FOR THE PORT FOLIO.-SPURIOUS WORDS

MR. OLDSCHOOL,

A writer in a late number of your valuable miscellany has, to use his own classical language, arraigned before you a few words which he deems spurious. This gentleman's attachment to genuine anglicism is such that he pathetically laments that foreign words should be adopted to the detriment of our own. But he appears to have forgotten that when these aliens have resided among us a sufficient length of time, they become natives, agreeably to the established laws of naturalization. But what a depth of penetration, what a profound sagacity, did it not require to have detected these strangers! It is probable that the writer, after viewing the result of his labours, with heart-felt joy exclaimed Ευρηκα! Ευρηκα!

It is not the adoption of new words that tends to render a language barbarous, or to augment the number of its anomalies. It is the introduction of novel phraseology, and the application of the syntax of foreign tongues, that are the greatest enemies to purity. "Single words," says Dr. Johnson, "may enter by thousands, and the fabric of the tongue continue the same; but new phraseology changes much at once; it alters not the single stones of the building, but the order of the columns." When a word has been used by two or three good authors, it becomes legitimate. Reform is impossible, and were it feasible, its propriety may be questioned. Language is in an incessant state of fluctuation, and hence arises anomalies which no notoriety can correct, and which cannot be reduced to regularity. An improper word sanctioned by the authority of three good writers, may be considered as incorrigible, and every attempt to expunge it must ultimately prove inefficacious. But it is not so with regard to inaccuracies in construction. The grammatical errors of the writers who lived in the reign of queen Anne, have been discovered and avoided by those of a more modern date. The language of our day is much more refined than that of Addison's. But improvement is the work of time., Its progress is gradual and cannot be accelerated. It is not the caprice and remarks of ephemeral authors that are considered as the test of purity, re

formation is adopted only as experience has demonstrated its necessity.

Having made these observations, we will now proceed to consider the words which our critic has pronounced improper, though id populus curat scilicet.

The first upon the list of convicts is unsatisfactoriness. Dr. Johnson adopts this word ugon the authority of Boyle. My memory does not, at present, furnish me with an instance in which the term in question has been used by any writer with whom I have an acquaintance. But I must confess that as I have not hitherto read English with such a critical nicety as our reformer, the word may have escaped my observation. But since it expresses an idea which is but indefinitely denoted by its usual synonyme dissatis-faction, I see no reason why it should be banished from the language.

Not content with detecting the impropriety of words, his critical scrutiny has extended even to proper names. Thus, we are informed that Edinburgh is the German word, and Edenborough the English. Thanks to his miraculous erudition! I now begin to think that it is no difficult task to make a discovery, and I shall therefore put my ingenuity into operation for this purpose. Might I hazard a conjecture that Philadelphia is the German word, and Fildelphy the English? But why should I stop here when I can proceed further? Who does not know that London is the German name, and that the true English word is Lunun? What will his worship now say? Here are two discoveries, while he can boast of but one. Surely it is now my privilege to cry Ευρηκα! Ευρκα!

Perfectability and excitability next appear at the tribunal of his honour. Of the former I have no knowledge; but we are told that they have been both used by Fisher Ames. With respect to the latter I can present his honour with an authority which I deem much less exceptionable than that which he has mentioned. Let him open Dr. Rush's inquiry into the cause of Animal Life, and in the first lecture he will find the following sentence: "Life is the effect of certain, stimuli acting upon the

sensibility and excitability which are extended, in different degrees over every external and internal part of the body."

I perfectly agree with the writer in his observations upon in◄ urned and its opposite uninurned. But I regret that I cannot express a similar coincidence in what he advances relative to deception, conception, reception, &c, which he declares to be improperly used for deceit, conceit, and receipt. That deception and deceit are, in the main, synonymous, I am not now prepared to deny. But I strenuously assert that conception and conceit, reception and receipt are inherently different. Conception, in its primitive import, significs gestation. It is not immediately formed from the English word to conceive, but comes rather from the Latin term conceptio. This latter noun is analogically derived from the supine conceptum coming from the verb concipio. But if etymology is not sufficient to satisfy the doubts of our reformer, let us take any of Dr. Johnson's authorities for this word and substitute its alleged synonyme. Instead of

"Thy sorrow I will greatly multiply by thy conception,"

let us say,

"Thy sorrow I will greatly multiply by thy conceit."

66

Dryden tells us our own productions flatter us; it is impossible not to be fond of them at the moment of their conception.” But let us conform to the rule of our critic, and say, "our own productions flatter us; it is impossible not to be fond of them at the moment of their conceit." The same method may be tried with any other instance, and the inconsistency will be found equally glaring. These examples sufficiently evince the futility and manifest absurdity of an attempt to displace conception. It is so extensively diffused through different languages that it must remain immutable. Thus the French have their conception and the Spanish their concepcion. But conceit invariably imports an opinion, or rather a witty idea; and agreeably to this meaning, we generally find it explained by such words as sententia, p-enseé and the Portuguese term conceito.

The preceding observations apply to reception and receipt. The writer surely cannot be ignorant that the latter is used to signify an acquittance, or the evidence of an exoneration from a debt. But we must again have recourse to an example, "Both,"

says Holder, "serve completely for the reception and communication of knowledge." Let us rather write, "both serve completely for the receipt and communication of knowledge." In the French language we find reception, but recette for receipt. The Spanish have recibimiento for reception, but recibido for receipt. The derivation of reception is from receptio from the supine receptum of the verb recipio. But ne quid nimis.

I confess that the connection of the preposition from with the adverbs, hence, thence and whence, is redundant. But it is not to the sagacity of our critic that we are indebted for the discovery. For the error has been noted long before he became a reformer of our tongue. Indeed I am peculiarly anxious to learn whether he ever happened to dip into a certain work called the "Philosophy of Rhetoric." The practice is undoubtedly improper, but I suspect it is too deeply rooted in our language to be eradicated. I believe I could at this moment produce examples of it from the writers of the days of James, and higher, down to our own. The impropriety has been rendered familiar by the irresistable law of custom. It is to be found in the works of our best grammatical writers, among whom are Harris,* Blair, and Johnson in anteriority, and Horne Tooke in merit. It is an inconsistency which, as Dr. Campbell truly remarks, has arisen from a servile imitation of the French d'où, d'ict, de là. This practice ought to be banished from the language, did not its universality favour its preservation. There is scarcely one good writer who has not used it. It is to be found in Shakspeare who lived in the reign of Elizabeth; and we find examples of it in the translation of the Bible, and in the works of Bacon. At this early period of our tongue, it was a frequent custom, and has thence been transmitted to us. It remains then to be decided whether we shall incautiously pronounce that to be a barbarism which has existed for upwards of three centuries, or whether we shall not rather permit every writer to indulge his fancy.

It is not surprising that Harris should have fallen into this error. For he who could seriously maintain that the redundancy of particles constituteda primary excellence in the Greek language, must surely be pleased with the same tautology in his own.

Here ends the catalogue, and in taking leave of the writer I must be suffered to speak a few words in my own behalf. I have ever considered philology as one of those sciences which have a peculiar claim to the attention of mankind. Next to religion it is that branch of learning on which I would willingly bestow my days and my nights. It is sublime inasmuch as it teaches the correct use of speech, which, in relation to man, is truly, as a Spanish author terms it, "senal indicativa de su razon, y su mayor adorno, ù ornamento." Its difficulty and intricacies are great and numerous, but the pleasure which it affords is more than a counterbalance. Languages are the keys which serve to unlock the doors that lead to knowledge. He, therefore, who attains to a greater proficiency in these, possesses the more means of information.* But I can never call that a meritorious attempt which rises no higher in the grammatical art, than the detection of verbal inaccuracies. The proper disposition of a sentence is of much more importance, than the words which compose it, provided those words clearly convey the writer's meaning. Had I undertaken to be a reformer of our language I should have endeavoured to expose several syntactical improprieties which may be observed among our best authors. These occur in almost all the parts of speech, but more frequently in the disposition of adverbs, which, as they serve for the modification of a sentence, are of the most vital importance. This subject claims the attention of every one who desires to write his vernacular tongue with purity. The previous length of this communication, however, will not permit that I should now notice these inaccuracies. At a future period I may perhaps be again led to this subject. But should circumstances prevent me from performing this promise, the reader is referred to the writings of Campbell and of our countryman Webster.

Such, Mr. Oldschool, are the ideas which suggested themselves after a cursory perusal of the remarks of your corres

* We are informed by Brantome that Charles the Fifth "disoit et repetoit souvent, quand il tomboit sur la beautè des langues (selon l'opinion des Turcs)-qu'autant de langues que l'homme sçait parler, autant de fois est-il homme." If this imperial idea be correct, what must we think of Sir William Jones, who was acquainted with twenty-eight different languages.