Preface to a Dictionary of the English Language — John Shaqi
Preface to a Dictionary of the English LanguageJohnson, Samuel
General
Preface to a Dictionary of the English Language
Johnson, Samuel
English language -- Dictionaries; Lexicology
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 remain
untouched; but many words have likewise been altered by accident,
or depraved by ignorance, as the pronunciation of the vulgar has been
weakly followed; and some still continue to be variously written,
as authours differ in their care or skill: of these it was proper
to enquire the true orthography, which I have always considered
as depending on their derivation, and have therefore referred them
to their original languages: thus I write enchant, enchantment,
enchanter, after the French and incantation after 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 the French, 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 remote from Latin.
Even in words of which the derivation is apparent, I have been
often obliged to sacrifice uniformity to custom; thus I write, in
compliance with a numberless majority, convey and inveigh, deceit
and receipt, fancy and phantom; sometimes the derivative varies
from the primitive, as explain and explanation, repeat and repetition.
Some combinations of letters having the same power are used
indifferently without any discoverable reason of choice, as in
choak, choke; soap, sope; jewel, fuel, and many others; which I
have sometimes 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 in the series of the dictionary,
is to be considered as that to which I give, perhaps not often
rashly, the preference. I have left, in the examples, to every
authour his own practice unmolested, that the reader may balance
suffrages, and judge between us: but this question is not always
to be determined by reputed or by real learning; some men, intent
upon greater things, have thought little on sounds and derivations;
some, knowing in the ancient tongues, have neglected those in which
our words are commonly to be sought. Thus Hammond writes fecibleness
for feasibleness, because I suppose he imagined it derived 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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account