Chapter VI: Letter VIII: gives us a rule for doubling the last letter of a verb in

the participle if an accent is on the last syllable: but it should be observed that the L is doubled, whether accented or not, as in _caballing_, _travelled_, _levelled_, _cavilled_, _controlled_. The same letter contains a “List of verbs, which, by some persons, are erroneously deemed irregular,” and which have been so deemed from the time of our German and Saxon ancestors, though Mr. Cobbett thinks it would be more philosophical to conjugate them regularly. Thus we may see at once that _freeze_ may as well give us _frozen_, as _frieren_ gives the Germans _gefroren_; that _hang_ may make _hung_ or _hanged_, according [p097] to its sense, as in German we have _hienge_ from _hangen_, and _hängte_ from _hängen_, to execute. For _sling_ and _slung_, we have authority in _schlingen_, _geschlungen_, for _spring_ and _sprung_ in _springen_ and _gesprungen_; for _swollen_, _swam_ or _swum_, and _swung_, in _geschwollen_, _geschwommen_, and _geschwungen_. And it is quite clear from these examples that “the bad practice of abbreviating, or shortening,” has nothing to do with the matter.

In Letter XIV we have a very distinct examination of a rule in punctuation which has been commonly adopted by good printers, without so distinct a description of its foundation. “Commas are made use of when phrases, that is to say ‘portions’ of words, are ‘throw_ed_’ into a sentence, and which are not absolutely necessary to assist in its grammatical construction.” In a word, two commas are very nearly equivalent to the old fashioned parenthesis. Again, “the apostrophe ought to be called the mark not of elision, but of _laziness_ and _vulgarity_;” a remark made in truly classical taste, which might have been extended with perfect propriety to the subject of the next paragraph, the _Hyphen_, the insertion of which is, to make it uncertain whether the words united by it are one word or two. He goes on admirably in the next page. “_Notes_, like parentheses, are _interrupters_, and much more troublesome interrupters, because they generally tell a much longer story. The employing of them arises, in almost all cases, from confusion in the mind of the writer. He finds the matter _too much for him_. He has not the talent to work it all up into one lucid whole; and, therefore, he puts part of it into _Notes_” . . . . . “Instead of the word _and_, you often see people put _&_. For what reason I should like to know. But to this _&_ is sometimes added a _c_; thus, _&c._ _And_ is, in Latin, _et_, and _c_ is the first letter of the Latin word _caetera_, which means the like, or _so on_. This abbreviation of a foreign word is a most convenient thing for such writers as have too much indolence or too little sense to say fully and clearly what they ought to say. If you _mean_ to say _and the like_, or, _and so on_, why not say it? . . . The abbreviation is very frequently made use of _without the writer having_ any idea of its import.” But it is surely a mischievous maxim, never to “think of _mending_ what you write. Let it _go_. No [p098] patching; no _after painting_.” On the other hand he is right in protesting “against the use of what, by some, is called the _dash_. Who is to know what is intended by the use of these _dashes_? . . . . It is a cover for ignorance as to the use of points; and it can answer no other purpose.”

In Letter XV, there is a singular conceit with regard to the keeping up a distinction between _a_ and _an_, where it is insisted that we must not say “_a_ dog, cat, owl, and sparrow,” because owl requires _an_; “and that it should be, a dog, a cat, an owl, and a sparrow;” which is certainly better, and would be so, even if there were no owl in the question.