Postscript.
I am well aware that some readers will be dissatisfied in certain instances with my orthography. Their judgments are respectable; and as it is not a wanton deviation from ancient usage on my part, the subject may justify a moment's retrospect from this place. Since we have arrived at the end of a work that has given me more pleasure in the composition than it probably will in its reception by the public, they must pardon me if I thus linger awhile in taking leave. It is a favorite object of amusement as well as labor, which I cannot hope to replace.
Our language is constantly and rapidly improving. The unexampled progress of the sciences and arts for the last thirty years has enriched it with a great number of new words, which are now become as necessary to the writer as his ancient mother tongue. The same progress which leads to farther extensions of ideas will still extend the vocabulary; and our neology must and will keep pace with the advancement of our knowledge. Hence will follow a closer definition and more accurate use of words, with a stricter attention to their orthography.
Such innovations ought undoubtedly to be admitted with caution; and they will of course be severely scrutinized by men of letters. A language is public property, in the most extensive sense of the word; and readers as well as writers arc its guardians. But they ought to have no objection to improving the estate as it passes thro their hands, by making a liberal tho rigid estimate of what may be offered as ameliorations. Some respectable philologists have proposed a total and immediate reform of our orthography and even of our alphabet; but the great body of proprietors in this heritage are of opinion that the attempt would be less advantageous than the slow and certain improvements which are going forward, and which will necessarily continue to attend the active state of our literature.
We have long since laid aside the Latin diphthongs æ and oe in common English words, and in some proper names tho not in all. Uniformity in this respect is desirable and will prevail. Names of that description which occur in this work I have therefore written with the simple vowel, as Cesar, Phenicia, Etna, Medea.
Another class of our words are in a gradual state of reform. They are those Latin nouns ending in or, which having past thro France on their way from Rome, changed their o into eu. The Norman English writers restored the Latin o, but retained the French u; and tho the latter has been since rejected in most of these words, yet in others it is still retained by many writers. It is quite useless in pronunciation; and propriety as well as analogy requires that the reform should be carried thro. No writer at this day retains the u in actor, author, emperor and the far greater part, perhaps nine tenths, of this class of nouns; why then should it be continued in the few that remain, such as labor, honor? The most accurate authors reject it in all these, and I have followed the example.
I have also respectable authorities in prose as well as poetry for expunging the three last letters in though and through; they being totally disregarded in pronunciation and awkward in appearance. The long sound of o in many words, as go, fro, puts it out of doubt with respect to tho; and its sound of oo, which, frequently occurs, as in prove, move, is an equal justification of thro. All the British poets, from Pope downwards, and several eminent prose writers, including Shaftsbury and Staunton, have by their practice supported this orthography.
Some verbs in the past tense, where the usual ending in ed is harsh and uncouth, hare long ago changed it for t, as fixt, capt, meant, past, blest. Poetry has extended this innovation to many other verbs which are necessarily uttered with the sound of t, tho in prose they may still retain for a while their ancient ed. I consider this reform as a valuable improvement in the language, because it brings a numerous class of words to be written as they are spoken; and the proportion of the reformed ones is already so considerable that analogy, or regularity of conjugation, requires us to complete the list. I have not carried this reform much farther than other poets have done before me. Examples might perhaps be found for nearly all the instances in which I have indulged it, such as perisht, astonisht, tho I have not been solicitous to seek them. The correction might well be extended to several remaining verbs of the same class; but it is difficult in this particular case to fix the proper limit.
With regard to the apostrophe, as employed to mark the elision in the past tense of verbs, I have followed the example of the most accurate poets; who use it where the verb in the present tense does not end in e, as furl'd, because the ed would add a syllable and destroy the measure. But where the present tense ends in e, it is retained in the past with the d, as robed, because it does not add a syllable.
The letter k we borrowed from the Greek, and the c from the Latin. The power of each of these letters at the end of a word is precisely the same; and the power of one is the same as that of both. Yet our early writers placed them both at the end of certain words, with the c before the k, as musick, publick, why they did not put the k first, as being the most ancient character, does not appear. Modern authors have rejected the k sit the end of this class of words; and no correct writer will think of replacing such an inconvenient appendage.
The idea of putting a stop to innovation in a living language is absurd, unless we put a stop to thinking. When a language becomes fixt it becomes a dead language. Men must leave it for a living one, in which they can express their ideas with all their changes, extensions and corrections. The duty of the critic in this case is only to keep a steady watch over the innovations that are offered, and require a rigid conformity to the general principles of the idiom. Noah Webster, to whose philological labors our language will be much indebted for its purity and regularity, has pointed out the advantages of a steady course of improvement, and how it ought to be conducted. The Preface to his new Dictionary is an able performance. He might advantageously give it more development, with some correction, and publish it as a Prospectus to the great work he now has in hand.
The uniform tendency of our language is towards simplicity as well as regularity. With this view the final e, in words where it is quite silent and useless, is dropping off, and will soon disappear. Having long since resigned the place it held in the greater part of these words, as joye, ruine, and more recently in some others, it must finally quit the remainder where it is still found a superfluous letter, as active, decisive, determine.
We may even hazard a prediction that our whole class of adjectives ending in ous will be reformed and brought nearer to their pronunciation by rejecting the o. A similar change may be expected in words ending in ss. These words have already undergone one reform; they were formerly written with a final e, as wildernesse. They have lost the e because it was useless; and as the final s has now become equally useless, it might be dismissed with as little violence to the language. But these two projected innovations have not yet been ventured upon in any degree; and it is not desirable to be the first in so daring an enterprise, when it is not immediately important.