cubick, musick, &c. with k, and be obliged to drop it in cubical, musical, publication, rhetorical, &c. The exception is, in words which may be used as verbs, in which the participles &c. require k before e and i, as traffick, frolick, trafficked, frolicking.

Words of different origin, which have always been written with k, and which have not derivatives, retain k, as in fetlock, hemlock, wedlock. Monosyllables also are excepted, as sick, lock, flock, for most of them have derivative verbs and participles, as sicken, locked, flocking.

3. Defense, expense, offense, pretense, recompense, with s; not solely because the originals have s, but because s must be written in the derivatives, defensive, expensive, offensive, pretension, recompensing.

4. Blamable, abatable, debatable, movable, ratable, salable, reconcilable, and all similar words are written without e, except when e follows c or g, as in noticeable, serviceable, changeable.

5. Appall, befall, install, forestall, miscall, recall, inthrall, retain ll in the primitives; for if one is dropped in the primitives, it must be restored in the derivatives, befalling, installing, miscalling, &c. Besides, it is a general rule in the language, that a before ll has its broad sound, (mall and shall being excepted,) and if I is dropped in befal, miscal, &c. the orthography leads to a false pronun

ciation.

6. Foretell, distill, instill, fulfill, retain l in the primitives; for it must be restored in the derivatives foretelling, distiller, instilling, fulfilling, &c. In such words the pupil has only to learn a rule consisting of a few words, that tell, still, fill, retain ll in all the derivatives.

7. In like manner, dull, full, skill, will retain ll in the derivatives, to prevent the inconvenience of exceptions. There seems to be no reason for writing dullness, fullness, skillful, willful, with a single l, which does not require one s to be dropped in blissful, distressful. In the compound fulfill, and in the terminations of distressful, mournful, the loss of one I in ful creates little inconvenience, for it is uniform.

8. Connection, deflection, inflection, reflection, always follow the verbs, connect, deflect, inflect, reflect. Complex and reflex constitute each a different class.

9. All verbs formed from the termination of Greek and Latin verbs in izo, and such as are formed in the like analogy, are written with ize; as generalize, legalize, moralize. See the Elementary Spelling Book, Sect. 137, 138. This termination and ism never change the accent of the primitive word.

Words from the French priser, and others, retain the s of the original; as surprise, enterprise, comprise, devise, revise, merchandise. The reason of this distinction is obvious. The termination ize has a definite signification, to make, and should be retained in all cases. The French ise confounds this termination with one that has no connection with it.

10. When a verb of two or more syllables ends in a single unaccented consonant, preceded by a single vowel, the final consonant is not doubled in the derivatives. Thus appareled, caveling, canceled, caviler, dueling, duelist, libeled, libelous, equaled, reveling, traveler, traveling, quarreling, &c. is the proper or thography. See the Elementary Spelling Book, Sect. 149.

This rule, always admitted to be just, has been violated, probably from mere negligence; or partly from the omission of the participles in the English dictionaries. There is certainly no more propriety in doubling the last consonant in these words, than in limiting, pardoning, delivering, and others, in which the last consonant is never doubled. But what should we think of limitting, pardonning, deliverring, harborring, laborred, laborrer?

The orthography of dispatch, instructor, visitor, used by all authors before Johnson's time, and still used by many, has been restored. Johnson altered the spelling in opposition to the practice of that cluster of eminent writers who adorned the beginning of the last century; and, what is more singular, in contradiction of his own practice in some of his writings. See his Rambler, Rasselas, and his Dictionary, under the words speed and send. Besides, from visitor we have visitorial, not visitatorial, as Blackstone writes the word.

The French word bailif is retained by Johnson with a single f; but the French plaintif, he spells in English plaintiff; from the French pontife, Latin pontifex, he forms pontiff, with two fs; but the derivatives pontifical, pontificate, with one. There is no more propriety in writing two fs in these words, nor in sheriff and mastiff, than in adding twenty letters of the same kind.

As most of the monosyllables in ff, as cuff, muff, miff, stiff, are used as verbs and have derivatives, cuffed, puffing, stiffen, &c. they must retain ff; and for the sake of uniformity, other monosyllables may well be written in the same manner.

Woe is often written wo; but why alter this word and not doe, foe, roe, toe? If we omit e, in doe, toe, then do and to are confounded with two other words. It is better to let them all remain unaltered.

These rules, if observed, will remove some of the evils of our very irregular orthography; and even a partial improvement seems to be worthy of a favorable reception. They are already adopted to a considerable extent, by the editors of some of our most popular and extensively circulated papers and periodicals.

The most obvious method of banishing discrepancies in orthography is to supply schools with books of uniform orthography, and continue them in permanent use. There are some errors in orthography, which have proceeded, doubtless, from ignorance or negligence, but which are too palpable to admit any defense.

Comptroller is an egregious mistake. It is not from the French compter, but from contre, contra and roll. It is strange that such an obvious blunder should have been continued to this day. The true word is controller.

Chimistry is written chymistry and chemistry, from a difference of opinion, or rather a difference of guesses, about its etymology. It is mortifying to see what reverence is paid to the mere guesses of men of erudition! In fact, the origin of the word is now well known; it is from the Arabic; and the true orthography is chimistry; and so it is pronounced. This spelling accords with the first syllable of the word in French, Spanish and Italian.

How the word zink came to be altered to zinc, I do not know. In all the northern languages, whence we have received the word, it is zink, and this admits the regular adjective, zinky. Zincous is ill-formed, and ought to be rejected.

Gangue is a deformity in the language. The word in all the northern languages is gang, a going, a course, or vein. Who was stupid enough to add ue to the word I cannot conceive, nor why it was added. We might just as well write longue for long.

How the French melasse, Italian melassa, came to be changed in English to molasses, cannot now be known. Edwards, in his history of the West Indies, writes it correctly melasses, and so it is pronounced.

Redoubt is false spelling. Every tyro in French knows that it is the French redoute, in which the letter b never appeared. The insertion of b was a palpable blunder. What would men say if we should write stoubt for stout; or loubd for loud? Yet redoubt presents a precisely similar innovation and absurdity. Similar objections may be made to redoubtable.

Mould is false orthography. It is the Anglo-Saxon mold, and was so written by Milton, Dryden, Pope, &c.

Furlough is an egregious mistake in orthography. The word is furlow. Plow, the noun and the verb, should be written alike; so also practice, the noun and the verb. The verb is from the noun, and practise is not to be justified on any principle. What should we say, if men should write to notise, from the noun notice? This is a similar case.

Suit, a retinue, is, by some affected speakers, pronounced sweet, and it is sometimes written suite. Why this singularity? It is the same word when used for retinue, as it is when used for a series or set of cards, or of clothes, or of apartments. It is from the French suivre, to follow, denoting a series or succession of things. No difference should be made, therefore, in the orthography, when differently applied. Jameson, the latest orthoepist, has wisely discarded suite, and it ought to be banished from books.

Oxyd, as regularly formed from the Greek ofus, by Lavoisier, and his associates, has been changed to oxide,—a change most unwarranted; for it makes i the representative of the Greek v, contrary to universal usage in other cases, and without the pretense of a reason, adds a final e. And how very inconsistent is the practice of writing oxyd with i, and oxygen, from the same Greek original with y.

Alledge is written allege, from the Latin allego. But allege, as written, according to a universal rule, in our language, should be pronounced alleege, with e long. Now, if lexicographers had attended to the original orthography of other words in which d immediately precedes g, they would have inserted d in alledge. In all words probably of this class, d has been inserted to prevent mis-pronunciation. In the originals of hedge, ledge, lodge, pledge, wedge, &c. there is no d; but without it, the words would probably be mispronounced; and d having been inserted in all similar words, this general rule should be observed in alledge, and so it was formerly written.

In a few other words, the original and true orthography has been so corrupted, as to obscure the originals. Thus the Saxon tung, tunga, has been changed to tongue; ieland, has been changed to island; suveran, has been changed to sovereign; and such mistakes or blunders are sanctioned by long usage. If such corruptions are to be continued, and entailed upon the many millions of our nation, who are to people our vast territory, because we will not take a little trouble to correct them, nor suffer our children to be better taught; be it so. I can only propose what is correct-it belongs to others to determine whether the corrections shall be adopted.

Orthoepy, is in a condition no better than orthography. About sixty years ago, efforts began to be made to reduce to a standard the pronunciation of words in England, which is a Babel in its dialects. How far Kenrick, Sheridan, Walker, Jones, and Perry, have succeeded in the object, it is not easy to determine. Certain it is, that nothing like uniformity of pronunciation, is to be found in these authors; they differ in a thousand words. The English say that no uniformity can be produced in that country, on account of the various dialects which exist, and which are used in Parliament. These dialects are of such extent, and so riveted upon the nation, that no human efforts can extirpate them. In this country, there is little that can be called dialect.

For fifteen or twenty years past, it has been a current opinion, in the United States, that Walker is the standard of orthoepy in England. How this opinion came to be propagated, it is needless to inquire; it has been a profitable opinion to booksellers; but is, in truth, a great imposition on the American community. Walker has his adherents in England, as every other author has; but so little has his name been known, that the members of the British parliament, when in this country six years ago, informed gentlemen that they never heard of that author, till they came to the United States.

Walker wrote a few years after Sheridan, nearly fifty years ago. His notation of sounds, in many whole classes of words, is condemned, and in some instances, ridiculed by later writers on orthoepy; and, I know, from many months residence in England, that, in several classes of words, his notation of sounds does not accord with the established usage of well-bred men in that country. His old orthog