The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-04-20
n.-WoRDs PROPERLY SPELLED WITH ONE L,
WHICH WEBSTER SPELLS WITH TWO.


This list contains Ssgfaty-tC9 words,
which, with their derivations and some
possible omissions it is estimated NAV
possibly amount TO ono k,feffli and Sirtg At
the very outside. The omission OF the
final from such word, rs putErk, mtmjck,
&c, and the 10 from words ending in oar.
Li3r, .tdro'u. and the like, are not in
Guided in the list. because many Ameri-
can writers had gradually adopted these
changes without any reference to Web
ster. There i no foundation for the claim
in his behalf, of having introduced them.
1t may be asked by those who have not
thought upon the subject, if the innova-
tons attempted are SO insignificant in ex
tent, why there should be so much obiec-
ton to them. The answer is, that the
amount Of imaginary good proposed 10 be
accomplished bears no proportion what
ever to the amount of real mischief done
This mischief Is 10y no means confined to
the particular words in question.
To those familiar with books from child
hood. the IDEA of word is associated ra-
ther with it, appearance a, srrtHe1. than
with it, sound. 1t i a mental image i'm
pressed 10y the sense of sight, rather than
that of hearing Let dozen of these IA
miliar images be confused and unsettled.
and the confusion extends TO a hundred
other, OF similar form and aspect. Thus.
the same supposed principle Of accentua-
ton. on which 'rureHr and jilSNug are
written r1rsiy and bigSiag would REQUIRE
also such words as ai0,c. p9r7Nd, 5arii1rqL
mr'1ihrgg. 3Uass7ry. Ac.. DC, TO be written
with one or one 8. If We omit the final
letter Of are, the same principle would re.
quire " to drop the superfuous vowel in
. 4 q
/ are correct. why not rsuSe2 If we write
soatroH .t"jfH, &c, why should we adhere
to er'ail If analogy requires Us to adopt
center and hsafsr. we should be consistent
and write ucsr, H,OSSdcCr. ht-sr and ,~ie1rer.
for acre, massacre. &c.
The truth Is that the plea of securing
uniformity and reducing the language 10
rule Is absurd. The innovations OF the
I Connecticut Dictionary. whore adopted.
have left worse anomalies than any that
existed before, and are thus Invested of
every shadow of excuse for their preten.
-ons
The writer in the Home journal gives
credit to Webster for prc-emmence in the
I extent and value OF his vocabulary and
I his definitions. In the former Of these
/ two particulars we are disposed to concur.
1 though not without some reservation. As
1 regards the definitions we have hereto
/ fore had occasion to expose something Of
/ their provincialisms and Sectionalism. As
/ well as of their lack of scope and scholar
4 ship in other respects With all these
1 faults, however. we would still assent TO
/ what i said by the Home journal. i'm the
/ conclusion of the article referred to:
The sum OF the matter is, that for the
sake of doing some new thing, with one
! hundred and sixty words in dictionary
/ containing eigbtg Thousand words. Webster
has managed to perplex and confuse the
/ photography of our vernacular for, lpast.
! present and future. perhaps, three gener-
/ ations. That is the actual evil he has
/ done. The good he has done. in this be-
half is best expressed by "a figure 9 with
| the tail cut of.
I'VE have. therefore, word OF advice
/ to the publishers of Webster's Dictionary
/ while you are about the work of reforma-
/ ton in etymology. which is voluminous.
reform your photography, which is no
! ,cork at all, for we have here done il Ia
/ your hand without charge. Your book
will then deserve the patronage YOU have
so long claimed for il and we shall be
able, conscientiously. to do what we never
| have done-recommend il to our friends. -