The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

"has nothing to do with the Latin adjective habilis, fit, or able, from which our etymologists erroneously derive it."—Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 450. This I suppose the etymologists will dispute with him. But whatever may be its true derivation, no one can well deny that able, as a suffix, belongs most properly, if not exclusively, to verbs; for most of the words formed by it, are plainly a sort of verbal adjectives. And it is evident that this author is right in supposing that English words of this termination, like the Latin verbals in bilis, have, or ought to have, such a signification as may justify the name which he gives them, of "potential passive adjectives;" a signification in which the English and the Latin derivatives exactly correspond. Thus dis'soluble or dissolv'able does not mean able to dissolve, but capable of being dissolved; and divisible or dividable does not mean able to divide, but capable of being divided.

OBS. 18.—As to the application of this suffix to nouns, when we consider the signification of the words thus formed, its propriety may well be doubted. It is true, however, that nouns do sometimes assume something of the nature of verbs, so as to give rise to adjectives that are of a participial character; such, for instance, as sainted, bigoted, conceited, gifted, tufted. Again, of such as hard-hearted, good-natured, cold-blooded, we have an indefinite number. And perhaps, upon the same principle, the formation of such words as actionable, companionable, exceptionable, marketable, merchantable, pasturable, treasonable, and so forth, may be justified, if care be taken to use them in a sense analogous to that of the real verbals. But, surely, the meaning which is commonly attached to the words amicable, changeable, fashionable, favourable, peaceable, reasonable, pleasurable, seasonable, suitable, and some others, would never be guessed from their formation. Thus, suitable means fitting or suiting, and not able to suit, or capable of being suited.

OBS. 19.—Though all words that terminate in able, used as a suffix, are properly reckoned derivatives, rather than compounds, and in the former class the separate meaning of the parts united is much less regarded than in the latter; yet, in the use of words of this formation, it would be well to have some respect to the general analogy of their signification as stated above; and not to make derivatives of the same fashion convey meanings so very different as do some of these. Perhaps it is from some general notion of their impropriety, that several words of this doubtful character have already become obsolete, or are gradually falling into disuse: as, accustomable, chanceable, concordable, conusable, customable, behoovable, leisurable, medicinable, personable, powerable, razorable, shapable, semblable, vengeable, veritable. Still, there are several others, yet currently employed, which might better perhaps, for the same reason, give place to more regular terms: as, amicable, for friendly or kind; charitable, for benevolent or liberal; colourable, for apparent or specious; peaceable, for peaceful or unhostile; pleasurable, for pleasing or delightful; profitable, for gainful or lucrative; sociable, for social or affable; reasonable, for rational or just.

OBS. 20.—In respect to the orthography of words ending in able or ible, it is sometimes difficult to determine which of these endings ought to be preferred; as whether we ought to write tenable or tenible, reversable or reversible, addable or addible. In Latin, the termination is bilis, and the preceding vowel is determined by the conjugation to which the verb belongs. Thus, for verbs of the first conjugation, it is a; as, from arare, to plough, arabilis, arable, tillable. For the second conjugation, it is i; as, from doc=ere, to teach, docibilis, or docilis, docible or docile, teachable. For the third conjugation, it is i; as, from vend=ere, to sell, vendibilis, vendible, salable. And, for the fourth conjugation, it is i; as, from sepelire, to bury, sepelib~ilis, sep'elible,[125] buriable. But from solvo and volvo, of the third conjugation, we have ubilis, uble; as, solubilis, sol'uble, solvible or solvable; volubilis, vol'uble, rollable. Hence the English words, rev'oluble, res'oluble, irres'oluble, dis'soluble, indis'soluble, and insol'uble. Thus the Latin verbals in bilis, are a sufficient guide to the orthography of all such words as are traceable to them; but the mere English scholar cannot avail himself of this aid; and of this sort of words we have a much greater number than were ever known in Latin. A few we have borrowed from the French: as, tenable, capable, preferable, convertible; and these we write as they are written in French. But the difficulty lies chiefly in those which are of English growth. For some of them are formed according to the model of the Latin verbals in ibilis; as forcible, coercible, reducible, discernible; and others are made by simply adding the suffix able; as traceable, pronounceable, manageable, advisable, returnable. The last are purely English; and yet they correspond in form with such as come from Latin verbals in abilis.

OBS. 21.—From these different modes of formation, with the choice of different roots, we have sometimes two or three words, differing in orthography and pronunciation, but conveying the same meaning; as, divis'ible and divi'dable, des'picable and despi'sable, ref'erable and refer'rible, mis'cible and mix'able, dis'soluble, dissol'vible, and dissol'vable. Hence, too, we have some words which seem to the mere English scholar to be spelled in a very contradictory manner, though each, perhaps, obeys the law of its own derivation; as, peaceable and forcible, impierceable and coercible, marriageable and corrigible, damageable and eligible, changeable and tangible, chargeable and frangible, fencible and defensible, pref'erable and referrible, conversable and reversible, defendable and descendible, amendable and extendible, bendable and vendible, dividable and corrodible, returnable and discernible, indispensable and responsible, advisable and fusible, respectable and compatible, delectable and collectible, taxable and flexible.

OBS. 22.—The American editor of the Red Book, to whom all these apparent inconsistencies seemed real blunders, has greatly exaggerated this difficulty in our orthography, and charged Johnson and Walker with having written all these words and many more, in this contradictory manner, "without any apparent reason!" He boldly avers, that, "The perpetual contradictions of the same or like words, in all the books, show that the authors had no distinct ideas of what is right, and what is wrong;" and ignorantly imagines, that, "The use of ible rather than able, in any case, originated in the necessity of keeping the soft sound of c and g, in the derivatives; and if ible was confined to that use, it would be an easy and simple rule."—Red Book, p. 170. Hence, he proposes to write peacible for peaceable, tracible for traceable, changible for changeable, managible for manageable; and so for all the rest that come from words ending in ce or ge. But, whatever advantage there might be in this, his "easy and simple rule" would work a revolution for which the world is not yet prepared. It would make audible audable, fallible fallable, feasible feasable, terrible terrable, horrible horrable, &c. No tyro can spell in a worse manner than this, even if he have no rule at all. And those who do not know enough of Latin grammar to profit by what I have said in the preceding observation, may console themselves with the reflection, that, in spelling these difficult words entirely by guess, they will not miss the way more than some have done who pretended to be critics. The rule given by John Burn, for able and ible, is less objectionable; but it is rendered useless by the great number of its exceptions.

OBS. 23.—As most of the rules for spelling refer to the final letters of our primitive words, it may be proper for the learner to know and remember, that not all the letters of the alphabet can assume that situation, and that some of them terminate words much more frequently than others. Thus, in Walker's Rhyming Dictionary, the letter a ends about 220 words; b, 160; c, 450; d, 1550; e, 7000; f, 140; g, 280; h, 400; i, 29; j, none; k, 550; l, 1900; m, 550; n, 3300; o, 200; p, 450; q, none; r, 2750; s, 3250; t, 3100; u, 14; v, none; w, 200; x, 100; y, 5000; z, 5. We have, then, three consonants, j, q, and v, which never end a word. And why not? With respect to j and v, the reason is plain from their history. These letters were formerly identified with i and u, which are not terminational letters. The vowel i ends no pure English word, except that which is formed of its own capital I; and the few words which end with u are all foreign, except thou and you. And not only so, the letter j is what was formerly called i consonant; and v is what was called u consonant. But it was the initial i and u, or the i and u which preceded an other vowel, and not those which followed one, that were converted into the consonants j and v. Hence, neither of these letters ever ends any English word, or is ever doubled. Nor do they unite with other consonants before or after a vowel: except that v is joined with r in a few words of French origin, as livre, manoeuvre; or with l in some Dutch names, as Watervleit. Q ends no English word, because it is always followed by u. The French termination que, which is commonly retained in pique, antique, critique, opaque, oblique, burlesque, and grotesque, is equivalent to k; hence we write packet, lackey, checker, risk, mask, and mosk, rather than paquet, laquey, chequer, risque, masque, and mosque. And some authors write burlesk and grotesk, preferring k to que.

OBS. 24.—Thus we see that j, q, and v, are, for the most part, initial consonants only. Hence there is a harshness, if not an impropriety, in that syllabication which some have recently adopted, wherein they accommodate to the ear the division of such words as maj-es-ty, proj-ect, traj-ect,—eq-ui-ty, liq-ui-date, ex-cheq-uer. But v, in a similar situation, has now become familiar; as in ev-er-y, ev-i-dence: and it may also stand with l or r, in the division of such words as solv-ing and serv-ing. Of words ending in ive, Walker exhibits four hundred and fifty—exactly the same number that he spells with ic. And Horne Tooke, who derives ive from the Latin ivus, (q. d. vis,) and ic from the Greek [Greek: ikos], (q. d. [Greek: ischus]) both implying power, has well observed that there is a general correspondence of meaning between these two classes of adjectives—both being of "a potential active signification; as purgative, vomitive, operative, &c.; cathartic, emetic, energetic, &c."—Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 445. I have before observed, that Tooke spelled all this latter class of words without the final k; but he left it to Dr. Webster to suggest the reformation of striking the final e from the former.

OBS. 25.—In Dr. Webster's "Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Peeces," published in 1790, we find, among other equally ingenious improvements of our orthography, a general omission of the final e in all words ending in ive, or rather of all words ending in ve, preceded by a short vowel; as, "primitiv, derivativ, extensiv, positiv, deserv, twelv, proov, luv, hav, giv, liv." This mode of spelling, had it been adopted by other learned men, would not only have made v a very frequent final consonant, but would have placed it in an other new and strange predicament, as being subject to reduplication. For he that will write hav, giv, and liv, must also, by a general rule of grammar, write havving, givving, and livving. And not only so, there will follow also, in the solemn style of the Bible, a change of givest, livest, giveth, and liveth, into givvest, livvest, givveth, and livveth. From all this it may appear, that a silent final e is not always quite so useless a thing as some may imagine. With a levity no less remarkable, does the author of the Red Book propose at once two different ways of reforming the orthography of such words as pierceable, manageable, and so forth; in one of which, the letter j would be brought into a new position, and subjected sometimes to reduplication. "It would be a useful improvement to change this c into s, and g into j;" as, piersable, manajable, &c. "Or they might assume i;" as, piercibe, managible, &c.—Red Book, p. 170. Now would not this "useful improvement" give us such a word as allejjable? and would not one such monster be more offensive than all our present exceptions to Rule 9th? Out upon all such tampering with orthography!

OBS. 26.—If any thing could arrest the folly of innovators and dabbling reformers, it would be the history of former attempts to effect improvements similar to theirs. With this sort of history every one would do well to acquaint himself, before he proceeds to disfigure words by placing their written elements in any new predicament. If the orthography of the English language is ever reduced to greater regularity than it now exhibits, the