PREFACE.

From this uncertain pronunciation arise in a great part the various dialects of the same country,which will always be observed to grow fewer, and less different, as books are multiplied ; and from thisarbitrary representation of sounds by letters, proceeds that diversity of spelling observable in the Saxonremains, and I suppose in the first books of every nation, which perplexes or destroys analogy, andproduces anomalous formations, that, being once incorporated, can never be afterwards dismissed orreformed.

Of this kind are the derivatives length from long, strength from strong, darling from dear, breadthfrom broad, from dry, drought, and from high, height, which Milton, in zeal for analogy, writes kighth ;Quid te exempta jurat spinis de pluribws una ? to change all would be too much, and to change one isnothing

This uncertainty is most frequent in the vowels, which are so capriciously pronounced,- and sodifferently modified, by accident or affectation, not only in every province, but in every mouth, that tothem, as is well known to etymologists, little regard is to be shewn in the deduction of one languagefrom another.

Such defects are not errours in orthography, but spots of barbarity impressed so deep in the English language, that criticism can never wash them away: these, therefore, must be permitted to remainuntouched ; but many words have likewise been altered by accident, or depraved by ignorance, as thepronunciation of the vulgar has been weakly followed ; and some still continue to be variously written,as authors diffei in their care or skill : of these it was proper to enquire the true orthography, which Ihave always considered as depending on their derivation, and have therefore referred them to theiroriginal languages: thus 1 write enchant, enchantment, enchanter, after the French , and incantationafter the Latin ; thus entire is chosen rather than intire, because it passed to us not from the Latin integer, but from the French entier.

Of many words it is difficult to say whether they were immediately received from the Latin or theFrench, since at the time when we had dominions in France, we had Latin service in our churches.It is, however, my opinion, that the French generally supplied us; for we have few Latin words,among the terms of domestick use, which are not French ; but many French , which are very remotefrom Latin .

Even in words of which the derivation is apparent, I have been often obliged to sacrifice uniformityto custom; thus I write, in compliance with a numberless majority, convey and inveigh, deceit andreceipt, fancy and phantom ; sometimes the derivative varies from the primitive, as explain and expla-nation, repeat and repetition.

Some combinations of letters having the same power, are used indifferently without any discoverablereason of choice, as in choak, choke; soap, sope ; fewel,fuel, and many others ; which I have some-times inserted twice, that those who search for them under either form, may not search in vain.

In examining the orthography of any doubtful word, the mode of spelling by which it is inserted inthe series of the dictionary, is to be considered as that to which I give, perhaps not often rashly, thepreference. I have left, in the examples, to every author his own practice unmolested, that the readermay balance suffrages, and judge between us: but this question is not always to be determined byreputed or by real learning; some men, intent upon greater things, have thought little on sounds and deri-vations ; some, knowing in the ancient tongues, have neglected those in which our words are commonlyto be sought. Thus Hammond writes feciblcncss for feasibleness, because I suppose he imagined itderived immediately from the ■ Latin ; and some words, such as dependant, dependent; dependance,dependence, vary their final syllable, as one or another language is present to the writer.

In this part of the work, where caprice has long wantoned without controul, and vanity sought praiseby petty reformation, I have endeavoured to proceed with a scholar's reverence for antiquity, and agrammarian’s regard to the genius of our tongue. I have attempted few- alterations, and among thosefew-, perhaps the greater part is from the modern to the ancient practice; and I hope I may be allowedto recommend to those, whose thoughts have been perhaps employed too anxiously on verbal singulari-ties, not to disturb, upon narrow’ views, or for minute propriety, the orthography of their fathers. Ithas been asserted, that for the law to be known, is of more importance than to be right. Change, saysHooker, is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better. There is in constancy andstability a general and lasting advantage, which will always overbalance the slow improvements of gra-