_False Spellings from Sound_ (Vol. vi., p. 29.).--The observations of
MR. WAYLEN deserve to be enlarged by numerous examples, and to be, to a
certain extent, corrected. He has not brought clearly into view two
_distinct classes_ of "false spelling" under which the greater part of
such mistakes may be arranged. One class arose _solely_ from erroneous
pronunciation; the second from _intentional_ alteration. I will explain
my meaning by two examples, both which are, I believe, in MR. WAYLEN's
list.
The French expression _dent de lion_ stands for a certain plant, and
some of the properties of that plant originated the name. When an
Englishman calls the same plant _Dandylion_, the sound has not given
birth "to a new idea" in his mind. Surely, he pronounces badly three
French words of which he may know the meaning, or he may not. But when
the same Englishman, or any other, orders _sparrow-grass_ for dinner,
these two words contain "a new idea," introduced purposely: either he,
or some predecessor, reasoned thus--there is no meaning in _asparagus_;
_sparrow-grass_ must be the right word because it makes sense. The name
of a well-known place in London illustrates both these changes:
_Convent_ Garden becomes _Covent_ Garden by mispronunciation; it becomes
_Common_ Garden by intentional change.
Mistakes of the first class are not worth recording; those of the second
fall under this general principle: words are purposely exchanged for
others of a similar sound, because the latter are supposed to recover a
lost meaning.
I have by me several examples which I will send you if you think the
subject worth pursuing.