Page:The grammar of English grammars.djvu/209

 ol'uble''. Thus the Latin verbals in bilis, are a sufficient guide to the orthography of all such words as are traceable to them; but the mere English scholar cannot avail himself of this aid; and of this sort of words we have a much greater number than were ever known in Latin. A few we have borrowed from the French: as, ''tenable, capable, preferable, convertible''; and these we write as they are written in French. But the difficulty lies chiefly in those which are of English growth. For some of them are formed according to the model of the Latin verbals in ibilis; as forcible, coercible, reducible, discernible; and others are made by simply adding the suffix able; as ''traceable, pronounceable, manageable, advisable, returnable''. The last are purely English; and yet they correspond in form with such as come from Latin verbals in abilis.

OBS. 21.--From these different modes of formation, with the choice of different roots, we have sometimes two or three words, differing in orthography and pronunciation, but conveying the same meaning; as, divis'ible and divi'dable, des'picable and despi'sable, ref'erable and refer'rible, mis'cible and mix'able, dis'soluble, dissol'vible, and dissol'vable. Hence, too, we have some words which seem to the mere English scholar to be spelled in a very contradictory manner, though each, perhaps, obeys the law of its own derivation; as, peaceable and forcible, impierceable and coercible, marriageable and ''corrigible, damageable and eligible, changeable and tangible, chargeable'' and frangible, fencible and defensible, pref'erable and ''referrible, conversable and reversible, defendable and descendible, amendable'' and extendible, bendable and vendible, dividable and ''corrodible, returnable and discernible, indispensable and responsible, advisable'' and fusible, respectable and compatible, delectable and ''collectible, taxable and flexible''.

OBS. 22.--The American editor of the Red Book, to whom all these apparent inconsistencies seemed real blunders, has greatly exaggerated this difficulty in our orthography, and charged Johnson and Walker with having written all these words and many more, in this contradictory manner, "without any apparent reason!" He boldly avers, that, "The perpetual contradictions of the same or like words, in all the books, show that the authors had no distinct ideas of what is right, and what is wrong;" and ignorantly imagines, that, "The use of ible rather than able, in any case, originated in the necessity of keeping the soft sound of c and g, in the derivatives; and if ible was confined to that use, it would be an easy and simple rule."--Red Book, p. 170. Hence, he proposes to write peacible for peaceable, tracible for traceable, changible for changeable, managible for manageable; and so for all the rest that come from words ending in ce or ge. But, whatever advantage there might be in this, his "easy and simple rule" would work a revolution for which the world is not yet prepared. It would make ''audible audable, fallible fallable, feasible feasable, terrible terrable, horrible horrable'', &c. No tyro can spell in a worse manner than this, even if he have no rule at all. And those who do not know enough of Latin grammar to profit by what I have said in the preceding observation, may console themselves with the reflection, that, in spelling these difficult words entirely by guess, they will not miss the way more than some have done who pretended to be critics. The rule given by John Burn, for able and ible, is less objectionable; but it is rendered useless by the great number of its exceptions.

OBS. 23.--As most of the rules for spelling refer to the final letters of our primitive words, it may be proper for the learner to know and remember, that not all the letters of the alphabet can assume that situation, and that some of them terminate words much more frequently than others. Thus, in Walker's Rhyming Dictionary, the letter a ends about 220 words; b, 160; c, 450; d, 1550; ''