orm;--dial, dialist; medal, medallist;--rascal, rascalion; medal, medallion;--moral, moralist, morality; metal, metallist, metallurgy;--civil, civilize, civility; tranquil, tranquillize, tranquillity;--novel, novelism, novelist, novelize; grovel, grovelling, grovelled, groveller?
OBS. 15.--The second clause of Murray's or Walker's 5th Rule for spelling, gives only a single l to each of the derivatives above named.[124] But it also treats in like manner many hundreds of words in which the l must certainly be doubled. And, as neither "the Compiler," nor any of his copiers, have paid any regard to their own principle, neither their doctrine nor their practice can be of much weight either way. Yet it is important to know to what words the rule is, or is not, applicable. In considering this vexatious question about the duplication of l, I was at first inclined to admit that, whenever final l has become single in English by dropping the second l of a foreign root, the word shall resume the ll in all derivatives formed from it by adding a termination beginning with a vowel; as, beryllus, beryl, berylline. This would, of course, double the l in nearly all the derivatives from metal, medal, &c. But what says Custom? She constantly doubles the l in most of them; but wavers in respect to some, and in a few will have it single. Hence the difficulty of drawing a line by which we may abide without censure. Pu'pillage and pu'pillary, with ll, are according to Walker's Rhyming Dictionary; but Johnson spells them pu'pilage and pu'pilary, with single l; and Walker, in his Pronouncing Dictionary, has pupilage with one l, and pupillary with two. Again: both Johnson's and the Pronouncing Dictionary, give us medallist and metallist with ll, and are sustained by Webster and others; but Walker, in his Rhyming Dictionary, writes them medalist and metalist, with single l, like dialist, formalist, cabalist, herbalist, and twenty other such words. Further: Webster doubles the l in all the derivatives of metal, medal, coral, axil, argil, and papil; but writes it single in all those of crystal, cavil, pupil, and tranquil--except tranquillity.
OBS. 16.--Dr. Webster also attempts, or pretends, to put in practice the hasty proposition of Walker, to spell with single l all derivatives from words ending in l not under the accent. "No letter," says Walker, "seems to be more frequently doubled improperly than l. Why we should write libelling, levelling, revelling, and yet offering, suffering, reasoning, I am totally at a loss to determine; and, unless l can give a better plea than any other letter in the alphabet, for being doubled in this situation, I must, in the style of Lucian, in his trial of the letter T, declare for an expulsion."--Rhyming Dict., p. x. This rash conception, being adopted by some men of still less caution, has wrought great mischief in our orthography. With respect to words ending in el, it is a good and sufficient reason for doubling the l, that the e may otherwise be supposed servile and silent. I have therefore made this termination a general exception to the rule against doubling. Besides, a large number of these words, being derived from foreign words in which the l was doubled, have a second reason for the duplication, as strong as that which has often induced these same authors to double that letter, as noticed above. Such are bordel, chapel, duel, fardel, gabel, gospel, gravel, lamel, label, libel, marvel, model, novel, parcel, quarrel, and spinel. Accordingly we find, that, in his work of expulsion, Dr. Webster has not unfrequently contradicted himself, and conformed to usage, by doubling the l where he probably intended to write it single. Thus, in the words bordeller, chapellany, chapelling, gospellary, gospeller, gravelly, lamellate, lamellar, lamellarly, lamelliform, and spinellane, he has written the l double, while he has grossly corrupted many other similar words by forbearing the reduplication; as, traveler, groveling, duelist, marvelous, and the like. In cases of such difficulty, we can never arrive at uniformity and consistency of practice, unless we resort to principles, and such principles as can be made intelligible to the English scholar. If any one is dissatisfied with the rules and exceptions which I have laid down, let him study the subject till he can furnish the schools with better.
OBS. 17.--We have in our language a very numerous class of adjectives ending in able or ible, as affable, arable, tolerable, admissible, credible, infallible, to the number of nine hundred or more. In respect to the proper form and signification of some of these, there occurs no small difficulty. Able is a common English word, the meaning of which is much better understood than its origin. Horne Tooke supposes it to have come from the Gothic noun abal, signifying strength; and consequently avers, that it "has nothing to do with the Latin adjective habilis, fit, or able, from which our etymologists erroneously derive it."--Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 450. This I suppose the etymologists will dispute with him. But whatever may be its true derivation, no one can well deny that able, as a suffix, belongs most properly, if not exclusively, to verbs; for most of the words formed by it, are plainly a sort of verbal adjectives. And it is evident that this author is right in supposing that English words of this termination, like the Latin verbals in bilis, have, or ought to have, such a signification as may justify the name which he gives them, of "potential passive adjectives;" a signification in which the English and the Latin derivatives exactly correspond. Thus dis'soluble or dissolv'able does not mean able to dissolve, but capable of being dissolved; and divisible or dividable does not mean able to divide, but capable of being divided.
OBS. 18.--As to the application of this suffix to nouns, when we consider the signification of the words thus formed, its propriety may well be doubted. It is true, however, that nouns do sometimes assume something of the nature of verbs, so as to give rise to adjectives that are of a participial character; such, for instance, as sainted, bigoted, conceited, gifted, tufted. Again, of such as hard-hearted, good-natured, cold-blooded, we have an indefinite number. And perhaps, upon the same principle, the formation of such words as actionable, companionable, exceptionable, marketable, merchantable, pasturable, treasonable, and so forth, may be justified, if care be taken to use them in a sense analogous to that of the real verbals. But, surely, the meaning which is commonly attached to the words amicable, changeable, fashionable, favourable, peaceable, reasonable, pleasurable, seasonable, suitable, and some others, would never be guessed from their formation. Thus, suitable means fitting or suiting, and not able to suit, or capable of being suited.
OBS. 19.--Though all words that terminate in able, used as a suffix, are properly reckoned derivatives, rather than compounds, and in the former class the separate meaning of the parts united is much less regarded than in the latter; yet, in the use of words of this formation, it would be well to have some respect to the general analogy of their signification as stated above; and not to make derivatives of the same fashion convey meanings so very different as do some of these. Perhaps it is from some general notion of their impropriety, that several words of this doubtful character have already become obsolete, or are gradually falling into disuse: as, accustomable, chanceable, concordable, conusable, customable, behoovable, leisurable, medicinable, personable, powerable, razorable, shapable, semblable, vengeable, veritable. Still, there are several others, yet currently employed, which might better perhaps, for the same reason, give place to more regular terms: as, amicable, for friendly or kind; charitable, for benevolent or liberal; colourable, for apparent or specious; peaceable, for peaceful or unhostile; pleasurable, for pleasing or delightful; profitable, for gainful or lucrative; sociable, for social or affable; reasonable, for rational or just.
OBS. 20.--In respect to the orthography of words ending in able or ible, it is sometimes difficult to determine which of these endings ought to be preferred; as whether we ought to write tenable or tenible, reversable or reversible, addable or addible. In Latin, the termination is bilis, and the preceding vowel is determined by the conjugation to which the verb belongs. Thus, for verbs of the first conjugation, it is a; as, from arare, to plough, arabilis, arable, tillable. For the second conjugation, it is i; as, from doc=ere, to teach, docibilis, or docilis, docible or docile, teachable. For the third conjugation, it is i; as, from vend=ere, to sell, vendibilis, vendible, salable. And, for the fourth conjugation, it is i; as, from sepelire, to bury, sepelib~ilis, sep'elible,[125] buriable. But from solvo and volvo, of the third conjugation, we have ubilis, uble; as, solubilis, sol'uble, solvible or solvable; volubilis, vol'uble, rollable. Hence the English words, rev'oluble, res'oluble, irres'oluble, dis'soluble, indis'soluble, and ins
