rick_, &c."--P. 25. James Buchanan, of whose English Syntax there had
been five American editions in 1792, added no _k_ to such words as
_didactic, critic, classic_, of which he made frequent use; and though he
wrote _honour, labour_, and the like, with _u_, as they are perhaps most
generally written now, he inserted no _u_ in _error, author_, or any of
those words in which that letter would now be inconsistent with good taste.

OBS. 9.--Bicknell's Grammar, of 1790, treating of the letter _k_, says,
"And for the same reason we have _dropt_ it at the end of words after _c_,
which is there always hard; as in _publick, logick_, &c. which are more
elegantly written _public, logic_."--Part ii, p. 13. Again: "It has
heretofore joined with _c_ at the end of words; as _publick, logick_; but,
as before observed, being there quite superfluous, it is now left
out"--_Ib._, p. 16. Horne Tooke's orthography was also agreeable to the
rule which I have given on this subject. So is the usage of David Booth:
"Formerly a _k_ was added, as, _rustick, politick, Arithmetick_, &c. but
this is now in disuse."--_Booth's Introd. to Dict._, Lond., 1814, p. 80.

OBS. 10.--As the authors of many recent spelling-books--Cobb, Emerson,
Burhans, Bolles, Sears, Marshall, Mott, and others--are now contending for
this "_superfluous letter_," in spite of all the authority against it, it
seems proper briefly to notice their argument, lest the student be misled
by it. It is summed up by one of them in the following words: "In regard to
_k_ after _c_ at the end of words, it may be sufficient to say, that its
omission has never been attempted, except in a _small portion_ of the cases
_where_ it occurs; and that _it_ tends to an erroneous pronunciation of
derivatives, as in _mimick, mimicking_, where, if the _k_ were omitted,
_it_ would read mimicing; and as _c_ before _i_ is always sounded like _s,
it_ must be pronounced _mimising_. Now, since _it_ is never omitted in
monosyllables, _where it_ most frequently occurs, as in _block, clock_,
&c., and _can be in a part only_ of polysyllables, it is thought better to
preserve it in all cases, by _which_ we have one general rule, in place of
several irregularities and exceptions that must follow its partial
omission."--_Bolles's Spelling-Book_, p. 2. I need not tell the reader that
these two sentences evince great want of care or skill in the art of
grammar. But it is proper to inform him, that we have in our languag