SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
Following are a few actual questions of general interest, with their
answers, as they were given in the “Proofroom Notes and Queries” in
_The Inland Printer_. In each instance the letter precedes its answer,
the two being distinguished by the use of different type.
GRAMMAR AND DICTION.
=Do you write “1½ inches,” or “1½ inch”?=
The difficulty in deciding this question is purely logical. Two or
more things must be named to justify the plural verb, says Logic, and
“one and a half” is less than two. But “one and a half” is more than
one, and the singular verb is grammatically restricted to one only;
therefore the grammatical rule should apply, and the plural verb be
used with any subject that must be read as “one _and_ something more,”
even if the something is only a fraction.
* * *
=Which sentence is grammatically correct--“Ten dollars was paid,” or
“Ten dollars were paid”?=
Simply as a matter of grammar, with no deference to sense, the second
sentence is right; but as a matter of fact, unless ten separate dollar
coins or bills are paid, which seldom happens, “was paid” is much more
accurate, as the real meaning is, “The amount of $10 was paid”--one
thing that is named by the words that express its equivalent in smaller
amounts. “Ten dollars” is logically singular when it means one amount
of money, and so is “ten million dollars,” although grammatically
plural; therefore it is better to use the singular verb for the common
intention in sense.
* * *
=Is it proper to say, “Nine and six is fifteen”?=
Those who insist that the rules of grammar should govern all such
expressions use the plural verb in such cases, and say “Nine and six
are fifteen,” because the words used express more than one thing, and
that is plurality. But the logic of it is that “the sum of” the two is
so much, and many scholars consequently favor the singular verb.
* * *
=A correspondent incloses an advertisement containing the sentence,
“Failures is the current talk now days,” and requests an opinion as to
its correctness.=
The sentence is clearly ungrammatical, but it is not uncommon to
violate grammar rules in this way under certain circumstances, and
it is to be presumed that the writer thought of such circumstances,
though he may not have done so. If he thought of a number of individual
failures in the plural sense, and wrote “is” to go with the clearly
plural sense of the noun, he did not express his thought correctly. But
he may have thought of “failures” simply as one subject of talk, and
this would at least so far justify the singular verb as to leave its
correctness open to discussion. We may say, “‘Failures’ is the subject
of his lecture,” and reasonably expect that no one will criticise the
expression. Here are three such sentences, noted within a half-hour’s
reading while having our correspondent’s question in mind: “The revived
Olympic games is the subject of two articles.” “A thousand shares of
short interest is one result of the raid.” “A few doses is sufficient.”
The late Prof. William Dwight Whitney, author of “Essentials of English
Grammar,” decided, while editing the Century Dictionary, that “two and
two is four” is better than “two and two are four,” because the full
sense is “the sum of two and two,” or something similarly unifying the
idea of “two and two.” The sentence above questioned would be better
if written, “Failure is the current talk,” but “now days” instead of
_nowadays_ is much more criticisable than the verb.
* * *
=Which of the following sentences are correct, and by what rule?
“Please state whether one or six bottles is desired.” “Please state
whether one or six bottles are desired.”=
In this question as written there is an erroneous use of the
plural that is not at all questionable. “Which ... _is_ correct”
should have been written. Only one is contemplated, as a choice,
by “which,” therefore the verb should be singular. In the sentence
inquired about _are_ is the proper verb, because the plural subject
immediately precedes it, and the singular verb agreeing with “one”
is understood, not expressed. Logical fullness of expression would
demand something like “whether one bottle is or six bottles are”; but
that is plainly undesirable. The rule is that in such cases the verb
should agree with its immediate subject. Objection to the plural verb
in the other sentence does not conflict with this rule, because, the
pronoun “which,” meaning “which sentence,” is the direct subject,
notwithstanding the intervention of other words between it and the
verb.
* * *
=I inclose two clippings from papers, which I have numbered (1) and
(2). Will you kindly inform me if these two sentences are grammatically
correct as printed? If not, please explain why. (1) “He made many
friends, but all were in moderate circumstances, and none wanted to
know any other language than their own.” (2) “This thing is so simple
and so clear in my own mind that I can not see how any one can think
differently; but if anybody does, I would like to hear from them.”=
The first sentence can not rightly be utterly condemned, although
“none” is simply “no one,” and so is primarily singular. It is not
uncommon to use the word with a plural pronoun or verb, as including
more than one, and it is not wrong to do so. It would undoubtedly be
right, however, to say “none wanted other than his own.” The second
sentence is positively and unqualifiedly bad, notwithstanding the
fact that the error is a very common one. “I would like to hear from
him” would be right. In cases like both of these (supposing that one
prefers the singular pronoun in the first) it is preferable to use the
masculine singular, despite the inclusion of women among those meant by
the other words, because it agrees in number, and while it means a man
and not a woman, “man” is inclusive of women, though it is essentially
a masculine word.
* * *
=Will you kindly inform me whether the subjoined sentence is wrong?
“The events in Field’s life--his birth at St. Louis in 1850; his
education at Williams, Knox, Amherst, and Missouri State Universities;
his connection with the St. Louis _Journal_, Kansas City _Times_,
Denver _Tribune_, and Chicago _News_; and his rise in journalism--were
sufficiently commented upon at the time of his unfortunate death a
little over a year ago to require special mention now.” It is claimed
by a literary friend that the word “not” should be inserted after
“ago,” making the phrase read “not to require special mention now.”
I maintain that the clause beginning with “to” is a clause of result.
For substitute the word “enough” for “sufficiently”--which means the
same--and see how it reads: “The events in F’s life ... were enough
commented upon at the time of his ... death ... to require special
mention now.”=
The sentence is incomplete without “not” after “ago,” or a
corresponding change, as “to require no special mention.” Its intention
is that no mention is now required, and why not say so? Substitution
of “enough” for “sufficiently” makes no difference, and I must confess
that I do not know what “a clause of result” is, as I never heard
of one before, at least with any meaning that is at all fitting for
anything that can be intended here.
* * *
=Many authors, especially those who dabble with statistics, use
the words “native language.” On consulting the Century Dictionary,
under the head “Native,” I find the following definitions: “3. Of or
pertaining to one by birth, or the place or circumstance of one’s
birth; as, native land, native language. 4. Of indigenous origin
or growth; not exotic or of foreign origin or production.” Now,
will you kindly explain the native language of a person born in
Switzerland, where it is stated that in one canton the language used is
Italian, in another German, and in still another French? Likewise of
Alsace-Lorraine, which at one time is a part of France and at another
time is an integral portion of Germany? Then, let us take Brazil. A
person born in that country is called a Brazilian, yet speaks the
Portuguese tongue. Colonization, also, leads to a strange condition of
affairs. When this country was settled there were several languages,
yet English became the predominant one. Still, if I am not mistaken,
English is not of indigenous origin or growth here. While I am well
aware that the words have been used by some of the best writers, I am
still of the opinion that it is not strictly correct, and that some
other expression might be used. As an example, I will state that I saw
recently a case where it was printed that a child was born in Canada of
Italian parents and that he could read and write his native language.
What is his native language?=
One’s native language is that to which he is born--that is, it is
the one he acquires most naturally, being, of course, his parents’
native speech, wherever he may be born. Dictionaries can not multiply
definitions for every possible mutation of human affairs. The
definitions quoted are absolutely right, even if various languages are
spoken in one country. An Italian Swiss’s native language is Italian;
in Alsace-Lorraine the native language of some of the people is German,
and that of others is French; in Brazil the native language of natives
is Portuguese. The second definition quoted has no connection with
languages, except that of the kind shown in saying that “the native
languages of America are the Indian languages”; it is not intended for
the case in question. Our native language is English, not primarily
through the place of our birth, but because of the circumstance that
we are born to that language, born of parents who use it and from whom
we instinctively acquire it. In the last case noted--the child born in
Canada--the native language is Italian. No reasonable objection to the
expression seems possible.
* * *
=Would you say, “About one person in ten doesn’t know that their
neighbors are saving money,” or do you think “his neighbors” better?=
“His” is decidedly better. It is never right to use a singular noun
and a plural pronoun, or any other disagreement in number. It seems
advisable in a case like that of the question here to say “About one
man in ten,” etc., because it is a business matter, and presumably
men are principally concerned. However, if generalizing by the noun
“person” is preferred, that need not lead to the real grammatical error
of using a plural pronoun. Of course a person may not be masculine, and
that is why so many people make the error in number--to avoid supposed
conflict in gender. But “man” is sufficiently generic to include all
mankind, and the fact of its being masculine in gender, and demanding a
masculine pronoun, need not be considered an insuperable objection to
its use in the inclusive sense. All readers would know that the mere
matter of general expression did not exclude women and children from
business dealings. Changing “man” to “person,” though, still leaves the
masculine pronoun good, for grammar demands agreement in number, and it
has been custom from time immemorial to use in such cases the word that
denotes the supposedly stronger sex. Thus we should say, “The animal
draws his load better under certain conditions,” in a general sense by
no means precluding the female animal from consideration; and why not
“the person” also? We are the more willing to discuss this matter now
because of a recent revival of the silliness that would have us use the
ridiculous word “thon,” meaning “that one,” in such cases. Here is the
latest outcropping of this nonsense: “We are prone to prefer the new
words to the old, and many men and women find a pleasure in introducing
a word not familiar to the average individual. Such a word is ‘thon,’ a
contraction of ‘that one,’ proposed in 1858 by Charles Crozat Converse,
of Erie, Pennsylvania, as a substitute for the clumsy combinations ‘he
or she,’ ‘him or her,’ etc., as in the sentence, ‘The child must be
taught to study thon’s lesson.’ The word is so convenient that it is a
wonder that it remains new to most people. The want of it caused the
United States Supreme Court once upon a time to render a decision that
‘his’ in a law should be construed ‘his or her,’ so that women might be
as amenable to the law as the male lawmakers themselves. This ruling
allows writers of laws to avoid the use of ‘his or her,’ etc., every
time a personal pronoun has to be used. But in every-day use the ruling
of the courts does not count, and we need to use ‘thon’ every day of
our lives.” It was not the want of any such abominable formation as
“thon” that led to the court decision, but that decision merely fixed
in law what had always been a real principle in language. With correct
understanding of language facts, no one ever need say “his or her,” for
“his” alone is really sufficient. The abomination “thon” remains new to
most people because there is absolutely no need of it.
* * * * *
FORM OF WORDS.
=Is it possible to construct the following sentence so as to give
three distinct and separate meanings without changing the wording?
The sentence is, “Twenty two dollar bills weigh as much as a silver
dollar.”=
Yes. Twenty-two dollar bills, twenty two-dollar bills, and
twenty-two-dollar bills (though there is no bill issued for $22).
* * *
=Please explain the correct manner of compounding the following
adjectives: “Life-insurance company,” “fire insurance company,”
“tornado insurance company.” I am under the impression that they
should be used as written above, for this simple reason, namely: In the
first instance it is possible to place an insurance upon your life, and
therefore the two adjectives adhere and become compound. In the latter
two cases it is different--you do not place insurance upon fire or
tornado, but you insure _against_ them, and you do not insure against
life; therefore, in the last two instances, the two adjectives do not
adhere directly and should not be used as compound adjectives. I would
also like to inquire further, if either of the above is incorporated
in the full name of an organization, should they in any such case be
compounded?=
If compounding occurs in any of the terms, it should in all, as
they are exactly alike grammatically. Difference of meaning in the
understood prepositions should not affect the forms. No compounding is
really necessary, although the terms are compounds etymologically. If
we tried to compound every term that could be reasonably joined in form
no dividing line would ever be reached. Usage, especially in the names
of corporations, is against compounding in these cases.
* * *
=A large book is now in press (about 150 pages having been
electrotyped). Throughout these pages the apostrophe and additional
_s_ were used in names ending with _s_, viz., Lewis’s, Parsons’s,
Adams’s, etc. Proofs are now returned with final _s_ deled, which
fact leads the Autocrat of the Composing-room (the Chairman) to arise
and assert that “while the practice may be correct, it is behind the
times,” “all good enough fifty years ago,” “won’t go in _good_ offices
nowadays,” “never used in first-class work,” closing with the remark
that he doesn’t see why it is not used in griffins’ [griffins’s] heads
(!), Orphans’ [Orphans’s] Home (!), calmly ignoring the fact that in
the first instance a common noun, plural, is used, and in the latter
a proper noun, same number. The reader contends that the apostrophe
and additional _s_ as marked are correct, and refers to the Harper
publications, _Scribner’s_, the _Century_, and the work of any _good_
printing house. Who _is_ right, or which is right (all questions of
“style” aside)?=
That Chairman evidently does not know the difference between singular
and plural, or at least does not know the grammatical distinction of
the forms, that has been just what it now is for more than fifty years.
“Adams’s,” etc., are the right forms, beyond any possible reasonable
objection; the only difficulty is that some people will not use the
right forms, and have been so thoroughly drilled in the use of wrong
forms that they insist that the wrong ones are right.
* * *
=Please tell me what kind of mark (if any) should be placed after 4th,
21st, and like words used in a sentence where if the word were spelled
out there would be no mark; as, “On the 21st of September.” My opinion
is that the form is not an abbreviation. It certainly is a contraction,
but nothing seems left out.=
No mark should be used. The opinion that the form is not an
abbreviation is a good opinion, because there is no abbreviating.
Abbreviating is done by leaving off a part of the word, and it is
commonly shown by using a period at the end of the short form; but some
short forms, while they really are abbreviations, are not technically
known as such, because they are quite properly included in another
category, that of nicknames or merely short names. In this latter class
are “Ed,” “Fred,” “Will,” etc. In the ordinal words of our question
there is no cutting off from the end, but only substitution of a figure
for the numeral part of the word, with the same ordinal termination
that is used in the word when spelled out. How can anything “certainly”
be a contraction when nothing seems left out? A contraction is a form
made by leaving out a part from between the ends and drawing the ends
together, commonly with an apostrophe in place of the omitted part,
as in “dep’t” for “department”; but some real contractions are known
as abbreviations by printers, because they are printed in the form of
abbreviations, as “dept.,” which is often used instead of the other
form. The dates with figures certainly are _not_ contractions, as there
is no omission, but mere substitution of a figure for the corresponding
letters. Possibly the doubt arose from the fact that the Germans do
make abbreviations of ordinal words by using a figure and a period,
omitting the termination, as “21. September,” which shows plainly why
the point is used.
* * *
=In reading the proofs of a bicycle catalogue recently the writer
compounded the words handle-bar, tool-bag, seat-post, etc., on the
ground that they were all technical terms in this connection and were
therefore properly compounded. For this action he was criticised, his
critic claiming that handle-bar is the only proper compound of the
three words mentioned, inasmuch as neither the bar nor the handle is
complete alone, while in the other cases named the parts are complete
by themselves. Will you kindly give your opinion on this matter?=
The words mentioned are compounds, though they are more frequently
printed in the wrongly separated form than in their proper form. Mere
technicality, however, is not a good reason for compounding any words.
It is the fact that “handle” and “bar” are two nouns joined to make a
new noun that makes them become one word instead of two. “Handle-bar”
is no more technical than “spinal column,” for instance, is anatomical
(another kind of technicality), yet the first term is one word and
the other is two. In the latter term the first word is an adjective,
fulfilling the regular adjective office of qualifying. The other name
has no qualifying element, being a mere name, representing the phrase
“bar used as a handle.” How any one can imagine such a difference
as that neither the bar nor the handle is complete alone, while in
the other cases named the parts are complete by themselves, passes
understanding. The circumstances are identical--two nouns in each case
joined to make a new noun representing such phrases as “bag used to
hold tools,” “post to support a seat,” etc. Even the accent as heard in
the first part of each name truly indicates compounding. The principle
is exactly the same as that which made the Greeks and Latins join two
nouns in one, through which we have “geography,” which is no more truly
one word than is its literal English translation, “earth-writing.”
* * *
=One of our printers, in setting up a job, came across the words “large
tobacco firm.” He felt sure a hyphen should be used after the word
“tobacco,” so it would not be understood as a large-tobacco firm. To
please him, I told him to put it in, but told him its absence showed
that the tobacco firm was large, and not the tobacco. What do you do
with such words as “honey crop”? I compound it when it means the first
stomach of the bee, but not when the word “crop” means harvest.=
Certainly, if any hyphening is done in the first words instanced, it
must be that which is mentioned; but none is necessary, and probably
few persons would ever think of it. Our correspondent seems to have
given a hasty answer to the question, as in fact it is not strictly
true that the separated words show that the firm is large, and not
the tobacco. It would seem more accurate to say that no one (speaking
generally) would misunderstand the separated words, because the natural
conclusion is that the firm does a large business. On the contrary, if
the actual intention should be that the firm dealt in large tobacco,
that fact would be fixed beyond question by making a compound adjective
“large-tobacco.” The distinction between “honey crop” and “honey-crop”
is excellent. A principle is illustrated by it that would be worth a
great deal to everybody, if only it could be established and widely
understood and applied. It is difficult to state it clearly, although
the two kinds of meaning seem to show a very plain difference, that
might easily be less apparent in a sentence containing only one of
them. We can not say that “honey” is a true adjective in the separate
use, but it comes much nearer to the true adjective force in one use
than it does in the other. “Honey-crop” for the stomach, as “the
crop (stomach) in which honey is stored,” is simply one noun made by
joining two nouns. “Honey-bag” is the word given in dictionaries for
this. All the grammarians who ever wrote about this subject say that
in our language two nouns so used together simply to name one thing
become one word (meaning merely that they cease to be two words in
such use). Of course there is much disagreement, and it does not seem
probable that everybody will ever write all such terms alike; but it
is absolutely certain that some compound words of such make are as
fully established as if their elements were not usable separately,
and it seems impossible to distinguish in any reasonable way between
one such name and any other. In other words, if “honey-bag” is a
compound--and it is, no matter how many or what persons write it as
two words--“mail-bag,” “meal-bag,” and every similar name of a bag is
a compound; and if names of bags, then likewise every similar name of
anything else is a compound.
* * *
=The appended clipping is from a proof of a college publication, and is
part of a class history. It appears as it came from the compositor’s
hands. The editor of the annual in which it will appear submitted
the first of my questions (indicated below) to the president of his
college, and though the latter enjoys considerable local prominence
as an educator and a Greek scholar, yet was he unable to enlighten
us upon this point. “In oratory we have shown our powers, and look
forward to the time when the Demosthenes of ’Ninety-eight will sway
senates and our Ciceros the political world.” What is the plural form
of “Demosthenes”? The plural is clearly the form the author had in
mind while writing it, but I am ignorant of either rule or authority
governing such cases. Would you prefer reconstructing the sentence? To
cover our ignorance somewhat, I suggested the following: “In oratory
we have shown our powers, and now look forward to the time when
’Ninety-eight’s disciples of Demosthenes will sway senates, and its
Ciceros the political world.” In the word “Reinoehl” (a proper noun),
should the diphthong be used? I stated that it should not be used, and
was contradicted by the editor of this same publication, who said that
the president of the college maintained that the diphthong was correct.
Though I could quote no authority, yet I believe I am right. The word
is a German one, as you will have noticed. The words Schaeffer, Saeger,
and Steinhaeuser appear without the diphthong on the same page with the
word Reinoehl, yet they passed unchallenged by the editor. Would they
not come under the same head as the one mentioned first?=
The quotation does not seem to show positively that a plural was
intended. As there was only one Demosthenes sufficiently famous for
the comparison, so the writer might mean only the one best oratorical
student. It is not an unnatural inference, though, that the plural was
intended. The plural form of “Demosthenes” is “Demostheneses.” Why
hesitate over that any more than over “Ciceros”? A regular English
plural is as good for one as for the other. Greek common nouns with
the termination _es_ form the plural by substituting _æ_ for that
ending, as “hoplites, hoplitæ; hermes, hermæ.” Our second example is
originally a proper name, but was and is used as a common noun, meaning
a bust that may or may not represent the god Hermes; but this is not a
good argument in favor of a Greek plural of “Demosthenes.” The change
suggested is not good, because “disciples” is not meant, the intention
being merely to note a similarity, and not a studied imitation: In the
German name separate letters should be used, as they represent umlaut
interchangeably with a double-dotted vowel without the _e_; thus,
either “Reinoehl” or “Reinöhl” is right, but “Reinœhl” is wrong. The
college president must have had the umlaut character (ö) in mind, not
the ligature (æ), in answering the question. All the names mentioned
are amenable to the same decision; what is right in one is right in all.
* * *
=An advertisement writer brought to the office, a few days since,
copy for an advertisement for a certain complexion soap in which the
word which is underlined occurred: “Combined with the _emollience_
of cucumber juice.” The proof-reader queried the word to the
author, informing him that it could not be found in the dictionary
(International, 1891); his response was that the word expressed the
idea intended to be conveyed better than any other that he knew of, and
therefore he should use it, regardless of the dictionary. I have since
examined the Century Dictionary and fail to find the word. The question
arising in my mind is, Should the proof-reader endeavor, when the
author is present, as he was in this case, to induce him to use a word
for which authority can be produced, or should the author be allowed,
without a word of protest, to coin words at his own sweet will? It
seems to me that the proof-reader should not be required to blindly
follow an author in a case of this kind after he has satisfied himself
that there is no warrant, except the whim of the author, for the use of
such words.
Not long since, in reading a catalogue of road machinery I noticed
“barrow-pit.” Being somewhat in doubt whether it should be compounded,
as already written, or two words, I consulted the International, and
also the Century Dictionary, but failed to find the word in either,
finally concluding to use the hyphen. Which is correct--barrow-pit, or
barrow pit, or barrowpit? My preference is for the use of the hyphen.=
The writer was perfectly justifiable. If no word not in a dictionary
could be used, the language could not grow, and there would be many
ideas left inexpressible, for want of words. Johnson’s dictionary
contained many more words than any preceding work, and each new
dictionary since issued has increased the record. This could not have
been done if people had not used new words. Although “emollience” is
not in any dictionary, there is sufficient authorization in the fact
that -ence is used in forming nouns from adjectives in -ent, something
that any one may do at any time, just as one may add -less to any
noun, as “cigarless,” having no cigar. Emollience is the only possible
single word for “character of being emollient (softening).” This is not
properly a case of “whim.” The only proper restriction against such
neologism is that it should not be indulged unnecessarily, as when
there is already existent a good word for the sense to be expressed.
“Barrow-pit” is the only form that principle and commonest usage
will justify for this word--but the same principle gives also
“advertisement-writer,” “complexion-soap,” “cucumber-juice,” and
“road-machinery,” each of which you write as two words. Your decision
to use the hyphen in “barrow-pit” is in accordance with all text-book
teaching on the subject, and unless such teaching is applicable in all
strictly similar cases it is _all bad_. It can hardly be necessary to
reach any such pessimistic conclusion as that expressed in a letter
from a country superintendent of schools--“I do not know anything about
it, and I do not believe any one else does.” Our grammarians are not
all idiots. What possible principle could justify such a difference
as “advertisement writer” and “proof-reader” (for “one who writes
advertisements” and “one who reads proof”)? If one of them is one
word, the other also is one, the only difference being that some such
familiar short words are written without a hyphen.
* * *
=You in a recent edition, speaking of Roman type, used lower-case
_r_. We write to ask what, if any, warrant you have among grammarians
or lexicographers for the lower-case initial letter in an adjective
of this class. Would it by the same authority be proper to use a
lower-case in the word “Parisian,” “Chicago” used as an adjective,
etc.?=
No rule as to capitalizing has wider acceptance or better basis in
principle than that an adjective derived from a proper noun should
be capitalized, and “Roman” is such an adjective. However, in the
connection this word has in the matter with which we are dealing,
the lower-case letter is not wrong, though “parisian,” “chicago” in
any use, or any other such use of a lower-case initial letter would
be wrong. Reasons will be given after some authorities are cited.
The “Century Dictionary” says: “Roman, _a._ ... [_l. c._ or _cap._]
Noting a form of letter or type of which the text of this book is an
example”; also, “Roman, _n._ ... [_l. c._] A roman letter or type, in
distinction from an _italic_.” The “Standard,” under the noun, “[R- or
r-] A style of ceriphed type. ... also, a black gothic letter, etc.”
The “Imperial,” the standard Scotch dictionary, says of the adjective,
“applied to the common, upright letter in printing, as distinguished
from _italic_,” and of the noun, “A roman letter or type.” Benjamin
Drew, in “Pens and Types,” page 199, in speaking of specimens of
old-style type given in his book, says: “The next is a Fac-simile of
four roman and three italic Lines.” He says on page 57, in introducing
two lists of foreign words: “The roman list is destined to be
continually lengthening, while the italic, save as it receives new
accretions from foreign sources, must be correspondingly diminishing.”
Webster and Worcester missed the point of distinction in usage that was
discerned by the other lexicographers, and they capitalize “Roman” and
“Italic.” The questioner does not say anything about “italics,” used
in the same paragraph with “roman,” yet evidently the two words should
be treated alike. In fact, neither word in this use has its literal
sense, nor conveys a thought of Italy or Rome. When this literal sense
is expressed the words should be capitalized, just as “Parisian” and
“Chicago” should be. Webster actually says that “Roman” means “upright,
erect,” which is plainly not a meaning showing connection with a proper
noun, and, in fact, is not a true definition for the word with which it
is given. The word has no real sense other than its literal one, but
the literal allusion is so far removed from conscious apprehension in
the printing use that it is proper and prevalent usage to write it as
a common noun or adjective, just as such form has become prevalent in
many other cases, as--
boycott
bowie-knife
badminton
gothic
herculean
protean
china
india-rubber
ampere
Have our correspondents ever noticed these words in books? The writer
of this answer has no hesitation in asserting that “italics” and
“italicize,” which have far more literary use than “roman,” will be
found with a lower-case initial much more frequently than otherwise;
and the same is true of “roman” in printers’ use, which must be looked
for mainly in printers’ books. What is here said, however, should not
be applied too strictly; the word in question should be capitalized in
special work such as that of our correspondents, where probably all
similar words have capitals, as Gothic, Doric, Ionic, etc.
* * * * *
SPELLING AND DICTIONARIES.
=Kindly permit me to make a few comments. As to “honour, fervour,
ardour,” etc., you say that “undoubtedly the American way (_i. e._,
honor, etc.) is better than the other, historically as well as
economically.” I suppose that “economically” means the saving of one
letter; that I do not consider as worthy of note at all. As to the
historical point, the words in Latin are all “honor, ardor, fervor,
labor, color,” etc.; but then in French, through which they came into
English, they are “honneur, couleur,” etc., so that it seems to me that
the _u_ is historically defensible.
“Sceptical” or “skeptical”--a matter of indifference; the hard
_c_ represents the Greek kappa in any case. I suppose you spell
“speculator,” yet the Greek is σπεκουλάτωρ; so “sceptre” is the Greek
σκήπτρον. So we might write “spektakle” if we cared to do so; indeed,
many Greek scholars do use _k_ where ordinary people would use _c_, as
“Asklepiad, Korkyra,” etc.
“Ascendant, ascendancy”--the usual plan is to take the letter found
in the supine of the Latin verb; thus, “dependent,” from Latin
“dependens,” “intermittent,” from Latin “intermittens,” “dominant,”
from Latin “dominans,” and so on. On this plan “ascendent” and
“ascendency” would be right, as “scando” and “ascendo” make “scandens”
and “ascendens.”
You say, “Each of the large dictionaries is worthy of acceptance as
final authority in every instance.” Not by everybody, by any manner of
means. There are many better scholars than the dictionary-makers. Would
you expect Mr. Gladstone, John Ruskin, Andrew Lang, Archbishop Temple,
Bishops Lightfoot and Westcott, Dean Farrar, and many others to accept
the dictum of a dictionary man in every instance? Why, I do not do it
myself. Indeed, though I possess Greek, Latin, and French dictionaries,
I have never possessed an English one, and do not much regard them or
the people who think them infallible. Educated people in England have
no such opinion about dictionaries; in fact, they consider _themselves_
the source of authority in matters of usage and pronunciation. Oxford
and Cambridge men and members of the educated classes in England are
the sole arbiters in such matters; there is no appeal against them.
Richard Grant White thoroughly grasped this and expressed it very well.
Just as all classical scholars try to write Attic Greek, _i. e._, the
Greek of the inhabitants of one Greek city, and entirely disregard
the millions of other Greeks (even though so eminent as Homer and
Herodotus), so all English-speaking people should model their language
on that of the educated classes of Great Britain.=
“Economically,” as used in the article criticised above, meant the
saving of one letter, and as many scholars, both English and American,
are noting such economy, and making it very important, it may be
concluded that it is worthy of note. Certainly the spellings “honour,”
etc., are defensible historically--but no assertion has been made that
they were not; the saying was merely that the other way is better
historically. The words came into English through French, but the Latin
spelling is preferable for more reasons than one. If we are to preserve
the _u_ because it is in the French words, is not the reasoning
equally applicable to the whole syllable in which the letter is used?
Would it not be equally reasonable to preserve the other _u_ in the
first syllable of “couleur”? The French themselves once spelled these
words--or most of them--_or_. They changed them probably to represent
better the natural French sound of such syllables. Because Englishmen
first learned such words from Frenchmen does not seem a valid reason
why the former may not revert to the historical original, which is more
in keeping with English analogy, and better represents the English
sound.
As to “sceptical” and “skeptical,” one who knows the need of a vast
majority of English-speaking people of an authoritative choice
between the two forms can never admit that the spelling is “a matter
of indifference,” even if it could be reasonably admitted on any
ground. Our correspondent is unfortunate in his selection of an
example here, for σπεκουλάτωρ seems to be not a true Greek word, but
only a transliteration of Latin “speculator,” the true etymon of the
English word, which does not come from Greek. We might have written
“spektakle” if we had cared to do so, as it is spelled with _k_s in
some Teutonic languages; but in the close connection here there is a
strong suggestion that this word might also be Greek, which it is not.
The reason for preferring “skeptical” is that there is not another
English word in which _c_ in the combination _sce_ is hard, and so
“sceptical” is a very bad spelling, even if it is prevalent in Great
Britain.
On the plan mentioned in the letter “ascendent” and “ascendency” are
right; but the other spellings are copied from the French, so potent
with our correspondent in the other case, and are prevalent in present
usage. “Ascendant” and “ascendancy” are preferable for this reason,
and because the use of these spellings removes one of the puzzling
differences which most people can not understand or explain. The plan
mentioned would also give “descendent,” which has no currency as a
noun, though it has been used as an adjective, and “descendant” and
“ascendant” are so much alike in their nature that it is better not to
make them different in form.
“Each of the large dictionaries is worthy of acceptance as final
authority in every instance” was intended only as an assurance that
those who desired such an authority--and there are many such--might
reasonably accept the one chosen, without trying to make exceptions.
There could be no intention of dictating that scholars should “accept
the dictum of a dictionary man” in every instance, for that would be
“putting the cart before the horse” with a vengeance. One need feel no
hesitation in saying, however, that the English-speaking educated man
does not live, and never will live, who can afford to ignore utterly
dictionaries of English. No dictionary is made as our correspondent
seems to assume that all are made, though probably every one of them
has provided employment for some men not so thoroughly educated as men
can be. Educated people, in America as well as in England, make the
scholarly part of the language, though it contains much that is made by
the common people and that finds just as thorough establishment as that
made by the scholars. Dictionary-makers never pose as language-makers.
They are recorders of what is already made, which is so great in
quantity that no scholar can hope to master the fiftieth part of it
so thoroughly as to need no record of it. Even supposing that Oxford
and Cambridge men and members of the educated classes in England are
the sole arbiters in such matters--it is not supposable, though--how
is the rest of the world to know their decisions if they are not
recorded? Any record of them will constitute a dictionary, for that is
exactly what a dictionary is--namely, a record of the accepted details
of diction. As a matter of fact, also, our actual dictionary-makers,
those who are vested with authoritative decision, are selected from
among the very men for whom independence of dictionary men’s dicta is
claimed. Noah Webster, Dr. Worcester, Professor Goodrich, Professor
Whitney, Dr. March, President Porter, Dr. C. P. G. Scott, and Dr. J.
A. H. Murray--not to mention the many other English scholars who have
been dictionary-makers--rank with the men named in the letter, if some
of these do not outrank some of those in scholarship, and they are
the ones who choose where there is a choice in making the record.
Dictionaries contain errors, and scholars are independently above
acceptance of the errors; but we may repeat the saying that when once a
large dictionary is chosen as authority it is better, as to matters of
spelling, to accept it in full.
_HINTS ON IMPOSITION._
A handbook for printers by T. B. WILLIAMS.
This book is a thoroughly reliable guide to the imposition of book
forms, and shows, in addition to the usual diagrams, the folds of the
sheet for each form, with concise instructions which may be readily
understood by the advanced printer or the apprentice. Several chapters,
fully illustrated, are devoted to “making” the margins, and this
feature alone is well worth the price of the book. 96 pages, 4 by 6
inches, bound in full leather with gold side stamp; $1.00.
_EVERYBODY’S POCKET DICTIONARY._
Contains 33,000 words; the pronunciation, syllable divisions, part of
speech, capitalization, participles, and definitions being given. It is
an invaluable companion to everybody who has occasion to talk, read or
write. This book is not a “speller,” made hastily only to sell; but is
an accurate and complete dictionary, compiled from the latest edition
of Webster’s great International. Especially valuable to every editor,
printer, pressman, student and stenographer, and worth ten times its
cost to anybody. Size, 2½ by 5½ inches; leather, indexed, 50 cents;
cloth, not indexed, 25 cents.
_STEREOTYPING._
By C. S. PARTRIDGE, Superintendent of Stereotyping for A. N. Kellogg
Newspaper Company.
This is the only book devoted exclusively to papier-maché stereotyping
which has ever been published, and is an exhaustive treatise of the
subject, containing detailed descriptions of all the best methods
of work in present use, including Cold Process, instructions for
operating the Rolling Machine, Paste Recipes, Metal Formulas, Hints
for the Protection of Type, Suggestions for the Operating and Care of
Machinery, Instructions for Grinding Tools, and a complete list of
unexpired patents pertaining to Stereotyping Methods and Machinery,
including number of patent, date of issue and name of inventor. 140
pages, 6 by 8½ inches; 50 illustrations; $1.50.
_MAGNA CHARTA BOND ADS._
The complete set of 148 designs submitted in the recent advertisement
competition of the Riverside Paper Company can now be obtained in book
form. This is a valuable work for the compositor, the apprentice,
the advertiser or the writer of advertisements, as it gives many
suggestions as to proper display. A 160-page book, 9 by 12 inches in
size. Sent to any address on receipt of 50 cents.
◉ ◉ ◉
_The above for sale by The Inland Printer Company,
150 Nassau Street, NEW YORK. 214 Monroe Street, CHICAGO._
The Inland Printer.
What it is.
THE INLAND PRINTER is a monthly magazine of from 100 to 120 pages,
9 by 12 inches in size, devoted to printing, publishing, engraving,
electrotyping, stereotyping, bookbinding, papermaking and all the
kindred trades. It is a work of art, and should be in the hands of
every lover of the typographic art or anyone interested in newspaper
work or advertising. Issued promptly on the first of every month.
Subscriptions can begin with any number.
What it Contains.
Its pages are filled with the most instructive and interesting original
articles relating to the matters that properly come within its domain,
besides an amount of valuable data, trade topics, correspondence,
craft items, recent patents, recipes, hints and suggestions that will
surprise you. In addition to this, it is copiously illustrated, and the
whole make-up and general character of the work is such as to challenge
admiration.
The Illustrations.
The full page illustrations and those worked in with the text are
all of a high order, and include half-tone, zinc etching and other
methods of engraving, alike valuable to the engraver, process-worker,
compositor and pressman. Colored plates, by various processes, are also
shown.
The Text.
Taking up a copy at random one finds articles on proofreading, the
point system in type founding, notes on bookbinding, natural colors
in the printing press, newspapers and newspaper men, the country
newspaper, typographical make-ready, advertising, convention notes,
review of type designs, pressroom queries and answers, process
engraving, new patents, trade notes and much general information.
The Advertisements.
These are as important in a way as any other part of THE INLAND
PRINTER, for the reason that they are set in attractive and catchy
style, alike beneficial to the compositor, and “ad.” writer, and
printed in the same excellent way that the other part of the journal
is. This part will interest you as well as the text.
SUBSCRIPTION PRICE:
$2.00 per Year; $1.00 for Six Months; 20c. per Copy.
No free copies and no exchanges. Subscribe through your type founder,
material dealer or news agent, or send direct to
The Inland Printer Company,
150 NASSAU ST., 212-214 MONROE ST.,
NEW YORK. CHICAGO.
Transcriber’s Note:
The text has been preserved as closely as possible to the original
publication.
Page 79 refers to the use of a different type to distinguish question
and answer text. The questions start and finish with equals signs = in
this ebook.