The _Americanisms_ of our language have been a prolific source of
ridicule and reproach for the British critics. When a word in an
American publication has fallen upon the eyes of these literary
lynxes, which they have thought an innovation, they have fiercely
denounced it as Yankee slang--as a proof of our uneducated ignorance;
they have even denied that we understand the English language, or can
speak or write it intelligibly. In most of the cases it turned out
and was demonstrated, that the poor words thus assailed were true and
genuine English, used by their best writers and speakers; found in
their best dictionaries; but unhappily for the poor things, unknown
to these erudite and conceited knights of the pen, either too
careless to turn to their books for information, or having none to
turn to. In a few instances in which we have taken a little license
with the language, we have seen that after overloading us with abuse
for the birth of the child, they have taken it to themselves, and put
it into the service of writers and orators of the highest rank. Such
was the fate of our Americanisms--_to advocate_, _influential_, in
the sense in which we use it, and several others. They found the
brats really not such deformities as they supposed, and were willing
to adopt and use them; but this did not abate their contempt of the
parents. Englishmen residing in England, seem to claim an exclusive
right in the invention of English words. In Bulwer's character of
_Rienzi_, this hero is said to have been _avid_ of personal power.
This is the coinage of the ingenious author; at least I find no
authority for it even in the latest dictionaries, nor in any other
writer of reputation. Now I have no objection to the introduction of
a new word into our language by Mr. Bulwer or any body else, provided
that it be done with due discretion, and subject to some just
regulation and principle. In the first place, it should be necessary,
supplying a want, or at least obviously convenient in the expression
of some idea with more precision than it can be done by any existing
word. In the second place, it should be in full consistence and
harmony with the idiom of the language. Lord Kames, on using a word
of his own making, gives this note. "This word, hitherto not in use,
seems to fulfil all that is required by Demetrius Phalereus in
coining a new word--first, that it be perspicuous; and next, that it
be in the tone of the language."
I find no fault with Mr. Bulwer for the production of his mint, but I
will not acknowledge that he, or any other English author, has a
better right than an American to take this license. We understand the
language as well as they do; we derive our knowledge from the same
sources, and we shall use the liberty with as much caution, propriety
and discrimination. If this monopolizing, exclusive people, could
have their way, they would not suffer us to spin a pound of cotton,
or hammer out a bar of iron; and now, forsooth, we must not presume
to turn a noun into a verb, or add a monosyllable to the stock of
English words.