Part 25

[66] A New English Grammar, pt. i, p. 341.

[67] It may be worth noting here that the misuse of /me/ for /my/, as in "I lit /me/ pipe" is quite unknown in American, either standard or vulgar. Even "/me/ own" is seldom heard. This boggling of the cases is very common in spoken English.

[68] A New English Grammar, pt. i, p. 341.

[69] The King's English, p. 63.

[70] "Hon." Edward E. Browne, of Wisconsin, in the House of Representatives, July 18, 1918, p. 9965.

[71] /Cf./ Vogue Affixes in Present-Day Word-Coinage, by Louise Pound, /Dialect Notes/, vol. v, pt. i, 1918.

[72] The Speech of a Child Two Years of Age, /Dialect Notes/, vol. iv, pt. ii, 1914.

[73] A New English Grammar, pt. i, pp. 437-8.

[74] The King's English, p. 322. See especially the quotation from Frederick Greenwood, the distinguished English journalist.

[75] Report of Edward J. Brundage, attorney-general of Illinois, on the East St. Louis massacre, /Congressional Record/, Jan. 7, 1918, p. 661.

[76] The King's English, /op. cit./

[77] Oct. 1, 1864.

[78] /At all/, by the way, is often displaced by /any/ or /none/, as in "he don't lover her /any/" and "it didn't hurt me /none/."

[79] See the bibliography for the publication of Drs. Read and Pound.

[80] The only book that I can find definitely devoted to American sounds is A Handbook of American Speech, by Calvin L. Lewis; Chicago, 1916. It has many demerits. For example, the author gives a /z/-sound to the /s/ in /venison/ (p. 52). This is surely not American.

[81] Maryland edition, July 18, 1914, p. 1.

[82] /Cf./ Lounsbury: The Standard of Pronunciation in English, p. 172 /et seq./

[83] /Stomp/ is used only in the sense of to stamp with the foot. One always /stamps/ a letter. An analogue of /stomp/, accepted in correct English, is /strop/ (/e. g./, /razor-strop/), from /strap/.

[84] Our Own, Our Native Speech, /McClure's Magazine/, Oct., 1916.

[Pg242]

VII

Differences in Spelling

§ 1

/Typical Forms/--Some of the salient differences between American and English spelling are shown in the following list of common words:

/American/ /English/

Anemia anaemia aneurism aneurysm annex (noun) annexe arbor arbour armor armour asphalt asphalte ataxia ataxy ax axe balk (verb) baulk baritone barytone bark (ship) barque behavior behaviour behoove behove buncombe bunkum burden (ship's) burthen cachexia cachexy caliber calibre candor candour center centre check (bank) cheque checkered chequered cider cyder clamor clamour clangor clangour cloture closure[1] color colour connection connexion councilor councillor counselor counsellor cozy cosy curb kerb cyclopedia cyclopaedia defense defence demeanor demeanour diarrhea diarrhoea draft (ship's) draught dreadnaught dreadnought dryly drily ecology oecology ecumenical oecumenical edema oedema encyclopedia encyclopaedia endeavor endeavour eon aeon epaulet epaulette esophagus oesophagus fagot faggot favor favour favorite favourite fervor fervour flavor flavour font (printer's) fount foregather forgather forego forgo form (printer's) forme fuse fuze gantlet (to run the--) gauntlet glamor glamour good-by good-bye gram gramme gray grey harbor harbour honor honour hostler ostler humor humour inclose enclose indorse endorse inflection inflexion inquiry enquiry jail gaol jewelry jewellery jimmy (burglar's) jemmy labor labour laborer labourer liter litre maneuver manoeuvre medieval mediaeval meter metre misdemeanor misdemeanour mold mould mollusk mollusc molt moult mustache moustache neighbor neighbour neighborhood neighbourhood net (adj.) nett odor odour offense offence pajamas pyjamas parlor parlour peas (plu. of pea) pease picket (military) piquet plow plough pretense pretence program programme pudgy podgy pygmy pigmy rancor rancour rigor rigour rumor rumour savory savoury scimitar scimetar septicemia septicaemia show (verb) shew siphon syphon siren syren skeptic sceptic slug (verb) slog slush slosh splendor splendour stanch staunch story (of a house) storey succor succour taffy toffy tire (noun) tyre toilet toilette traveler traveller tumor tumour valor valour vapor vapour veranda verandah vial phial vigor vigour vise (a tool) vice wagon waggon woolen woollen

§ 2

/General Tendencies/--This list is by no means exhaustive. According to a recent writer upon the subject, "there are 812 words in which the prevailing American spelling differs from the English."[2] But enough examples are given to reveal a number of definite tendencies. American, in general, moves toward simplified forms of spelling more rapidly than English, and has got much further along the road. Redundant and unnecessary letters have been dropped from whole groups of words--the /u/ from the group of nouns in /-our/, with the sole exception of /Saviour/, and from such words as /mould/ and /baulk/; the /e/ from /annexe/, /asphalte/, /axe/, /forme/, /pease/, /storey/, etc.; the duplicate consonant from /waggon/, /nett/, /faggot/, /woollen/, /jeweller/, /councillor/, etc., and the silent foreign suffixes from /toilette/, /epaulette/, /programme/, /verandah/, etc. In addition, simple vowels have been substituted for degenerated diphthongs in such words as /anaemia/, [Pg246] /oesophagus/, /diarrhoea/ and /mediaeval/, most of them from the Greek.

Further attempts in the same direction are to be seen in the substitution of simple consonants for compound consonants, as in /plow/, /bark/, /check/, /vial/ and /draft/; in the substitution of /i/ for /y/ to bring words into harmony with analogues, as in /tire/, /cider/ and /baritone/ (/cf./ /wire/, /rider/, /merriment/), and in the general tendency to get rid of the somewhat uneuphonious /y/, as in /ataxia/ and /pajamas/. Clarity and simplicity are also served by substituting /ct/ for /x/ in such words as /connection/ and /inflection/, and /s/ for /c/ in words of the /defense/ group. The superiority of /jail/ to /gaol/ is made manifest by the common mispronunciation of the latter, making it rhyme with /coal/. The substitution of /i/ for /e/ in such words as /indorse/, /inclose/ and /jimmy/ is of less patent utility, but even here there is probably a slight gain in euphony. Of more obscure origin is what seems to be a tendency to avoid the /o/-sound, so that the English /slog/ becomes /slug/, /podgy/ becomes /pudgy/, /nought/ becomes /naught/, /slosh/ becomes /slush/, /toffy/ becomes /taffy/, and so on. Other changes carry their own justification. /Hostler/ is obviously better American than /ostler/, though it may be worse English. /Show/ is more logical than /shew/.[3] /Cozy/ is more nearly phonetic than /cosy/. /Curb/ has analogues in /curtain/, /curdle/, /curfew/, /curl/, /currant/, /curry/, /curve/, /curtsey/, /curse/, /currency/, /cursory/, /curtail/, /cur/, /curt/ and many other common words: /kerb/ has very few, and of them only /kerchief/ and /kernel/ are in general use. Moreover, the English themselves use /curb/ as a verb and in all noun senses save that shown in /kerbstone/.

But a number of anomalies remain. The American substitution of /a/ for /e/ in /gray/ is not easily explained, nor is the substitution of /k/ for /c/ in /skeptic/ and /mollusk/, nor the retention of /e/ in /forego/, nor the unphonetic substitution of /s/ for /z/ in /fuse/, [Pg247] nor the persistence of the first /y/ in /pygmy/. Here we have plain vagaries, surviving in spite of attack by orthographers. Webster, in one of his earlier books, denounced the /k/ in /skeptic/ as "a mere pedantry," but later on he adopted it. In the same way /pygmy/, /gray/ and /mollusk/ have been attacked, but they still remain sound American. The English themselves have many more such illogical forms to account for. In the midst of the /our/-words they cling to a small number in /or/, among them, /stupor/. Moreover, they drop the /u/ in many derivatives, for example, in /arboreal/, /armory/, /clamorously/, /clangorous/, /odoriferous/, /humorist/, /laborious/ and /rigorism/. If it were dropped in all derivatives the rule would be easy to remember, but it is retained in some of them, for example, /colourable/, /favourite/, /misdemeanour/, /coloured/ and /labourer/. The derivatives of /honour/ exhibit the confusion clearly. /Honorary/, /honorarium/ and /honorific/ drop the /u/, but /honourable/ retains it. Furthermore, the English make a distinction between two senses of /rigor/. When used in its pathological sense (not only in the Latin form of /rigor mortis/, but as an English word) it drops the /u/; in all other senses it retains the /u/. The one American anomaly in this field is /Saviour/. In its theological sense it retains the /u/; but in that sense only. A sailor who saves his ship is its /savior/, not its /saviour/.

§ 3

/The Influence of Webster/--At the time of the first settlement of America the rules of English orthography were beautifully vague, and so we find the early documents full of spellings that would give an English lexicographer much pain today. Now and then a curious foreshadowing of later American usage is encountered. On July 4, 1631, for example, John Winthrop wrote in his journal that "the governour built a /bark/ at Mistick, which was launched this day." But during the eighteenth century, and especially after the publication of Johnson's dictionary, there was a general movement in England toward a more inflexible orthography, and many hard and fast rules, still surviving, were then laid down. It was Johnson himself who [Pg248] established the position of the /u/ in the /our/ words. Bailey, Dyche and the other lexicographers before him were divided and uncertain; Johnson declared for the /u/, and though his reasons were very shaky[4] and he often neglected his own precept, his authority was sufficient to set up a usage which still defies attack in England. Even in America this usage was not often brought into question until the last quarter of the eighteenth century. True enough, /honor/ appears in the Declaration of Independence, but it seems to have got there rather by accident than by design. In Jefferson's original draft it is spelled /honour/. So early as 1768 Benjamin Franklin had published his "Scheme for a New Alphabet and a Reformed Mode of Spelling, with Remarks and Examples Concerning the Same, and an Enquiry Into its Uses" and induced a Philadelphia typefounder to cut type for it, but this scheme was too extravagant to be adopted anywhere, or to have any appreciable influence upon spelling.[5]

It was Noah Webster who finally achieved the divorce between English example and American practise. He struck the first blow in his "Grammatical Institute of the English Language," published at Hartford in 1783. Attached to this work was an appendix bearing the formidable title of "An Essay on the Necessity, Advantages and Practicability of Reforming the Mode of Spelling, and of Rendering the Orthography of Words Correspondent to the Pronunciation," and during the same year, at Boston, he set forth his ideas a second time in the first edition of his "American Spelling Book." The influence of this spelling book was immediate and profound. It took the place in the schools of Dilworth's "Aby-sel-pha," the favorite of the generation preceding, and maintained its authority for fully a century. Until Lyman Cobb entered the lists with his "New Spelling Book," in 1842, its innumerable editions scarcely had [Pg249] any rivalry, and even then it held its own. I have a New York edition, dated 1848, which contains an advertisement stating that the annual sale at that time was more than a million copies, and that more than 30,000,000 copies had been sold since 1783. In the late 40's the publishers, George F. Cooledge & Bro., devoted 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 was "constructed expressly for printing Webster's Elementary Spelling Book [the name had been changed in 1829] at an expense of $5,000." Down to 1889, 62,000,000 copies of the book had been sold.

The appearance of Webster's first dictionary, in 1806, greatly strengthened his influence. The best dictionary available to Americans before this was Johnson's in its various incarnations, but against Johnson's stood a good deal of animosity to its compiler, whose implacable hatred of all things American was well known to the citizens of the new republic. John Walker's dictionary, issued in London in 1791, was also in use, but not extensively. A home-made school dictionary, issued at New Haven in 1798 or 1799 by one Samuel Johnson, Jr.--apparently no relative of the great Sam--and a larger work published a year later by Johnson and the Rev. John Elliott, pastor in East Guilford, Conn., seem to have made no impression, despite the fact that the latter was commended by Simeon Baldwin, Chauncey Goodrich and other magnificoes of the time and place, and even by Webster himself. The field was thus open to the laborious and truculent Noah. He was already the acknowledged magister of lexicography in America, and there was an active public demand for a dictionary that should be wholly American. The appearance of his first duodecimo, according to Williams,[6] thereby took on something of the character of a national event. It was received, not critically, but patriotically, and its imperfections were swallowed as eagerly as its merits. Later on Webster had to meet formidable critics, at home as well as abroad, but for nearly a quarter of a century he reigned almost unchallenged. Edition after edition of his dictionary was published, [Pg250] each new one showing additions and improvements. Finally, in 1828, he printed his great "/American/ Dictionary of the English Language," in two large octavo volumes. It held the field for half a century, not only against Worcester and the other American lexicographers who followed him, but also against the best dictionaries produced in England. Until very lately, indeed, America remained ahead of England in practical dictionary making.

Webster had declared boldly for simpler spellings in his early spelling books; in his dictionary of 1806 he made an assault at all arms upon some of the dearest prejudices of English lexicographers. Grounding his wholesale reforms upon a saying by Franklin, that "those people spell best who do not know how to spell"--/i. e./, who spell phonetically and logically--he made an almost complete sweep of whole classes of silent letters--the /u/ in the /-our/ words, the final /e/ in /determine/ and /requisite/, the silent /a/ in /thread/, /feather/ and /steady/, the silent /b/ in /thumb/, the /s/ in /island/, the /o/ in /leopard/, and the redundant consonants in /traveler/, /wagon/, /jeweler/, etc. (English: /traveller/, /waggon/, /jeweller/). More, he lopped the final /k/ from /frolick/, /physick/ and their analogues. Yet more, he transposed the /e/ and the /r/ in all words ending in /re/, such as /theatre/, /lustre/, /centre/ and /calibre/. Yet more, he changed the /c/ in all words of the /defence/ class to /s/. Yet more, he changed /ph/ to /f/ in words of the /phantom/ class, /ou/ to /oo/ in words of the /group/ class, /ow/ to /ou/ in /crowd/, /porpoise/ to /porpess/, /acre/ to /aker/, /sew/ to /soe/, /woe/ to /wo/, /soot/ to /sut/, /gaol/ to /jail/, and /plough/ to /plow/. Finally, he antedated the simplified spellers by inventing a long list of boldly phonetic spellings, ranging from /tung/ for /tongue/ to /wimmen/ for /women/, and from /hainous/ for /heinous/ to /cag/ for /keg/.

A good many of these new spellings, of course, were not actually Webster's inventions. For example, the change from /-our/ to /-or/ in words of the /honor/ class was a mere echo of an earlier English usage, or, more accurately, of an earlier English uncertainty. In the first three folios of Shakespeare, 1623, 1632 and 1663-6, /honor/ and /honour/ were used indiscriminately and in almost equal proportions; English spelling was still fluid, and [Pg251] the /-our/-form was not consistently adopted until the fourth folio of 1685. Moreover, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, is authority for the statement that the /-or/-form was "a fashionable impropriety" in England in 1791. But the great authority of Johnson stood against it, and Webster was surely not one to imitate fashionable improprieties. He deleted the /u/ for purely etymological reasons, going back to the Latin /honor/, /favor/ and /odor/ without taking account of the intermediate French /honneur/, /faveur/ and /odeur/. And where no etymological reasons presented themselves, he made his changes by analogy and for the sake of uniformity, or for euphony or simplicity, or because it pleased him, one guesses, to stir up the academic animals. Webster, in fact, delighted in controversy, and was anything but free from the national yearning to make a sensation.

A great many of his innovations, of course, failed to take root, and in the course of time he abandoned some of them himself. In his early "Essay on the Necessity, Advantage and Practicability of Reforming the Mode of Spelling" he advocated reforms which were already discarded by the time he published the first edition of his dictionary. Among them were the dropping of the silent letter in such words as /head/, /give/, /built/ and /realm/, making them /hed/, /giv/, /bilt/ and /relm/; the substitution of doubled vowels for decayed diphthongs in such words as /mean/, /zeal/ and /near/, making them /meen/, /zeel/ and /neer/; and the substitution of /sh/ for /ch/ in such French loan-words as /machine/ and /chevalier/, making them /masheen/ and /shevaleer/. He also declared for /stile/ in place of /style/, and for many other such changes, and then quietly abandoned them. The successive editions of his dictionary show still further concessions. /Croud/, /fether/, /groop/, /gillotin/, /iland/, /insted/, /leperd/, /soe/, /sut/, /steddy/, /thret/, /thred/, /thum/ and /wimmen/ appear only in the 1806 edition. In 1828 he went back to /crowd/, /feather/, /group/, /island/, /instead/, /leopard/, /sew/, /soot/, /steady/, /thread/, /threat/, /thumb/ and /women/, and changed /gillotin/ to /guillotin/. In addition, he restored the final /e/ in /determine/, /discipline/, /requisite/, /imagine/, etc. In 1838, revising his dictionary, he abandoned a good many spellings that had appeared in either the 1806 or the 1828 edition, notably /maiz/ for /maize/, [Pg252] /suveran/ for /sovereign/ and /guillotin/ for /guillotine/. But he stuck manfully to a number that were quite as revolutionary--for example, /aker/ for /acre/, /cag/ for /keg/, /grotesk/ for /grotesque/, /hainous/ for /heinous/, /porpess/ for /porpoise/ and /tung/ for /tongue/--and they did not begin to disappear until the edition of 1854, issued by other hands and eleven years after his death. Three of his favorites, /chimist/ for /chemist/, /neger/ for /negro/ and /zeber/ for /zebra/, are incidentally interesting as showing changes in American pronunciation. He abandoned /zeber/ in 1828, but remained faithful to /chimist/ and /neger/ to the last.

But though he was thus forced to give occasional ground, and in more than one case held out in vain, Webster lived to see the majority of his reforms adopted by his countrymen. He left the ending in /-or/ triumphant over the ending in /-our/, he shook the security of the ending in /-re/, he rid American spelling of a great many doubled consonants, he established the /s/ in words of the /defense/ group, and he gave currency to many characteristic American spellings, notably /jail/, /wagon/, /plow/, /mold/ and /ax/. These spellings still survive, and are practically universal in the United States today; their use constitutes one of the most obvious differences between written English and written American. Moreover, they have founded a general tendency, the effects of which reach far beyond the field actually traversed by Webster himself. New words, and particularly loan-words, are simplified, and hence naturalized in American much more quickly than in English. /Employé/ has long since become /employee/ in our newspapers, and /asphalte/ has lost its final /e/, and /manoeuvre/ has become /maneuver/, and /pyjamas/ has become /pajamas/. Even the terminology of science is simplified and Americanized. In medicine, for example, the highest American usage countenances many forms which would seem barbarisms to an English medical man if he encountered them in the /Lancet/. In derivatives of the Greek /haima/ it is the almost invariable American custom to spell the root syllable /hem/, but the more conservative English make it /haem/--/e. g./, in /haemorrhage/ and /haemiplegia/. In an exhaustive list of diseases issued by the United States Public Health [Pg253] Service[7] the /haem/-form does not appear once. In the same way American usage prefers /esophagus/, /diarrhea/ and /gonorrhea/ to the English /oesophagus/, /diarrhoea/ and /gonorrhoea/. In the style-book of the /Journal/ of the American Medical Association[8] I find many other spellings that would shock an English medical author, among them /curet/ for /curette/, /cocain/ for /cocaine/, /gage/ for /gauge/, /intern/ for /interne/, /lacrimal/ for /lachrymal/, and a whole group of words ending in /-er/ instead of in /-re/.