26
history of every word may be clearly traced. It is self-evident that those who know no language but English, can derive no benefit from this etymology and by far the greater number of those who speak English are in this predicament. But even among those who know some of the languages from which the English has borrowed words, ⸮how many are there who take a pleasure in general etymology? And of these again, ⸮how few derive instruction in the right use of words from a knowledge of their history? ⸮Have we not changed the original meaning so thoroughly that it frequently requires great critical and metaphysical acumen to trace the secondary from the primary meaning,(32) and is not this research often unproductive of results ? Again ⸮is it of importance to the great mass of mankind that they should know the history of the symbols which they employ to impart their thoughts to others, or is it not rather a matter of antiquarian curiosity, pleasant indeed, and highly gratifying to some intellects, and of great value in the prosecution of some particular studies, in which, however, the world at large takes but little interest? " It should take more," you answer. This is doubtful. Let a few take an interest in them, and pursue them till they arrive at results, (such as the important ethnological facts which have been lately established,) and the world will take an interest in these results, although it cares not for the process of discovery; and of all people, those who prosecute scientific studies should be the last to exclude light from others. Additional millions will become able to learn the thoughts of others by the introduction of a system of spelling which (apparently) sets etymology at nought; only a few hundreds will derive any pleasure from the prosecution of etymological studies, and those few may take upon themselves the trouble of learning the old as well as the new alphabet; while, if they have already learnt the old, ten minutes' study will be sufficient for them to acquire the new. Assuming the argument to hold universally then, we assert it to be worthless, because of the very limited number to whom it could apply; but we utterly and entirely deny its universality; nay, we deny, in toto, that the present heterography of the English language is sufficient to lead us to its etymology, and that, if a phonetical orthography were substituted, the etymology would be obscured. We justify this denial by the fact, well known to etymologists, that the etymology of a very great number of the
(32.) The English word understand is derived from under and stand, as every Englishman sees; the German unterstehen comes from unter, meaning under, and stehen, meaning stand; the English subsist from the Latin subsisto, and this from sub, meaning under, and sitto, meaning stand. Here, then, we have three words derived from roots whose meaning is precisely similar. Suppose the reader to be informed of this for the first time, ?what idea will he have of the meaning of these words? ?Will he have any notion that understand means to comprehend; sich unterstehen, to presume or venture; and subsist, to be, exist, consist, &c.? When English words, taken from a foreign language, have passed into common use, they hare generally acquired meanings very far removed, indeed, from the original; and it would not only be affectation to use them in the original sense, but the speaker or writer who did so, would be simply unintelligible to the generality of the community. It is one thing—given the primary and secondary meanings of a word, to tell how the latter were derived from the former; and another—given the primary only, to guess what secondary meanings might be employed. The former is difficult; the latter impossible. But the whole argument depends upon the latter being easy and generally done.
