lation[1]; but many will not. For instance, if we render scaber by the English word rough, how shall we distinguish it from asper, which has the same signification? We are therefore reduced to the necessity of rendering asper, rough[2]; and of retaining most of the other Latin terms with English terminations, as scabrous, hirsute, hispid, &c. unless we would wantonly load the science of Botany, and our English tongue, with terms newly invented or applied, which are not either more significant, or more easy to be understood, than those which we are already in possession of.
As to the second general principle, namely, that the terminations and plurals of our words, together with their compounds and derivatives, should be adapted to the structure and genius of the English language; it will not perhaps by many be thought of equal importance with the first. There is perhaps no language that is more irregular than ours, or that admits of more licence in many respects.
This however is no reason why, in the formation of new terms, we should not follow such fundamental rules as we have, avoid irregularities as much as possible, and add no fresh barbarisms to those which already disgrace us. The well known Horatian rule[3] must be our constant guide in the formation of our terminations and plurals; and analogy must be attended to in the structure of our compounds and derivatives. Thus nectary may be used for nectarium, pistil for pistillum, style for stylus, pericarp for pericarplum, receptacle for receptaculum, capsule for capsula, glume for gluma, culm
- ↑ As lana wool, pili hairs, setæ bristles, hami hooks, stimuli stings, aculei prickles, spinæ thorns: lanatus may be rendered woolly, pilosus hairy, setaceus bristly, hamatus hooked, aculeatus prickly, spinosus thorny.
- ↑ If so, in order to preserve the analogy, exasperatus may be translated roughened.
- ↑ "Et nova factaque nuper habebunt verba fidem, fi
"Græco fonte cadant, parcé detorta.—
for
