AUTHORITIES AND OPINIONS.
It has been said that in certain points of style no two persons would
agree in their decision. The expression is too strong, but what is
really meant is certainly true. Almost every question of style finds
different answers.
This has been noted as an objection to the forming of proof-readers’
associations, the objectors assuming that none of the differences
of opinion can be overcome. A contrary assumption must be the basis
of accomplishment, and must be proved to be true, if anything is
accomplished. Discussion must be had, full and free; every opinion
that finds expression must be carefully considered, and all opinions
carefully compared, in order to select the best. With this object
clearly agreed upon, and always kept in view, and with each member of
the association pledged to support the decision of the majority, would
not much good result, at least in the way of agreement in matters that
are commonly left to the proof-reader’s decision?
Except for the fact that nothing can be too foolish to find a parallel
in history, the assertion might be made that our proof-readers could
not be foolish enough to persist in holding individual opinions
obstinately in the face of real proof that they are erroneous, or
even that some other opinion is really more common and therefore
better. An instance that happens to present itself for comparison
is the tulipomania, or “craze for tulips,” in Holland early in the
seventeenth century. People were so crazy then as to sell and resell
tulipbulbs at ridiculously high prices, even to the extent of creating
a financial panic. Human nature is the same now as then; and although
the matter of choosing between variant spellings, or other variations
of style, never will create a financial panic, lack of agreement in
choice does cause much annoyance, and even in some cases loss of money,
by stealing compositors’ time through unnecessary changing of type.
The “stylomaniac” is as foolish, relatively, as were the old Dutch
tulipomaniacs.
Nothing could be more advantageous to a proof-reader than a full record
of forms that could be followed without change. Such a record does not
exist, and probably could not be made really exhaustive. It is doubtful
whether any book or periodical ever fully reproduced the spelling
of any dictionary, for the simple reason that lexicographers do not
recognize the practical needs of printers. Spellings, word-divisions,
and capitalization have never had, in the making of a dictionary, such
analogical treatment as they must have to furnish thoroughly reliable
guidance for printers; yet the dictionary is and must be the principal
authority.
One remarkable instance of false leading has arisen through the
old-time omission of technical words in dictionaries. _Indention_ has
always been the printers’ word for the sinking in of the first line of
a paragraph, yet many printers now say _indentation_, because it was
discovered that _indention_ was not in the dictionary. The right word
is given by our recent lexicographers. Drew’s “Pens and Types” protests
strongly against _indentation_, and MacKellar’s “American Printer” uses
_indention_, which is probably an older word than the other. Old-time
printers knew too much of Latin to put any reference to saw-teeth
in their name for paragraph-sinkage, and _indentation_ is properly
applicable only to something resembling saw-teeth.
Printers and proof-readers must often reason from analogy in deciding
how to spell. They have not the time to look up every word, and so
they often differ from their authority in spelling. Every one knows
how to spell _referee_, and, because of the similarity of the words,
many have rightly printed _conferee_. A letter to the editor asked why
a certain paper did this, and the editor answered that he would see
that it did not happen again--because Webster and Worcester had the
abominable spelling _conferree!_ Why Webster ever spelled it so is a
mystery, especially as it violates his common practice. Why Worcester
copied Webster in this instance is a deeper mystery, since he had been
employed on the Webster dictionary and made his own as much different
in spelling as he could with any show of authority. The revisers of
the Webster work have corrected the misspelling, and the other new
dictionaries spell the word correctly.
Word-divisions are a source of much annoyance. Here again we have the
lexicographers to thank, for no one of them has given us a practical
guide. There are many classes of words that should be treated alike
in this respect, and not one of these classes is so treated in any
dictionary. Here is a short list from the “Webster’s International”:
ac-tive
contract-ive
produc-tive
conduct-ive
baptiz-ing
exerci-sing
promot-er
aëra-ted
pi-geon
liq-uid
depend-ent
resplen-dent
The one thing needed here is simplification. We should be at liberty
to decide, without contradiction by our highest authorities, that
if _conductive_ is divided after the _t_, _productive_ should have
the same division. The difference arises from a false etymological
assumption. One of the words is held to be made of two English
elements--a word and a suffix--and the other is treated like its
Latin etymon. True science would take the Latin etymon as the source
of every word ending in _ive_, and divide every one of them between
the consonants, regardless of the fact that some such words did not
exist in Latin. It is sufficient that they all follow the Latin model,
as _conductivus_. Many other terminations are properly on the same
footing, as _ant_, _ent_, _or_; they are not real English formative
suffixes. In every word like those mentioned ending in _tive_ after
another consonant, the division should be between the consonants. This
would be truly scientific, as no real scholarly objection can be made,
and it leaves the right division in each instance unmistakable, no
matter how little may be known of Latin or etymology.
Simplification is the great need in all matters of form or style--the
easy and scientific conclusion that in all exactly similar instances
the one reasoning applies, with the one result. The men who rank as our
highest authorities as to spelling, and who should be best qualified
to lead us, lack one necessary accomplishment--a practical knowledge
of the art preservative. Their efforts now are largely devoted to what
they call spelling-reform, but their kind of reform is _spoiling_
reform. English spelling is said by them to be absurdly difficult
to learn, and they say they desire to make it easy by spelling
phonetically. The matter is one of large detail, the phonetic spelling
has many learned advocates, and there is a true scientific basis for
many radical changes; but what is proposed as our ultimate spelling
will be _harder_ to learn, as it is now indicated, than is our present
spelling.
Reform is needed, but not of the kind advocated by those who now pose
as reformers. Universal agreement on a choice between _traveler_
and _traveller_, _theatre_ and _theater_, etc., would be highly
advantageous; changing _have_ to _hav_, etc., is merely whimsical,
especially as some of the “et cæteras” are not so simple as they claim
to be--notably the arbitrary use of both _c_ and _k_ for the _k_ sound.
Our philologists are not likely to do for us what we very much need to
have done.
Why should not the proof-readers do it for themselves--and also for the
whole English-speaking world?