I might here observe that the same single letter on many occasions
does the office of a whole word, and represents the "his" and "her"
of our forefathers. There is no doubt but the ear of a foreigner,
which is the best judge in this case, would very much disapprove of
such innovations, which indeed we do ourselves in some measure, by
retaining the old termination in writing, and in all the solemn
offices of our religion.
As, in the instances I have given, we have epitomised many of our
particular words to the detriment of our tongue, so on other
occasions we have drawn two words into one, which has likewise very
much untuned our language, and clogged it with consonants, as
"mayn't," "can't," "shan't," "won't," and the like, for "may not,"
"can not," "shall not," "will not," &c.
It is perhaps this humour of speaking no more than we needs must
which has so miserably curtailed some of our words, that in familiar
writings and conversations they often lose all but their first
syllables, as in "mob.," "rep.," "pos.," "incog.," and the like; and
as all ridiculous words make their first entry into a language by
familiar phrases, I dare not answer for these that they will not in
time be looked upon as a part of our tongue. We see some of our
poets have been so indiscreet as to imitate Hudibras's doggrel
expressions in their serious compositions, by throwing out the signs
of our substantives which are essential to the English language.
Pages:
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160