Page:The grammar of English grammars.djvu/210

 e, 7000; f, 140; g, 280; h, 400; i'', 29; j, none; k, 550; l, 1900; m, 550; n, 3300; o, 200; p, 450; q, none; r, 2750; s, 3250; t, 3100; u, 14; v, none; w, 200; x, 100; y, 5000; z, 5. We have, then, three consonants, j, q, and v, which never end a word. And why not? With respect to j and v, the reason is plain from their history. These letters were formerly identified with i and u, which are not terminational letters. The vowel i ends no pure English word, except that which is formed of its own capital I; and the few words which end with u are all foreign, except thou and you. And not only so, the letter j is what was formerly called i consonant; and v is what was called u consonant. But it was the initial i and u, or the i and u which preceded an other vowel, and not those which followed one, that were converted into the consonants j and v. Hence, neither of these letters ever ends any English word, or is ever doubled. Nor do they unite with other consonants before or after a vowel: except that v is joined with r in a few words of French origin, as livre, manoeuvre; or with l in some Dutch names, as ''Watervleit. Q'' ends no English word, because it is always followed by u. The French termination que, which is commonly retained in ''pique, antique, critique, opaque, oblique, burlesque, and grotesque, is equivalent to k''; hence we write packet, lackey, checker, risk, mask, and mosk, rather than paquet, laquey, chequer, risque, masque, and mosque. And some authors write burlesk and grotesk, preferring k to que.

OBS. 24.--Thus we see that j, q, and v, are, for the most part, initial consonants only. Hence there is a harshness, if not an impropriety, in that syllabication which some have recently adopted, wherein they accommodate to the ear the division of such words as ''maj-es-ty, proj-ect, traj-ect,--eq-ui-ty, liq-ui-date, ex-cheq-uer''. But v, in a similar situation, has now become familiar; as in ev-er-y, ev-i-dence: and it may also stand with l or r, in the division of such words as solv-ing and serv-ing. Of words ending in ive, Walker exhibits four hundred and fifty--exactly the same number that he spells with ic. And Horne Tooke, who derives ive from the Latin ivus, (q. d. vis,) and ic from the Greek [Greek: ikos], (q. d. [Greek: ischus]) both implying power, has well observed that there is a general correspondence of meaning between these two classes of adjectives--both being of "a potential active signification; as purgative, vomitive, operative, &c.; cathartic, emetic, energetic, &c."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 445. I have before observed, that Tooke spelled all this latter class of words without the final k; but he left it to Dr. Webster to suggest the reformation of striking the final e from the former.

OBS. 25.--In Dr. Webster's "Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Peeces," published in 1790, we find, among other equally ingenious improvements of our orthography, a general omission of the final e in all words ending in ive, or rather of all words ending in ve, preceded by a short vowel; as, "primitiv, derivativ, extensiv, positiv, deserv, twelv, proov, luv, hav, giv, liv." This mode of spelling, had it been adopted by other learned men, would not only have made v a very frequent final consonant, but would have placed it in an other new and strange predicament, as being subject to reduplication. For he that will write hav, giv, and liv, must also, by a general rule of grammar, write havving, givving, and livving. And not only so, there will follow also, in the solemn style of the Bible, a change of givest, livest, giveth, and liveth, into givvest, livvest, givveth, and livveth. From all this it may appear, that a silent final e is not always quite so useless a thing as some may imagine. With a levity no less remarkable, does the author of the ''Red Book propose at once two different ways of reforming the orthography of such words as pierceable, manageable'', and so forth; in one of which, the letter j would be brought into a new position, and subjected sometimes to reduplication. "It would be a useful improvement to change this c into s, and g into j;" as, piersable, manajable, &c. "Or they might assume i;" as, piercibe, managible, &c.--Red Book, p. 170. Now would not this "useful improvement" give us such a word as allejjable? and would not one such monster be more offensive than all our present exceptions to Rule 9th? Out upon all such tampering with orthography!

OBS. 26.--If any thing could arrest the folly of innovators and dabbling reformers, it would be the history of former attempts to effect improvements similar to theirs. With this sort of history every one would do well to acquaint himself, before he proceeds to disfigure words by placing their written elements in any new predicament. If the orthography of the English language is ever reduced to greater regularity than it now exhibits, the reformation must be wrought by those who have no disposition either to exaggerate its present defects, or to undertake too much. Regard must be had to the origin, as well as to the sounds, of words. To many people, all silent letters seem superfluous; and all indirect modes of spelling, absurd. Hence, as the learner may perceive, a very large proportion of the variations and disputed points in spelling, are such as refer to the silent letters, which are retained by some writers and omitted by others. It is desirable that such as are useless and irregular should be always omitted; and such as are useful and regular always retained. The rules which I have laid down as principles of discrimination, are such as almost every reader will know to be generally true, and agreeable to present usage, though several of them have never before been printed in any grammar. Their application will strike out some letters which are often written, and retain some which are often omitted; but, if they err on either hand, I am confident they err less than any other set of rules ever yet formed for the same purpose. Walker, from whom Murray borrowed his rules for spelling, declares for an expulsion of the second l from traveller, gambolled, grovelling, equalling, cavilling, and all similar words; seems more willing to drop an l from ''illness, stillness, shrillness, fellness, and drollness, than to retain both in smallness, tallness, chillness, dullness, and fullness''; makes it one of his orthographical aphorisms, that, "Words taken into composition often drop those letters which were superfluous in their simples; as, Christmas, dunghil, handful;" and, at the same time, chooses rather to restore the silent e to the ten derivatives from move and prove, from which Johnson dropped it, than to drop it from the ten similar words in which that author retained it! And not only so, he argues against the principle