t be made to the word
"scientific," which is not hybrid indeed, but is, if strictly examined,
illogical and even nonsensical. The fact is that three-fourths of the
English language would crumble away before a purist analysis, and we
should be left without words to express the commonest and most necessary
ideas.

Contrast with the case of "scientist" a vulgarism such as the use of
"transpire" in the sense of "happen." I do not quote it as an
Americanism; it is probably of English origin; it occurs, I regret to
note, in Dickens. I select it merely as an example of a demonstrably
vicious locution which ought indubitably to be banished from the
language. It has its origin in sheer blundering. Some one, at some time,
has come upon the phrase "such-and-such a thing has transpired"--that
is, leaked out, become known--and, ignorantly mistaking its meaning, has
noted and employed the word as a finer-sounding synonym for "occurred"
or "happened." The blunder has been passed on from one penny-a-liner to
another, until at last it has crept into the pages of writers, on both
sides of the Atlantic, who ought to know better. If it served any
purpose, expressed any shade of meaning, it might be tolerated; but
being at once a useless pedantry and an obvious blunder, it deserves no
quarter.

My point, then, is that "scientist" ought to live on its merits,
"transpire" to die on its demerits. With regard to every neologism we
ought first to inquire, "Does it fill a gap? Does it serve a purpose?"
And if that question be answered in the affirmative, we may next
consider whether it is formed on a reasonably good analogy and in
consonance with the general spirit of the language. "Truthful," for
example, is said to be an Americanism, and at one time gave offence on
that account. It is not only a vast improvement on the stilted
"veracious," but one of the prettiest and most thoroughly English words
in the dictionary.

The above-quoted writer in the _New York Press_ is a purist in
vocabulary, no less than in grammar. He will not allow us to be
"unwell," we must always be "ill;" an inhuman imperative. Why should we
sacrifice this clear and useful gradation: unwell, very unwell, ill,
very ill? On "sick" he does not deliver judgment. The American use of
the word is ancient and respectable, but the English limitation of its
meaning seems to me convenient, seeing we have the general terms
"unwell" and "ill" ready to hand. Again, the _New York Pres