Chapter IV: Of Spelling (1)

_Spelling_ is the art of expressing words by their proper letters. This important art is to be acquired rather by means of the spelling-book or dictionary, and by observation in reading, than by the study of written rules; because what is proper or improper, depends chiefly upon usage.

The orthography of our language is attended with much uncertainty and perplexity: many words are variously spelled by the best scholars, and many others are not usually written according to the analogy of similar words. But to be ignorant of the orthography of such words as are spelled with uniformity, and frequently used, is justly considered disgraceful.

The following rules may prevent some embarrassment, and thus be of service to those who wish to be accurate.

_RULES FOR SPELLING._

RULE I.--FINAL F, L, OR S.

Monosyllables ending in _f, l_, or _s_, preceded by a single vowel, double the final consonant; as _staff, mill, pass--muff, knell, gloss--off, hiss, puss_.

EXCEPTIONS.--The words _clef, if_, and _of_, are written with single _f_; and _as, gas, has, was, yes, his, is, this, us, pus_, and _thus_, with single _s_. So _bul_, for the flounder; _nul_, for _no_, in law; _sol_, for _sou_ or _sun_; and _sal_, for _salt_, in chemistry, have but the single _l_.

OBS.--Because _sal, salis_, in Latin, doubles not the _l_, the chemists write _salify, salifiable, salification, saliferous, saline, salinous, saliniform, salifying_, &c., with single _l_, contrary to Rule 3d. But in _gas_ they ought to double the _s_; for this is a word of their own inventing. Neither have they any plea for allowing it to form _gases_ and _gaseous_ with the _s_ still single; for so they make it violate two general rules at once. If the singular cannot now be written _gass_, the plural should nevertheless be _gasses_, and the adjective should be _gasseous_, according to Rule 3d.

RULE II.--OTHER FINALS.

Words ending in any other consonant than _f, l_, or _s_, do not double the final letter; as, _mob, nod, dog, sum, sun, cup, cur, cut, fix, whiz_.

EXCEPTIONS.--We double the consonant in _abb, ebb, add, odd, egg, jagg, ragg, inn, err, burr, purr, butt, buzz, fuzz, yarr_, and some proper names. But we have also _ab_ (_from_) and _ad_ (_to_) for prefixes; and _jag, rag, in, bur_, and _but_, are other words that conform to the rule.

RULE III.--DOUBLING.

Monosyllables, and words accented on the last syllable, when they end with a single consonant preceded by a single vowel, or by a vowel after _qu_, double their final consonant before an additional syllable that begins with a vowel: as, _rob, robbed, robber; fop, foppish, foppery; squat, squatter, squatting; thin, thinner, thinnest; swim, swimmer, swimming; commit, committeth, committing, committed, committer, committees; acquit, acquittal, acquittance, acquitted, acquitting, acquitteth_.

EXCEPTIONS.--1. X final, being equivalent to _ks_, is never doubled: thus, from _mix_, we have _mixed, mixing_, and _mixer_. 2. When the derivative retains not the accent of the root, the final consonant is not always doubled: as, _prefer', pref'erence, pref'erable; refer', ref'erence, ref'erable_, or _refer'rible; infer', in'ference, in'ferable_, or _infer'rible; transfer'_, a _trans'fer, trans'ferable_, or _transfer'rible_. 3. But letters doubled in Latin, are usually doubled in English, without regard to accent, or to any other principle: as, Britain, _Britan'nic, Britannia_; appeal, _appel'lant_; argil, _argil'laus, argilla'ceous_; cavil, _cav'illous, cavilla'tion_; excel', _ex'cellent, ex'cellence_; inflame', _inflam'mable, inflamma'tion_. See Observations 13 and 14, p. 199.

RULE IV.--NO DOUBLING.

A final consonant, when it is not preceded by a single vowel, or when the accent is not on the last syllable, should remain single before an additional syllable: as, _toil, toiling; oil, oily; visit, visited; differ, differing; peril, perilous; viol, violist; real, realize, realist; dial, dialing, dialist; equal, equalize, equality; vitriol, vitriolic, vitriolate_.

EXCEPTIONS.--1. The final _l_ of words ending in _el_, must be doubled before an other vowel, lest the power of the _e_ be mistaken, and a syllable be lost: as, _travel, traveller; duel, duellist; revel, revelling; gravel, gravelly; marvel, marvellous_. Yet the word _parallel_, having three Ells already, conforms to the rule in forming its derivatives; as, _paralleling, paralleled_, and _unparalleled_. 2. Contrary to the preceding rule, the preterits, participles, and derivative nouns, of the few verbs ending in _al, il_, or _ol_, unaccented,--namely, _equal, rival, vial, marshal, victual, cavil, pencil, carol, gambol_, and _pistol_,--are usually allowed to double the _l_, though some dissent from the practice: as, _equalled, equalling; rivalled, rivalling; cavilled, cavilling, caviller; carolled, carolling, caroller_. 3. When _ly_ follows _l_, we have two Ells of course, but in fact no doubling: as, _real, really; oral, orally; cruel, cruelly; civil, civilly; cool, coolly; wool, woolly_. 4. Compounds, though they often remove the principal accent from the point of duplication, always retain the double letter: as, _wit'snapper, kid'napper,[114] grass'hopper, duck'-legged, spur'galled, hot'spurred, broad'-brimmed, hare'-lipped, half-witted_. So, _compromitted_ and _manumitted_; but _benefited_ is different.

RULE V.--FINAL CK.

Monosyllables and English verbs end not with _c_, but take _ck_ for double _c_; as, _rack, wreck, rock, attack_: but, in general, words derived from the learned languages need not the _k_, and common use discards it; as, _Italic, maniac, music, public_.

EXCEPTIONS.--The words _arc_, part of a circle; _orc_, the name of a fish; _lac_, a gum or resin; and _sac_, or _soc_, a privilege, in old English law, are ended with _c_ only. _Zinc_ is, perhaps, better spelled _zink_; _marc, mark_; _disc, disk_; and _talc, talck_.

RULE VI.--RETAINING.

Words ending with any double letter, preserve it double before any additional termination, not beginning with the same letter;[115] as in the following derivatives: _wooer, seeing, blissful, oddly, gruffly, equally, shelly, hilly, stiffness, illness, stillness, shrillness, fellness, smallness, drollness, freeness, grassless, passless, carelessness, recklessness, embarrassment, enfeoffment, agreement, agreeable_.

EXCEPTIONS.--1. Certain irregular derivatives in _d_ or _t_, from verbs ending in _ee, ll_, or _ss_, (as _fled_ from _flee, sold_ from _sell, told_ from _tell, dwelt_ from _dwell, spelt_ from _spell, spilt_ from _spill, shalt_ from _shall, wilt_ from _will, blest_ from _bless, past_ from _pass_,) are exceptions to the foregoing rule. 2. If the word _pontiff_ is properly spelled with two Effs, its eight derivatives are also exceptions to this rule; for they are severally spelled with one; as, _pontific, pontifical, pontificate_, &c. 3. The words _skillful, skillfully, willful, willfully, chillness, tallness, dullness_, and _fullness_, have generally been allowed to drop the second _l_, though all of them might well be made to conform to the general rule, agreeably to the orthography of Webster.

RULE VII.--RETAINING.

Words ending with any double letter, preserve it double in all derivatives formed from them by means of prefixes: as, _see, foresee_; _feoff, enfeoff_; _pass, repass_; _press, depress_; _miss, amiss_; _call, recall_; _stall, forestall_; _thrall, inthrall_; _spell, misspell_; _tell, foretell_; _sell, undersell_; _add, superadd_; _snuff, besnuff_; _swell, overswell_.

OBSERVATION.--The words _enroll, unroll, miscall, befall, befell, bethrall, reinstall, disinthrall, fulfill_, and _twibill_, are very commonly written with one _l_, and made exceptions to this rule; but those authors are in the right who retain the double letter.

RULE VIII.--FINAL LL.

Final _ll_ is peculiar to monosyllables and their compounds, with the few derivatives formed from such roots by prefixes; consequently, all other words that end in _l_, must be terminated with a single _l_: as, _cabal, logical, appal, excel, rebel, refel, dispel, extol, control, mogul, jackal, rascal, damsel, handsel, tinsel, tendril, tranquil, gambol, consul_.

OBSERVATION.--The words _annul, until, distil, extil_, and _instil_, are also properly spelled with one _l_; for the monosyllables _null, till_, and _still_ are not really their roots, but rather derivatives, or contractions of later growth. Webster, however, prefers _distill, extill_, and _instill_ with _ll_; and some have been disposed to add the other two.

RULE IX.--FINAL E.

The final _e_ of a primitive word, when this letter is mute or obscure, is generally omitted before an additional termination beginning with a vowel: as, _remove, removal_; _rate, ratable_; _force, forcible_; _true, truism_; _rave, raving_; _sue, suing_; _eye, eying_; _idle, idling_; _centre, centring_.

EXCEPTIONS.--1. Words ending in _ce_ or _ge_, retain the _e_ before _able_ or _ous_, to preserve the soft sounds of _c_ and _g_: as, _trace, traceable_; _change, changeable_; _outrage, outrageous_. 2. So, from _shoe_, we write _shoeing_, to preserve the sound of the root; from _hoe, hoeing_, by apparent analogy; and, from _singe, singeing_; from _swinge, swingeing_; from _tinge, tingeing_; that they may not be confounded with _singing, swinging_, and _tinging_. 3. To compounds and prefixes, as _firearms, forearm, anteact, viceagent_, the rule does not apply; and final _ee_ remains double, by Rule 6th, as in _disagreeable, disagreeing_.

RULE X.--FINAL E.

The final _e_ of a primitive word is generally retained before an additional termination beginning with a consonant: as, _pale, paleness_; _edge, edgeless_; _judge, judgeship_; _lodge, lodgement_; _change, changeful_; _infringe, infringement_.

EXCEPTIONS.--1. When the _e_ is preceded by a vowel, it is sometimes omitted; as in _duly, truly, awful, argument_; but much more frequently retained; as in _dueness, trueness, blueness, bluely, rueful, dueful, shoeless, eyeless_. 2. The word _wholly_ is also an exception to the rule, for nobody writes it _wholely_. 3. Some will have _judgment, abridgment_, and _acknowledgment_, to be irreclaimable exceptions; but I write them with the _e_, upon the authority of Lowth, Beattie, Ainsworth, Walker, Cobb, Chalmers, and others: the French "_jugement_," _judgement_, always retains the _e_.

RULE XI--FINAL Y.

The final _y_ of a primitive word, when preceded by a consonant, is generally changed into _i_ before an additional termination: as, _merry, merrier, merriest, merrily, merriment_; _pity, pitied, pities, pitiest, pitiless, pitiful, pitiable_; _contrary, contrariness, contrarily_.

EXCEPTIONS.--1. This rule applies to derivatives, but not to compounds: thus, we write _merciful_, and _mercy-seat_; _penniless_, and _pennyworth_; _scurviness_, and _scurvy-grass_; &c. But _ladyship_ and _goodyship_, being unlike _secretariship_ and _suretiship_; _handicraft_ and _handiwork_,[116] unlike _handygripe_ and _handystroke_; _babyship_ and _babyhood_, unlike _stateliness_ and _likelihood_; the distinction between derivatives and compounds, we see, is too nice a point to have been always accurately observed. 2. Before _ing_ or _ish_, the _y_ is retained to prevent the doubling of _i_: as, _pity, pitying_; _baby, babyish_. 3. Words ending in _ie_, dropping the _e_ by Rule 9th, change the _i_ into _y_, for the same reason: as, _die, dying_; _vie, vying_; _lie, lying_.

RULE XII--FINAL Y.

The final _y_ of a primitive word, when preceded by a vowel, should not be changed into _i_ before any additional termination: as, _day, days_; _key, keys_; _guy, guys_; _valley, valleys_; _coy, coyly_; _cloy, cloys, cloyed_; _boy, boyish, boyhood_; _annoy, annoyer, annoyance_; _joy, joyless, joyful_.

EXCEPTIONS.--1. From _lay, pay, say_, and _stay_, are formed _laid, paid, said_, and _staid_; but the regular words, _layed, payed, stayed_, are sometimes used. 2. _Raiment_, contracted from _arrayment_, is never written with the _y_. 3. _Daily_ is more common than the regular form _dayly_; but _gayly, gayety_, and _gayness_, are justly superseding _gaily_ and _gaiety_.

RULE XIII.--IZE AND ISE.

Words ending in _ize_ or _ise_ sounded alike, as in _wise_ and _size_, generally take the _z_ in all such as are essentially formed by means of the termination; and the _s_ in monosyllables, and all such as are essentially formed by means of prefixes: as, _gormandise, apologize, brutalize, canonize, pilgrimize, philosophize, cauterize, anathematize, sympathize, disorganize_, with _z_;[117] _rise, arise, disguise, advise, devise, supervise, circumcise, despise, surmise, surprise, comprise, compromise, enterprise, presurmise_, with _s_.

EXCEPTIONS.--1. _Advertise, catechise, chastise, criticise_,[118] _exercise, exorcise_, and _merchandise_, are most commonly written with _s_ and _size, assize, capsize, analyze, overprize, detonize_, and _recognize_, with _z_. How many of them are real exceptions to the rule, it is difficult to say. 2. _Prise_, a thing taken, and _prize_, to esteem; _apprise_, to inform, and _apprize_, to _value_, or _appraise_, are often written either way, without this distinction of meaning, which some wish to establish. 3. The want of the foregoing rule has also made many words _variable_, which ought, unquestionably, to conform to the general principle.

RULE XIV.--COMPOUNDS.

Compounds generally retain the orthography of the simple words which compose them: as, _wherein, horseman, uphill, shellfish, knee-deep, kneedgrass, kneading-trough, innkeeper, skylight, plumtree, mandrill_.

EXCEPTIONS.--1. In permanent compounds, or in any derivatives of which, they are not the _roots_, the words _full_ and _all_ drop one _l_; as, _handful, careful, fulfil, always, although, withal_; in temporary compounds, they retain both; as, _full-eyed, chock-full_,[119] _all-wise, save-all_. 2. So the prefix _mis_, (if from _miss_, to err,) drops one _s_; but it is wrong to drop them both, as in Johnson's "_mispell_" and "_mispend_," for _misspell_ and _misspend_. 3. In the names of days, the word _mass_ also drops one _s_; as, _Christmas, Candlemas, Lammas_. 4. The possessive case often drops the apostrophe; as in _herdsman, kitesfoot_. 5. One letter is dropped, if three of the same kind come together: as, _Rosshire, chaffinch_; or else a hyphen is used: as, _Ross-shire, ill-looking, still-life_. 6. _Chilblain, welcome_, and _welfare_, drop one _l_. 7. _Pastime_ drops an _s_. 8. _Shepherd, wherever_, and _whosever_, drop an _e_; and _wherefore_ and _therefore_ assume one.

RULE XV.--USAGE.

Any word for the spelling of which we have no rule but usage, is written wrong if not spelled according to the usage which is most common among the learned: as, "The brewer grinds his malt before he _brues_ his beer."--_Red Book_, p. 38.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The foregoing rules aim at no wild and impracticable reformation of our orthography; but, if carefully applied, they will do much to obviate its chief difficulties. Being made variable by the ignorance of some writers and the caprice of others, our spelling is now, and always has been, exceedingly irregular and unsettled. Uniformity and consistency can be attained in no other way, than by the steady application of rules and principles; and these must be made as few and as general as the case will admit, that the memory of the learner may not be overmatched by their number or complexity. Rules founded on the analogy of similar words, and sanctioned by the usage of careful writers, must be taken as our guides; because common practice is often found to be capricious, contradictory, and uncertain. That errors and inconsistencies abound, even in the books which are proposed to the world as _standards_ of English orthography, is a position which scarcely needs proof. It is true, to a greater or less extent, of all the spelling-books and dictionaries that I have seen, and probably of all that have ever been published. And as all authors are liable to mistakes, which others may copy, general rules should have more weight than particular examples to the contrary. "The right spelling of a word may be said to be that which agrees the best with its pronunciation, its etymology, and with the analogy of the particular class of words to which it belongs."--_Philological Museum_, Vol. i, p. 647.

OBS. 2.--I do not deny that great respect is due to the authority of our lexicographers, or that great improvement was made in the orthography of our language when Dr. Johnson put his hand to the work. But sometimes one man's authority may offset an other's; and he that is inconsistent with himself, destroys his own: for, surely, his example cannot be paramount to his principles. Much has been idly said, both for and against the adoption of Johnson's Dictionary, or Webster's, as _the criterion_ of what is right or wrong in spelling; but it would seem that no one man's learning is sufficiently extensive, or his memory sufficiently accurate, to be solely relied on to furnish _a standard_ by which we may in all cases be governed. Johnson was generally right; but, like other men, he was sometimes wrong. He erred sometimes in his _principles_, or in their application; as when he adopted the _k_ in such words as _rhetorick_, and _demoniack_; or when he inserted the _u_ in such words as _governour, warriour, superiour_. Neither of these modes of spelling was ever generally adopted, in any thing like the number of words to which he applied them; or ever will be; though some indiscreet compilers are still zealously endeavouring to impose them upon the public, as the true way of spelling. He also erred sometimes _by accident_, or _oversight_; as when he spelled thus: "_recall_ and _miscal, inthrall_ and _bethral, windfall_ and _downfal, laystall_ and _thumbstal, waterfall_ and _overfal, molehill_ and _dunghil, windmill_ and _twibil, uphill_ and _downhil_." This occasional excision of the letter _l_ is reprehensible, because it is contrary to general analogy, and because both letters are necessary to preserve the sound, and show the derivation of the compound. Walker censures it as a "ridiculous irregularity," and lays the blame of it on the "_printers_," and yet does not venture to correct it! See Johnson's Dictionary, first American edition, quarto; Walker's Pronouncing Dictionary, under the word _Dunghil_; and his Rhyming Dictionary, Introd., p. xv.

OBS. 3.--"Dr. Johnson's Dictionary" has been represented by some as having "nearly fixed the external form of our language." But Murray, who quotes this from Dr. Nares, admits, at the same time, that, "The orthography of a great number of English words, is far from being uniform, even amongst writers of distinction."--_Gram._, p. 25. And, after commending this work of Johnson's, as A STANDARD, from which, "it is earnestly to be hoped, that no author will henceforth, on light grounds, be tempted to innovate," he adds, "This Dictionary, however, contains some orthographical inconsistencies which ought to be rectified: such as, _immovable, moveable; chastely, chastness; fertileness, fertily; sliness, slyly; fearlessly, fearlesness; needlessness, needlesly_."--_Ib._ In respect to the final _ck_ and _our_, he also _intentionally departs from_ THE STANDARD _which he thus commends_; preferring, in that, the authority of _Walker's Rhyming Dictionary_, from which he borrowed his rules for spelling. For, against the use of _k_ at the end of words from the learned languages, and against the _u_ in many words in which Johnson used it, we have the authority, not only of general usage now, but of many grammarians who were contemporary with Johnson, and of more than a dozen lexicographers, ancient or modern, among whom is Walker himself. In this, therefore, Murray's practice is right, and his commended standard dictionary, wrong.

OBS. 4.--Of words ending in _or_ or _our_, we have about three hundred and twenty; of which not more than forty can now with any propriety be written with the latter termination. Aiming to write according to the best usage of the present day, I insert the _u_ in so many of these words as now seem most familiar to the eye when so written; but I have no partiality for any letters that can well be spared; and if this book should ever, by any good fortune, happen to be reprinted, after _honour, labour, favour, behaviour_, and _endeavour_, shall have become as unfashionable as _authour, errour, terrour_, and _emperour_, are now, let the proof-reader strike out the useless letter not only from these words, but from all others which shall bear an equally antiquated appearance.

OBS. 5.--I have suggested the above-mentioned imperfections in _Dr. Johnson's_ orthography, merely to justify the liberty which I take of spelling otherwise; and not with any view to give a preference to that of _Dr. Webster_, who is now contending for the honour of having furnished a more correct _standard_. For the latter author, though right in some things in which the former was wrong, is, on the whole, still more erroneous and inconsistent. In his various attempts at reformation in our orthography, he has spelled many hundreds of words in such a variety of ways, that he knows not at last which of them is right, and which are wrong. But in respect to _definitions_, he has done good service to our literature; nor have his critics been sufficiently just respecting what they call his "innovations." See Cobb's Critical Review of the Orthography of Webster. To omit the _k_ from such words as _publick_, or the _u_ from such as _superiour_, is certainly _no innovation_; it is but ignorance that censures the general practice, under that name. The advocates for Johnson and opponents of Webster, who are now so zealously stickling for the _k_ and the _u_ in these cases, ought to know that they are contending for what was obsolete, or obsolescent, when Dr. Johnson was a boy.

OBS. 6.--I have before observed that some of the grammarians who were contemporary with Johnson, did not adopt his practice respecting the _k_ or the _u_, in _publick, critick, errour, superiour_, &c. And indeed I am not sure there were any who did. Dr. Johnson was born in 1709, and he died in 1784. But Brightland's Grammar, which was written during the reign of Queen Anne, who died in 1714, in treating of the letter C, says, "If in any Word the harder Sound precedes (_e_), (_i_), or (_y_), (_k_) is either added or put in its Place; as, _Skill, Skin, Publick_: And tho' the additional (_k_) in the foregoing Word be an _old Way_ of Spelling, yet it is now very justly left off, as being a superfluous Letter; for (_c_) at the End is always hard."--Seventh Edition, Lond., 1746, p. 37.

OBS. 7.--The three grammars of Ash, Priestley, and Lowth, all appeared, in their first editions, about one time; all, if I mistake not, in the year 1763; and none of these learned doctors, it would seem, used the mode of spelling now in question. In Ash, of 1799, we have such orthography as this: "Italics, public, domestic, our traffic, music, quick; error, superior, warrior, authors, honour, humour, favour, behaviour." In Priestley, of 1772: "Iambics, dactyls, dactylic, anapæstic, monosyllabic, electric, public, critic; author, emperor's, superior; favour, labours, neighbours, laboured, vigour, endeavour; meagre, hillock, bailiwick, bishoprick, control, travelling." In Lowth, of 1799: "Comic, critic, characteristic, domestic; author, _favor, favored, endeavored, alledging_, foretells." Now all these are words in the spelling of which Johnson and Webster contradict each other; and if they are not all right, surely they would not, on the whole, be made more nearly right, by being conformed to either of these authorities exclusively. For THE BEST USAGE is the ultimate rule of grammar.

OBS. 8.--The old British Grammar, written before the American Revolution, and even before "_the learned Mr. Samuel Johnson_" was doctorated, though it thus respectfully quotes that great scholar, does not follow him in the spelling of which I am treating. On the contrary, it abounds with examples of words ending in _ic_ and _or_, and not in _ick_ and _our_, as he wrote them; and I am confident, that, from that time to this, the former orthography has continued to be _more common than his_. Walker, the orthoëpist, who died in 1807, yielded the point respecting the _k_, and ended about four hundred and fifty words with _c_ in his Rhyming Dictionary; but he thought it more of an innovation than it really was. In his Pronouncing Dictionary, he says, "It has been a custom, _within these twenty years_, to omit the _k_ at the end of words, when preceded by _c_. This has introduced a _novelty_ into the language, which is that of ending a word with an unusual letter," &c. "This omission of _k_ is, however, too general to be counteracted, even by the authority of Johnson; but it is to be hoped it will be confined to words from the learned languages."-- _Walker's Principles of Pronunciation_, No. 400. The tenth edition of Burn's Grammar, dated 1810, says, "It has become customary to omit _k_ after _c_ at the end of dissyllables and trisyllables, &c. as _music, arithmetic, logic_; but the _k_ is retained in monosyllables; as, _back, deck, rick_, &c."--P. 25. James Buchanan, of whose English Syntax there had been five American editions in 1792, added no _k_ to such words as _didactic, critic, classic_, of which he made frequent use; and though he wrote _honour, labour_, and the like, with _u_, as they are perhaps most generally written now, he inserted no _u_ in _error, author_, or any of those words in which that letter would now be inconsistent with good taste.

OBS. 9.--Bicknell's Grammar, of 1790, treating of the letter _k_, says, "And for the same reason we have _dropt_ it at the end of words after _c_, which is there always hard; as in _publick, logick_, &c. which are more elegantly written _public, logic_."--Part ii, p. 13. Again: "It has heretofore joined with _c_ at the end of words; as _publick, logick_; but, as before observed, being there quite superfluous, it is now left out"--_Ib._, p. 16. Horne Tooke's orthography was also agreeable to the rule which I have given on this subject. So is the usage of David Booth: "Formerly a _k_ was added, as, _rustick, politick, Arithmetick_, &c. but this is now in disuse."--_Booth's Introd. to Dict._, Lond., 1814, p. 80.

OBS. 10.--As the authors of many recent spelling-books--Cobb, Emerson, Burhans, Bolles, Sears, Marshall, Mott, and others--are now contending for this "_superfluous letter_," in spite of all the authority against it, it seems proper briefly to notice their argument, lest the student be misled by it. It is summed up by one of them in the following words: "In regard to _k_ after _c_ at the end of words, it may be sufficient to say, that its omission has never been attempted, except in a _small portion_ of the cases _where_ it occurs; and that _it_ tends to an erroneous pronunciation of derivatives, as in _mimick, mimicking_, where, if the _k_ were omitted, _it_ would read mimicing; and as _c_ before _i_ is always sounded like _s, it_ must be pronounced _mimising_. Now, since _it_ is never omitted in monosyllables, _where it_ most frequently occurs, as in _block, clock_, &c., and _can be in a part only_ of polysyllables, it is thought better to preserve it in all cases, by _which_ we have one general rule, in place of several irregularities and exceptions that must follow its partial omission."--_Bolles's Spelling-Book_, p. 2. I need not tell the reader that these two sentences evince great want of care or skill in the art of grammar. But it is proper to inform him, that we have in our language eighty-six monosyllables which end with _ck_, and from them about fifty compounds or derivatives, which of course keep the same termination. To these may be added a dozen or more which seem to be of doubtful formation, such as _huckaback, pickapack, gimcrack, ticktack, picknick, barrack, knapsack, hollyhock, shamrock, hammock, hillock, hammock, bullock, roebuck_. But the verbs on which this argument is founded are only six; _attack, ransack, traffick, frolick, mimick_, and _physick_; and these, unquestionably, must either be spelled with the k, or must assume it in their derivatives. Now that useful class of words which are generally and properly written with final _c_, are about _four hundred and fifty_ in number, and are all of them either adjectives or nouns of regular derivation from the learned languages, being words of more than one syllable, which have come to us from Greek or Latin roots. But what has the doubling of _c_ by _k_, in our native monosyllables and their derivatives, to do with all these words of foreign origin? For the reason of the matter, we might as well double the _l_, as our ancestors did, in _naturall, temporall, spirituall_, &c.

OBS. 11.--The learner should observe that some letters incline much to a duplication, while gome others are doubled but seldom, and some, never. Thus, among the vowels, _ee_ and _oo_ occur frequently; _aa_ is used sometimes; _ii_, never--except in certain Latin words, (wherein the vowels are separately uttered,) such as _Horatii, Veii, iidem, genii_. Again, the doubling of _u_ is precluded by the fact that we have a distinct letter called _Double-u_, which was made by joining two Vees, or two Ues, when the form for _u_ was _v_. So, among the consonants, _f, l, and s_, incline more to duplication, than any others. These letters are double, not only at the end of those monosyllables which have but one vowel, as _staff, mill, pass_; but also under some other circumstances. According to general usage, final _f_ is doubled after a single vowel, in almost all cases; as in _bailiff, caitiff, plaintiff, midriff, sheriff, tariff, mastiff_: yet not in _calif_, which is perhaps better written _caliph_. Final _l_, as may be seen by Rule 8th, admits not now of a duplication like this; but, by the exceptions to Rule 4th, it is frequently doubled when no other consonant would be; as in _travelling, grovelling_; unless, (contrary to the opinion of Lowth, Walker, and Webster,) we will have _fillipping, gossipping_, and _worshipping_, to be needful exceptions also.

OBS. 12.--Final _s_ sometimes occurs single, as in _alas, atlas, bias_; and especially in Latin words, as _virus, impetus_; and when it is added to form plurals, as _verse, verses_: but this letter, too, is generally doubled at the end of primitive words of more than one syllable; as in _carcass, compass, cuirass, harass, trespass, embarrass_. On the contrary, the other consonants are seldom doubled, except when they come under Rule 3d. The letter _p_, however, is commonly doubled, in some words, even when it forms a needless exception to Rule 4th; as in the derivatives from _fillip, gossip_, and perhaps also _worship_. This letter, too, was very frequently doubled in Greek; whence we have, from the name of Philip of Macedon, the words _Philippic_ and _Philippize_, which, if spelled according to our rule for such derivatives, would, like _galloped_ and _galloper, siruped_ and _sirupy_, have but one _p_. We find them so written in some late dictionaries. But if _fillipped, gossipped_, and _worshipped_, with the other derivatives from the same roots, are just and necessary exceptions to Rule 4th, (which I do not admit,) so are these; and for a much stronger reason, as the classical scholar will think. In our language, or in words purely English, the letters _h, i, j, k, q, v, w, x_, and _y_, are, properly speaking, never doubled. Yet, in the forming of _compounds_, it may possibly happen, that two Aitches, two Kays, or even two Double-ues or Wies, shall come together; as in _withhold, brickkiln, slowwoorm, bayyarn_.

OBS. 13.--There are some words--as those which come from _metal, medal, coral, crystal, argil, axil, cavil, tranquil, pupil, papil_--in which the classical scholar is apt to violate the analogy of English derivation, by doubling the letter _l_, because he remembers the _ll_ of their foreign roots, or their foreign correspondents. But let him also remember, that, if a knowledge of etymology may be shown by spelling metallic, metalliferous, metallography, metallurgic, metallurgist, metallurgy, medallic, medallion, crystallize, crystalline, argillous, argillaceous, axillar, axillary, cavillous, cavillation, papillate, papillous, papillary, tranquillity, and pupillary, with double _l_, ignorance of it must needs be implied in spelling metaline, metalist, metaloid, metaloidal, medalist, coralaceous, coraline, coralite, coralinite, coraloid, coraloidal, crystalite, argilite, argilitic, tranquilize, and pupilage, in like manner. But we cannot well double the _l_ in the former, and not in the latter words. Here is a choice of difficulties. Etymology must govern orthography. But what etymology? our own, or that which is foreign? If we say, both, they disagree; and the mere English scholar cannot know when, or how far, to be guided by the latter. If a Latin diminutive, as _papilla_ from _papula_ or _papa, pupillus_ from _pupus_, or _tranquillus_ from _trans_ and _quietus_, happen to double an _l_, must we forever cling to the reduplication, and that, in spite of our own rules to the contrary? Why is it more objectionable to change _pupillaris_ to _pupilary_, than _pupillus_ to _pupil_? or, to change _tranquillitas_ to _tranquility_, than _tranquillus_ to _tranquil_? And since _papilous, pupilage_, and _tranquilize_ are formed from the English words, and not directly from the Latin, why is it not as improper to write them with double _l_, as to write _perilous, vassalage_, and _civilize_, in the same manner?

OBS. 14.--If the practice of the learned would allow us to follow the English rule here, I should incline to the opinion, that all the words which I have mentioned above, ought to be written with single _l_. Ainsworth exhibits the Latin word for _coral_ in four forms, and the Greek word in three. Two of the Latin and two of the Greek have the _l_ single; the others double it. He also spells "_coraliticus_" with one _l_, and defines it "A sort of white marble, called _coraline_." [120] The Spaniards, from whose _medalla_, we have _medal_; whose _argil_[121] is _arcilla_, from the Latin _argilla_; and to whose _cavilar_, Webster traces _cavil_; in all their derivatives from these Latin roots, _metallum_, metal--_coralium, corallium, curalium_, or _corallum_, coral--_crystallus_ or _crystallum_, crystal--_pupillus_, pupil--and _tranquillus_, tranquil--follow their own rules, and write mostly with single _l_: as, _pupilero_, a teacher; _metalico_, metalic; _corolina_ (_fem_.) coraline; _cristalino_, crystaline; _crystalizar_, crystalize; _traquilizar_, tranquilize; and _tranquilidad_, tranquility. And if we follow not ours, when or how shall the English scholar ever know why we spell as we do? For example, what can he make of the orthography of the following words, which I copy from our best dictionaries: equip', eq'uipage; wor'ship, wor'shipper;--peril, perilous; cavil, cavillous;[122]--libel, libellous; quarrel, quarrelous;--opal, opaline; metal, metalline;[123]--coral, coralliform; crystal, crystalform;--dial, dialist; medal, medallist;--rascal, rascalion; medal, medallion;--moral, moralist, morality; metal, metallist, metallurgy;--civil, civilize, civility; tranquil, tranquillize, tranquillity;--novel, novelism, novelist, novelize; grovel, grovelling, grovelled, groveller?

OBS. 15.--The second clause of Murray's or Walker's 5th Rule for spelling, gives only a single _l_ to each of the derivatives above named.[124] But it also treats in like manner many hundreds of words in which the _l_ must certainly be doubled. And, as neither "the Compiler," nor any of his copiers, have paid any regard to their own principle, neither their doctrine nor their practice can be of much weight either way. Yet it is important to know to what words the rule is, or is not, applicable. In considering this vexatious question about the duplication of _l_, I was at first inclined to admit that, whenever final _l_ has become single in English by dropping the second _l_ of a foreign root, the word shall resume the _ll_ in all derivatives formed from it by adding a termination beginning with a vowel; as, _beryllus, beryl, berylline_. This would, of course, double the _l_ in nearly all the derivatives from _metal, medal_, &c. But what says Custom? She constantly doubles the _l_ in most of them; but wavers in respect to some, and in a few will have it single. Hence the difficulty of drawing a line by which we may abide without censure. _Pu'pillage_ and _pu'pillary_, with _ll_, are according to _Walker's Rhyming Dictionary_; but Johnson spells them _pu'pilage_ and _pu'pilary_, with single _l_; and Walker, in his Pronouncing Dictionary, has _pupilage_ with one _l_, and _pupillary_ with two. Again: both Johnson's and the Pronouncing Dictionary, give us _medallist_ and _metallist_ with _ll_, and are sustained by Webster and others; but Walker, in his Rhyming Dictionary, writes them _medalist_ and _metalist_, with single _l_, like _dialist, formalist, cabalist, herbalist_, and twenty other such words. Further: Webster doubles the _l_ in all the derivatives of _metal, medal, coral, axil, argil_, and _papil_; but writes it single in all those of _crystal, cavil, pupil_, and _tranquil_--except _tranquillity_.

OBS. 16.--Dr. Webster also attempts, or pretends, to put in practice the hasty proposition of Walker, to spell with single _l_ all derivatives from words ending in _l_ not under the accent. "No letter," says Walker, "seems to be more frequently doubled improperly than _l_. Why we should write _libelling, levelling, revelling_, and yet _offering, suffering, reasoning_, I am totally at a loss to determine; and, unless _l_ can give a better plea than any other letter in the alphabet, for being doubled in this situation, I must, in the style of Lucian, in his trial of the letter _T_, declare for an expulsion."--_Rhyming Dict._, p. x. This rash conception, being adopted by some men of still less caution, has wrought great mischief in our orthography. With respect to words ending in _el_, it is a good and sufficient reason for doubling the _l_, that the _e_ may otherwise be supposed servile and silent. I have therefore made this termination a general exception to the rule against doubling. Besides, a large number of these words, being derived from foreign words in which the _l_ was doubled, have a second reason for the duplication, as strong as that which has often induced these same authors to double that letter, as noticed above. Such are bordel, chapel, duel, fardel, gabel, gospel, gravel, lamel, label, libel, marvel, model, novel, parcel, quarrel, and spinel. Accordingly we find, that, in his work of expulsion, Dr. Webster has not unfrequently contradicted himself, and conformed to usage, by doubling the _l_ where he probably intended to write it single. Thus, in the words bordeller, chapellany, chapelling, gospellary, gospeller, gravelly, lamellate, lamellar, lamellarly, lamelliform, and spinellane, he has written the _l_ double, while he has grossly corrupted many other similar words by forbearing the reduplication; as, _traveler, groveling, duelist, marvelous_, and the like. In cases of such difficulty, we can never arrive at uniformity and consistency of practice, unless we resort to _principles_, and such principles as can be made intelligible to the _English_ scholar. If any one is dissatisfied with the rules and exceptions which I have laid down, let him study the subject till he can furnish the schools with better.

OBS. 17.--We have in our language a very numerous class of adjectives ending in _able_ or _ible_, as _affable, arable, tolerable, admissible, credible, infallible_, to the number of nine hundred or more. In respect to the proper form and signification of some of these, there occurs no small difficulty. _Able_ is a common English word, the meaning of which is much better understood than its origin. Horne Tooke supposes it to have come from the Gothic noun _abal_, signifying _strength_; and consequently avers, that it "has nothing to do with the Latin adjective _habilis, fit_, or _able_, from which our etymologists erroneously derive it."--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol. ii, p. 450. This I suppose the etymologists will dispute with him. But whatever may be its true derivation, no one can well deny that _able_, as a suffix, belongs most properly, if not exclusively, to _verbs_; for most of the words formed by it, are plainly a sort of verbal adjectives. And it is evident that this author is right in supposing that English words of this termination, like the Latin verbals in _bilis_, have, or ought to have, such a signification as may justify the name which he gives them, of "_potential passive adjectives_;" a signification in which the English and the Latin derivatives exactly correspond. Thus _dis'soluble_ or _dissolv'able_ does not mean _able to dissolve_, but _capable of being dissolved_; and _divisible_ or _dividable_ does not mean _able to divide_, but _capable of being divided_.

OBS. 18.--As to the application of this suffix to nouns, when we consider the signification of the words thus formed, its propriety may well be doubted. It is true, however, that nouns do sometimes assume something of the nature of verbs, so as to give rise to adjectives that are of a participial character; such, for instance, as _sainted, bigoted, conceited, gifted, tufted_. Again, of such as _hard-hearted, good-natured, cold-blooded_, we have an indefinite number. And perhaps, upon the same principle, the formation of such words as _actionable, companionable, exceptionable, marketable, merchantable, pasturable, treasonable_, and so forth, may be justified, if care be taken to use them in a sense analogous to that of the real verbals. But, surely, the meaning which is commonly attached to the words _amicable, changeable, fashionable, favourable, peaceable, reasonable, pleasurable, seasonable, suitable_, and some others, would never be guessed from their formation. Thus, _suitable_ means _fitting_ or _suiting_, and not _able to suit_, or _capable of being suited_.

OBS. 19.--Though all words that terminate in _able_, used as a suffix, are properly reckoned derivatives, rather than compounds, and in the former class the separate meaning of the parts united is much less regarded than in the latter; yet, in the use of words of this formation, it would be well to have some respect to the general analogy of their signification as stated above; and not to make derivatives of the same fashion convey meanings so very different as do some of these. Perhaps it is from some general notion of their impropriety, that several words of this doubtful character have already become obsolete, or are gradually falling into disuse: as, _accustomable, chanceable, concordable, conusable, customable, behoovable, leisurable, medicinable, personable, powerable, razorable, shapable, semblable, vengeable, veritable_. Still, there are several others, yet currently employed, which might better perhaps, for the same reason, give place to more regular terms: as, _amicable_, for _friendly_ or _kind_; _charitable_, for _benevolent_ or _liberal_; _colourable_, for _apparent_ or _specious_; _peaceable_, for _peaceful_ or _unhostile_; _pleasurable_, for _pleasing_ or _delightful_; _profitable_, for _gainful_ or _lucrative_; _sociable_, for _social_ or _affable_; _reasonable_, for _rational_ or _just_.

OBS. 20.--In respect to the orthography of words ending in _able_ or _ible_, it is sometimes difficult to determine which of these endings ought to be preferred; as whether we ought to write _tenable_ or _tenible, reversable_ or _reversible, addable_ or _addible_. In Latin, the termination is _bilis_, and the preceding vowel is determined by the _conjugation_ to which the verb belongs. Thus, for verbs of the first conjugation, it is _a_; as, from _arare_, to plough, _arabilis, arable_, tillable. For the second conjugation, it is _i_; as, from _doc=ere_, to teach, _docibilis_, or _docilis, docible_ or _docile_, teachable. For the third conjugation, it is _i_; as, from _vend=ere_, to sell, _vendibilis, vendible_, salable. And, for the fourth conjugation, it is _i_; as, from _sepelire_, to bury, _sepelib~ilis, sep'elible_,[125] buriable. But from _solvo_ and _volvo_, of the third conjugation, we have _ubilis, uble_; as, _solubilis, sol'uble_, solvible or solvable; _volubilis, vol'uble_, rollable. Hence the English words, _rev'oluble, res'oluble, irres'oluble, dis'soluble, indis'soluble_, and _insol'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; _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 of his own aphorism; and says, "It is certainly to be feared that, if this pruning of our words of all the superfluous letters, as they are called, should be much farther indulged, we shall quickly antiquate our most respectable authors, and irreparably maim our language."--_Walker's Rhyming Dict._, p. xvii.