Abbeville press. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1860-1869, 1869-04-23

bring dtiau!ter' to punishment.
MODERN ENGLISH DICTIONARIES. /
In the Nay ramhcr cf the Gclory. |
Richard Grant White: dis,inc cui>hei i
contributor, ';ptches into" the modern.
Lexicographc-s for their various sins
Of omission and commission. He !
wieIds ALI able pen, and Sccn,s TO tr I
perfectly ut home with his subject.
but many Of lis objections appear
rather hypcrcritical. The ground
work Of his objection to the. modern
dictionary seems to be its vo!uminous-
ness, and hence its costiincss. In his
opinion, the dictionary attempts too
much, in aspiring to rival the Encv-
clopedia, in the fuincss Of its infnrma-
ton: and the extent ana variety of its
illustrations, pictorial and otherwise.
Th" objection, however, is rather
verbal - an otietion to thc no:aencI;.-
.pr ee:nploycd to designate tho work:
than To the work Itself, which may
Lc more valuable from containing 4
description Of things: as we'll as the de-
r,vation and Ncilni:iou OF words. Be-
silcs the very completeness Of The
book, may be an answer in full to
any objection on account Of It's Size
and costa single volume being made
20 serve the stead and dispense with
the use Of Whole libraries.
The size and cost OF the modern die
tion:ry: he says are unnecessarily in
creased by the multiplication Of de-
,rivatives and compound words which
add thousands "f useless words to !hc
die tioDary. They may be required
hy tho foreigner, bat to the native
who has from infancy been familiar
with all the infections Of his own
language, they are worse than useless
There may bc something in this oh.
LECTION, hut not to .tEc cxtentc We
> think, that he urges it. Pushing bis
: premises to their Legitimate conclu
sion. the native might dispense with
the Dictionary altogether according
2 to this reasoning.
Again, he objects to the modcrr
Dictionary as being encountered with
. numberless useless definitions, which
: attempt to give the multitude ant
, variety Of meanings with which
words are employed by writer's. Ac
!, cording to him.. a word can have bu
y one meaning, and its various meta
o phorical applications, depending upol
: the will or taste Of the writer shout
n have no place in the Dictionary. Blu
v is it not for this very. object the as
y certainment of the practice of tn
:. best writers-tbe normu et usus lo9uend
II that we consult the Dictionary ? .Th
= primary meaning may be as plain a
e a pike-staff; 80 plain that he tha
is 'srnns may read" but. from the . Dit
= Ftionary we seek to ascertain how ia
N the dozen or more secondary applies
is tions are justified by those writer
ia whose practice gives law to the alaI
II guage. 1t is in this particular {
* definition that Wehster's $Un,
ID brid ged y. is so Invaluable to = th
~ scholar. Itsagives each shade {
* secondary meaning, and Ejustifs
Sol application, by acopious' cit
1e tiOns of authority rl. t1ja-
est t';- The writer's objection to the mo-
Dr. ern Dictionary on account Of its sir
~ Of omissioni'is better founded. He r
al marks, wethink very justly, thattl
At fact Of a-word being obsolete is /
a-lground Of exclusion. and no ,Dictio
leiary Of the, language, is, compile
81 which does not contain oil the ..wor,
lllldwhich are found in CHANGER. 4 Agai
SsIvqlgarity is: no ground OF. exelnsio
5Sandf fhe quotes Hor9e Tookes remar
s. that vulgar words. are the olde
81 and Best authorized, the most signi
an. and vidsly Il psed wprassSIia Z
h 2 IS Bat 9 II Il e, thsas are iaeladed, ,swhy q
Il 4 8, ,prspsS sllass pksaas
I' pf M sss y Sht
y ss al'h Woads dsrisIs Saas slslsss
& ssis yosy thibg 81 sks gi6sa