' - § I I - . I . - — . - -x’ | 4 ' 1 I " _.. I.) I... . . - o | ." O . . - ~ 0. c I ' . - “'4. ‘ . . ‘I ‘1 O . o :5. I . t ‘ 0 . I 0 Q ' - 1: I. .2 1 I . L ° .r . . " I ‘ 0 o h I - _ I.‘ -. ) z 4 ' 0 . 0 L; .. Io... :‘I-v - " o . I . .- “ “frat ' 5‘ ’- I 0 . b r' We. —-9 . ‘. 4 o _ u ' I . I . l 9 c '. U l .1? L . ‘ } C 0 0 Id. . ' | O .‘_ l U'. 10‘ J. ‘ “1 bn P J .‘u'l‘; u I .7 ' "in 4 - . «A {SJ‘J-h“. "' r. _ a- J '2 'W O o h} 7.. L: ..I I . Ji ' I In 9 I|i .l h. ‘ f I 'I " '9 ‘ f “lax h§$‘ '. .' ‘5“ I03 \\1‘*I\‘ ‘ ' I '- \ . - .. “ '\ "$‘_\\‘ \.9“_ .. ‘. ’ ' ‘7' "n ‘_‘ ~N' “‘ .Xi—v' ,' .\'...\‘ C‘IX'." ~- " 'Ht "pus. . ..\“. -p°.“Q-:, ‘ ‘5‘“..‘Qi‘5‘fir o | 3.31 .I.\‘?..I '.I t 1.. I.‘ )3- J?" ’2' "if. ”G". J'._',/ . p- -. _ . 2 I} ’v‘ a I": .r ’: 4" . '4- '- .O O I d - ‘x; . l, I .4 .. .(‘I‘qI"»‘\ I t \ g 0‘..l\‘ ‘u ' ‘1‘ . . ‘ \.‘ 9 \..“" ..“ . -, t .~. 3 H ‘- -. '144333‘3~1-‘-§ ~‘3‘JI.0'1".‘L‘;34. 1' \I I. ‘ -\‘ d‘ 4 .' ‘ ‘4 I t} r - .0 43.x- -~ .J l‘ _ I“"\.-~\. .I g 'u _‘|..’“<._" ‘1‘“. . 1 ' fl 4 \ ' ‘ V\ ‘. 1 _ . .I . - v.3}: 6.5-. _- . . - . - I . ‘ '-04“‘A " ’- ~ ‘ ‘ I ‘.|\‘ | n ‘.' i‘ " . ' - . ‘ _ . - - l ‘ ". ‘$( -\ '. .p' ‘. ' 'I ‘ _ |_ . , . \(¢., ‘3 o y. .. . ‘ . - u 3 V 3" . .-. . . r/s.,: . . I ‘ ‘\ ' ~ I“ -p I I \ - . ,' ‘ rlx.‘ 1‘".\‘.‘\ 1’ v M: '4 ' ' .' . R ., ~ ~‘\I“ ‘- ',I _ - . . . n ‘ ' I 2.... . a Mama ‘5 6,! $- . w w ~~ , .\F\:h\i‘\t . . II IIU - ’ F4: {or} 1."; "'7' I“. I" ‘_..}F' . t :- : - “ '_. . " 4. "'— ': u . I’Oi ' c I '. ’3 I. ’ . I 5 .O.’ .— 5‘ 't '. {371:1 . . ' ‘ " . ' . -—* ”41:41‘44414444....244JJ‘4VH'" ' b ' Lust ' "'4. 'f - \...;'t I-I - . .'-' I . .1 4- . "4-" 2444—... o. o. 4 4. 4. 441‘4444”. ’. ‘. 'fid 4. .“':I€.1" v0}? . ’51? '2: I'l-‘z’l $3.": -" - . ' *o‘ "-' - ' ' ’ ." " . 4 I "214‘ _ w! my“): Jan .3 «53' ~ ‘; ' '4‘. :I’v’I—i hr”; ‘14 149‘. xl 4' ‘ ‘L. ,'.«4r:..of'£p“’ ,i'”. IJI . ‘4 1.3‘ I \‘XI‘ 4'1"]; '."4' '. ::.| ' “1...“I '9'.:.’ t J... m’.‘ :r‘f T4 ‘ "‘. ~. I‘: I ’ K I.\ Q'.‘ 'r-‘14’ ". 4'4"." .n - '1’? 3 1' ' {RA-‘1‘}. kIO .' L" ”L‘1..:." 4.95.4 . | {i ‘ . - "t . . . T‘ “J. :~':.'r'l'b “ ‘fo"lrf'.l‘lg I...".- (1.4 . .‘b'.i‘* ' .I “ .-' ;..‘ _ ' 4 l O ”4 I. 1 ' . . 4"... 4" I“ “ ' i '- u .4“ 4". 4:" ~.' 4 d". 4‘ I 4 I '3 v” 4 .' ' n :4 -f.l'.I '1 .IL' ‘_ .L" I'Wfq—p 1‘ 1 4.1 [F If“ -' ..u,"i". ': ‘ ' W. . '..~..' ~' . ' ‘-‘-' ' ’ ' 'Fw :3 '3 ma; , .,... .. a». :vw. . w turn“ . . r ¢£\ I ‘ 4‘3" _. 11,vI-:.II..'III «I. m. . 0—5:. WII . 4. "lm‘héig’l “.3. .-I fitQR p I. I 9! ' a... 4”“ 'JW4 :;:1""H:wfi.. ‘ o l‘q 3.1.}.qu “.41 4414"". 'L 1",; . . W . . k l' 4 “.4143.“ I“; :Q' :34?“ I w WNW i'lI. «I’M... ". ! J.» *:u wng 111/17!jo Mm WNW/NIH!WWW 01013 9750 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution chme3—p1 EIGATVLNTI CEITURY VIT'S of AV'TfiI CAN EIGLISH Helen Otto Strait A iHfiSIS Submitted to the Graduate School of Nichiqan State College of Agriculture and Acplied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for‘the degree of MaSTER OF ARTS Deoartment of English 1942 THESIS ' W P11. CJF.;LC t1.) My procedure in determining eighteenth century views of American English was to read letters, essays, and'speeches of prominent citizens of that century, newspaper articles as they appeared in the original, textbooks-that were used in that period, as well as dictionaries and books published by philologists of that time. Needless tp say I did not read every letter and article written by every prominent man of the eighteenth century, but I did religiously examine all indexes of their complete works and read all compositions which dealt directly or indirectly with the alphabet, spell- ing, grammar, punctuation, pronunciation, idioms, schools, textbooks, dictionaries, the relationships between American and British English, the desire for standardi- aation, and the relative importance of the study of English and foreign languages. These, then, will be the various subjects treated in this paper. Obviously, having examined hundreds of books many of which dealt with language only, I cannot satisfactorily 140108 give every opinion or suggestion of every author. I have, therefore, tried to summarize the general opinions of the time in question and to give specific quotations and examples of departures from present practice, or agreement with present practice, which seem. especially interesting or important in light of current beliefs or usage. In all quotations I have used the authors' spelling and punctuation as they appeared in publication. So far as dictionaries and grammar books are con- cerned, I read all introductions carefully and looked up specific instances about which there seemed to be disagreement among the authors. These I have noted in their proper places. Since in this period grammar was achieving such widespread interest, hundreds of grammar books were published, frequently almost exact copies of those of predecessors. Many so-called grammarians made abridg- ments of Murray's grammar, using the need for simpli- fication as their excuse. All such writers admitted using the rules and some information as found in previously published grammars, but they nearly all maintained that they had a splendid new method of ii teaching, a plan to simplify grammar, or some other innovation. I examined several of these books and found very little worth-while material which had not already been covered by more capable philologists. Most of my information was obtained from writings of the last half of the century, for not much was written on the subject before 1750. Because of this fact and because so many of the prominent men of the Revolutionary War days lived on into and did much writing in the early nineteenth century, I examined grammars and writings which were published up to approxi- mately 1830 and occasional articles written between 1830 and 1840. Besides the magazine articles listed in the bibliography I read many editorials and short articles without titles. The following periodicals proved particularly useful: American Journal of_ Education; I - IV (1826 - 1829) American museumlgThe, I - XIII (1787 - 1795) American Review, The, I - IV (1811 - 1812) American Weekly Mercury, The, I - IV (1719 - 1723, 1V29) Republished in fac. simili by The Colonial Society of Pennsylvania (1907) iii Boston Review, The, I - X (1804 - 1811) Qaily National Intelligencer, Washington (1823) Kassachusetts Historical Society, Collection of the 1*- x (IROQI Kassacbusetts, Publications of the Colonial Society XIV (1915) Monthly Anthology, I - x (1804 - 1811) New York Literary Gazet,e and Phi Teta Kenna Repository, I (1825) North Ameri an Review, I - XIII (1815 - 1821) O Portfolio, I - VII (1806 - 12) V01. II not available. Eminent modern philologists who have published out- standing works on this subject are George Philip Krapp, The English Language in America, 2 v., 1925; H. L. 7 Mencken, Th, American Languare, 1936; C. n. Grandgent, Notes on American Pronunc-ation, 1891; m. M. Kathews, The Beginnings of Arer'can English, 1951. The latter book contains reprints of Witherspoon's, Royall's, Humphrey's, and others' early writings. Fencken and Krapp also ouoted these early writers and used some of the other sources which I did. They, however, covered a much longer period of time and tended to give general information about the trends in each. That is, they quoted only a few people to point out opinions in the eighteenth century, while I tried to read the works of iv all prominent men to see how their vieWpoints differed from those of their contemporaries. In many cases I have quoted statements which I have not found mentioned in any works on this subject. So far as I know, no one has examined the writings of such men as Thomas Paine, John Jay, James Buchanan, etc., to ascertain their comments, however few, upon the language. Several writers have compiled glossaries of words considered of American origin. Two of these, Linguist'c Atlas of the United States by Dr. Hans Kurath and Dictionary of American English by Sir William Craigie, are still incomplete, although some sections r ve been 93 published. Other such_works are listed belox: Bartlett, John Russell Glossary of Tords and Phraeg- Usually Regardeg as_§eculiar to the United States, 1848. 71m Elwyn, Alfred L. Glossary of Supposed smericanisms, 1859. de Vere, Schele Amoricanisms, 1872. Farmer, John S. Americanisms Few anl Old, 1889. —‘ Clapin, Sylva Iew Dictionary of «pericanisms, 1902. Thorton, Richard H. An American Glossary, 2 v., 1912. Tucker, Gilbert N. American Anglish, 1921. V For a list of books concerning American English a. G.Kennedy'sA.Pibliogrsphy of ”ritincs on the English -..‘ *. Lanmua 43 from the bedinninv of Printing to the end of o .a.‘ 1922 is particularly good. Lencken (5rd edition) and Krapp also include very useful bibliographies. Among the early textbooks and other publications on the subject of lmerican English which were not available for my work but which I found mentioned in the course of my reading are these: Adams, Daniel The Thorough Scholar, iontpelier, Vt., 1817. Alexander, Caleb Grammatical Elements, Soston, 1793. Benezet, Anthony Introduction to the Knowledge of inglish Grammar. Bingham, Caleb The Young Lady‘s accidence, Boston, 1795. Burr, Johnathon ' Compendium of English Grammar. *Cbild's New Plaything (A Speller), 1744. Cobb, Lyman A Just Standard for Pronouncing the ‘nmlish Lannuate. -..-- The Columbian Dictionary of the Tnglish Language, doston, 1800. Comly, John English Gramrar Fade Easy to the Teacher and Rubi], Philadelphia, 1805. *1. Those marked with an asterisk were listed by Isaiah Thomas in his History of Printing as published in the United States but were probably all written in England. vi Compleat Letter Writer, 1765. Coxe, Richard A flew Critical_fronouncing DictionarX_of Enrzl ish Lanrtuq :e . ct .3“ I :D Dearborn, Benjamin The Columbian Grammar, Boston, 1795. —.——o 'P'I nlliott, John and Johnson, Samuel, Jr. A Selected Pronouncirg and Accented Dictionagx, 1800. Emery, J. An Ahridgment of English Grammar. Fowle, Uilliam Rational Guide to Reading_and Orthograghg. *Fox Georee ’ .7 Instruction for Right Spellina, and Plain Directions For headins an} lriting True :nTlish, 1745. Hale, E. A Spelling_?ook, 1799. *Hill, John Young_Secretary's Guide, 1713. Housten, Samuel The Essentials of English Grammar, 1818. Humphreys, Daniel The Compendious flmerican Crammer or Grammatical Institutes in Verse, Portsmouth, H. ET: 1792. Johnson, Samuel, Jr. A School Dictionary, 1798. Pike, James The Columbian Orthoeranher, Portland, 1906. Ross, Robert The American Gramwar, 1792. vii Snow, C. First Principles of Soellina and Readina. Thomas, Isaiah Pew American Soellinq dock, Worcester, Vass., 1785. Tickner, Elisha Enqlish Pxercises. Ware, Johnathon A new Introduction to finalish Grammar, Jindsor, Vt., 1814. Woodbridae, Killian A Plain and Concise English Grammar, 1900. Zeisbereer, David Essa1_of a Deleware Indian and Tnglish Swellinm Book, 1775. viii Chapter I II III IV V VI VII VIII Paae Introduction... ....... ... ............. .1 The Influence of Classical Languages..17 The Teaching of English...............27 A Standard for Correctness............50 Dictionaries..........................72 Grammar.... ...... .....................88 Spelling, Pronunciation, Punctuation.119 Dictionoooooooooo0.000...o. ..... 0.00.159 AppendiXCOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.000...000.00.000.0179 Chapter I INTRODUCTION Although interest in correct English did not become widespread in America until after the Revolution- ary War, we find indication in much earlier documents that at least a few people considered it of importance. As early as 1729 the following letter appeared in the American Weekly Mercury, one of the first newspapers 1 published in the United States. Sur, Having this Oppertuethy, I make bould to trubbel you with these few Loins, hopin you woant be affrunted, for I can ashure you they was not so Intended to affrunt you, but too bag your Pardon, to make up a Differrunce smung Us pure cuntry Fokes, abowt sum Wurds that we quarril about Spelling them, howsum- ever, we sheunt trubbel you with.A many of them Nyther, but becaws my Cuzzin that went a Vyge to Cee, to learn Strunnome, has Leda a Wagur agenst our Skool-Mastur, Upon spelling off Turmuts and Inyuns and Punkings--now our Skool-Mastur duz not speel these wurds Gest Lyke as I have dun, nur my Cuzzin nyther, but they wosnt lett me wryte you how, till you send use a Spelling Buk, and wee will send you the Pryse of it, or till you send us yowr Gugemant, how the rite way is off Spelling these wurds, so that wee may no whitch hsz I. Issue for May 29 - June 5, 1729. I have found no reference to this letter in the works of writers upon American English. So far as I can determine, it has never been reprinted except in this paper. The phonetic spelling reveals interesting infcrmation regarding the pronunciation of the writer. 1 wun tha Wagur, for the no I am abowt Wrytin too yue, but I have agrede tha shaunt So my Lettar~~Now the Skool-Mastur has lade a Wagur that hes spells ritest, and will be dissyded by The Unevarsal Instruckter; and therefore my Cuzzin laffs at him for he sez that hes haz casted it up, and he fynds that these Wards Woant wun off um by printed in the Struckter, in less Tyme then evvinti fyve Yeers, and twelv Wekes; so trooli I du beleev my Cuzzin is the gratest Skollur, and I bag you wood Pleze to let us No your Mynd abowt it, for too ubblige yure Reedars and Humbel Servant. G. ........... L. In the very next issue of the same publication the editor stated: .......I am inform'd a few Hints among my Papers have caused a young Gentleman to correct his Spelling and Language, and that he's grown a very Pedant, and accounts the whole Neighbourhood his Scholars........ At this early date, too, interest was shown in the English spoken by slaves. Evidence of this is found in newspapers, all issues of which published such adver- tisements as the following: A Likely Young Negro Man about Twenty years Old, Speaks very good English to be Sold byl Samuel Hafell in Front Street Philadelphia. Not many other early references to the speech of negroes have been discovered, but in 1789 the American Museum included an article which stated that the 11 American Weekly Mercury, February 18 - 25, 1728. 2 children of slaves would be admitted into school free of expense provided that they had attained the age of nine years and were capable of spelling words of one syllable. . The preceding quotations reveal the fact that people were becoming language conscious and desirous of improvement in writing and speaking. Not much.was written upon the subject, however, until Benjamin Franklin conceived the idea of establishing an academy in Pennsylvania. In 1749 in setting forth the qualifications for a rector of the proposed school, he included that of being a "correct pure Speaker and Writer of the English Tongue."1 Somewhat later during the same year these state- ’ments appeared in the constitution of the academy: the English Tongue is to be taught grammatically, and as a Language. great Regard is to be had to his (the rector's) ‘pglite Speaking, Writin , and Understanding thegEnglish Tongue. The Trustees shall with all convenient Speed, contract with any Person that offers who they shall judge most capable of_tgaching the English Tongue grammatically and as a Language, History Geography, Chronology, Logic, and Oratory; which person shall be stiled the English Master. (He was to have one hundred pounds a year? for which he was to teach, without any Assistance, forty 1. _Proposals for the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 10. 5 Scholars the English Tongue O‘ramwurtatipally.l Along with the realization that it would be wise to teach English in the schools apparently came Franklin's feeling that it would he a difficult task because of the lack of agreement as to what was correct speech and spell- ing. Feelingr; that a revision of the alphabet would alleviate the difficulties, he proposed in 1768 a new scheme by which the letters would be arranged according to their articulation. Six new characters were added, so that no single one would nved to answer a dual purpose. For a time his plan caused little interest; people as always disliked the idea of changing an established institution. It did, however, make them more aware of the language, so that within the subsequent twenty years almost everyone had comments to make upon ways of improve- ment of speech, the necessity for good language 1~-1bit&3, and the comparative importance of English and other languages. In 1774 an anonymous letter to the Royal lmerican Magazine proposed the establishment of an academy t0 refine, enrich, and correct the language until such time l. flritings of Beniamin Franklin, X, 12 - 15. 4 as it should become perfect. Six years later John Adams made a similar suggestion in a letter to Congress. John Witherspoon, who came from Scotland to act as a college president in the United States,stated in 1781 that since we were separated from England, we should fashion some basis for‘standard here in our country. These three suggestions at suchearly dates clearly indicate the growing feeling of Americans in regard to the importance of guiding the course of the English language in this country. Of course, the Revolutionary War caused a temporary lull in the discussions concerning correct English, but it was instrumental in later inspiring more bitter con- troversies. This was due to the fact that many of the intensely patriotic people of this country felt we should break with England in language as well as in government, setting up some new tongue here. They felt that we should never be truly independent until we did this. Others somewhat more conservative advocated only freedom to create new words and idioms, entirely disregarding influence or criticism of Englishmen. The most conservative of all maintained that we had inherited our language from England; therefore we should adhere to their practice. Numerous articles were written for the purpose of persuading the people of these different points of view. Then, because Americans did use a few words not current in England, British writers indignantly censured our "barbaric innovations." Their censures, in turn, inspired answers by Americans in justification of our idioms. Al- most every general periodical published between 1785 and 1820. in each volume contained several articles on some phase of this subject. Among the statesmen who considered the matter par- ticularly important was Thomas Jefferson, former president, and author of the Declaration of Independence. He had learned little English grammar in school but was extremely interested in languages and learned many of them. Con- cerning grammar, he said I am no friend to what is called rism, but a zealous one to the neology which2%a§_Introduced these words without any authority from the dic- tionary. I consider one as destroying the verve and beauty of the language, while the ot er im- proves both and adds to its copiousness. He approved of an "American dialect" created to express new experiences or needs, believing it would not debase but enrich the language. 31/ - l. Prescott, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jgfferson, 1xvii 6 In spite of his liberalism concerning grammar, he wrote to his daufihter, Eartha, in 1785: Take care that you never spell a word wrong. Always before you write a word, consider how it is spelt, and if you do not rememher it, turn to a dictionary. It “reduces great praise to a lady to spell well. Later, however, he became an advocate of reformed spelling as well as the teaching of English grammar and many other languages, including Anglo-Saxon. These were incorporated into the course of study of the University of Virginia which he w"s responsible for founding in 1819. Equally concerned with the subject of English was John Adams, Jefferson's immediate predecessor as presi- dent, who has already been mentioned as advocating an academy for the purpose of settling divergent opinions regarding the language. 1 Other prominent figures of tne century who were ‘ apparently very much interested in philology were Hugh Henry Breckenridge, prominent justice and journalist of Pennsylvania; Lenjasin Hush, famed physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence; John Eitherspoon, also signer of the Declaration, firesidcnt of the l. Hritizgs of Thomas Jefferson, III, 546. I7 College of New Jersey (now Princeton); James Fenimore Cooper, novelist; Philip Freneau, journalist and first American poet of outstanding ability; Washington Irving, first recognized American man of letters: Joseph Dennis, editor of the popular Portfolio Magazine: Anne Royall, travel writer. Important persons in whose works I found but brief comments upon the subject were George Washington, John Quincy Adams, James Monroe, and James Buchanan, early presidents: Samuel Adams, Silas Deane, John Calhoun, and James Otis, statesmen: Thomas Paine, political writer and theorist: Ezra Stiles, theologian and president of Yale: Alexander Hamilton, first secretary of the treasury. The outstanding philologists were Noah Webster, John Pickering, Lindley Murray, and Goold Brown, although many other men considered themselves such and wrote books upon the subject. Of them all we find Webster the most highly qualified, most sincere in his efforts, most industrious in endeavor- ing to be of service to his country in this field. Born in 1758 to a family of moderate means who sacrificed to put him through.Yale, he became a capable lawyer, influential lecturer, educator, politician, 8 scientist, and writer. During his first struggling years after graduation he taught school and was distressed at existing conditions, particularly the lack of text books. Accordingly, in 1783 he published Part I of Grammatical Institute of the English Len a e, which was later to comprise three parts, one of Spelling, one of reading, and one of grammar. This first publication which later became The American Spelling Book had a tre- mendous success and went through many editions. In 1806 he published his 99mpendious Dictionary, then straightway set about absorbing more knowledge of etymology and studying other languages so that he could improve this work. As a result, the year 1828 marked the appearance of the American Dictionary_of the English Langgage in two volwmes. Within these years also he found time to write the following books: Dissertations on the English Langggge (1789): Collection of Essays (1790) many of which dealt directly with language and etymology of words; A Philosophical and Practical Grammar of the English Language (1807); A Manual of Useful Studies, which.appeared later, (1839). In all his works Webster revealed his intense desire to show that the English language in this country 9 was a distinctly American possession, not to be influenced by the British critics but permitted to develop naturally from an American point of view. Then, too, since the thirteen states were being welded into a unified nation, he thought a national language would be a unifying link. Through his efforts spelling became somewhat simpli- fied and standardized throughout the country.“ His dic- tionaries became models for later editions based upon his endeavors but revised and gradually modernized to meet current needs. He was broad-minded in regard to grammar, basing his judgment upon contemporary practice, particularly of estimable writers and speakers. He despised affectation, accepted provinwial idioms, frowned upon by his colleagues, and admitted the usefulness of such expressions as "it is me” which arouse antagonism in purists even today. The main fault of this grammarian was his disparage- ment of other writers of dictionaries and books on phil- ology. It is true that many books were written by incap- able men in search of authentic information, but this, of course, didn't apply to all of them, and naturally such.unf1attering statements occasioned much wrath on the part of the writers and their champions. A favorite device among competing grammarians was to point out inconsistencies in their rivals' works. 10 Often this took the form of quoting a rule from the competitor's book,then showing as many examples as poss- ible of the author's violation of his own rule. In Webster's case, he admitted that his writings did not always follow the recommendations of his early books, for he was continually studying and finding out additional information on all subjects. At one time, in fact, he forbade the reprinting of one of his books because he had later learned of errors in it which he didn't want to go before the public. Thus he held up its publication until he found time to revise the inaccurate contents. Another lawyer to attain success in the field of grammar was Lindley Murray, whose English Grammar, 1809, and other related works sold upwards of a million and a half copies within forty years of their publication. They proved more popular than those of Webster, who deeply regretted the public's lack of appreciation for his en- deavors in this direction. Because of the tremendous vogue of Murray's books, his imitators were numerous. Many borrowed his plan, rules, and even exercises and wording outright, while others professed to improve his methods and banish his inaccuracies. As a result, grammar books began flooding the market, and there has been a steady stream of them ever since. 11 A further outcome of the liberalism of such men as Webster was the question as to whether to accept the innovations of which they approved. Since countless people considered the speech of England the only standard by which to judge our practice, these innovations were censured even though there was a real need for them. Physical features of the continent had been respons- ible for a series of new words of this type: bluff, divide, gap, foothill, notch, underbrush, clearing, watershed Unfamiliar plant and animal life had given rise to locust, hickory, live oak, egg plant, sweet potato, squash, pecan, persimmon, reed bird, potato bug, bullfrog, ground hog, mud hen, garter snake From the Indians had been borrowed moose, raccoon, skunk, opossum, chipmuck, terrapin, porgy, moccasin, papoose, wigwam, wampum, squaw, toboggan, canoe, tomahawk, mackinaw, hominy, succotash, tapioca, pone, totem Also from experience with the Indians grew the English words war path, paleface, to scalp, big chief, pipe of peace, war paint, medicine man. Coinages illustrating things associated with the new mode of life in this country are these back country, sleigh, clapboard, snow plow, cold snap, bob sled, backwoodsman, squatter, prairie, log cabin, pop corn, corn crib, hoe cake, colonize 12 Furthermore our administrative and political system had resulted in the adoption of such terms as caucus, mass meeting, land office, state house, presidential, gubernatorial, congressional, congressman, selectman Besides acquiring needed words from the Indians, the colonists received a number from other languages. From German settlers came pretzel, smearcase, noodle, sauerkraut from the French: chowder, caribou, portage, levee, bayou, cache, bureau from the Dutch: cookie, coleslaw, cruller, stoop, boss, scow Among other American inventions were interesting idioms, often compounds of regular English words, such as wire pulling, log rolling, know nothing, low down, crazy-quilt, apple-butter, sidewalk, spelling bee, lightning rod, saw wood, to have an ax to grind, to be on the fence, to go on the war pith,.to bury the hatchet, to bark up the wrong tree, to come out at the little and of the horn, to fly off the handle, to face the music There were also several words used in England which were given a slightly different connotation in this country. Examples are robin, turkey, corn, rabbit, lumber, freshet These departures from English vocabulary resulted not only in the previously mentioned strictures of the 15 British press but in compilation of lists of so-called "Americanisms." (This word is believed to have been coined by Witherspoon in 1781) The first entire book upon the subject was published in 1816 by John Pickering under the title A Vocabulary, or Collection of Words and Phraseg which have been supposed to be Peculiar to the United States of America. It was written from the English point of view, pointing out all departures from English practice. That its author was inaccurate, however, was maintained by the more patriotic Americans who believed we had a definite need for new words but that really we had coined very few. Webster went so far as to say he doubted whether ten words could be found used by men of reputable character which were not authorized by English usage. By this time, then, the interest in philological matters was widespread. Standards were being advocated; text books were being published; English grammar was being taught in the schools; efforts were being made by some to prevent innovations, by others to improve existing practice; glossaries and dictionaries were being compiled; magazine articles advised readers what to say and how to spell. Everyone, it seems, was concerned over the subject of his speech. 14 Interest kept growing to the extent thut in 1822 we find John Walker in the preface to his dictionary saying: Few subjects have of late years more employed the pens of every class of criticks, than the improvement of the English language. The Treat- est abilities of the nation have been exerted in cultivating and reforming it; nor have a thousand minor criticks been wanting too add their might of amendment to their native tongue. This fulfills the prediction made by John Adams forty-two years previously (1780): American copulation will in the next age produce a greater number of persons who will speak Endlish than any OLJBP language, and these persons will have more general acquaintance and conversation with all other nations than any other people which will naturally introduce their language everywhere, as the general medium of correspondence and con- versation among the l:arned of all nations, and among all travellers and strangers, as Latin was in the last century, and French has been in this. Let us then enpourage and advise everybody to study English. It is interesting to note the changing Viewpoint with regard to imprican independence in language. First, of course, following Tritish practice seemed advisable, but the Revolutionary Tar put a stop to such desire except l. '1 a ker's Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. 2 0 Yo. O l rks of John Adams, IX, 510. 15 in a few people. The trend turned to an admiration of the French during the war and lasted for some time after it, with frequent borrowings from that language. The main desire, however, was for independent American English. For a time during a period of friendliness with Germans, they, too, exerted influence upon our borrowings. Toward the end of the period discussed in this paper, 1820, favor toward the British and their linguistic practice was returning and actually has existed ever since, a great number of people even today judging our correctness by what is said in England. 16 Chapter II THE IHFLUEHCE OF CLASSICAL L9 ‘~' G U.». G35 Great was the controversy in the late eighteenth century as to whether English or Latin was the more necessary subject to teach in school. Arguments used were often identical to those we hear today. Many maintained that through the study of foreign languages, particularly ancient ones, students would learn true grammar and therefore be able to speak English more correctly. Their opponents felt that interest should rest in the present, not the past; in the practical, not the cultural; hence there was no need for the study of languages at all, except possibly modern ones for those planning to enter the teaching or trading pro- fession. Almost every writer of the period had something to say on this subject. Among those feeling that dead languages were a waste of time for thetiveraae person were Thomas Paine, Philip Freneau, Noah Webster, and Benjamin Rush, while John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Buchanan, George Clinton (first governor of the state of flew York), John Witherspoon, John Barrett 1? (a grammarian), Benjamin Franklin, and H. H. Prackenridge upheld the theory that the study of classics in their original tongue not only made better educated people but better citizens and more grammatically correct speakers. Silas Deane said little about dead languages but felt that his early education had been incomplete because of his failure to learn modern languages. The arguments used by the opposers of the study of ancient languages usually amounted to these: Time was wasted which might have been utilized in the improvement of one's native tongue. Too, the overly emphasized atten- tion to the learned languages discouraged people's belief in the importance of ours. Hence they indulged in various practices injurious to the stability of English, considering rules and controlled vocabulary unnecessary in such an in- ferior language. If, therefore, we should eliminate the Greek and Latin languages as branches of a liberal educa- tion, "it would improve and finally perfect the English language, by checking the increase of those superfluous words which.are derived from the Latin and Greek languages." Over twenty years later in 1816 Pickering also 1. "An Enquiry into the Utility of a Knowledge of the Latin and Greek Languages." American Nuseum, V, 17Q9, 532. 18 reflected this same view point. In this country, as is the case in England, we have thirsty reformers and presumptuous sciolists, who would unsettle the whole of our admirable language for the purpose of making it conform to their whimsical notions of propriety. Some of our corruptions have originated with such people. But one of the greatest pests of spelling in this country, as in England also, (to use the words of Dr. Johnson) is, the 'frequency of translation." Several of the corruptions which English critics have censured in our writings, are mere Gallicisms; and unless the license of translators is checked* (to adopt the language of Johnson again) their idleness and ignorance will "reduce us to babble a dialect of French." Every writer should remember that "it is his business to use his language as he finds it: and a great part of his skill lies in giving effect to that which in other hands might appear to disadvantage. If one expression is objectionable, it is his task to find another, that is not so, to fill his own ides, yet not de- part from the language he employs." Samuel L. Knapp, a grammarian, in 1829 seemed optimistic about our restoring favor to English words rather than using learned substitutes: ....we have kept a constant watch over our mother tongue, and if we have sometimes, after great English models, laboured to sink many of the good old words of our language, and to supply their places by those formed from the Latin and Greek languages, yet that we were ready, from taste and Judgment, to go back again, and take those dis- carded, home-bred words of strong meaning and peculiar fitness, whenever the established writers l. Vocabulary, vi - v11. 19 have led the way. Several modern scholars have shown us the force, precision, and even beauty of our old English, and we hail this returning to the homestead as an unfailing sign of good Judgment. A second argument was that the ancient languages were of no use. They did not help in business, and as far as being advantageous in the study of etymology of English words, one could look up the same information in any good dictionary, so why spend years learning what could be looked up in a few minutes. A third argument was that the inclusion of Greek and Latin words in our language tended to make it too scholarly and difficult for the average uneducated person to understand. The anonymous author of the article in the American Museum quoted above felt that writers who didn't know the classical languages had a simpler, more; natural style. He also said, "There are few sermons com- posed by Latin and Greek scholars in which there are not many hundred words, that are equally unintelligible to a majority of their hearers-'2 He maintained that these learned innovations were as corrupting an influence on good English as were provincial idioms. I. Lectures on_American Literature, 3. 2. 6p. cit., 528 - 529. 20 Another person with a similar viewpoint thus expressed his feelings: Since Latin has ceased to sit as "queen" among the languages, and to usurp-a dominion over every other, ----- it is high time that the English should assert its dignity, and receive the distinct attention to which it is entitled. It has long enough been tortured into the shape and attitude of a language with.which it has very little in common, and by which its beauty and power have been greatly diminished or obscured. We hope that time is not distant when it will not any longer be thought necessary to tramel children at a common school, with the whole equipment of the nomenclature and arrangement adopted by Latin grammarians; while the young learners have no other object in view than a competent and practical knowledge of their native tongue. Still a fourth argument against teaching Latin was that its construction differed so materially from English that attempting to accommodate English grammar to that of the older language checked the improvement of English. However, in common with.many people, Anne Fisher, who wrote several grammar books, felt that since the nature of grammar was somewhat the same in all languages, those who knew Latin were more adept in English. Still she ad- mitted that any person of normal ability could learn correct English without studying other languages. . "Progress of Educ». tion During the Year 1826" The American Journal of Education, I, 761. 21 Benjamin Rush corroborated and expanded the latter state- ment in a letter to Reverend James Muir in 1791 when he said: We have several English schools in our city, in which boys and girls of twelve and fourteen years old have been taught to speak and write our native language with great grammatical propriety. Some of these children would disgrace our bachelors and masters of arts, who have spent five or six years in the study of the Latin and Greek languages in our American colleges. It is true that Latin and Greek scholars, after a while, acquire a knowledge of our language: but it is the same slow way, in which some men acquire a knowledge of the forms of good breeding. Three months' instruction will often impart more of both than a whole life in ac- quiring them simply by imitation. On the side of the advocates of Greek and Latin study we find many reasons given for its pursuit besides those which maintained that it tended to produce better English scholars. A favorite was that it affected the purity and beauty of the style of those who had previously learned it. Also such advantages as the pleasure of reading classics in the original and appreciating the picturesque phrase- ology of the ancients were set forth, as was the old argu- ment that it was "the one common interpreter among the learned of all nations and ages."2 1. American Museum, f, 62. 2. Wbbster7s Collection of Essayg, 5 - 6. 22 The still popular belief that the study of such sub- Jects causes one to think and to develop his memory was a favorite of Thomas Jefferson and many others. Then, too, Jefferson had the rather-whimsical notion that "there is a certain portion of life (about fifteen or sixteen years of age) during which our faculties are ripe enough for this, (the learning of languages) and for nothing more useful."1 He also felt that language was an instrument for the attainment of science, therefore important as a tool for future operation. As a result, he favored maintaining instruction in languages for students of both sexes. Other writers labeled Latin as an invaluable asset for it gave students a knowledge of etymology without which "it is next to impossible to distinguish the nice shades of meaning, on which depend so many of the most delicate beauties of eloquence. He who wants propriety of expression can never be elegant, and he who possesses this in a high degree, will need little if anything else."2 Similarly Professor Francis Lieber of South Carolina College contended: l. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, VII, 414. 2. 1'Study of the ClasSicsf North American Review, XI, 413. 23 A grammar could not be invented where there was none originally. The consequence is, that those whose vernacular tongue is one of these modern idioms, never have their mind directed to a variety of relations in.which certain ideas ex- perienced in a period stand to each other, if they do not learn a language with a fully developed grammar such.as the Latin.1 The partisans of classical studies naturally be- lieved that their opponents would have different opinions had they, too, seriously pursued the subjects in question. As one writer put it, "I have never heard a gentleman speak disrespectfully of them who understand them well." Along with the controversy over the need for the study of Greek and Latin as an aid to correct English grew a curiosity in regard to etymology, which was be- lieved by many a means of determining correctness. Some _ strange opinions were aired. I was very much interested in some of Brackenridge's remarks on the subject. He suggested that Greek was "bred in a soft air, and warm climate; whereas the English would seem to have been frozen in the North, before it began to be spoken by man; or rather it was first spoken by frozen men. Certain it is, that cold climates give a rigidity to the I. "Remarks on Philologyyl The Southern Literary Messenger, III, 170. 2. "K'Grammar of the English Language," North American Review, XII, 316. 24 fibre, and harden those muscles by which the articulation is performed." He also believed that Greek came from German and German was the original Persian, remarking that "I can more readily conceive of Persian hardening into the harshness of the German sounds, than of the German soften- ing into the fluidity, and sweetness of the Greek accent."2 He realized, however, that Saxon was a dialect of the ancient German and "the mother of the English---spoken by the common people in Cumberland, and the adjoining country of Scotland."3 . Jefferson, too, found this subject fascinating. He had the opinion that because more radical changes had taken place in the language of the Indians of America, their language was of greater antiquity than that of Asia. In regard to Anglo-Saxon, Jefferson was one of the first, if not the first, in this country to advocate its study and incorporate it into college curricula. He had ideas for facilitating its study by simplifying the grammar and reducing the unfixed orthography to single settled forms, indicating at the same time the pronunciation 1. Modern Chivalry, 721. 2. Ibid., 721. 50 Ibiao, 7250 25 of the word by its correspondence with the characters and powers of the English alphabet. As a result it was in- cluded in the course of study of the University of Virginia in 1818 along with Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, Spanish, Italian, and German. Speaking of its inclusion, a writer in the EELEE American Review said (1820): We rejoice too at the kindly remembrance, in which our almost forgotten ancestor the Anglo-Saxon is borne. An acquaintance with it unquestionably be- longs to a thorough education in the English tongue. ------ To become familiar with this dialect, to compare it with the others equally near the common stock, to note the errors in our common lexi- cographical and etymological works will be the work neither of weeks nor months; and less knowledge than this is of no great value, certainly of no value, as a part of a critical study of English. Thus we learn that not only was English absorbing much discussion during the period but that it was causing questions concerning the practicality of subjects which had hitherto been taught as a matter of course and con- cerning the substitution of new subjects in their place. lilVfiProceedings and Report of the Commissioners of the University of Virginia? North American Review, X, 115. 26 Chapter III THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH With the belief that American English needed some kind of restraint to keep it from becoming overly vulgar arose the feeling that proper education in English grammar was necessary. In many cases it was difficult to incorporate this subject because of the fact that a new instructor would have to be hired, and frequently the school finances would not be able to stand this additional expense. Therefore it would be necessary to have one of the teachers already on the staff take over the subject. This would, of course, cause one or more of the following situations: some other subject would have to be eliminated: if Latin was the subject chosen, an argument would arise over the comparative values of the two and the helpful in- fluence of Latin upon English scholars; an unqualified teacher might be called upon to take over the extra subject, which act, of course, would result in errone- ous material being taught, thus, in turn, arousing discussion among educators and philologists as to the 27 need for reform. Because of this existing situation, we find much literature expounding the need for grammar and suggest- ing methods for improving its teaching. Everyone seemed to dwell upon the importance of cultivating the mother tongue because it was becoming such a widely spoken language. Fifty million "en- lightened freemen", five times more than spoke it fifty years ago now speak this "triumphant language of man- kind", and "keep it purer than that used by any other ' l nation." SO said Knapp in 1829. It was the duty of the school to keep the language pure, to prevent vari- ations in speech among the different classes, to teach children to use the proper word in the proper sense, to see that all had opulent vocabularies. Goold Brown in 1826 reasoned this way: One may indeed acquire, by mere imitation such a knowledge of words, as to enjoy the ordinary advantages of speech; and he who is satisfied with the dialect he has so obtained, will find no occasion for treatises on grammar: but he who is desirous either of relishing the beauties of literary composition, or of expressing his sentences with propriety and ease, mugt make the principles of language his study. l. Lectures on American Literature, 22. 2. The First Lines of English Grammar, iii. 28 Kirkham, Cobbett, and other grammarians felt that aside from the need of knowing good English, the study of grammar was an intellectual exercise which would open the path to other “ranches of science, being indisoen- ,v‘J sable to all people, whether aiming at distinction or pursuing the humble walks of life. No other subject was so practical, for "when you speak, read, write or :1 '1 think, a knowledge o* grammar is of essential utility.’ Cobbett added that in some situations a knowledge it . really injurious errors; of grammar is essential to avoid and in no situation, which calls on a man to place his thoughts upon paper, can the possession of it fail to be a source of self—gratulation, or the want of it a cause '0 of mortification and sorrow.‘ lithout this knowledge one is never sure that he puts upon paper what he really means to say. That a grammatical understanding of Enflish tents to a good notion of are mar in general and conseouently aids one in learning other languages is a contention set forth by Anne Fisher. Conversely, one who spoke and 1. Kirkham, Samuel, erlishflfiramror in Tamiliar Lectures, 13 - 14. 2 . A Grammar of the anjlish Lfinfuage, letter II. «‘7‘.-. ..-.- M“ 29 wrote English by rote only, or through custom, would have no assurance that he did so with propriety, nor would he have any realization of the beauties of lang- uage and style. Timothy Dwight, a tutor at Yale, destined later to become president of that institution, and John Trumbull began in 1771 to liberalize the curriculum there, substituting English composition and study of English literature for a portion of the work in ancient languages. Witherspoon, 1781, stated that the language had ' received great improvements during the previous century and that to continue this progress all seminaries should strive to "form the scholars to taste, propriety, and accuracy in the language which they must speak and write all their life afterwards."1 The often quoted Lindley Murray said that the more one knew about the nature and properties of words, their relation to each dsher, and their connection with the ideas to which they were applied, the better could one transfuse his Sentences into the mind of another. ”It may indeed be justly asserted, that many of the IT"Druid, No. V. 30 differences in opinion amongst men, with the disputes, contentions, and alienations of heart, which have too often proceeded from such differences, have been occasioned by want of proper skill in the connexion and meaning of words, and by a tenacious misapplication of language."1 Other arguments used were that no other study was so conducive to good thinking; all people planning to be ministers, traders, or instructors at academies or universities surely would n=ed a thorough knowledge of philology (it is strange that they said nothing about future writers); finally all people should be able to avoid improprieties and barbarisms. I was amused by one of Kirkham's lectures which, after saying that nothing of a secular nature could be more worthy of one's attention than the acquisition of grammatical language, ho ended in this fashion: Press forward. Go, and gather laurels on the hill of science; linger among her unfading beauties;'"drink deep" of her crystal fountain; and then join in "the march of fame". Become learned and virtuous, and you will be great. Love God and serve him, and you will be happy. Surely one could not expect much more than this of a knowledge of grammar. 1. English Grammar, vi. 20 6b. Cite, 150 31 Having discussed the ever increasing feeling that grammar should be taught, I shall now point out the various methods advocated for the teaching of it. Most grammarians insisted that success could not be attained in grammatical instruction unless all the principal rules and definitions were thoroughly memorized so that they might be quickly applied to any specific instances under question. After the memorization pro- cess, the student was to apply the rules in parsing I sentences, learning small portions of the book at a time, applying it, and continuing until the whole was familiar. Among the principles to be memorized were all the tenses of verbs, all parts of speech, declensions of nouns, com- parisons of adjectives, conjugations in all modes and tenses, actively and passively, affirmatively, negatively, and interrogatively. Against this method was a contributor to the American Journal of Education who advocated in 1826 a practical application rather than memorization of rules. He said, .......children cannot get clear ideas of the nature of the parts of speech from arbitrary rules or definitions. .......I have had some experience in this matter, and do not hesitate 32 to say that it is entirely useless to commit any rules, definitions, or explanations of our English grammar books to memory...... There is, for example, not a solitary sentence in Murray's Abridgment of his English Grammar under the head of orthography and etymology, that ought to be cimmitted to memory, ---I mean as a separate exercise. Another writer for the same periodical felt that we were not strict enough about terms in English grammar, for we admitted but two or three tenses and three cases. He thought that we should have the same number as the ancient languages even if it meant forming some of the tenses by means of auxiliaries. In this way English.would be more likely to aid a student in the study of other languages, and they, in turn, would increase his under- standing of his own language. Greenleaf, who wrote a book called Grammar Simplified, placed more importance upon the teacher of grammar, for he believed that students could learn more from an able in- structor than from books. This came to be an accepted fact among many grammarians who, as a result, tried to make the tone of their books more conversational for the benefit of the students and included suggestions to the teachers for the explaining of difficult points. 1. "Primary Education" American Journal of Education, IV, 494. 55 H...- Greenleaf also thought it wise for the teachers to give examples to show how misspelling or incorrect punctu- ation could change the whole meaning of a sentence and thus result in a strange interpretation or even unexpected actions. Another practice which became common was giving the student many incorrect sentences which he was supposed to rewrite correctly. Murray seems to be among the first to incorporate such exercises in a grammar book, and soon all of the new books published contained "Exercises in False Syntax." To show the opinion of other grammarians upon this practice I quote Abner Alden: "Murray's Exercises on Syntax, have done more towards furnishing learners with an accurate knowledge of English grammar, than all the grammars ever published, could have done, without such.exercises." Goold Brown, too, considered such drill very necessary but not so important as parsing. The method of conducting practice in the latter, however, he said needed improvement. Kirkham, was another strong advocate of systematic parsing in which the student, should be compelled to apply 1. Grammar Made Easy! iv. 34 every rule appertaining to each word he parsed without having a question put to him by the teacher. He also recommended that the instructor give a lecture on one principle at a time, question the class upon it, have them parse, and finally correct sentences pertaining to the principle involved. Somewhat different modes were presented by Burhans, author of The Nomenclature and Expositor of the English Language. He didn't mention the above methods but instead suggested that changes for the betterment of the language should be gradually introduced into schools to bring the language as near to perfection as possible. Then through capable, qualified teachers who used Murray and Walker1 for reference, we should secure well-instructed scholars and get rid of provincialities. Other writers stressed the need for teachers who spoke and wrote excellent English, better beginning text books, and more attention to classic English writers upon whom the students could model their speech. Some people, as we might expect, thought all this excitement over the study of grammar a foolish thing. 1. John Walker, an English lexicographer. 35 They felt that they had gotten along all right without knowing how to parse; then why should their children learn it. Others wished it to be kept out of the schools because of its uselessness. Extremely derogatory was Joseph Neef who had received his ideas from Johann Pestalozzi, Swiss educational re- former. He maintained in 1808 that time was wasted "in learning an art, which should and could so easily be learned in three, or at the utmost, four months, For ten long years at least, and every day six hours, the understanding and good sense of your children are racked and tortured by your horn, spelling, and reading books, ........1 Out of one hundred people, he continued, scarcely one perfectly mastered this useful and necessary art but blundered upon almost every word which he wrote. Freneau, too, seemed to feel that many educational policies, among them over-emphasis of grammar, were foolish. As early as 1788 he was satirizing the fact that Indian students admitted to free schools were forced to con "their 2 grammar rules." 1. Sketch of a Plan and Nethod of Education, 54. 2. 1TThe Indian Student," Poems of Freneau, 359. 56 John Trumbull, an author, on the other hand, satirized' schools which didn't thoroughly teach English but emphasized Greek and Latin thus making the students forget English. Another writer of unknown identity spoke of'parsing as permissible for grammarians but not for children: The imitative principle is much stronger, in them, than the reasoning; and we imagine they would learn to read and write English correctly by simple prac- tice quite as soon as by this scholastic and to them unintelligible process of generalization, called parsing. If the child for instance says, "it is me", why is it not enough to be told that he must say "it is I"? It does not give him any additional light on the subject, to add that me is an objective case and cannot govern the verb. —Tf he be mature enough to reason about this, he will perceive no other force in the reason thus given, than that which is derived from arbitrary practice of the language; and to feel the force of this reason, he must learn, by constant repetition, what that practice is. The same writer criticized grammar on the grounds that it didn't represent the English language but the Latin. Because we have just two true tenses, he questioned the plausibility of attributing six to the language. It would be better, he thought, to have terms actually repre- senting our usage, inflections, and peculiarities without any relationship to Greek and Latin. l. "Eeview on A Grammar of the English Language by John Barrett? North American Review, XII (1821) 312. 37 ,‘ Again we find that Webster was criticizing existing conditions and planning to do something about them. The first fault to be corrected was apparently the traditional classification of wacds for which he proposed entirely new titles as I shall show in a later chapter. Because of the erroneous terms employed and the inability of teachers to explain them, the study of grammar was made a drudgery. If visible objects were used to teach grammar, so that the children could see that the differences in.words arose from the differences in things, he thought the study would be more entertaining as well as more profit- able. Furthermore he did not approve of learning Greek and Latin before studying English, for it is easier to acquire ideas in one's native tongue first. Since the principal parts of speech are founded in nature, he thought they could be learned by any school boy or normal capacity. Then when the distinctions were clear, they could be applied to other languages if so desired. To illustrate his plans he says: That nouns are the names g£_thingg, and that adiectives express their qualities, are abstract definitions, which a boy may repeat five years without comprehending the meaning. But that table is the name of an article and hard or sguare 38 is its property, is a distinction obvious to the senses and consequently within a child's capacity.1 This method he considered more practical since people of all classes and abilities needed to know how to speak and write their own tongue with propriety, and this would facilitate their so doing. Young ladies, too, he thought would profit by this method for they were so often lacking in the purity of speech. ‘ Besides grammar, allied skills were being intro- duced into the English classes, with spelling, pronunciation, reading, punctuation, composition, and versification all gradually claiming attention. An interesting account of the manner in which a reading lesson was conducted is found in Anne Royall's description of Albany schools (1826): When the classes read, Mr. Tweedale (the teacher) adjourns to a reading room, where one of the pupils commences by reading a paragraph alone, in which he is corrected by the other pupils, who, with the teacher, hold a book of the same sort in their hands. But neither the teacher or the pupils interrupt the reader until he has finished the paragraph; any of the pupils, or all of them must point out the errors, either in emphasis or pronouncing; he then reads the same over again and again until he is perfect. After which all the pupils read the same paragraph together, with an audible voice, observing the most ugiform exactness in prosody, emphasis and cadence. l. collection of Essayg, 7. 2. Sketches 5?History,gLife, and Manners in the United States, 277. 39 In regard to speaking correctly, Webster represented the majority of those interested in the subject when he gave the following recommendation: Great efforts should be made by teachers of schools, to make their pupils open the teeth, and give a full clear sound to every syllable. The beauty of speaking consists in giving each letter and syllable its ue proportion of sound, with a prompt articulation. That he advocated similar care in reading, we may ascertain from this statement which appeared in his Manual in 1839: Neither good speaking or good writing can be effectually taught by lessons on paper. Oral instruction in reading and speaking, and the study of the style of classical authors, are abso- lutely necessary for a student aéming to become master of these accomplishments. Most all writers upon this subject seemed to agree that in regard to style, the student should aim first at perspicuity, which in turn comprised purity, propriety, and precision. It probably would have been more perspicu- ous to the learners had these terms been omitted entirely and just the explanations given. Recommended as goals were simplicity, intelligible words, natural order in arrangement, and proper connection between thoughts. Ii? Dissertations on thevEnglish Language, 109. 2. I Manual of Useful Studies, 153. 40 Realizing that I have quoted Webster a great deal, I cannot fail to share with my readers this charming little discussion in which he berates an elevated style: The love of turgid expressions is gaining ground, and ought to be corrected. One of the most certain evidences of a man of high breeding, is his sim- plicity of speech, a simplicity that is equally removed from vulgarity and exaggeration. He calls a spade, a "spade". His enunciation, while clear, deliberate, and dignified, is totally without strut, ........... He never calls his wife, "his lady", but "his wife" and he is not afraid of lessening the dignity of the human race, by styling the most elevated and refined of his fellow creatures, "men and women". He does not say in speaking of a dance, "that the attire of the ladies was exceedingly elegant and peculiarly becoming at the late assembly," but that "the women were well dressed at the last ball;" nor is he apt to remark, "that the Reverend Mr. G....... gave us an elegant and searching dis- course the past sabbath," but, that {the parson preached a good sermon last sunday." Brown's grammar also devoted a section to style, and like all others, stressed simplicity, but in addition we find the warning that composition should not be attempted until the grammar rules necessary to this skill were learned. Also observations of the best authors were rec- ommended as conducive to improving the students' writing. Witherspoon, Jefferson, Franklin, and others thought that writing letters was a good exercise in 1. Ibid., 122 - 125. 41 composition. The latter suggested that the students in a class should write letters to each other, summarizing what they had been reading lately. Then the-"tutor" would revise and correct them, taking care to explain his reasons for choice of words and other changes he may have made. In order to improve pronunciation, Franklin be- lieved the students should make declamations and deliver orations, with the tutor assisting them in rehearsals by correcting emphasis, false accentuation, and other improper speech habits. In addition to these isolated recommendations Franklin wrote much concerning improving education as a whole, even, as early as 1751, drawing up a plan for an English school. He divided this into six classes which were to be instructed in these subjects. The first class was to learn spelling and grammar rules. Short stories were to be read to them, then difficult words explained. Next they might try to read the same story aloud, with special attention being given to the "stops and pauses." A vocabulary of the difficult words could also be drawn up, so that the children might learn a few each day, 42 keeping a record of them in a small book which could serve them as a little dictionary for future reference. The second class was to learn to read with atten- tion to the proper modulations of voice. Early copies of the Spectator might be used as texts, from which passages could be assigned for the following day. The students would be able to give an account of the parts of speech and construction of a few sentences, which requirement would oblige them to refer frequently to the grammar rules learned in the first class and thus fix them upon memory. The meaning of every uncommon word and of each sentence should be discussed followed by the master's reading a portion aloud. In turn the boys would imitate him, being sure they understood everything they were about to read before making the effort. All different types of reading lessons were to be assigned, so that information concerning other subjects as well as moral lessons would be concomitant acquirements. Beautiful language and figures of speech were always to be pointed out. The third class would stress speaking properly and gracefully, so that learning elements of rhetoric 43 would be required. All bad habits of speaking, poor grammar, corrupt accent, and improper phrases would be pointed out. Great speeches would be memorized. Also readings in history, agriculture, and natural science could be begun. Composition would engross the fourth class with emphasis upon good penmanship, clear expression, and avoidance of high flown phrases. All types of letters would be written, Pope's letters would be read for their beauties, readings in history, ethics, and geography would be continued, and further exercises in reading and speak- ing would be carried on. In the fifth class the students would begin to write essays and verse for practice in finding proper expressions. Later they would correct their faults to improve their style and grammatical impropriety. Logic and the art of reasoning would be subject for study with other oral reading and speaking still being practiced. The sixth and last class would continue all the pre- ceding activities with special attention being given to reading the best English authors along with translations of Horace, Virgil, and Homer. Public exercises were to be held once a year with books as prizes. By the end of the sixth year, though 44 students would be unacquainted with any foreign language, they would be masters of their own,which accomplishment Franklin felt was of more immediate and general use. Jefferson, thirty years later in 1781, also pro- posed a plan of education which involved a free school in each district for the teaching of reading,‘writing, and arithmetic. After three years' instruction the best stu- dents were to be sent forward to a grammar school where they would study Greek, Latin, geography, and higher arith- metic. Again the best were to be segregated and sent on to William and Mary College to pursue all the useful sciences. In 1789 an unidentified person offered the following educational recommendations: Let the first eight years of a boy's time be em- ployed in learning to speak, spell, read, and write the English language. For this purpose, let him be committed to the care of a master, who speaks correctly at all times and let the books he reads, be written in a simple and correct style. During these years, let not an English grammar by any means be put into his hands. It is to most boys under even twelve years of age, an unintelligible book.....I affirm, that the construction of our language should be learned by careful attention to the places and uses of the different parts of speech in agreeable compositions and not by contemplating them in a disjointed state in an English grammar. But I will add further, that grammar should be taught only by the ear. Pronunci- ation, which is far more extensive, and difficult, is 45 learned only in this way. To teach concord in the arrangement of wocds, let the master converse with his pupils as well as hear them read, and let him distinctly mark and correct every deviation from grammatical propriety which they utter. To prove that his contentions were plausible, he cited Homer, Demosthenes, and Xenophon as eminent scholars who had been taught to speak correctly without a grammar. After students were older and more matured mentally, he thought grammatical names might be given to the principles they had previously learned. Four years of their schooling were to be concerned with natural history and geography, followed by the study of French and German, which were to be learned by ear but not before the students were twelve years old, as their English pronunciation might thus be impaired. The final years were to be spent in other pursuits which need not be indicated, as they have no bearing upon the paper, ex- cept that oratory was one of the included subjects. An abundance of classical training was believed necessary for entrance to college. To be admitted into Harvard in 1818 one had to be well versed in the grammar of Greek and Latin, be able to parse any portion of a I. American Museum, V, 533. 46 chosen book, and translate English into Latin correctly. The course of study included the following books: Walker's Rhetorical Grammar, an English grammar, Greek and Latin texts, and Blair's Lectures on Rhetorick. Exercises in declamation, English composition, and debates were regular- ly conducted. In spite of the college entrance requirements in- cluding a knowledge of classical languages, English grammar schools were being established. By the year 1820 many advertisements of these schools were appearing in the periodicals. One such.was operated by N. Brashears in Washington, D. C. It was to instruct youth of both sexes in reading, writing, arithmetic, bookkeeping, English grammar, composition, elocution, and geography. If so desired, classes in Greek and Latin would be arranged. The price for the reading and writing course was four dollars a quarter, while five dollars was charged for higher branches of English. Another advertisement by F. McCreedy stated that grammar in his school was taught by correction of false syntax. Included in the curriculum _ were penmanship, parsing, reading, and composition for five dollars a quarter.1 I; Daily National Intelligencer, May 1, 1823 . 47 The reader may be interested in Noah Webster's ad- vertisement which appeared in the annecticut Courant over forty years before those just mentioned--a further indication of how this grammarian anticipated future trends: The subscriber, desirous of promoting Education, so essential to the interest of a free people, proposes immediately to open a school at Sharon, in.which young Gentlemen and Ladies may be in- structed in Reading, Writing, Mathematicks, the the English Language, and if desired, the Latin and Greek Languages-~in Geography, Vocal Music, etc. at the moderate price of Six Dollars and two thirds per quarter per Scholar. The strictest atten- tion will be paid to the studies, the manners and the morale of youth, by the public's very humble servant, Noah Webster, Jun. P. S. If any persons are desirous of acquainting themselves with the French language, they may be under the instruction of an accomplished master in Sharon. 1 Sharon, JUne 1, 1781 From the preceding discussion we find that the literature published about the need for improvement of language and for incorporation of grammar study into school curricula had considerable influence upon educa- tion. New courses were introduced, new methods were em- ployed, and numerous text books were published. I. Warfel, Noah Webster Schoolmaster to America, 40. 48 Witherspoon, who WLS one of the most influential ad- O herents to the cause 0: good English, spoke optimistically concerning their prowress: ..........fuwylt gains Vanna been ta1wwl to intrvvhlce a taste for th_e study of the anglish largusve, not without cons i-derable success, and it is earnestly recommended to all masters of chools, t at they he at pains, not only to make t‘e r pupils well so- ouainted with the Grammar and onstruction of the “*eek and Latin languages, hut with the Or+ho~raohv, Punctua;ion, and Grammar of their o‘n Language, in which, if the: he defective, ween they come to enter Collegelit is extremely difficult afterwards to reme (Adv . SP 0 91. 0 Not so continis tic was this anonymous writer for the American Journal of Education: It must be apparent to every ohservor, th“t, veils not only the mode of teaching other hranches of knowledge, hut al .30 text books used, have hecome more rational, pra.ctical, and simple, still the suh- ject of grammar emains almost untouched.......... various authors have written and “uhli"hed iWWroved rarvsrs, but thes e have been mere com eptnrlesnulon tleir predecessors. The followers of urray in this country, have heen ca eful to preserve nearly all his peculiarities, cont en tin? themselves with making a different arrangement of them, and t empt in" a clearer illustration of his errors. as suhirct of English Grammar is as much in the dark as ever; and the innumerahle comaentaries upon Hurray have answered no valuable puroose, except to convince the unbiased that t‘ere is want of simplicity in the text or the comments and illustrations would he unnecessary. Th t other eighteorth century people t ouoht about thefzext hooks will e discussed in Chapter VI. 1. Collins, V. L., President Hithersuoon, 208. IV 2. "Strictures on Lurray's Grammar, aperigan Journal of Education, I, (1826) 507. 49 Chapter IV A STANDARD FOR CORRECTQESS As indicated in the introduction to this thesis, the Revolution in North America tended to make the people more conscious of their language and more anxious to have it as grammatically correct as that spoken in England. If they should achieve the latter ambition, they would prove their freedom from depend- ence upon the mother country for correctness. This, of course, would call for national unity and effort. The main criticisms of American English at the time were that the Americans formed new words, gave new meanings to old ones still used in England, re- tained those which were obsolete in England, deviated from what was considered correct in England, and borrowed too many words from foreign countries. James Fennimore Cooper added to the above list by declaring that American English showed "ambition of effect, a want of simplicity, and a turgid abuse of terms" as well as "ambiguity of expression."1 1. American Democrat, 118. 50 Perhaps to most people the greatest fault of the language was that pronunciation did not follow orthography, and many reforms, which.will be discussed later, were suggested to remedy this defect. The principal reason givemfor the so-called corrup- tions in American English was that emigrants from different parts of Europe had settled in various sections of the United States, learning little English and maintaining language habits of their own. Proper books and free schools were suggested to overcome this unwelcome influ- ence. A second reason was that American writers liked to deviate from custom, introduce "foreignisms", and create new words. Because of this trend in America, English people spared no opportunity to ridicule American English. If they discovered in an article one or two words not cur- rent in their country, they branded their revolutionary sons as barbarians threatening to destroy the purity of the English language. All this agitation in the United States concerning the need for correctness in order to meet with the approval of England and have a language in no way 51 inferior to that of England resulted in a widespread feeling that a standard should be set up here. Such steps would facilitate traveling in various provinces, for people would no longer be puzzled by strange localisms, nor would so many political and business differences arise between states if the linguistic practices were the same. John Witherspoon thought some new "center of learn- ing and politeness" might be found which would "obtain influence and prescribe the rules d7 speech and writing to every other part."1 Samuel Kirkham, on the other hand, decided that the "anomalies and imperfections with.which the language aboundsnz would prevent the grammatical principles of the language from ever being indisputably settled. A contributor to a periodical concurred in this opin- ion when he spoke of "the futility of all attempts to fix the fleeting sounds of the human voice."3 Webster, who because of continual study and accurate observations always had difficulty in keeping the same point of view for very long at a time, declared in 1789 that the United States should furnish an ideal setting - ——- “'— l. Druid, No: v: 2. English Grammar in Familiar Lectures, ll. 3. Monthly Anthology, VI (18097 83. 52 for a general practice in speaking since it was removed from the reach of conquest and could be kept free from a mixture of foreigners. The foreigners kept appearing, however, and by 1826 he said "all efforts to establish a standard have only served to unsettle the language, and l multiply diversities." that In another of his early dissertations he had said when practice was not uniform, it was absurd to give two pronunciations in dictionaries, so that people could take over their choice; for it was just an easy way of getting the difficulties without giving offense, of perpetu- ating differences in opinion and practice, and preventing the establishment of any standard. said: Then in 1817 in the preface to his dictionary he The mode pursued in Great Britain of deciding ques- tionable points by the practice of modern writers is liable to a serious objection, that it furnishes no standard of right and wrong. Authorities equally respectable for different modes of spelling may be ’cited without end; leaving the inquirer unsatisfied, and the real truth undiscovered. I have adopted a different mode of deciding doubtful questions of this -sort, and by tracing out the radical words and primi- tive spellings have endeavored to ascertain the real orthography. By pursuing this principal, we arrive at a point which cannot be disputed; thus gradually 1. American Journal of Education, I, 315 - 16. 53 settling controversies and purifying our language from the many corruptions introduced by ignorance or negli- gence, during the confusion of languages under the Norman princes. Without recurring to the originals, in the manner stated here, it is impossible, I anore- hend, to adjust the orthography of many words in the language, or to purify it from numerous barbarisms.1 John Quincy Adams in writing to febster on this subject said: How if I deemed a new standard necessary, I know not where I could fihd one which I should prefer to yours. But I am not entirely convinced that a new one is necessary. Experience later taught Webster when people would not accept his new system of spelling, etymolog‘, or grammar, that artificial standards could not he set up; consequently, he began advocating current practices plus etymological study as the means of determining correctness and thus had to change many of his orevious opinions. In spite of these few divergent ideas, the general consensus was that a standard was desirable. The question was what to use for a standard. As we mifht expect, ever so many people thought that since we had inherited our language from the EnWlish, we should strive to accommodate our practice to theirs. l. Webster, Dictionary of the English Ianeua~e, Preface. 2. Warfel, Noah fiebster School Easter to America, 319. 54 John Pickering was one of the most famous advocates of this, as is revealed in the following quotation (1816): As a general rule also, we should undoubtedly avoid all those words which are noted by English authors of reputation, as expressions with which they are unacguainted; for although we might produce some English authority for such words, yet the very cir- cumstances of their being thus noticed by well edu- cated Englishmen, is a proof that they are not in use at this day in England, and of course, ought not to be used elsewhere by those who would speak correct English. He considered that we had departed in too many in- stances from the English standard and should lose no time in endeavoring to restore our language to purity and thus prevent corruption. In order to do this he suggested that not only should we rely upon such authors as Dryden, Addison, and Swift for the foundation of our language,2 but, since English was constantly changing, study con- temporary authors who had made the older writers their models. All unauthorized words or phrases could then be collected and published, so that Americans would know which were unacceptable, avoid them, and in this way es- cape being called barbaric. He later attempted this; however, it was subsequently discovered that numerous l. Vocabulary, 18. 2. Franklin had previously suggested this in Proposals for the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 1718. 55 words which he and other writers condemned as American innovations had originated in England but lost currency there. Knapp was another advocate of following the British standard. He was more optimistic about our progress, however, for he said in 1829, "we have wisely followed the public taste of the mother country, nor vainly thought that it would be wisdom to struggle for an inde- pendency in letters as far as they regarded our vernacu- lar. This language was our birthright as Englishmen, and its preservation in its purity clearly shows how much we value it." Another anonymous corroborator, writing to the Boston Review in 1809, proclaimed that the English lang- uage was to be learned from writers during the reign of Elizabeth, as they had made the language immortal. "From that period the authority of each writer, supposing his learning and taste to be equal to that of any one of his predecessors, constantly and almost regularly increases till we come down to about the period of the accession of 2 George II." l. Lectures on American Literature, 2. 2. Boston Review, VII, 258. 56 Other well-known people, among them John Jay, con- curred in this belief. Webster, on the other hand, spared no words in writing to Pickering about the matter as the following quotation will show: With regard to the general principle that we must use only such words as the English use let me re- peat, that the restriction is, in the nature of the thing, impracticable, and the demand that we should observe it; is as improper as it is arrogent. Equally impertinent is it to ridicule us for retain- ing the use of genuine English words, because they happen to be obsolete in London, or in the higher circles of life..... Let it be further observed that the charge against the people of this country, of introducing new words, is, to a great degree, un- founded. Your own researches have proved this fact. I question whether ten words can be found among men of reputable character in the United States, which are not authorized by English usage, either general or local. But whether the number is ten or fifty, is not material. New words will be formed and used, if found necessaiy or convenient, without a license from Englishmen. He also scorned using such a standard, for there were divergences in England, too. "It is an attempt to fix that which in itself is variable."2 Although the court and stage were generally considered the proper models, they, too, could not always be exactly alike. Moreover, he felt it unfair to the rights of civility to copy any one class to the exclusion of all others. l. Baugh, History of the English Language, 456. 2. Dissertations on the Eng ishfLangugggi 25. 57 Still another argument which he, of course, upheld was that if the people changed, the dictionary would have to be revised at least every five years, or for lack of proper authority, country people would become'dntoler- ably vulgar."l As final arguments Webster said that England was already on the decline while America was growing. Be- cause England was losing importance, we should not be held back by her. Furthermore her proximity to the European continent subjected her to influence which the United States never felt, while local differences in this country were of such magnitude that there would be "in a course of time, a language of North America, as different from the future language of England as the modern Dutch, 2 Danish, and Swedish are from German or from one another." A surprising number of writers showed no sympathy at all toward improving American English by British models, because they were sure that the Americans were already more grammatically correct. To a certain extent these men may have been stirred by patriotism, but when Such writers as Cooper and fiitherspoon concur, one is 10 Ihido’ 260 20 Ibido, 230 58 forced to attribute some plausibility to the opinion. The latter, born in Scotland himself and somewhat of a student of languages, very earnestly remarked in 1781 that the common people in America spoke better than those in England because they moved more frequently to new districts and were, therefore, not so much affected by local peculiarities of accent and idiom. 0n the other hand, more improprieties were heard among the so- called upper class in America than in England. "...... even local vulgarisms find admission into the discourse of people of better rank more easily here than in Europe."1 Cooper made almost an identical statement, adding that a smaller portion of Americans attained true ele- gance of speech than did natives of most other countries. Webster made more elaborate assertions on the subject: On examining the language, and comparing the practice of speaking among the yeomanry of this country, with t the stile of Shakespear and Addison, I am constrained to declare that the people of America, in particular the English descendants, speak the most pure English now known in the world. There is hardly a foreign idiom in their language, by which I mean, a phrase that has not been used by the best English.writers from the time of Chaucer.... In many instances they 1. :Druid, No. VII. 59 retain correct phrases, instead of which the pretended refiners of the language have intro- duced those which are highly improper and absurd. He attributed the fact of the Americans' superior- ity to their opportunity for getting an education and reading newspapers, the Eiblg, and the best English ser- mons and treatises, which works were found in almost every home. The varying dialects in England would pre- vent the people from understanding the London standard in which literature would undoubtedly be published, while in America, which was of much greater size, prob- ably not a hundred words were used, unless in local employments, which were not universally intelligible. Even Isaac Candler, an Englishman who traveled in America in 1822-3 said: As far as pronunciation is concerned, the mass of people speak better English than the mass of people in England...........in no part, except in those occupied by the descendants of the Dutch and German settlers, is an unintelligible jargon in vogue. We hear nothing so bad in America as the Suffolk whine, the Yorkshire clipping, or the Newcastle gutteral. We never hear the letter H aspirated improperly, nor omitted to be aspirated where propriety requires it. The common pronunciation approximates to that of the weél educated class of London and its ViCinitYO l. Dissertations on the English Language, 288 - 289. 2. Baugh, History of the English Language, 422 - 3. 6O A writer in the New England hagazine declared in 1832 that the great difference between similar classes in England and America was that "here the peculiar modes are fewer, and more generally used; and, therefore, by frequent repetition, more likely to attract the attention of a stranger,........than in England where they are so much more numerous, and vary so much in different counties or districts, and from the mixture of their inhabitants, are so often presented to the ear in different varieties, that few appear very particularly prominent."1 If one did research in English phrases, "we doubt not that very many Yankeeisms might be found to be legitimate blaatings 2 of the calves of John Bull." Another reviewer:5 added that it was arrogant pedantry to feel that every innovation in England was acceptable but all in America, corrupt. To prove his point he said that in the first article of the Edinburgh Review for March, 1817, there were forty-seven words not authorized by the standards of American English. What standards he referred to, he did not reveal. In another article in the North American Review (1817) the author asked where we learned our bad English, since 1. New England Kagazine, III, 379. 2. North American heview, V, 363 - 4. 61 we got most of our books from the English_press and read all the English authors. As a further argument against England's dictating to us a standard, he aptly declared: The period, in which a language is fixed is that in which its best writers flourish; and of course not to be ascertained by contemporaries, who cannot tell that better may not arise, than any who have gone before. Had this judicious con- ception always regulated the English critics, who have exercised themselves on Americanisms, they would have spared themselves much trouble. They would not have been at the pains of turning over the leaves of their Johnson's Dictionary to see if a word were there, and if they found it not, of branding it as an Americanism. But considering that language is a fluctuating thing, never stable, but constantly on the improvement or decline, or at any rate changing, they would have asked, whether it were not possible that a good and useful word brought to America by its first settlers, and of approved use in their day, might not have survived on this side of the water, while it was lost on the English side; and if so, whether, we or they, in respe t to said word, have done the language most harm. As further proof of our lack of incorruptibility in language, he offered the fact that across a thousand leagues of water the same changes occurred, with the ex- ception of some half-dozen words preserved in America but obsolete in England and perhaps about the same number of which the reverse was true. He called the charge that we were speaking a corrupt dialect a calumny. l. fwoh the Complaints in America Against the British Press? North American Review, XIII, 28. 62 Many other such justifications of the English spoken in America at the time could'be quoted, but I shall con- clude this discussion with these three, not because of their linguistic importance but to show the amusing earnestness and satire with which they upheld their con- victions and answered the criticisms of English journalists. The English language has been greatly improved in Britain within a century, but its highest perfec- tion, with every other branch of human knowledge, is perhaps reserved for this Land of light and free- dom. As the people through this extensive country will speak English, their advantages for polishing their language will be great and vastly guperior to what the people in England ever enjoyed. I have actually heard an unfeeling assassinator of the king's English rail at the 'idegus habsurdity of the Hamerican abit of speaking! ......and whereas the House of Representatives of the United States of America will ever feel it a duty to watch with jealousy, over the preservation of the English tongue in its original purity, and it is a matter of great interest to the House and to the American people, that their native tongue should not degenerate in the parent state, and it would affect the American people to find their breth- ren in England gradually contractigg the habit of a mixed and barbarous jargon........ This latter article goes on in a similar vein for some time,then ends by saying that many dialects in 1. Publication of The Colonial Society of Massachusetts, XIV. 2. Analectic Magazine, III (1814) 405. 3. North American Review, X (1820) 365 - 67. 63 England are a menace to the English tongue, about which something should be done. The suggestion is made that England should send her future public speakers and minis- ters to America for their education, where they may learn grammatical correctness and receive certificates when they master the English tongue. Besides using British practice as a standard by which our language should be fixed, the following means were suggested: an American academy similar to that of France; the study of etymology; use of one scholarly dictionary or grammar book; a new system of teaching grammar; modele ing after important speakers and writers; following custom and current practice. Of these we find that of patterning after writers and speakers the most prevalent. Among those who seemed to accept this theory were Breckenridge, who humorously suggested himself as an excellent example to follow; Pickering, if those chosen as models were English; Jefferson; Kirkham; Webster, at least he so stated on page 54 of his Grammar; Burhans; and Theodoric Beck, one of the founders of the Albany Institute. Burhans expressed the consensus of this group in the following statement (1826): . 64 Every person of information knows, that, when polished by society, it is to those happy men of genius and learning united, language owes its ex- tension and improvement: and certainly it is to them we should naturally look for its further pro- gress towards perfection. He also felt that proper teaching would do much to improve our language. Kirkham defined those who may be considered good authority as "those who are deservedly high in estimation; speakers distinguished for their elocution and other lit- erary attainments, and writers, eminent for correct taste, solid matter, and refined manner."2 Beck echoed the fears of many people that if we accepted any other standard, we might so change the lang- uage as to render the reading and study of former master- pieces a drudgery. A few writers were somewhat dubious about the wisdom of this type of standard. Brackenridge, presenting this point of view also, said, "If we could talk no other kind of English than that used by our best poets and prose writers, we could not transact much of the business of n 3 common life. Cooper declared that taking usage of polite life as a standard would produce many uncouth innovations. 1. The Nomenclature and Expositor of the English Language, 210.—w 2. Engish Grammar in Familiar Lectures, 18 - 19. 5. Modern Chivalry, 581. 65 In reference to the use of custom as a standard, we find the three grammarians, Webster, Brown, and Kirkham the main advocates. These quotations will illustrate Webster's views on the subject: If a standard therefore cannot be fixed on local and variable custom, on what shall it be fixed? If the most eminent speakers are not to direct our practice, where shall we look for a guide? The answer is extremely easy; the rules of the_lggguaae itself, and the_general practice of the-nation, constitute propriety in speaking...... When a de— viation from analogy has become universal practice of a nation, it then takes the place of all rules and becomes the standard of propriety. (1789) The grammar of a particular language is a system of general principles derived from natural distinctions of words, and of particular_rules deduced from the customary forms of speech in the nation using the language. These usages are mostly arbitrary, or of accidental origin; but when they become common to a nation, they are to be considered as established, and received as rules of the highest authority. (1807)2 It makes no difference that men of letters denounce vulgar language, as incorrect--Language in a nation should be uniform; the same words should, among all classes of people, express the same ideas--and rash indeed is the innovator who attempts to change an idiom which has the stamp of authority of thousands of years-~and which is so incorporated into the language of common affairs, as to render hopeless every effort toward a reformation. To create essential difference between the language 3f polite and common life, is a serious evil. (1807) 1. Dissertations on the Engli .t. 2. A Philosophical and Practi.al Gram??? of the enslish Language, 15. 3. Ibid., 192. 66 Brown stated his beliefs in this manner: It is not the business of the grammarian to give law to language, but to teach it, agreeable to the best usage._ The ultimate principle by which he must be governed, and with which his instructions must always accord, is that species of custom which critics de- nominate Good Use; that is, present, reputable, gen- eral use. This principle, which is equally opposed to fantastic innovation, and to a pertinacious ad- herence to the quaint peculiarities of ancient usage, is the only proper standard of grammatical purity. (1826)1 Kirkham seemed to submit somewhat grudgingly to the necessity for following custom as evidenced in this state- ment: Language is conventional, and not only invented, but in its progressive advancement, varied for purposes of practical convenience. Hence it assumes any and every form which those who make use of it choose to give it. We are, therefore, as rational and practical grammarians, compelled to submit to the necess ty 0 the case; to take the language as it is and not as it should be, and bow to custom. (1829)2 He preferred to have a fixed principle arising from the genius of the language, but since rules so established had no means of becoming enforced, he accepted custom in- stead, continuing to base his observations upon historical fact plus custom, like Webster, rather than introduce new theories or accept idioms as correct just because Addison had used them. i; The First Lines of English Grammar, iii. 2. English Grammar in Familiar—Eéctures, 18. 67 A writer for the American Museum supplemented this theory of custom by suggesting that when custom was un- known, modern English dictionaries would supply its place. Burhans went much farther, overlooking customs entirely, and maintaining that Walker's_Digtionary already had es- tablished a standard, not only in the United States but in Great Britain, Ireland, and wherever English was spoken. Good teaching and exact adherence to this volume, he thought, would eventually result in uniform punctuation. Murray felt the same way about Johnson's Dictionary in spite of the few admitted irregularities in it. Using it as an acknowledged standard seemed so convenient to this grammarian thatyhe earnestly requested others not to innovate without very good reason, for they would thus de- crease the usefulness of the volume. Murray, himself, later came to be considered in al- most the same light, for his grammar book was widely used, and his statements were accepted as law. Brown, however, ridiculed the idea that Murray or any other writer could produce a work worthy of being made a permanent standard of instruction. ' ‘John Adams seems to be the only known American writer to say much about an academy for standardizing the language. He felt this necessary since the "form of 68 government has an influence upon the language, and language in its turn influences not only the form of government but the temper, the sentiments, and manners of the people." Hence in 1780 in writing to the presi- dent of Congress, he included The honor of forming the first public institution for refining, correcting, improving, and ascertain- ing the English language, I hope is reserved for Congress; they have every motive that can possibly influence a public assembly to undertake it. It will have a happy effect upon the union of the States to have a public standard for all persons in every part of the continent to appeal to, both for the signification and pronunciation of the language .........I would therefore submit to the consider- ation of Congress the expediency and policy of erecting by their authority a society for refining, improving, and ascertaining the English Language under the name of the American Academy. The author- ity of Congress is necessary to give such a society reputation, influence, and authority through all the States and with other nations. Another writer who called himself "An American" had suggested six years earlier that a society be formed con- sisting of members from each university and seminary. It was to be called "Fellows of the American Society of _Languages" and was to elect new members from time to time in order to remain perpetual. Annually it was to publish observations upon language, thus correcting, refining, 2 and enriching it until it should become perfect. l. The Life andworks of John Adams, VII, 249 - 51. 2. (See following pagel 69 In 1788 Webster was instrumental in founding a philological society "for the purpose of ascertaining and improving the American tongue." Apparently this was not a successful endeavor, however, for we hear little of its subsequent activities except that the members endorsed Webster's spelling book but refused to do so for his grammar. Pickering in 1816 stated that the preservation of the English language in its purity throughout the United States was a project deserving much attention and even entitled to the consideration of the Academy of Arts and Sciences. This supervision would settle controversies over usage and keep the language of such a type that authors would have no need to fear that people would find *2. (Footnote for precEding—page) Note: This article appeared in the RevalfiAgerican Magazine for January, 1774. The author has never been definitely ascertained, although many people attribute it to John Adams since, he, too, suggested an academy six years later. This belief seems doubtful to me, how- ever, because of the fact that Adams left the details up to Congress, while "An American" seemed to present rather specific ideas. Then, too, three other men of the eighteenth century wrote under this pseudonym. They were Reverend Moses Mather; Dr. Benjamin Young Prime, who wrote essays in Hebrew, French, Greek, Latin, and Spanish, and was also author of'many poems; Arthur Lee, M. D., who held many diplomatic positions and wrote mainly on political situations. 0f the four it seems most probable that Prime wrote the article in question. 70 difficulty in understanding their writings. It would be especially necessary to prevent the language from diverging from British practice, for thus we would lose the beauties of Milton, Pope, and Dryden. Then, too, accommocation to British custom would facilitate trade and business between the two countries, and former gover- mental differences and hostile feelings would disappear. Hence we find his recommendation of an academy merely another way of saying to subscribe to the standard of Britain. Needless to say, these suggested standards aroused discussion throughout the nineteenth century and are still under consideration, conservative people maintaining that something more controllible than established practice of good speakers should guide us, but since Americans balk at stringent control of any kind, custom will probably continue to prevail. 71 Chapter V DICTIOEARIES Records show that as early as 1582 it was suggested that a list of all hard words be collected in order to reveal their proper use and spelling. In 1604 this was attempted by Robert Cawdrey in his little book of 120 pages, The Table Alphabeticall of Hard Words, which ex- plained over 5,000 terms. Other men followed his example, but there was no attempt made to list all the words in the language until 1721 when Nathaniel Bailey published his Universal Etymological English Dictionary. Nine years later his larger volume, Dictionarium Britannicum, appeared, and Samuel Johnson is said to have used this in preparing A Dictionary of the English Languagg (1755) in two volumes. Even today Johnson is considered by many people the greatest lexicographer of all times. His dictionary is remarkable for the precision and clarity of its defini- tions as well as the use of quotations from outstanding authors to illustrate the meanings of words. A grammar of the English language precedes the actual glossary which contains along with the alphabetical list of words, 72 each word respelled in syllables with the accent marked, numbered vowels to show their qualities (a key at the top of the page explained the pronunciation of each numbered vowel), the part of speech, the word from which the one in question was derived, the definitions, and ex- amples of the use of the word by well known writers. Two illustrations follow: date, date 3. (datte, French) 1. the time at which a letter is written, marked at the end or the beginning. 2. The time at which any event happened. 5. The times stipulated when anything shall be done. Shakespeare. 4. End; conclusion. Pone. 5. Duration; continuance. Denham. 6. (from dactylus, Latin) the fruit of the date trEe. Shakespeare. pencil, pgn ' sgl s. (pencillum, Latin) 1. A small brush of hair which painters dip in their colours. Dryden. 2. A black lead pen, with which, cut to point, they write without ink. Watts. 5. Any instrument of writing without ink. In commenting upon Johnson's achievement a writer for the Boston fieyiew said: (1805) His errours and defects are numerous; but the general plan of his dictionary is judicious, and the execution displays a wonderful extent of re- search into English writers, and as much accuracy and discrimination in the definitions, as could be 6Xpected in the time employed, and with the means that could be procured. (However they were) not so bigoted to the work, as to discourage all attempts to imorove it, or to produce a better. 1. Boston Review, IV, 655. 75 The faults of this work according to the eighteenth century critics were: lack of simplicity; inconsistencies in spelling, such as immovable and moveable, chastily and chastness, sliness and slyly, fearlessly and fearlessness; want of precision in definitions; inaccurate distinctions in passing from one shade of meaning to another of the same word; improper derivations; leaning toward Greek and Latin etymons from lack of knowledge of Anglo-Saxon; giving unsanctioned authority to isolated sentences of famous authors. Among those who felt that these inaccuracies were too many to be overlooked and that American writers should remedy them if possible were Jefferson, Witherspoon, John Adams, and Brackenridge. Brackenridge called Johnson a literary dunce while another was even more disdainful, as we see in the following quotation: ".....prostitute not the august title of father of literature, and standard of excellence upon the surely critic-~who is the perverter of taste, and corrupter of the language'.'1 He even accused the lexicographer of using difficult words in his own writings so that people would need his 1. American Museum, II, 199. 74 dictionary to understfnd tlem. Sheridan and Kenrick, iner finalise lexicograohers, he considered for sunerior to Johnson and predicred that their volume would hy far outlast his. . Although Jefferson saw need for improvement in Johnson, he heartily approved the idea of selecting passages from the best writers as authorities for the meaning of words, thus making a general index to English literature and thus interspersing "with verdure and flow- ers the barren desserts of philology." .rthermore he thought that the "wisdom, morality, and religion, thus thrown down, as if without intention, before the reader, in Quotations, may often produce more effect than the very passages in the books themselves."1 In the eighteenth century in England besides Johnson's lexicon aooeared those by John Entick (1764), Dr. William Kenrick (1773), William Perry (1775), Thomas Sheridan (1780), Robert hares (1794), James Elnhinstcn (1790). In 1819 Reverend Fenry John Todd made a revision of Johnson's dictionary, including many words not found in the original. This proved to be exceedingly popular and had great influence in America. l. Prescott, Alexander lamiltgn and Thomas Jefferson, 324. 75 Each of these works had its own little following in the United States, some of them being published here and maintaining popularity even after the advent of com- mendable volumes by Americans. A writer for the Monthly Anthology upheld the superiority of Kenrick and expressed .his regret that the latter had not received more commendation. Perry in his Royal Standard English Dictionary had attempted to indicate pronunciation by typographical characters rather than by the numbered vowels found in Johnson's and Kenrick's books; also he used for authority eminent orators and polite speakers of London, but still he did not achieve widespread commendation by Americans. Walker, whose dictionary was published in 1791, said he attempted to unite the good qualities of several of his predecessors, namely Elphinston, Nares, Sheridan, and Johnson, giving definitions similar to those of the latter, but adding the following words which he, Sheridan, and Kenrick had omitted: predilection, respectable, des- criptive, sull', inimical, and interference. Walker considered Sheridan's work the best of the group but 76 found even there "impropriety, inconsistency, and want of acquaintance with analogies of the Latin."1 Hence he felt justified in attempting another, and apparently his effort was not entirely wasted, for one commentator called him the truly practical writer who did more real service to the student than any of his predecessors in the same department of philology. Burhans, too, suggested our leading men should con- form to Walker's suggestions and adopt his numerous cor- rections in spelling and pronunciation, nnot resting until the whole of them shall have been completely established."2 John Adams regretted that no grammar nor dictionary extant at the close of the eighteenth century had the least public authority. Of course, Webster agreed with him. He said one of the main deficiencies in the school system was the want of a suitable dictionary for all the pocket volumes were imperfect: some contained obscene words, others obsolete words or terms unnecessary to the vocabulary of common people; some had faulty accentuation, making no distinction between long and short vowels; all contained words not used in this country and lacked a multitude of those 1: Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, Preface. 2. The Nomenclature and Expositor of the English Language, 211. 77 sanctioned here hy best usage. He felt, too, that dictionaries had to be revised every half century to avoid heing erroneous and imperfect. In the preface to his Comoendious Dictihngpv of + . "‘ D u x/ hnelish Language which appeared in 1906, he remarked that no work of the sort could contain fewer than 30,000 words without the omission of terms in daily use. "I have en- deavored, by steering between extremes, to reconcile the interest of the purchaser's purse, with the advantages of a tolerably complete Dictionary." Even to this, he advo- cated an abridgment for the use of farmers and mechanics, who would have no need for the scientific terms included. He seems here to be implying the existence of levels of speech nuch as many grammarians do today. The Compendious Dictionary was also later abridged for school use, and in 1817 was puhlished an edition under the title Dictionary of the English Language. In the Compendious Dictionary appeared 5,000 more words than in "the best English compends," it contained 408 pages, had a twenty-four page preface revealing "im- portant linguistic discoveries," and sold for one dollar and fifty cents. Later Webster admitted that this work had been merely an improvement of Entick's book through corrected definitions and the addition of words. To attempt to reduce different classes of words to a uniform orthography had been made. 78 Soon after this he decided to prepare himself for his greatest achievement, the compilation of a truly com- plete dictionary with authentic etymologies, explanation of obsolete words, true orthographies and pronunciations. He stated his aims in this way: 1. To comprehend all the legitimate words, give per- spicuous and discriminating definitions, exemplified by authors when necessary. 2. To contract the size, making it the smallest possible and still comprehensive. 5. To exhibit true orthography and pronunciation according to approved English practice. 4. To explain obsolete words, found in ancient English authors. 5. To deduce words from primitive roots. My intercourse with the most respectable society, and a constant course of reading in the best authors for fifty years past, with the advantage of several months residence in England, and almost daily inter- course with many of the ablest scholars in the Kingdom, will enable me to present our vernacular language as it really exists, in the two countries, and I shall endeavor to do it with fidelity. What- ever is well executed in the English Dictionaries I shall receive, and give due credit to the authors... Whatever is deficient, I shall supply, as far as I am able, and which is palpably wrong, I shall correct. My spelling book which has had an unparalleled sale, and has, it is believed, had a very extensive effect in facilitating the acquisition of the language and in purifying the popular pronunciation from vulgarities, l. Boston_Revi-aw, VIII T153697 210. 79 will be adjusted to aluniformity with the diction- ary in pronunciation. He expected the finished product to comprise three large octavo volumes and sell for from twelve to fifteen dollars. In order to prepare himself for this task he felt it necessary to explore fields which he had never before entered. This led him to examine the following languages, with many of which he had previously been en- tirely unacquainted: Chaldaic, Syriac, Arabic, Samaritan, Hebrew, Ethiopic, Persian, Irish (Hiberno Celtic), Armoric, Anglo Saxon, German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, French, Russian, English. Such investigations resulted in his belief that the indeclinable words in our language and perhaps in all ‘languages were derived from declinable weeds and were primitively significant as verbs, adjectives, or parti- ciples. Furthermore, their present meanings could be traced to the original ideas expressed bv their radicals so that true definitions could not be ascertained without resorting to the primitive word. He also unearthed a "vast number of affinities between the languages examined, which have never before been 2 detected." 1. American Journal of Education, I, 316. 2. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John {$3, IV, 456. 80 This led to his conclusion in 1817 that all lang- uages were dialects of one primitive language; no new roots nor families of words had been introduced, he said, since the dispersion. Hence, how inaccurate was the phraseology which spoke of a radical change of language. "No radical change of any language has ever taken place."1 These were strong statements for a man who had formerly said that the etymology of most words was wholly lost. Webster, at the age of 70 in 1828 published £3 American Dictionary of the English Language in two volumes. Even then he was not thoroughly satisfied, for at the time of his death, when he was nearly 85 years old, he was work- ing upon a revision. This lexicon contained 70,000 words: 8,000 in common use, derived from Greek, Latin, and French; 40,000 from Saxon and kindred languages of the North; the remainder from the arts, sciences, etc. The actual vocabu- lary was preceded by a synopsis of words differently pro- nounced by various orthoepists. The pronunciations here and throughout were indicated by symbols and slight marks above or joined to the letters, rather than by numbers (for example, 53). This did away with the need for re- spelling a word to indicate pronunciation, a practice 1. North American Review, V, 85. 81 which annoyed many people. Derivations were given, but authorities were cited only in exceptional cases. At the end of the volume was "Walker's Key to the Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names" and a "Terminal Vocabulary." Innovations attributed to Webster (by himself) in- cluded the separation of words beginning with i and g and with.g_and'1, " 1 Dictionary." Also he included without precedent adjectives an advantage not possessed by any British formed from the names of places and persons, such as Newtonion, Athenian, and Parisian, which he said were in constant use. When criticized for including localisms, he defended his act by saying that since such words existed and would continue to exist in spite of lexicographers or critics, why shouldn't they be explained. Also, if they were local and not understood by people in other districts, surely the explanations would be helpful to them. So far as Obscenities were concerned, he maintained that there was not another vocabulary of the English lang- uage extant so free from them as his. Another deletion of which he was proud was that of about 2,500 pedantic li’ Dictionary of the English Landuagg, v. 82 words no longer in current use. "0n the other hand, I have enriched the vocabulary with such words as: absorbable, accompaniment, acidulous, achromatig, adhesiveness, adjutangy, admissibility, advisory, amendable, animalize, aneurismal, antithetical, appellor, appreciate, appreciation, aborescent, arborization, ascertainable, bailee, bailment, indorses, indorsee, prescriptive, imprescriptible, statement, insubordination, expenditure, subsidize, and other elegant and scientific terms, now used by the best writers in Great Britain and America." five the English vocabulary." l Johnson's dictionary he considered deficient in or six thousand words, "or about a seventh part of 2 Some of his glossary which I considered of interest for the divergence from present definitions, I have noted here: levéller - n. he who destroys subordination overtrip’- vt. to walk lightly over outtongue’- vt. to bear down by noise ovation - n. a lesser triumph for victory revilingly - ad. in an oppobrious manner rhapsody - n. an unconnected writing castramentation - n. the laying out a camp hollow - a. low within, empty, deceitful hus'wife - vt. to manage with frugality isabeII- a. of a brownish yellow with red regrate - vt. to forestall, engross, offend rélict - n. a woman leftrwidowhood séizin or sei31n - n. a taking possession tablet - n. a little table - nightmare - n. an oppression of the breast blowth - n. a bloom, blossom in general 1. Monthly Anthology, VII, 210. 2. Ibid. '85 Reckless, he labeled obsolete and recreate, meaning to amuse, delight, or refresh, he labeled a transitive verb. In spite of Webster's efforts to excel, he, too, received criticism. The Boston Review took him to task for believing his etymological studies so important that he felt justified in insinuating suspicions of Johnson's definitions. Moreover, he accepted "ridiculous viola- tions of grammar" and spread "hurtful innovations in orthography."1 The latter will be discussed in the chapter concerning spelling. The same critic disliked his omitting many words used by such writers as Pope, Addison, Swift, Milton, and Shakespeare. "......every word used by those writers which can be explained without offence to modesty, ought to find a place in a dictionary of the English language... they will be read and remembered long after Mr. Webster and ourselves are forgotten."2 I Some of the words which he was criticized for omitting were: deceptibilit distributer dilute (adj. dissolubility disorderedness acute (sharp) disfavor relick expediency mean (mid. point) if most (adj.) designate 1. Boston Review, VII, 247. 2. Ibid., 259. 84 Another apprehension which people had about his works was that the innovations would tend to destroy the standard which they so desired. Hence we see that in spite of his many years' work, his diligent study, and his honest effort to contribute to the improvement of the English tongue, many people gave him little credit, but continued their admiration of Johnson. PhilolOgists today feel that his chief contribution was in the definition of words. He attempted all terms, whether scientific or otherwise, and usually his expla- nations were clear. He was curious about all kinds of things, he had much patience, he liked to analyze, he was proficient and active in many fields of endeavor, he wrote intelligently on a wide variety of subjects. This wide knowledge is evident in his definitions. His main fault- is felt to be that he was garrulous in his definitions. For example, after defining 33332, he gave his own opinion as to the best kinds. Other dictionaries besides Webster's were written in the United States. Before his dictionaries, had appeared those by Samuel Johnson, Jr. in 1798 (no relation to the English lexicographer) Caleb Alexander (Columbian Dictionagy, 1800), John Elliott and Johnson's revision in 1800; 85 William Woodbridge (A Key to the English Lanmuage, 1801). Second in importance to Webster as an American lexicographer was Joseph E. Worcester who published his first effort in 1850 and revised it in 1860. An innova- tion in his work was giving the pronunciation of several eminent orthoepists after every word in ouestion, using their initials to identify their choice. Ten pages of words of doubtful orthography were affixed, as was a short English grammar, a history of English lexicography, a catalogue of English an American dictionaries, and a list of words with their proper prepositions. The endeavors by Burhans (1826), Grimshaw (1F28), and Cobb (1855) were similar except that Cobb classified conso- nants according to labial, dental, gutteral, and nasal, which terminology I did not happen upon in any of my other research. He also indicated secondary accents, the plurals of nouns, principal parts of irregular verbs, and variable adjectives. An appendix contairing a list of words in common use in America but not found in Webster's dictionary was added. Burhans designed his book for school use, making it as simple as possible, reducing the vocabulary to one-third of what was usually found in a dictionary and giving only the primary meanings. At the end he listed words with their correct and "barbarous" pronunciations. 86 Grimshaw said his pocket volume contained "every word in the English language that may be necessary in the composition of a Letter."1 (This completes the picture of dictionaries and their makers in the United States before 1830. 1. The Gentleman's Lexicon, iv. 87 Chapter VI As I have indicated elsewhere, the number of grammar books flooding the market soon after 1800 was immense, and quite naturally each author tried to institute some new ideas or methods which would turn complimentary atten- tion to his. In addition, much.was written about the qualifications of the rival philologists to write fully dependable works, their deficiencies, and the dangers of following them too closely. Webster, in the course of pointing out Pickering's ineptitude, declared in 1817: The man who undertakes to censure others for the use of words, and to decide what is or is not correct in language, seems to arrogate to himself a dictatorial authority, the legitimacy of which will always be denied....... Very few men ari competent to decide upon what is natural practice. It was typical of Webster to make such remarks but exclude himself. Surely he was much more dictatorial than Pickering. Murray stated that it was the grammariand' business to submit not to remonstrate. Probably he was referring to Webster when he said: 1. North American Review, V, 92. 88 In pertinaciously opposing the decision of proper authority, and contending for obsolete modes of expression, he may, indeed, display learning and critical sagacity; and in some degree, obscure points that are sufficiently clear and decided; but he cannot reasonably hope, either to succeed in his aims, or to assist the learner, in discovering and respecting the true standards and principles of language. Brackenridge gave the following opinion: '...........skill in language, either to write or speak, is a noble attainment; but this consists more in a just taste of the leading beauties, than in the criticisms of a mere grammarian, which show the mind to have been wholly or chiefly taken up with these: To use the words of the poet, Word catchers that live on syllables, Commas and points they set exactly rite, 2 And 'twere a sin, to rob them of their mite. The people who were students of Greek and Latin and thought that their descendants should be the same disliked the trend to simplify grammar. Webster was one of the ad- vocates for simplicity, and he regretted that the acouain- tance with the grammars of dead languages had forced into English so many distinctions and rules that it would not have had otherwise. Because of his early classical edu- cation he said that he had been forced to unlaarn a English Grammar, 148. Modern Chivalry, 257. 89 great deal when he became older. For that reason, he believed that contemporary grammarians did much more harm than good in trying to prove that our language wasn't made right just because it differed from their precious dead languages. In spite of the fact that he was so freouently at outs with other philologists of his time, Webster was by many people esteemed the most distinguished of all gram- marians, and that is how he is considered today. It is, however, unfortunate that he was forced to so defir tely change his theories in the midst of his research, because in many of his writings he absolutely contradicts what he has said in others. Besides being influenced by his etymological studies, Webster adopted many ideas from Horne Tooke's Diversipng of Purlfil (1805), wlich he believed would revolutionize the study of grammar. The theory of this Englishman was that all words could be traced back to their verbs and nouns, so that the classification of words then in vogue was en- tirely incorrect. Webster thought that by his new method he could re- lease the study of granmar from "the rubbish of unnecessary 1 . terms." As a result we find him suggesting elimination 'r'1 o 1. A Philosophical & Practical Grammar of the :nTIlSh Language, ix. fl 90 of the term, article, since it was merely a kind of adjective, fig, being the Old English orthography of one "as the latter is an awkward spelling of the French une, from the Latin unus." 1 Nouns and substantives, he called names; pronouns were substitutes, for they didn't merely take the place of nouns but of adjectives and even whole sentences; adjectives were attributes; adverbs, modifiers; conjunctions, connectives; yet the terms preposition and verb he retained. This statement probably caused consternation among his readers: "The substitutions, gg and that, have been called conjunctions, altho they have no more connecting power, than who or which........by classing them with conjunctions, verbs often occur, which are left without 2 a nominative." In his fianua1.1n 1839 Webster reverted to the terms which he had rejected in the Grammar. However, his idea that many conjunctions were really verbs he did not change. I am including a rather long quotation from this work to show his reasoning in regard to the subject. The words if, though, that, notwithstanding, because, during, except, save, previded, are generally classed with conjunctions or prepositions. But nothing can be farther from the truth. 1. Ibid., v11. 20 Ibiao, V111 91 If and thouLh are verbs, and always verbs. If is only an abbreviation of give, or the Saxon spell- ing of the word if, which has been obsolete scarcely a century. Though is also a verb, de- fective in all its inflections but both these words have the signification of verbs, and sentences in which they occur cannot be correctly analyzed, without considering them as verbs. They have no property of conjunctions. In this sentence, "He will go, if you desire it," the original and true form was, he will go, give that, you desire it; that is, grant the fact that you “desire it, then he will go. The word that referring to the following clauses, is generally omittedOOOOOOOOOOOO "But though that we, or an angel from heaven,oreach to you otherwise. r--Bishop's Bible. This is the old form of writing, and is good—English. Though is here a verb, governing that, which is a pronoun, or substitute for the sentence following. TLat, after though, is now omitted, as it is after if. ”The phrase above is, though that, grant or admit that we, or an angel, etc........ Because, too, is numbered among all conjunctions. How then, can we parse such expressions as these? Because of these things; because of me; bggause of the present rain. They cannot be analyzed on the supposition that because is a conjunction. Formerly it was two words and "to parse the foregoing phrase we must still consider b§_and cause as two words; by cause 23 these things. A He similarly discussed notwithstanding, during, except, unless, and save. And and but also came from verbs, he decided, but still he called them conjunctions. Adverbs, for the most part, could be resolved into other parts of speech. He does not here admit the convenience A hanual of Useful Studies, 185 - 7. 92 of assigning the various kinds of words to distinct ogroups according to their uses, although he had done so in his Dissertations. Another practice in which he delighted was forming verbs from nouns such as tggt, and he hoped the tendency to do this would be carried on indefinitely in spite of the hesitation of other grammarians. His purpose in his grammar book, he said, was to con- struct a grammar based upon his researches into Saxon and his observations from extensive reading of modern books, the only true method of arriving at legitimate principles and established usages. He was not attempting to alter the English language, even though he differed from Lowth, Johnson, and other British writers, whom he, too, had once considered as absolute authorities. A grammar book according to him should contain a true explanation of the several species of words, a correct classification of them, and a development of the real principles of combination in the structure of sen- tences. These elements he carefully incorporated into his works. My personal opinion of his Philosophical and Practical Grammar, published in 1807, is that it is an 93 extremely far-sighted book because of his observation of usage and acceptance of idioms new current which other grammarians scorned even to acknowledge. How- ever it would have been extremely difficult for students, I believe, because of his thoroughness. All little de- tails and exceptions to rules were discussed at length; for instance almost three full pages were devoted to the article‘g. Apparently, his Institutes of English Grammar (1784) was not employed extensively in schools, although webster said it passed through many editions and continued to be used until Murray's work appeared. The Philosophical 1. It would undoubtedly be surprising to many purists who frequently cite Webster as an authority that he accepted "it is me" as an established idiom, witness this statement from page 34 of his Grammar: M3 is also used in the nominative, in popular practice--i§_ig.gg. This is condemned as bad English; but in reality is an original idiom of the language, received from the primitive Celtic inhabitants of England and France, in whose language mg was the nominative case of the first person pronoun. The French language retains the same word, from the same origin, in the phrase c'est ggi. 94 Grammar, which he considered the most valuable of his contributions, he admitted had not been popular. This would be apparent when one learned that the second edition was not published until fifteen years after the first. A writer in the Monthly Anthology stated that neither of these books had been adopted as a standard in a single seminary in either New York or New Jersey. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that Dr. Smith, president of Princeton, was quoted by Webster as saying that the latter was "one influential cause of the rapid progress which the children of this country have made in learning the lang- uage," Princeton classes learned their rules from Hurray. Among the qualities for which Webster received most praise were his treatment of number, case, gender, and mode. His friend, Dr. Smith, went further: I consider your Philosophical and Practical Grammar as containing the best analysis of the language which has yet been given to the publick. It has hapoily improved the opening made many years since into that subject, by the ingenious Horne Tooke. I have often been surprised that his ideas have not been more highly appreciated than they seem to have been by English philologists. Your good judgment has made them the basis of your plan; and on that foundation, you have reared, in my opinion, a more complete system of grammar, than any writer who has preceded 201102 l. fi“History of Elementary—School," New England Magazine, II, 475. 2. Monthly Anthology, VII, 207. 95 As we should expect, however, Webster was more fre- quently censured than praised, mainly for his innovations in terminology; dependence upon Saxon etymology; failure to verify all his statements; acceptance of vulgar terms as correct, therefore endangering the linguistic morals of young people; not being stringent enough.about dis- tinguishing between transitive and intransitive; and in- discriminate construction of verbs from nouns. As one writer said, "If Mr. Webster directs his labourers to ‘yggg his cattle, gpggg his garden, or bridge his brooks, he is at liberty to do it, though We think it better spoken, than written."l Extremely derogatory was this contributor to the Monthly Anthology_who claimed that Webster wrote two Papers under the name "Candidus," pointing out fallacies of other grammars to pave the way for his own. "A man whose multiplicity of dollars depends on the multiplicity of his projects, must be expected to be often pursuing these projects in opposite directions."2 Moreover he was somewhat justified in the accusation, for Vebster had publicly announced need for funds to 1. North American Review, V, 89. 2. monthly Anthology, VIII, 147. 96 pursue his studies, especially since he had a family and an aged father to take care of. Some reviewers said that since there was not the least chance of those grammar books‘ achieving influence, they would not bother to discuss them. Anne Royall greatly respected Webster's contribution to philology but was disappointed in his gruff manner when she met him. It is true that this man toiled diligently, but after his death in 1843 all his etymological work had to be re- vised, for it was hopelessly behind the times. More of his ideas will be treated in the discussion of isolated examples of grammatical precepts. As has been previously implied, Lindley Murray was the truly popular philologist of the time. It is inter- esting to note that although he was born in the United States in 1745, he moved to England in 1784 and remained there until his death in 1826. He is, nevertheless, considered an American, since his early impressions and his education were received here. Among his admirers were John Jay, Samuel Kirkham, and Samuel Putnam, another grammarian, who felt that his work had no superior. 97 Too, the fact that so many acknowledged abridg- ments of his work were published shows other grammar- ians' confidence in his ability. A few writers hoping for more buyers of their own books endeavored to show the danger in accepting the doctrines of a man who had so little training in philology. Even they, however, repeated many of his rules, included sentences of false syntax for drill, and used as examples sentences with pious or moral sentiments for a proper influence upon the learners. It is true, as some critics claimed, that Murray did not always follow all his rules, but what writer does? Certainly, also, Murray did not originate all the rules included in his book; this would be imprac- tical and impossible. Yet he was blamed for not doing so. Goold Brown had more to say against Murray than did any other grammarian. However, we might expect that from a man who would say about his own book that it "will make anyone a grammarian, who will take the 1 trouble to observe and practice what it teaches." l. The Institutes of English Grammar, vi. 98 Nor did he hesitate to state that his book would do more for the grammar of the language than any single hand had ever before achieved within the limits of a school book, and he particularly requested that no one publish under another name any of the material found in his composition. Naturally all these grammar books were similar. Most of them were divided into four sections on or- thography, etymology, syntax, and prosody. Usually the parts of Speech would be given first and explained in detail along with principal parts of all irregular verbs, conjugations in several tenses, and copious notes concerning special uses. Rules in syntax would be second, followed by page after page of incorrect sentences to be improved. Under prosody the student was expected to learn the figures of rhetoric and figures of speech. It hardly seems plausible that children should learn the meaning of hyperbole, synec- doche, and ecphonesis while beginning the study of grammar, but they did. Each writer in the preface of his book explained how his new plan would benefit scholars and simplify their learning, yet few were actually original. 99 Greenleaf‘s Grammar Simplified, a book about nine bv thirteen inches, was the most unique of those I ex- amined, having the rules in large charts, with the parsing lessons in the margin, so that the student could see a needed rule in a glance at the chart. In all, the book comprised thirty-six pages. The Family Grammgg by the same author was a much larger chart about twenty-four by thirty-four inches, to be fastened on the wall, so that whenever a family dispute arose over which.word to use, a quick glance at the wall would settle it. The chart contained, in all, forty-three rules, two columns of false grammar, a key, and a column with specimens of parsing. Ingersoll was original in that his book was made up of serious little conversations between a tutor, and two students, Caroline and George: Cobbett's took the form of letters; while Kirkham, whose book was readily adopted in schools, wrote his in form of conversational lectures. The latter seemed to me one of the most usable, sensible grammar books I examined. It was interesting because of the form, well-arranged, and not over- burdened with exceptions to rules; hence it would be much easier for the children to understand. 100 Neef, ever ready for trying advanced methods, said his students in the course of time would make up their own grammar, growing out of their increasing awareness for needed words and terms. Smith, whose Grammar appeared in 1831, had similar notions, composing his book of leading questions followed by their answers. There were seventeen pages of these thought provoking. questions before rule one was given. A similar question and answer method had been employed by Dilworth, an Englishman, in 1770 and proved extremely popular with his successors. Aside from these original gestures, the books were very much alike. It now remains to discuss some of the information and rules set forth by these grammarians. Since this subject could in itself engross a thesis, I shall be forced to limit myself to some of the most important. Most interesting to students of English grammar, perhaps, would be the theories about moods of verbs. The majority of grammarians recognized five moods: indicative, potential, subjunctive, imperative, and in- finitive, with some adding the conditional. Murray stated: "That the Potential Mood should be separated from the subjunctive, is evident, from the complexness 101 and confusion which are produced by their being blended together, and from the distinct nature of the two moods."1 Alden assumed that the infinitive mode was often used "independently on the rest of the sentence, supplying the place of that with the potential mode: as To confess the truth, I was at fault-- that is, That I may confess the truth, etc."2 Most grammarians seemed to agree that: "A future contingency is best expressed by a verb in the subjunctive present; and a mere supposition with indefinite time, by a verb in the subjunctive imperfect but a conditional cir- cumstance assumed by a fact, requires the indicative mood."5 That this practice was employed may be perceived in the following quotations:* Witherspoon 1.If it g2 not dy by the way, _Hamilton 2.If it d3 not finally obtain, 3,If the gpvernment b2 adopted, 4.If these accounts b3 true, Anonymous 5-If his work g2_not contain..... However, the careful Mr. Pickering overlooked the rule in this instance: 1. English Grammar, 73. 2. Grammar Made dasy, 85. 3. Brown, Institutes of English Grammar, 190. *. IdentifIE7TIbh of quotations.is toThe found in appendix. 102 Pickering 1. unless that language 13 well settled, and can be read with ease by all to whom it is addressed, our authors will write and publish,.. Concerning this subject Webster remarked in 1807 that in order to reconcile the differences between books and colloquial usage, the subjunctive would have to be omitted, for "the popular practice of using the indica- tive mode, in conditional phrases, when present time is expressed, is perfectly correct. The personal termina- tions, cannot correctly be dropped after 1:, tho, lest, and whether, unless when the tense is future, and an 1 auxiliary, will, shall, or should, is understood." This is how people speak, he continued, unless perverted by grammar books, for "it stands in books only as a singu- larity, and people in practice pay no regard to it."2 As examples he gave these: Present time If he has or is - uncertainty If he had, or were, or was - certainty that he has not, or is not Past Time If he had or 233 yesterday - uncertainty If he had have, or had been yesterday - 3 certainty that he had not, or was not. 1. A Philosophical and Practical Grammar of the English Lan a e, 202. 2. Eissertations on the English Language, viii. 3. Ibid., 269. 103 4‘ All of these comments by Webster seem extremely far-sighted and sensible. Why then, we may question, should he in the very same volume refute the remarks in this way: But of all the errors or inaccuracies in speaking or writing the English language, the most numerous class appear in the improper use of verbs in the subjunctive mode. Not only illiterate men, but authors of the first rank, often use the present tense for the future, the future for the present, and the past for both. (He gives these examples): If any member absents himself,....... If thou neglectest..... (then continues) In both these examples, the events mentioned in the verbs are future; if any member shall absent himself; if thou shalt neglect; therefore the auxiliary verb shall should have been emphasized, or the sentence should have been elliptical, if any member absent himself; if thou neglect; where shall is understood and easily supplied by the reader. Numberless examples of the same kind of inaccuracy may be found in good authors. Anne Fisher made the surprising statement that the English tongue had no moods and but two tenses expressed by the verb itself. Helping verbs took the place of moods and tenses. The difficulty of these grammarians was, of course, that they made no distinction between formal and functional subjunctives. Another subject of interest was that of the principal parts of verbs. Witherspoon called putting the preterite 10 Ibid., 240 - 242. 104 for the participle one of the most common blunders in the English language even among the good authors. "The best way to judge of this impropriety is to try it upon a word that has been seldom so misused, as for example, n "1 If you go the battle pe(r)haps you will be slew. There was much variation among the grammarians as to the correct principal parts of many verbs, however. Webster accepted as preterites begup, blowed, catched, come, digged, eat, rid (rode), run, sung, sunk, strid, swum, writ. Sang and sank he called obsolete. Upon his list of participles occur shook, spoke, stole, took, tore, wore, writ, froze, broke, catched, chose, digged, eat, forgot, drove, beat, and bit.2 Aldenaadded crew, spat, or spit, sweated, or swet and durst to the preterite list, while as plrticiples were held or holden, rid, spit or spitten, stridden and forgot. Frequently our present forms were included as also correct. A distinction between gpgpk and QEEEE as participles was made by Kirkham, who suggested "the men were drunk," but "The toasts were drank." Gotten and ridden he called 1. Druid, No. VI. 2. AyPhilosophical and Practical Grammar of the English Language. 105 obsolete, while sang, sank he felt "should not be used in familiar style."l Cobbett added still more, among them shotten and slidden. The principal parts of gpip he gave as 5213, span, ppun, while with words which should be regular he listed blow, cling, draw, freeze, grow, kneel, mean, spring, swim, throw, and burst. —£_._....—-d. w A few quotations to show the currency of such forms appear below: Breckenridge 1, This is the greatest witch that ever 333. 2, It is God's mercy, that she had not....§3£ you up. 3, She was tempted and £33 4, .........have wrote..........have spoke a. .........was supposed to have hung or drowned himself. 6. the young woman......sunk down upon her chair. Witherspoon 7. Sit has three terminations, sit sat, sitten. Anne Royall 8. He would have arose 9. ...........Yankees cannot be drove. H. Pelham 10. I have wrote you and Mr. West. Franklin 11. .......simplifying what is wrote more closely. 2. .......some of the mob ought to be hanged. 1. English Grammar in Familiar Lectures, 150. 106 Anonymous 1. .......you have prudently chose the most reasonable time. 2, He run away about the beginning of September. Kinds of verbs and their tenses were also fully dis- cussed by grammarians, the usual classification being active, passive, and neuter. For the sake of originality some authors attempted to point out that no verbs were truly inactive, while others were wise enough to realize that many verbs could be either transitive or intransitive (active or neuter). I might pause a moment upon Cardell's1 theory that there is no such thing as a passive or neuter verb. To be and to 1113, he maintained, arezazencies not only of creation but of man's will; hence they are active. Furthermore passive verbs include transitive action upon the so-called subject; then how can we possibly assume such phenomena as inactive verbs. In the sentence, "The man is alive,’ man "sustains and preserves himself alive; he inspires, continues, vivifies, inspirits, and upholds himself with all the requisites, and in the exercise of all the functions, essential to vitality. In order to be, as this verb asserts, he must by continual alterna- tions, inhale, and respire the air; inflate his lunss..... 1. Another grammarian. 107 he must eat and drink, sleep and wake.....at each instant 10,000 actions beyond what the microscope can display."1 Hence no word could be more active than is. Other writers agreed that these were plausible argu- ments, which, however, could not be incorporated into grammar books because of the difficulty in teaching such principles. Webster took the other side of the cuestion when he said that many verbs designated as active were really passive. "Is not a man passive in hearing?" he asked, ."Yet hear is called an active verb." The definition of verbs included in the various grammars was almost always the same: "A verb is a word which signifies to be, to do, or to suffer; as, 2.23, I ru_1_e_, _I_ a_n_1_ M." In each book I perused I looked for this same wording and almost always found it, al- though I kept thinking some grammarian would waver from Murray's influence and at least use different illustra- tions of the rule. As indicated previously, tenses were considered im- portant enough so that many pages of the grammar were 1. New York Literary Gazette, I, 550. 2. Dissertations on the English Language, 224. 108 alloted to discussions and conjugations. Six tenses were acknowledged by the majority of grammarians, some of whom divided them into definite and indefinite categories.‘ Other terms occasionally applied to the perfect tenses were: prior past and prior future. The future tense was called the first future, and the future perfect tense, the second future. Webster, as usual disagreeing, said there was no such thing as a future tense; it was actually only a present prediction of a future action. Murray went even farther saying that the verb itself never expressed any time, but that it was the context which did. To prove his point he aptly asked the tense of the verb went in this sentence: "Would he be satis- fied if I went next week?" The writers were not at all open-minded on the lack of discrimination between shall and will. Even Webster stressed the importance of the correct word, contending surprisingly enough that few people of South Britain and still fewer of their descendants in New England made such 1. I went was called past definite. I was going was called past indefinite. 109 errors, but "the Scots and Irish, even of the first rank, generally use wlll for shall_in the first person; by which means they substitute a promise for an intended pre- diction. Several errors of this kind have escaped the notice of the most celebrated writers."1 He admitted the habit of using the words interchangeably in the middle and southern states, yet said he did not remember ever hearing an improper use of them among the unmixed English descendants in the eastern states. I was amused at his explanation that the reason the French people used so many gestures was that they had no such auxiliaries to make their meaning clear, and hence needed to use a circumlocution or make a motion to put across their meaning. He overlooked the fact that the French words promettre, falloir, commander and others would be much more emphatic means of expressing these ideas than giving so many different powers to ghgll and wlll. Should and wgulg he treats of in the same manner. Another remark of his upon this subject was that there was scarcely a possible case in WhiCh.Elll could be properly employed to ask a question in the first person, l. Dissertations on the English Language, 236 - 7. 110 and it is true shall is still almost unchallenged in such an instance. In reference to "inflexions" he stated: This simplicity, as it is erroneously called, is said to render our language easy of acquisition. The reverse however of this is tree; for the use of auxiliaries or combinations of words, consti- tutes the most perplexing branch of grammar; it being much easier to learn to combipe two, three, or four words for the same purpose. The main difference in the use of auxiliaries in the eighteenth century and today was the choice of forms of tg_bg rather than ofltg have in the past tenses of transi- tive verbs. The following anonymous quotations are ex- amples of this tendency: 1......a sloop was arrived there...... 2......there was a woman died......... 3......that one of them lg become almost universal. o 0 There were also frequent instances of such expressions as lg when and lg where, indicating that present avoidance of these idioms is of more recent origin. Even Lindley Murray apparently suffered no qualms in including this statement in his Grammgg: The third and principal occasion of unintelligible writing, is, when the terms are very abstract,.... 10 Ibido’ 2250 111 Neef emphatically ridiculed the importance which other grammarians attributed to verbs. Nouns and ad- jectives were most important he thought, and verbs merely served to bind them together; hence he<3a11ed them conjunctions. Adverbs modifying adjectives he labeled super-adjectives. To show that verbs were unnecessary he quoted baby talk such as "fire - hot", "me - cut" and others in which the verb was omitted. A great deal was written concerning the necessity to make subjects and verbs agree. Dissension arose, however, over the number of nouns such as pains, amends, wages, victuals, odd; means, pplitics, and others. In 1789 Webster asked,"Do we ever say many pains were taken? I confess I never yet heard or saw the expression." And it is true that the singular prevailed for many years, with the plural gradually becoming more apparent. In this connection arose the question of 123 HEB! which according to some writers had formerly been national usage in England and was widely used in the United States. Hence they did not label it "barbaric", although 123 3232 was gaining ascendancy. An interesting treatment of number is this of Webster's: 112 When the nominative consists of several words, and the last of the names is in the plural number, the verb is commonly in the plural also; "A part of the exports consist of raw silk." The number of oysters increase......" When an aggregate amount is expressed by the plural names of the particulars composing that amount, the verb may be in singular number, as "There flg§_more than a hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling".. The affirmation is not made of the individual parts or divisions named, the ounds, but of the entire sum or amount. Distinction between lay and llg was causing difficulty even at that early date. Witherspoon had called their con— fusion a prevailing vulgarism, not only in conversation but in public speaking and print. He even ventured to predict lay as an intransitive verb overcoming opposition and establishing itself. Pickering, in 1816, commenting on this prediction, informs us that it had lost its currency, for although heard in conversation, it was avoided by everyone in writing. Examples used by writers of the time were: Royall . 14 My course now laid by Charleston..... Washington 2- .....they have Straw to lay on..... Jefferson 5- Congress proceeded the same day to consider the Declaration of Independence, which had been reported and lain on the table the Friday preceding,..... 1. A Philosophical and Practical Grammar of the English Langgage, 146. 113 Other topics treated at great length and inspiring various opinions were the distinction between articles and adjectives, the question whether the article, 2, was definite or indefinite, the possibility of possessives' being called adjectives instead of nouns, the separation of a preposition from its object, double negatives, the use of nominatives after neuter verbs, and the use of £2222 applied to things as well as persons. In regard to the latter, most grammarians were agreed that it was equally applicable to both. The Boston Review's critic thus censured Webster for such an assertion: "Ay, Sir, and as we think, much more applicable to persons than to things."1 Nevertheless, in another volume of the same publication, we find this: "....to restore words ghggg sense is established,"2 illustrating again that all were criticizing others for practices which they themselves employed. Whether whlgh or that would be more proper in certain instances was also a cause for serious deliberation. Washington Irving, writing to his publisher in regard to 1. Boston Review, V, 269. 2. IbId., IV, 675. 114 a second edition of his Sketch Book, asked to have the " changed to "those words "those high honours £233 are, high honours pplph are." Franklin speaking of an Abridgment of the Book of Common Prayep said the word ‘ppp had not been substituted for 32122 in the Lord's Prayer, although it would have been more correct. Then, too, John Adams used pplpp with people as the antecedent, while Webster employed it in referring to authors. He also admitted that "gpp do you speak to?" was acceptable, for [ppm was never used in conversation except by some Latin students. ' Another subject in which I was interested was the treatment of gender, particularly the long lists of words with feminine endings. Among those catalogued were: tutoress, traitress, tyranness, electress, lp- ventress, suitress, spectatress, embassadress, teststrix, debtress, and many others. A few other unique theories were that in the proper name, Harriet Wilson, Wilson was a proper noun modified by the adjective, Harriet, telling which Wilson; that pppp was improper as a preposition in place of py: "I saw him go py", not pgpp; that in the phrase, gp,g_£l§p- ing, the word, fishin , was the object of the understood 115 preposition, pp; that the word, exceeding, should be used when the following adjective or adverb ended in ly, as exceeding lovely, but when the word modified did not have this ending, exceedingly should be used, as exceed- ingly careful. Many were the departures from current practice in the use of adverbs and adjectives, witness the following citations: Royall 1. A chamber maid will read as correct as the most finished scholar,..... 2. The person spoke very spirited,....... Franklin 3. My trip to Italy, which has cost me enormously.. Jefferson 4. .....he slept sounder and awaked happier than he can do now. Anonymous 5. Throughout would look awkwardly........ 6. .......it will be treating me lll...... 7. .......if some words sound pgg_y...... 8. ......a black beard which is pretty pplp... 9. if you should stay 22123 so little while.... 10. Agreeable to your request......... Hamilton 11.agreeably to what passed between us...... 116 Washington 1, Agreeably to the promise........ 2. I could wish never to hear anything farther upon 1t00000000 In comparisons of adjectives and adverbs these forms existed: Anonymous 3. Caleb Bingham was, perhaps, the most successful of any early author. 4. .......writing is not the agreeablest thing in the world. Murray 5- we should not say, "the best of any man," or "thenbest of any other man," for "the best of men. 6° These little words but, and, or, which, whose, where, then, therefore, because, etc. are frequently the most important of any; Jefferson 7- ‘ne often write seldomest to whom we love most. Royall 8' The Contractor is by far the meanest man of the two. Prepositions employed were also different from those in use today, witness Witherspoon 9~ ........in comparison pf those.....o... Franklin 10.......The scholars to study them against the morn. Anonymous 11......do write py every opportunity 117 Needless to say, I have been forced to omit many idioms which did not achieve widespread adoption, but I have endeavored to include those which occasioned comment or argument, those which were most current, and those which are still being deliberated upon in 1941. On the Whole, then, we find that the grammarians of the eighteenth century resembled each other in the basic principles upon which their books were written, with an occasional unprecedented theory being exposed. Murray and Webster were the two outstanding contributors, both directly and indirectly, as their works aroused so much comment. Other writers, ambitious for praise and income, attempted innovations, but for the most part showed strong resemblance to Murray. 118 Chapter VII SPELLING, PRON’NCIATION, PUNCTUATICN Nothing disturbed the equanimity of the eight- eenth century writers more than the varied spellings current. For the variations, though, they did not blame the people but the alphabet. Franklin, writing to a friend in 1786 mentioned a child's beginning to spell and overcoming by strength of memory all the difficulty occasioned by the common wretched alphabet. Neef in 1808 called it "imperfect, absurd, non- sensical and ridiculous," since it had ten simple sounds and but five vowels to express them. Also unaccountable was the representation of six distinctly different simple sounds by the very same vowel, as found in tale, care, man, far, all, and liar. Then, too, the simple sound was reproduced in five different ways; witness, mg, feet, deal, conceive, retrieve. Even in one word the same letter could have two different sounds, as in fla rant, incline, morrow, hydrometry, and undulate, while the same sound in one word could be spelled in two ways: deceive, wind , etc. Single sounds could be expressed by two or even three letters, for example, people and 119 courageous; though the double sounds in Egglg and hydrant required but a single letter. "Now put your hand on your heart, and tell me whether such a mode of writing is not the most absurd, and nonsensical of all possible fashionable modes." He also disliked the silent consonants in such words as doubt, debt, calf, limb, knight, and hour; the three - spellings of the 3 sound in half, laugh, and prophet; the fact that y_was sometimes a consonant and others a vowel; the two articulations of th and the variations of 5; all the functions of 3, found in 33, sure, has, confusion, and 1313, the various spellings of words of identical pronunciation: site, cite, gigh_. The Word 1333, on the other hand, had four different meanings yet was always written the same way, which practice Neef approved heartily, "Herein you act as men of sense, why not always so?"2 As late as 1829 Burnap‘s grievances against the alphabet coincided perfectly with those of the author just quoted. Moreover, in common with other grammarians, he felt that "22 be perfect, the letters of an alphabet must l. Neef, Sketch of A Plan and Method of Education, 52. 2. Ibid,,53 120 express every simple sound 3p the language; and pp two letters must ever express the same sound."" The deficiencies in our alphabet were attributed to the fact that we borrowed it from the Latin, a dead language, without making it suitable to the genius of a new language. ' Some of the recommendations made in regard to the formation of a more practical alphabet were: rearrange- ment of the‘letters according to their resemblance in shape or the organic formation of the sounds, forming new characters for letters of more than one sound, keep- ing the same characters but distinguishing them by simple marks added to them, or affixing some type of diacritical markings; Those considering the matter from a more business- like point of view objected that these changes would necessitate republication of all books, study of the new method by all people in the country, lack of under- standing of historic documents and great English classics, and entire breaking with England linguistically. In spite of such arguments, Neef made the following appeal: l. Orthography of the English Language Simplified, 250. 121 plea, Bid your legislators take up the all important subject, bid them chuse a few select but capable men; not those, who are by privilege denominated learned, but men of sense, who understand your language. Let these men after mature deliberation and examination of the business, determine the number of simple, double, and nasal sounds, and of simple articulations, which are to be found in them. Next let some of your geometricians display their genius and exert their skill in contriving an adequate number of the most plain, simple, commodious, and, at the same time, easily diStinguishable signs or letters to represent all your oral sounds and articulations;..... As to your books they may be preserved..... They will show your future generations, frim what barbarity your reformation has saved them. Although the legislators did not respond to this others did. Benjamin Franklin, whose creation I shall endeavor to reproduce had, in fact, anticipated Neef's idea by forty years, devising the following plan in 1768: Pronunciation Characters Sound, as in of characters 0 old 0 ‘ at John; awl a man a e men; name 6 i did; deed i u tool u 7 um h hunter huh g give gi (hard) k keep k1 To Op. Cite, 56 " 570 122 Pronunciation Characters Sound, as in of characters 7: (sh) ship ish 2 (ng) ing ing n end en r art t teeth ti d deed di 1 ell e1 8 essence es 2 (ez) wages ez *9 (th)think on! K (dh) thy U” f effect ef v ever . ev b bees b p peep p1 m ember em He explained his system in this way: It is endeavored to give the alphabet a more natural order; beginning first with the simple sounds formed by the breath, with none or very little help of tongue, teeth, and lips, and produced chiefly in the windpipe. (o to huh) Then coming forward to those, formed by the roof of the tongue next to the windpipe. (g: k) Then to those, formed more forward, by the fore part of the tongue against the roof of the mouth. (r, n - t, d) Then those formed still more forward, in the mouth, by the tip of the tongue applied first to the roots of the upper teeth. (1, s, 2) Then to those Ibrmed by the tip of the tongue applied to the ends or edges of the upper teeth. (n, n) Then to those, formed still more forward, by the under lip applied to the upper teeth. (f, v) Then to those, formed yet more forward, by the upper and under lip opening to let out the sounding breath (b, p) And lastly, ending with the shutting of the mouth, or closing the lips, 125 - 1 while any vowel is sounding. (m) We see that this approximates the modern phonetic alphabet except for the failure to employ different symbols for long and short vowels. This difference between short and long vowels was to be revealed through doubling the letters; that is the long sounds would call for a double vowel (remged'd - remained, diid - deed), and the short vowels would make use of the single letter (mend, did). Our present Cad-Z) sound, he believed, was a diphthong composed of the p, as in unto, and i; hence it should have the symbol #1, . 9 he felt an unnecessary letter because of g and p;|k also took the place of p, and kg that of 5. The jod 1 is also omitted, ts sound being supplied by the new letter _.’.lEE’ which serves other purposes, assisting in the for- mation of other sounds; thus the JE; with a d before it gives the sound of the jod i and soft g as in "James, January, giant,‘gent1 ," n 'dJch‘rns , dfimnuufl, afifiyianl", 1 0712/; with a t before it, it gives the'sound of ch as in "cherry, chip," "diced, ti 420:3 and— with 2 before it, the French soundgof the jod o — o 1 J, as in Jamais, " zfia. mg, .' l. The Writings of Tenjamin Franklin, V. 172 -5. 2. Ibid., 175. 124 At first this scheme received little comrendation. Webster, upon being questioned in regard to its applica- bility, stated his disapproval of the reformation of orthography by introducing new characters. Franklin, himself, was unable to attain the desired approval of the lexicographer whom he had hoped to have improve the scheme and publicize it, so that it might be adopted.1 By the year 1789 more interest was shown in reform of the alphabet and spelling. Even iebster's ideas had changed and he acknowledged the advisability of such action. It was in that year that he published "An Essay on the Necessity, Advantages and Practicability of the Node of Spelling, and of Rendering the Orthography of Words Correspondent to the Pronunciation." This is attached as an appendix to the Qissertations on the English Language and will be discussed on subsequent pages 0 Other proposals of this type were made by William Thorton, in Cadmus, 1793; James Ewing, whose Columbian Alphabet, 1798, attempted "to new model the English 1. There are indications that fiebster had already devised an alphabet of his own (see Bauah, Fistory_9f the English Languagg, 459, note), althoujh apzarently it was never published. 125 alphabet;" Tilliam Pelham, who made an effort in 1808 to record the language phonetically in his System of Notation; Burnap, whose work I have previously quoted and whose proposals I shall discuss below, since they involved some interesting modifications.1 Although his plan, 1829, did not incorporate so many changes as Franklin‘s did, he, too, discarded 3 but kept g for the CJLLJ and C__J_J sounds. The symbol for this letter was to he pronounced either (Lida) or (314;); gwas (#3; h. (A); _A_. Ciel: and 1. C5553). Those consonants like Eh which had two articu- lations could be distinguished by the use of a dot above one: ..fl. and _é_. He acknowledged these twelve distinct vowel sound°:' the five so—called long, or natural, ones: C_€__,_), Ci), C__6_£_/__I_), CE, €13}; the five short: CL), C__£_3, C 1' J, C____4_,___J, C___/_\___:); Sharp‘s C;£E;J and sharp E CL££‘). C;i1;3 he called (:cLz) merely more protracted, wcich classification is an interesting revelation of pronunciation of that time. The short vowels he indicated by a dot, EL; the sharp by two dots, é. 1. For a more comalete discussion and list of such suggestions for reform, see Krapp's The finglish Language in America, I, 350. 126 In regard to adoption of such creations, Hezekiah Burhans in 1826 urged caution for he believed a complete coincidence between spelling and pronuncuation utterly impractical. His judgment was apparently based upon the necessity for reprinting all books should a new scheme be adopted. A writer for the Portfolio in commending Pelham's attempt at a reform reflected the opposite point of view: If Mr. Pelham can even partially accomplish a plan so desirable, as to simplify the alpha- betical principles of our language, which, as a learned prelate has observed, are in some instances scanty and in others redundant, and which tend much to the confusion of foreigners in particular, he will render a most acceptable service to the republick of letters, and we cordially wish that he may prove successful and the public kind. Nevertheless, no plan was taken very seriously, and, of course, no change was made in the alphabet. Desire for alphabetical reform and that for spell- ing revision naturally arose simultaneously, but the latter resulted in action, while the former merely furnished subjects for articles and conversation. 1. Portfolio, Iv (18077, 2a2. 127 People wanted to spell correctly but for lack of rule, analogy, and a standard didn't see how it was to be done. In the letter written to a newspaper editor in 1729 and reprinted on page 1 of this thesis, we can observe many instances in which one simple word is spelled two different ways; yet the author is interested in finding out the correct orthography of the words, Indians, termites, and pumpkins, for which he knows three variations. The general practice of this time was to spell according to sound, but still, as we can see in this same letter, no consistency existed even in one individual, so that numerous diversities could exist in one locality where pronunciation would be similar, to say nothing of those in different districts, each of which might have dialectal forms. As periodicals and books became more widely circu- lated, these variations decreased but were far from complete- ly disappearing. After the advent of Johnson's Dictionary in 1755, most people referred to it when in doubt as to proper spelling, but even here inconsistencies could be found. Moreover, the fact that Johnson was English caused many patriotic Americans to scorn his authority and demand an American standard. 128 To point out the feeling of the people regarding spelling during the last quarter of the eighteenth century, I quote Webster: It is now the work of years for children to learn to spell; and after all, the business is rarely accomplished. A few men, who are bred to some business that requires constant exercise in writ- ing, finally learn to spell most words without hesitation; but most people remain all their lives, imperfect masters of spelling, and liable to make mistakes, whenever they take up a pen to write a short note. Nay, many people, even of education and fashion, never attempt to write a litter, with- out frequently consulting a dictionary. Some people believed that by following the practices of the Egrth American Review in regard to spelling vari- able words, they would attain the desired standard. However, it, too, was found not uniform in all respects. Concerning these variations one writer stated that we could not complain, for to be dissatisfied with it would be to be dissatisfied with the unsettled orthog- raphy of the English language. Hence he suggested, as in other branches of philology, adherence to the exist- ing practice of reputable authors. The American Journal of Education declared its intention to avoid pecularities whether obsolete or novel, and to fall in with the current of good custom. l. Dissertations on the Egglish Language, 396. 129 Goold Brown felt that study of written rules would not be so helpful as practice with spelling books and observation while reading. He admitted the latter would not do much good in reference to questionable words, but the misspelling of uniformly spelled words he called dis- graceful. He, in concord with grammarians, however, in- cluded many rules like the following in his book: Monosyllables ending in f, l, or s, preceded by a single vowel, double the _final consonant; as staff, mill, pass? except if, 9;, gas, has, was, yes, 13, his, thus, 23, this. Words ending in any other consonant then f, 1, or 3, do not double the final letter: except -add, odd, egg, inn, err, bur;,_p_rr, butt, buzz, fuzz, and some proper names. He gave nine rules with exceptions to all but one. Then in the exercises asked: "What is Spelling? How is this art to be acquired? How many rules for spellingzare there? and what are their heads? What says Rule first of final 2, l, E?"2 Thus he continues through the nine. Then occur three and one-half pages of sentences in which there are many misspelled words for students to correct. l. The Institutes of English Grammar, 19. 2. Ibid., 21 130 Burnap thought that no general rules could be formed for spelling; memory alone had to be depended upon, for "when a child has learned to spell half of the words, he has obtained no rules to assist him in the other half..... Years of labour, perplexity, and discouragement are spent in learning to speak, nor is the art ever obtained to perfection." Putnam's Reader and others instituted the idea of printing a story on the left hand page with a list of words from the story on the right hand one for spelling, pronunciation, and definition practice. All the words were to be pronounced first, then the story read, the words defined according to their use in the sentences, then spelled and their derivatives and homonyms given. Such frequent sight of the word and discussion of it was considered likely to impress the spelling upon the child's memory. . One writer said that if these cases were cleared up, he would not have nearly so much difficulty: nouns signi- fying agents, ending in 23 and 23; consonants sometimes l. The Orthography of the English Language Simplified, 226. 131 single and other times double; abstract nouns ending in gggg or 2232’ as well as those in.£y, ity, and et , adjectives with the suffixes ble, able, and iblg. The removal of those diversities would much facilitate the, acquisition of the necessary accomplishment, correct spelling. Jefferson, more practical, said that certain changes were desired to make spelling a true index of the pro- nunciation of words, so that foreigners would have less difficulty in acquiring the language and children in learning to read. Correct spellers he considered rare except among those who read much. He mentioned, how- ever, that previous attempts to improve spelling, such as banishing the d from bridge and JEQEE’ had proved ineffectual. A teaching plan devised by Franklin in 1751 con- sisted in pairing off the pupils as equally as possible, and having each give the other ten words a day to spell. The one victorious most frequently during a month was to receive as a prize a book which would be helpful in future studies. This method fixes the attention of children ex- tremely to the orthography of words, and makes them good spellers very early. It is a shame 152 for a man to be so ignorant of this little art, in his own language, as to be perpetually con- founding words of like sound and different signi- fications; the consciousness of which defect, makes some men, otherwise of good learning and understgnding, averse to writing even a common letter. By 1787 he seems to have changed his mind consider- ably, perhaps because his alphabet was not accepted; at any rate, he seemed to prefer phonetic spelling to that which existed. This view point is revealed in a letter written to an old friend of the family who had apologized to Franklin for not spelling more accurately. You need not be concern'd, in writing to me, about your bad Spelling; for, in my opinion, as our Alphabet now Stands, the bad Spelling, or what is call'd so, is generally the best, as conforging to the Sound of the Letters and of Words. Burnap in 1829 submitted his approval to a plan similar to one Webster had previously introduced, that of eliminating silent letters and double letters, shortening 9g endings to just d; dropping final 3 except in words of one syllable; never using two letters if one would express the sound; omitting vowels in imperfect syllables, as heavn, abl. 1. American Museum, V, 475. 2. Works of the Late Dr. Benjamin Franklin, IX, 522 - 23. 155 Let every word be spelt in the easiest manner possible keeping in view the true pronunciation of every syllable, and the sounds of all letters. To change any word to the new orthography, nothing more is necessary than to ascertain its true pronunciation, andlthen make the sounds in the most simple manner. In this as in other branches of philology, Webster was prominent. Feeling the need for better text books, he published in 1783 Part I of A Grammatical Institute of the English Languagg. This was primarily a spelling book, which followed Johnson's Orthographic practices. In form and method, however, it much resembled its prede- cessor, A New Guidefl§g_the English Tongue by Thomas Dilworth, an Englishman, and therefore, was not particu- larly estimable nor helpful. Dilworth's book contained long lists of words grouped according to the number of syllables, so that learners might gradually progress to more difficult combinations. Following each list was a reading lesson, usually scriptural in content and containing the recently studied words. 'Also included were a table of homonyms, a short question and answer grammar, a collection of sentences and fables for the moral improvement of the reader, and a group of l. Orthqggaphy of the English Language Simplified, 231-2. 134 prayers for children. Webster gradually discarded Dilworth's theories with succeeding editions of his book, made changes in construc- tion as well as in actual spellings, for example removing the E from such words as favour and honour. Consequently it'became more usable and began to exert a tremendous in- fluence, maintaining authority for nearly a century. In the edition of 1789 this book was given the title, American Spelling Book, which it retained for many years. Concerning its popularity Uebster wrote to Lemuel Shattuck, November 18, 1820: Many Spelling Books have appeared since the pub- lication of mine; but no great impression was made on the sales of mine, till Walker's Diction- ary became popular in this country. Since that period, several Spelling Books have been compiled on the plan of pronunciation given by Walker, and have obtained patronage in certain parts of the country. But the American Spelling Book is still generally used in the United States, as it is, I believe, in the British prov'nces: and the annual sales exceed 300,000 copies. Here, too, he mentioned his later revision, entitled the Elementary Spelling_Book, which he considered an im- provement, for the orthography corresponded to that of the dictionary and words formerly variously written were re- duced to uniformity; in this copy he hoped to remove "a 1. Neffir‘igiand r-srgggzine, II, 475, 1832. 135 part of the discrepancies which now disfigure all our books of every kind."1 Further evidence of the popularity of Tebster's spelling book may be seen in the fact that before 1850, the publishing company of George F. Coolidge & Bro. "de- voted the whole capacity of the fastest steam press in the United States to the printing of it. This press turned out 525 copies an hour, or 5,250, a day." It cost t5,000 and "was constructed expressly for printing 2 Webster's Elementary Spelling Book." Before 1865, 42,000,000 copies had been sold and by 1889, 62,000,000. Some of the outcomes of the use of this book were the popularity of spelling bees; the prevention of spell- ing reform (for here Webster wisely adhered to the practice of approved writers of his time, although other works introduced innovations); aid to national unity in spelling, thought, and literary background; encouragement of the publication of books in the United States. Though he wws harshly criticized for many of his ideas and publications, it was generally agreed that his speller could scarcely be excelled. Concerning it, what 1. Ibid., 476. 2. H. K. Mencken, The American Language, 585. 156 stronger praise could any man have from a biographer than this? Across the prairies and over the Rocky Iountains his carefully marshaled columns of words marched like warriors against the ignorance that tended to dis- rupt the primitive society of thinly spread and localized culture of America. Dialect variation disappeared from our writing and spelling, and to his blue-backed Speller, of which nearly one hundred million copies were sold before it went out of gen- eral use, America owes its remarkable uniformity of language. ho other book, the Bible excepted, has strained so many heads, or done so much good. It taught millions to read, and not one to sin. The early books competing with webster's Spelling Book appropriated the orthography of Dilworth, Walker, Johnson, or Sheridan, but gradually all except Walker were eliminated as authorities. Boston intellectuals accepted Walker, so that many new text books following his theories were published. As a result, the two schools of thought regarding spelling existed, those of Walker, and Webster, but nothing could approach the popularity of the latter's book. As I have previously mentioned, Tebster was one of the strongest advocates of a reformation of spelling, although he wisely refrained from including radical innovations in text books, and was, in fact, slow to 1. Earfel, Noah Webster Schoolmaster to America, 5- 137 adopt his own reforms. In 1789, however, he stated his convictions that a plan could be devised, so simple that it would not require an hour's attention in order for one to gain mastery of it. In addition to simplifying the learning of the language, he approved the idea as one which would make pronunciation as well as spelling uni- form. Among the necessary alterations he placed omission of superfluous letters, (bread - bred), (Waggon - wagon), (critick - critic); substitution of definite for vague characters (mean - meen, character - karacter, machine - mashine, oblique - obleek); distinction between voiced and voiceless th by putting a stroke through the character; distinction between vowel sounds by placing dots over them; phonetic spellings, such as tung, wimmen, pprpess. Because the number of letters would be diminished about one-seventeenth, one-seventeenth of the expense of books would be saved. Furthermore the difference arising between English and American orthography would encourage the publishing business in the United States, as well as make national unity stronger. In answer to objections concerning the plan, he said the new system would not be difficult to learn and after a week's practice any person 138 could write it with facility. People still could read old books in spite of the change. Etymology would not be destroyed but in many cases restored. The distinction between different words of similar sound wouldn't be diffi- cult to ascertain, for we hear them and understand them without hesitation; standard spelling would keep pronunci- ation from changing and causing utter discrepancy between the two. He believed that this system would be difficult to establish because habit was opposed to change and the. people were indolent but surely ready for great reforms. By this time he was in sympathy with most of Franklin‘s earlier proposals except the substitution of new characters, which he felt would make the alphabet difficult. Maintaining that he was not innovating but rejecting innovations by reducing words to their original orthog- raphy as found in the earliest English books, he announced in 1809: I write heinous, because it is the true orthography from the—french‘hging, hginggs..... I write giggg, because it is an anglicized word from the Spanish cigarro. I write melasses, because it is the Italian melassa, from mel, honey, or the Greek melas, black. I§_thi§ innovation? When authorities are found on both sides of the question, the Lexicographer is at liberty to prefer that orthogiaphy which is most simple, or most etymological. 1. Monthly Anthology, VII, 208. 139 223, he called a proper spelling yet it was usually written though, which was improper and probably confused with thgf, a distinct but nearly obsolete word. Other "gross errors" in orthography which, in spite of being common, should be rejected, since they proceeded from mistaken etymology, were comptroller, furlough, 3e: doubt, redoubtable. "The true words are controller, fur- l 10W: redout, redoutable." Both chymistry and chemistry he considered wrong; the correct spelling was chimistry. 222, a weight, was confused with 32g (French), while the true English word W33.£EE’ a cask, from which came our word, "and so it was written down to the reign of Henry VIII."2 Qéidg was "wanton departure" from the genuine word, oxyd. Embassador showed proper analogy to embass , but Epild, according to the original should be bild. "Furthermore adding a final 2 to words without any reason for so doing should be avoided (oxid, chlorin, deposit, reposit), for "all our efforts should tenito the rejection of useless letters." A good answer to this, made by the editors of the Virginia Literary Museum was that Webster should begin 1. A Manual of Useful Studies, 158. 2. Ibid. 140 at home and strike out the expletive h, from his own christian name, making it hoa. Other examples of his omission of unpronounced letters are: beleev, aka, crum, fether, ile, wether, thum, hello, slev, color, critic. It seems odd that he didn't make glgy into gig and lie into ll. I There were still a surprising number of persons who disliked the idea of omitting the u in words like gglgur and the k in critick; gradually, however, the change took place until finally there were but few words which retained the spelling of England. Cobb, one of Webster's main critics, said this practice not only produced a blemish but an irregularity in forma- tives, for frolicking and frolicked had to retain the for pronunciation's sake, but frolick would lose it. Tie following explanation is a splendid example of what Webster hoped our spelling would resemble: The reeder will obzerv that the orthography of the volum iz not uniform. The reezon 12, that many of the essays hav been published before, in the common orthography, and it would hav been a laborious task to copy the whole, for the sake of changing the Spelling. In the essays, rittemtwithin the last yeer, a considerable change of spelling iz introduced by way of experiment. This liberty waz taken by the writers before the age of Queen Elizabeth, 141‘ IN and to this we are indeted for the preference of modern spelling over that of Gower and Chaucer. The man who admits that the change of houfbonde, mynde, ygone, moneth, into husband, mind, gone, month, 12 an improvement, must acknowlege also the riting of helth, breth, rong, tung, munth, to be an improvement. There is no alternativ. Every possible reezon that could ever be offered for altering the spelling of wurds, stil exists in full force; and if a gradual reform should not be made in our language, it wil proov that we are less under the influence of reezon than our ancestors. The Boston Review's critic, as a result of debster's system of spelling, labeled him the "wildest innovator of an age of revolution," and asked who will follow him who declares that nobody should be followed?" Of Webster's actual contributions to present day spelling there are differences of opinion. However, it is generally conceded that, though the or and our spellings of the 32323 class of words both existed before his time, he was responsible for establishing the adoption of or in the United States. Attributed to him, also, are the 33 ending upon such words as theater; the suhstitution of g for g in the defense group; the currency of such spellings as jail, wagpn, plow, mold, and ax. These adoptions com- prise even today the most obvious differences between I. Collection of Essays, Preface. 2. Eostonfifieview, III, 251. 142 American and English spellings. A further influence, worthy of note is that subsequent modifications of words were often based upon Webster's former comments and recom- mendations. That a larger number of words did not achieve currency because of his suggestions may be due to the fact that he himself abandoned them when they were not immedi- ately accepted. For instance, in his Dictiona§y_of 1828 he restored the final 3 in determine and similar words, as well as other silent letters in thumb, feather, group, etc. In regard to the repeated attempts to settle orthog- raphy, a writer representing the views of the American Journal of Education said that they had barely perceptible success, primarily because so few writers could agree. That this is true may be evidenced in the following words which I observed in my reading.1 rigth - right) perswade proprierters heighth, heigth mischiefous boath fermer - (farmer)amaising warter addice - (adze) anciety bevand *connexion dilligance *shew belive, beleev roal menshen smoak weited - (waited) nesasary almons throughly, thorow woful 2 1. host of these words appeared also in the spelling we know today. 2. Those marked with asterisks were widely used. 145 pumpion enow an other *chuse %defence *acknowledgement *antient yatbh sowre *cloathed scituation yf (wife) Along with this attempt to represent spelling by the sound of the word arose the tendency to contract words. This was done to an exaggerated degree by some of our famous statesmen. The most widely used forms were these: Genl thor thro' 8nd GOV us'd rec 'tés learnt shd ag (against) bro't (up) w h brot favr Ch tho't sha'nt Others rather surprising to me were: W3 - when th - church Yt - then w E which Y - that adm ‘ administration WP - writing com - committee The use of such contractions seemed particularly strange when they appeared in serious letters concern- ing politics and state affairs. Such clipped spellingsa nd other innovations natur- ally resulted in varied pronunciations. These, too, orthoepists endeavored to standardize, but sectional differences were instrumental in restraining any success in their attempts. 144 From the comments made by travelers, it seems that in the East pronunciation was similar to that of England, while, in proportion to the distance from this center, it differed in outlying sections. Strange reasons were given in explanation of the various pronunciations. Webster, for example, mentioned that rural inhabitants of New England said "kiow" (cow) because of the nature of their government and the dis- tribution of their property. They had a drawling nasal tone instead of the curt air of authority found among those who owned slaves and were accustomed to give orders. Therefore, in the South the master ordered his slave, "Milk the cow;" but in New England he requested, A"Will you please milk the kiow?"l ' Another observer said that in the slave-holding states most of the faults of language could be ascribed to the early impressions of children who had negro " playmates and nurses. As "negroisms so frequently fell upon their ears, it was natural that they pick up 2 "the most corrupt of patoise." 1. Publications of Modern La,guag§ Association of America, 242. 2. New England Magazine, III, 487. 145 Concerning Philadelphians Anne Royall commented that the young ladies especially had a whining, ex- tremely disgusting tone; in Providence she found the least corrupt speech of New England, while New Haven residents pronounced "with great distinctness, clear- ness and uncommon melody." Elsewhere we discover the statement that in the middle states the utterance was pleasing to the ear and generally correct. It is obvious that these commentators may merely have observed one type of people and didn't understand the philosophy of the language, for authorities on the subject said that among the educated people in all sec- tions there was little dissimilarity in pronunciation. They felt, too, that differences were gradually diminish- ing among the common people because of increasing trade and the establishment of schools. Pickering gave credit to Walker's Dictionary for helping to eliminate varia- tions, while Walker attributed to his predecessors the prevention of many vulgarities. l. Sketches of History, Life, and Hanners in the United States, 590. 146 Reverend John Bennet, writing to a young lady, suggested that, since she had not studied the dead languages to learn propriety of speech, she frequently have recourse to a good dictionary. Furthermore she should conform to the manners of the politest people she knew, not the most pedantic, for that would be a "conceited ostentation of knowledge in a young lady."1 Other recommendations to people in the United States in general were not to speak rapidly, clipping words and leaving out or jumbling together syllables; give more force to the letter 3; watch accentuation; do not expect that words must be pronounced as they are spelled; articulate carefully. The ever vociferous Webster said that like many people he had formerly imitated those whom he considered ' respectable authority, but later realizing that their pronunciation might be accidental, he did some investi- gating, as a result of which "is a full satisfaction in my own mind as to almost every particular word."2 Con- sequently he warned against imitating the state, where ' too much "mouthing, rant, and every kind of affectation' was apparent. 1. American Museum, XI, 70. 2. Dissertations on the English Language, x. 147 Rather, he suggested, learn about accentuation, for if the accent is placed upon the right syllable and the accented vowel is correctly pronounced, the unaccented vowels take care of themselves, and it is easier to be right than wrong. In spite of this en- 'couraging statement made in 1817, he was forced to ad- mit in 1839 that there were more than a thousand words of unsettled pronunciation, arising from the poetical accentuation and the diversity of dialects in Great Britain. Still he declared that children of the United States had the best pronunciation probably ever known in a nation. The classes of words about which there was appar- ently most question will be the next topic discussed. Apparently in the eighteenth century there was much variation in the pronunciation of the letter 3. In examining descriptions of American pronunciation of this period, one may find that many people were entirely unfamiliar with.the (;£:) sound as we know it today. In- stead were used the C_.3_) and C353) pronunciations, the former appearing in such words as John, folly, not, etc., the latter in jaunt, sauce, father, and others. To the vowel of the word are Franklin seemed to give the sound which approaches (6 3, indicating that 148 he probably did not discriminate between the similar CEE:3 and (;g_) sounds. Furthermore from examining early rhymes in poetry and naive spellings of town records, orthoepists have decided that in cultivated American speech of the eighteenth century, (Egg) was used in words which now have the C_a_/_J sound. By 1762 recognition of the existence of an "open" 'Ig sound occurring in a few words was expressed and in Walker's Critical Pronouncing Dictionary of 1791 "the long Italian 5," as in £33 and father was declared as seldom used in the long form but "regular" before £.in monosyllables. He also admitted its use in some other combinations, but there is a question as to whether this sound may not also have approached ngé). Webster in 1783 recorded four sounds oflg as in name, man, bald, and ask and pointed out many words in which a should appear; yet, he, too, showed a preference for Can), recommending it in angel, chamber, ouality, Quantity, Qualify, Quandary, and Quadrant. Gradually. however, as more writers recorded the (:GMD sound in an increasing number of'words, it became a popular pro- nunciation, particularly in New England. By 1850 some question as to its authenticity had 149 arisen, and in that year Worcester, in his Comprehensive and Explanatorwaictiona y introduced to discussion- the intermediate 3 sound, (:1 3. Seeming to believe this an established custom in pornunciation, he stated that the sound was used before spirants and nasals, and to pronounce the words fast, last, glass, ggass, dance, etc., with the proper sound of short a, as in 232! has the appearance of affectation? and to pronounce them with the full Italian sound of g, as in part, father, seems to border on vulgarisms. There are no indications to show that this theory found acceptance to any degree.2 host widely discussed was the change in pronunciation from C22.) to C7403 and (gig) to CE) after certain con- sonants. The inclusion of the "short i_sound" in such words as 312$ and power created much criticism, although "keind" and others were affected on the English stage. Likewise such pronunciations as "edjhucation," "ejuca- ' . tion," "natshure," "nachure,' and shuperior" were attributed to the same stage influence. Webster 1. Publication of the Kodern Langugg» Association of America, XIV, 230. 2. For a complete discussion of early American pronunci- ation of the letter, 3, see Krapp, The English Lan~ufi¢e in America, II, 56 - 86. considered this kind of pronunciation a strange affec- tation, since it was so much easier to say 3 naturally than to diphthongize it to lg. For this reason, be rated illiterate persons with natural pronunciations much more proper than those who copied the polite manner of speaking. He himself seemed to prefer the retroflex vowel sound in these words, as (In/e, Z: 2" j and Cyégc'ty‘) (nature and creature). To say "at this junctshur it was conjectshured" de- manded extreme exertion of the lungs and certainly was not euphonious, asserted the grammarian. Moreover the pronunciation of kiow, keind, drgp, natshur........are wrong, because they are opposed to natural practice; they are wrong because they are arbitrary or careless changes of the true sounds of our letters; they are wrong because they break- in upon the regular construction of the language; they are wrong, because they render the pronuncia— tion difficult both for natives and foreigners; they'are wrong because they make an invidious distinction between the polite and common pronuncia- tion, or else oblige a nation to change their general customs, without presenting to their view one national advantage..... they are a living satire upon the licentiousness of m dern speakers who dare to slight their authority. Brown accepted these pronunciations, saying: d_before lg, 12"12! eou, when the accent precedes, l. Dissertations on the English Language, 169 - 70. 151 generally sounds like 1; as in Indian, soldier, tedious, hideous. So in verdure, arduous, education.......... t, immediately after the accent, takes the sound of 333, before 3, and generally also before 322: 81 in nature, feature, virtue, righteous, courteous. Murray, too, said Eh sounded like 32h in church, 22in, and charter, while in schedule, schism, and yacht it was silent. I23, he said, must always have its ring- ing sound and not be pronounced ip_as singin. It is a good rule to adhere to the writtenvvords unless custom has clearly decided otherwise.2 He is more broad-minded about the "obscure 3", not endeavoring to have it pro- nounced more distinctly. Cobb went so far as to mention the obscure sounds or g, 2:.19 g, 1 before 5 in the final unaccented syllables. Other recommendations in reference to vowels were to pronounce fierce and piggge to rhyme with verse, beard with third, deg: with thief, and wound with sound. Nero , according to Webster, should have the short 3 sound, as in letter; the i in engine should be long; the E_in £311 should keep a simple 3 sound, not 33 or IE3 glory had a long 2 sound; either, a long i. A rule included by other grammarians concerned l. The Institutes of English Grammar, 298. 2. anglish Grammar, 26. 152 words with the prefix dig, If the accent was on the prefix, the 3 sound was retained; otherwise, it became g unless followed by a consonant. (dizable, dizaster, dizorder) Some of Franklin's habits of utterance in addition to those already mentioned were: "hev" and'hez"; 23w to rhyme with Egg, and EEEEE as if buzzam. In the word 3313, he pronounced the l and gave the g the quality of that in hit. 1 Single words which differed from modern interpre- tation were current with a silent t; the th in asthma as though 2 alone; European with the accent on the second syllable; likewise Hercdlean; height as though ending in th; boil, and other similar words, as if con- taining the diphthong (