The Grammar of English Grammars. Goold Brown
crystal, argil, axil, cavil, tranquil, pupil, papil—in which the classical scholar is apt to violate the analogy of English derivation, by doubling the letter l, because he remembers the ll of their foreign roots, or their foreign correspondents. But let him also remember, that, if a knowledge of etymology may be shown by spelling metallic, metalliferous, metallography, metallurgic, metallurgist, metallurgy, medallic, medallion, crystallize, crystalline, argillous, argillaceous, axillar, axillary, cavillous, cavillation, papillate, papillous, papillary, tranquillity, and pupillary, with double l, ignorance of it must needs be implied in spelling metaline, metalist, metaloid, metaloidal, medalist, coralaceous, coraline, coralite, coralinite, coraloid, coraloidal, crystalite, argilite, argilitic, tranquilize, and pupilage, in like manner. But we cannot well double the l in the former, and not in the latter words. Here is a choice of difficulties. Etymology must govern orthography. But what etymology? our own, or that which is foreign? If we say, both, they disagree; and the mere English scholar cannot know when, or how far, to be guided by the latter. If a Latin diminutive, as papilla from papula or papa, pupillus from pupus, or tranquillus from trans and quietus, happen to double an l, must we forever cling to the reduplication, and that, in spite of our own rules to the contrary? Why is it more objectionable to change pupillaris to pupilary, than pupillus to pupil? or, to change tranquillitas to tranquility, than tranquillus to tranquil? And since papilous, pupilage, and tranquilize are formed from the English words, and not directly from the Latin, why is it not as improper to write them with double l, as to write perilous, vassalage, and civilize, in the same manner?
OBS. 14.—If the practice of the learned would allow us to follow the English rule here, I should incline to the opinion, that all the words which I have mentioned above, ought to be written with single l. Ainsworth exhibits the Latin word for coral in four forms, and the Greek word in three. Two of the Latin and two of the Greek have the l single; the others double it. He also spells "coraliticus" with one l, and defines it "A sort of white marble, called coraline." [120] The Spaniards, from whose medalla, we have medal; whose argil[121] is arcilla, from the Latin argilla; and to whose cavilar, Webster traces cavil; in all their derivatives from these Latin roots, metallum, metal—coralium, corallium, curalium, or corallum, coral—crystallus or crystallum, crystal—pupillus, pupil—and tranquillus, tranquil—follow their own rules, and write mostly with single l: as, pupilero, a teacher; metalico, metalic; corolina (fem.) coraline; cristalino, crystaline; crystalizar, crystalize; traquilizar, tranquilize; and tranquilidad, tranquility. And if we follow not ours, when or how shall the English scholar ever know why we spell as we do? For example, what can he make of the orthography of the following words, which I copy from our best dictionaries: equip', eq'uipage; wor'ship, wor'shipper;—peril, perilous; cavil, cavillous;[122]—libel, libellous; quarrel, quarrelous;—opal, opaline; metal, metalline;[123]—coral, coralliform; crystal, crystalform;—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