ther, it is improperly and falsely formed; as we say "to rely on" anything, our derivative adjective, if we make one, should be relionable, not reliable: finally, it is low-caste; A, B, and C, those prime authorities in English style, are careful never to let it slip from their pens. The other side, however, are obstinate, and do not yield the point. The first objection, they retort, is insufficient; no one can properly oppose the enrichment of the language by a synonym, which may yet be made to distinguish a valuable shade of meaning—which, indeed, already shows signs of doing so, as we tend to say "a trustworthy witness," but "reliable testimony." The second is false: English etymology is by no means so precise in its application of the suffix able as the objectors claim; it admits laughable, meaning 'worthy to be laughed at,' unaccountable, 'not to be accounted for,' indispensable, 'not to be dispensed with,' as well as many other words of the same kind; and even objectionable, 'liable to objection,' marriageable, 'fit for marriage,' and so forth. As for the third objection, whatever A, B, and C may do, it is certain that D, F, and H, with most of the lower part of the alphabet (including nearly all the X's, Y's, and Z's, the unknown quantities), use the new form freely; and it is vain to stand out against the full acceptance of a word which is supported by so much and so respectable authority. How the dispute is likely, or ought, to terminate, need not concern us here; it is only referred to because, while itself carried on in full consciousness, and on paper, it is a typical illustration of a whole class of discussions which go on silently, and even more or less unconsciously, in the minds before which is presented, for acceptance or rejection, any proposed alteration in the subsisting usages of speech. Is it called for? is it accordant with the analogies of the language? is it offered or backed by good authority? these are the considerations by which general consent is won or repelled; and general consent decides every case without appeal.
Downright additions, however, to the vocabulary of a spoken tongue, even those who hold to the doctrine of the organic life of language will probably be willing to ascribe to human agency; since no man in his sober senses, it would
