VI

The Function of the Dictionary

1

STUDYING the dictionary to get the greatest advantage out of it with the least expenditure of time is an art easily acquired. Once upon a time there lived an old lady who, having read Dr. Samuel Johnson's dictionary from title page to colophon, pronounced it a very interesting book, but lacking in continuity and connection. She epitomized the character of dictionaries in general; still she was doubtless wiser at the finish than at the start, and in most cases a similar course of reading would produce a like result. As an editorial writer for "The Boston Evening Transcript'" pointed out some time ago, people appropriate their vocabularies to a rather undue extent from the speech of others or from desultory reading. This is a rather haphazard way of acquiring the proper methods or terms of expression, to say nothing of the formation of style. It is dangerous unless carefully balanced and steadied by authority. The dictionary is not only a very interesting book, but next to the Bible it should be the one in the library most frequently consulted. Like the Bible, it is usually the one that receives the least attention. In these days, when modern teaching methods turn out so many poor spellers, it no doubt invites frequent reference for the correction of orthographical deficiencies, but that is only one and the slightest of its functions. It belittles its dignity to make it take the place

1 "Boston Evening Transcript," December 27, 1911.

of the old spelling-book. Many mines of learning have been explored and exploited to furnish the information that it has to give.

The director of an oratorical club offered a prize for the finest collection of words beginning with the same letter of the alphabet, for the purpose of turning the attention of those whom he directed to the treasures of the dictionary, and to implant or reawaken within them an interest in that much-neglected source of knowledge. The better the dictionary is understood the clearer will be the interchange of ideas either through the spoken word or the written page. It is the only safe guide to the finer shades of meaning. And even that has by no means reached its limitations. Rich as the language is, additions to it are being made constantly. Some of these are in response to obvious needs. Others creep in through mere slovenliness. Fifty years ago "humanitarian" was employed simply as a theological term and applied rather in the way of reproach to one who denied the divinity of Christ. Now it more commonly describes one who manifests the finer and more altruistic traits of our common nature—in fact a philanthropist.

How grudgingly some words are admitted into good verbal society. But if they possess inherent usefulness they will in good time win their way. In the class due to slovenliness is "replica." It means the exact reproduction by an artist or artizan of a piece of work which he has produced before. When preparations were making for the New York Tercentenary a great deal was printed about the "replica of the Half Moon" that was to be one of the features. Even were he the "flying Dutchman" himself, the designer of the original craft could hardly have been on hand to duplicate his work. But some writers seemed

to like the word. It kept creeping into the dispatches. It could not be kept out and it has been traveling ever since, and eventually its sense must be modified to permit of acceptance by the lexicographers. We should be particularly wary of words that appeal to us because of their face value, and find out whether they are likely to fit into our contemplated verbal structures before employing them. The word that should have been used to describe this imitation of the "Half Moon" is "ectype"-ugly but exact.

The vocabulary of the average man has often been the subject of speculation and estimate but seldom has a systematic attempt to determine its actual strength in number of words been made. For such an attempt thanks are due to the Editor of the "Indianapolis Journal," who made what, to all intents and purposes, may be termed a practical study of the subject. He was led to do this by the publication of a statement that an ordinary man will say everything that any occasion calls for with a vocabulary of 1,000 words. Of these he commonly uses but 400 or 500, reserving the remainder for the emergency of an idea out of his usual line of thought.

In harmony with this is a statement once made by a speaker at an educational meeting: "The best-educated person in this room will not use more than 600 or 700 words." And he added that an ignorant man would not use more than 300 or 400. Some years ago a writer in the "Chautauquan" said: "It is estimated that an English farm-hand has a vocabulary limited to 300 words. An American workman who reads the newspapers may command from 700 to 1,000 words. Five thousand is a large number, even for an educated reader or speaker." This differs considerably from the statement published in a

recently compiled English encyclopedia2 which states that "It has been reckoned that the agricultural laborer uses about 1,500 words, but this is probably an over-estimate. Intelligent artizans have a vocabulary of 4,000 words, which educated persons are familiar with, if they do not use 8,000 to 10,000 words." This is a step forward all along the line, but it is a long distance from Dr. Joseph Jacobs' discoveries. In a recent review," Dr. Jacobs said "that the average welleducated American or Englishman can control from 30,000 to 35,000 words." His own range, and it must be remembered that he commands six or seven languages, he inadequately sets somewhat higher-50,000 words-and adds, "a learned jurist of my acquaintance would appear to be fairly familiar with 55,000 words." Figures like these leave Milton's vocabulary of 13,000 words or 9,000, whichever it may be, and Shakespeare's 24,000, 21,000 or 15,000 words (as his vocabulary has been variously computed1) far in the shade, and yet what did they not achieve with words! Dr. Jacobs thinks that a professional dealer in words may be able to recognize at first sight from 60,000 to 70,000 words.

But given an individual with a vocabulary of 10,000 primitive words, it is a simple matter for him to increase his stock of words fivefold or more by the use of prefixes and suffixes. From four to six derivatives may be formed by the use of these from nearly every primitive word. Take,

2 "Everybody's Cyclopedia," p. 339.

3 "New York Times," Saturday Review of Books, November 16, 1913. 4 Professor Albert Cook in his "Study of English," says: "Shakespeare, it has been estimated, employs about 21,000 words (others say 15,000 or 24,000); Milton, in his verse, about 13,000. The whole English Bible, if we may trust Marsh, employs about 6,000." According to a computation made by the writer, and based on the number of Hebrew words translated into English, there are in the Old Testament alone 8,674 words.

for example, the words abolish, accent, accept, and access, and note the number of their derivatives.

Abolish:-abolished; abolishable; abolisher; abolishment; abolition; abolitional; abolitionary; abolitiondom; abolitionism; abolitionist; abolitionize.

Accent:-accentor; accentric; accentual; accentualist; accentually; accentuality; accentuate; accentuable; accentuation; accentus.

Accept: acceptable; acceptableness; acceptability; acceptably; acceptance; acceptancy; acceptant; acceptation; accepted; acceptedly; acceptilate; acceptilation; acception; acceptive; acceptor; acceptress.

Access-accessary; accessarily; accessariness; accessaryship; accessible; accessibility; accessibly; accession; accessional; accessit; accessive; accessively; accessorial; accessoriness; accessorius; accessory; accessorily.

Now add to these such other forms as may be made by the use of such common privatives as in-, non-, un-, etc. Applying these to the words cited above, we get in addition the following:

In: inacceptable; inaccessible; inaccessibility; inaccessibleness; inaccessibly.

Non-non-acceptance; non-access.

Un:-unabolishable; unabolished; unaccented; unaccentuated; unacceptable; unacceptableness; unacceptability; unacceptably; unacceptant; unaccepted; unaccessible; unaccessibleness; unaccessibly.

Thus out of four primitive words we secure a total of 74 words. If these four words could be accepted as characteristic of the language and the same plan followed with the 10,000 primitive terms already referred to, the total would