A Standard Dictionary

WE have considered in succession the two recent great lexicographic enterprises undertaken by American scholars, The Century Dictionary and The International Dictionary. Now that A Standard Dictionary¹ has been given to the public, its merits and demerits will be considered quite exclusively from the point of view of the literary worker, who seeks in such a work an apparatus combining handiness, mechanical agreeability and durableness, thoroughness and intelligence, with so much historical fullness as the general literary student and workman may require.

At the outset we must raise a protest against the name adopted by the editor and publishers. It is true that they save their consciences by the use of the indefinite article ; nevertheless, the assumption is that the dictionary is and will be known as the Standard, — a piece of effrontery unworthy of the projectors of so excellent a work.

A Standard Dictionary is, from its fullness and general plan, to be compared rather with the Century than with the International, and we shall accordingly confine ourselves essentially to this view. In some not unimportant respects, A Standard, in availing itself of the experience of the Century editors, has made a gain. The obvious advantage of its lesser compass and cheaper price may be passed by with a mere mention, though, practically, it is well worth recognition, and certain of its deeper-lying virtues may be pointed out.

In the ticklish matter of phonetics and orthography, by its adoption of the standard phonetic alphabet used by the Spelling Reform Association of 1877, it introduces for wider attention what is, on the whole, the simplest and best method of phonetic representation yet devised, and one distinctly better than that used by the Century, which is more difficult to be understanded of the people ; both dictionaries showing a commendable anxiety to dispense so far as may be with that free use of diacritic signs and arbitrary symbols which made earlier lexicons cumbrous and riddlesome. This is a peculiarly puzzling department of English lexicography, by reason of the wretched disparity between our vocal sounds and their written quasiequivalents. The printing, in a separate section, of the list of disputed spellings and pronunciations is one of the features of the dictionary, and a very welcome one. Perhaps nothing in the whole range of discussion called up by language use is so hotly contested a moot point as that of pronunciation ; here, the preponderance of authority is indicated and the different uses are noted in their order of acceptability, the judgment being that of a board of accredited scholars chosen for the purpose. Such an extensive and convenient summary as this will prove popular, and should help materially in the clarifying of opinion. It is to be regretted, however, that the editor has not seized upon a great general law of English accent and applied it in this list. His board of advisers was made up of fifty-seven students, he reserving to himself the privilege of final decision. There is danger, sometimes, not safety, in numbers, and half a dozen trustworthy philologists would have come nearer constituting the ideal committee. The general law we refer to is simply this : Accent in our tongue is recessive ; it works backwards to the root, or, in cases where the root and first syllable do not coincide, to the first syllable, the qualifying laws being euphony and the distribution of secondary accents in polysyllabic words. Hence, of two pronunciations, both of which have some vogue, that is preferable which illustrates most thoroughly the recessive tendency. So far as we can see, A Standard has not followed this safe historically sound rule in its treatment of disputed pronunciations. The familiar noun “ accessory ” will serve to illustrate. Preference is given to “ acces’sory,” although the weight of dictionary authority, to say nothing of the consensus of the choicest usage, makes for “ ac’cessory,” which would have the further decisive merit of being in consonance with the main law just explained. At the present juncture, when both accentuations are heard in the mouths of users of good English, it is better philology to adopt “ac’cessory.”

As to the spelling of words in general, — a subject of far more practical interest than that of strict phonetics, — hearty praise may be bestowed upon A Standard, which moves further towards the proper goal than does the Century; that goal being a closer correspondence of vocal sound and written symbol. The Century approves of the amended spellings of the American Philological Society, and prints the list as an appendix; but its later rival gives, in the body of its work, these spellings as the first or preferred form. Thus, in the Century, “ woe,” its first spelling, is balanced by “ wo ” in A Standard ; the former dictionary giving “ wo ” lower down as a proposed innovation. The bolder plan of A Standard will be welcomed by all having at heart a more sensible and easy native orthography. As all philologists are aware, the objection to an approximation to phonetic orthography, that it destroys etymological flavors, while introducing spellings which strike the layman as amusing, is never made by those best informed; scholars indeed having been at pains to say again and again that, on the whole, etymology would be helped, not hindered, by such changes. One of the most convenient applications of this improved orthography will be found in the dictionary’s spelling of chemical terms ; “ sulfid,” “ morphia,” and the like will speedily come into common use if the scientists will start the innovation, for then the wayfaring man will regard them as having authority. The change, too, of the final d and ed to t, when so pronounced, raises hopes of the eventual disappearance of an eye-cheat of long standing, which an occasional sturdy scholar or maker of letters like Walter Savage Landor has set at defiance from aforetime. The dictionary has been wisely cautious in stopping ere the danger-line is crossed and the customary forms are visited too roughly. But the main fact, that a popular dictionary should be a pioneer in the matter of improved and approved spelling, is cause for rejoicing, and should do much for the amelioration of existent evils.

In the handling of definitions, with their illustrative quotations, the Century has an advantage over A Standard, partly to be explained by its greater space limits ; its quotations are fuller, richer, and the plan, of special utility to the scholar, is followed of indicating the historical development of a given word by arranging the passages chosen in chronological order. A Standard, reversing this, gives the definitions, with the quotations, in what it calls the order of usage, the present-day use first. As a result, it appeals more to the average patron, and less to the student having a nice appreciation of obsolete or obsolescent meanings. This, with its aim in mind, can hardly he called a fault; to many, indeed, it will seem a virtue. A couple of examples by way of illustration. In the Century, under the word “ girl,” we are told at the outset that it refers to “a young person, whether a boy or a girl, but most frequently meaning a girl,” which is exasperatingly indefinite, while the information, familiar to students of Chaucer, that “ girl ” was originally applied to either sex, adds here to the confusion. The second definition, "A female child,” etc., is what most inquirers wish to know before aught else. A Standard, contrariwise, begins, “ girl. 1. A female infant or child, or a young unmarried woman,” which is much more comprehensive, and not until the fourth definition do we meet with, “ A child of either sex.” Again, in the case of the word “ knave,” one of the many English words which have come down in the world since its original state of innocency, the Century reads, “ 1. A boy ; a boy as a servant; a fellow. 2. A friend ; a crony. 3. A false, deceitful fellow.” Whereas A Standard, concerned primarily with the modern connotation, reads first, “A person of habitual dishonesty ; tricky, deceitful man ; mean scoundrel; rogue ; ” relegating the information as to the earlier inoffensive significance to a subordinate fourth place. The superiority of this method for practical purposes is obvious. Of the definitions themselves, it must be said that they are often clearer and more comprehensive than their correspondents in the Century, and this in departments least to be looked for, — a conclusion that anybody examining the respective treatments of the words ” literature ” and “ poetry” will quickly reach. The crossreferences are, as a rule, satisfactory, and the system of grouping a list of special terms under their generic noun, as in the case of the handicrafts, is carried to a fullness never before attempted; thus 275 words bearing on carpentry follow that trade-term. In gathering the quotations, modern authors are prevailingly drawn upon ; this again being an advantage or otherwise according to one’s point of view, but unquestionably a course to be commended by the larger number. The referring of the quotation to author, work, chapter, and page is also an innovation, and one which at once proves its desirability.

The etymologies, so far as we have been able to examine them, are sound, and in connection with them must be mentioned one of the very best practical improvements of the dictionary : we refer to the relegation of the etymological information to modest parentheses at the end of the article. In this way, those who read as they run get their definition (always what they chiefly want) unclouded by the learned, technical knowledge which in all precedent books of the kind flaunts itself in a prominent place and type. This simple change is so admirable, so truly popular, that it is astounding it has never been thought of and put into play before. It is the testimony of librarians that plain people who consult their treasures are confused and balked constantly by the older method of lugging in the etymological apparatus immediately after the word,— a violation of the natural organic way of acquiring knowledge by moving from the simple and easy to the more complex and special. The dictionary is progressive also in its clearer, more systematic use of compounds, written as one word or with the German double hyphen, in accordance with the principle of a greater or less degree of unity. This is a needed improvement in a matter where confusion worse confounded has long reigned ; every man writing English being a law unto himself in respect of compounding words.

A Standard follows the Century in its generous treatment of idioms, colloquialisms, and especially so-called Americanisms, those variations of the parent stock indigenous to the development of English in the United States. Both dictionaries, in truth, are an immense advance upon anything previous in catholicity anent the unconventionalities of speech : the latter gives more space to idiomatic locutions, American and British, and henee is more of a treasurehouse for this piquant division of the subject; but the former, considering its limits, is very comprehensive. It would not be difficult to criticise A Standard both for exclusions and inclusions under the head of idiomatic phrases, as where it gives in its treatment of the word “ gill,” above adverted to, the expression “ summer girl ” (not characterizing it as slang, which it should have done), but does not mention “ maiden girl,” a much more respectable phrase in lingua jocosa. The Century shows itself hospitable to slang, admitting words and expressions by the score that would have horrified Noah Webster, and been frowned upon by the less critical a dozen years ago; but after all, every year chronicles the incorporation of new idioms, words having, like men, their strange eventful histories, and the street argot of to-day proving to-morrow the language of the drawing-room and of literature. Slang, indeed, is idiom in the making, and it is the wise man who shall say what is fittest to survive. Appearing several years after the Century, we find A Standard including the word or phrase which the other very properly eschewed, or of whose existence it was unaware. Thus, it opens the door to locutions like “to be in it ” and “ get a move on,” which still have a vulgar smack, no doubt, and are not in the Century; but then the latter, in accepting “ come off ” and other terse neoterisms, is equally daring. Martinets and precisians of language will grumble at such license, but the principle of keeping abreast of the colloquial is entirely a right one, and has in mind that it is the dictionary’s business to register far more than to dictate. That such expressions as those cited are in the mouth of young America of the better sort is a fact, like it or not as we may. It gives a vivid sense of the truer conception of duty held by the modern lexicographer to compare these latest works with that of Smart, to whom the vulgar speech flavors beyond the pale of Belgravia had no interest.

The problem of new terms, more broadly viewed, is one of prime importance, and A Standard, exercising the privilege of any good dictionary latest to see the light, incorporates many thousands of words not to be elsewhere found: a striking example is “ appendicitis,” which it may surprise those who have not looked for it there already to miss from the Century ; of another new word of medical science, now much in use, “ anti-toxin,” the same is true. Needless to say that a work following A Standard half a dozen years hence will be in a position to supply gaps in a similar fashion. Absolute contemporaneity is the sine qua non of comprehensiveness in vocabulary. The separate treatment of proper names and the space devoted to them call for a word of thanks. The Century fills a large supplementary volume with names, and offers the most ambitious attempt of the kind : the omissions, misstatements, and confusion of cross-references therein to be found have been pointed out by various critics ; A Standard throws itself open to the same reproach. The seeker after literary light will be grieved justly to find the dictionary innocent of a reference to the existence of Mr. George Meredith or Mr. William D. Howells. But all things are comparative in this world, and leniency is the proper mood when the lack hitherto of material of the kind is remembered. The Century, and A Standard in less degree, gather together a great mass of information, and, pace shortcomings, earn gratitude by even tentative efforts. A useful fresh article in the latter is that on Faulty Diction, for it furnishes a ready aid which can be invoked in the innumerable disputes over alleged solecisms, and maybe the bloodless but bitter wordwars of the past will be diminished through its agency.

A word may be said on the mechanical excellence of the dictionary in general, facilitating its handling and examination ; and in particular as to the convenience of the work through its use of the Denison Patent Index, a time-saving device which speaks for itself. The practical efficacy of a reference book daily consulted rests in its easy manipulation and accessibility; and an index of this kind is of the highest utilitarian value, a fact recognized by the International.

Such are some of the salient features of this work, as they may strike the literary worker who explores A Standard and tests its quality, — a few characteristics, where many more might be touched upon. Enough, however, has been said to imply the opinion, in fine, that this is, on the whole, a soundly constructed, progressive popular dictionary of encyclopædic nature ; one that, in spite of occasional slips, and always having in mind its purpose, offers a most satisfactory compromise in the shape of a dictionary of comparatively moderate price and compass. This is high praise, but it seems to be deserved. For more purely historical and scholarly investigation the Century presents superiority; while the great New English Dictionary (Dr. Murray’s) will, for such purposes and problems, be the authority for years after its completion.