A Book About Words

by G. F. Graham

It was a fanciful etymology which gave us the word ‘Tartar.’ The incorrect spelling ‘Tartars’ for ‘Tatars’ occurs at the same time with the appearance of the Mongols in Europe, in the thirteenth century; and was probably introduced by the superstitious monks and writers who, struck with the seeming analogy between ‘Tatar’ and Tartarus (the hell of the ancients), believed that these ferocious invaders had come from the infernal regions.

We are told by some writers that there are between 2,000 and 3,000 words in the English language, for which there is no recognised standard of spelling. Though this number is probably exaggerated, there are, no doubt, many in this condition; and it naturally becomes a question which of two forms is to be preferred. Here, we should be at least consistent; we should hold to the one, and altogether reject the other.

The two forms, ‘chemist’ and ‘chymist’ arose from the word having a disputed derivation; but the first is now received as correct. Of course, its derivatives will therefore be spelled ‘chemical,’ ‘chemistry,’ &c.

There was, at one time, a confusion between ‘choir’ and ‘quire.’ The second word has no connection, except in sound, with the first, which is from the Latin ‘chorus,’ through the French ‘chœur.’ As ‘quire,’ in the sense of a number singing together, is now obsolete, so is ‘quirister,’ which must be spelled ‘chorister.’

There are two forms—‘coit,’ and ‘quoit.’ The derivation of this word is somewhat obscure; but if, as some suggest, it is connected with cut, the form ‘coit’ is preferable to the other. Another argument in favour of this form is that the word is always pronounced as if beginning with a c hard, or k; and not as if with qu.

There has been a rather sharp controversy lately concerning the two forms ‘diocess’ and ‘diocese.’ The ‘Times’ adopts ‘diocess.’ Dr. Latham says under the word, ‘diocese, frequently but improperly, diocess.’ Webster says, ‘the orthography of “diocess” is opposed to the derivation, and is against the best English usage.’ There is little doubt that ‘diocess’ is the older, and ‘diocese’ the newer form of the word: and there is also little doubt, in spite of the ‘Times,’ that ‘diocese’ is the proper form.

Between ‘intire’ and ‘entire’ there is still a divided practice. The word is a contraction of the Latin ‘integer,’ which will account for the initial i. But it comes to us directly from the French ‘entier.’ So that ‘entire’ will probably supplant ‘intire,’ though we still have ‘Barclay and Co.’s intire.’

There are two forms of the word—‘referrible,’ and ‘referable.’ These are both in common use, and both are given in the dictionaries; but the second, ‘referable,’ is the proper form. There was no Latin adjective ‘referibilis.’ Our word is a later formation, where a in such cases is always used rather than i; and, therefore, it is better spelled ‘referable.’ Besides, this form is in analogy with ‘preferable,’ ‘inferable,’ &c.

Some still write ‘sirname’ incorrectly for ‘surname,’ probably from an idea that the word means sire-name, or a name received from a sire (father). But its real meaning is an added name; one name added to another. It is from the French ‘surnom,’ and should be always spelled ‘surname.’

Between a ‘serjeant’-at-law, and a military ‘sergeant’ there is this difference: that the first must be written with a j, and the second with a g. The word is derived from the Latin ‘serviens,’ and means, in both cases, one who serves; but the words are spelled somewhat differently, to make a distinction in their application.