Rather curiously, Pickering was not greatly concerned about the actual novelties invented in America; in fact, he believed that their production was falling off. “It has been asserted,” he said, “that we have discovered a much stronger propensity than the English to add new words to the language, and the little animadversion which, till within a few years, such new-coined words have met with among us seems to support that opinion. The passion for these senseless novelties, however, has for some time past been declining.” This was written just as the great movement into the West was beginning, and the pages following will show how much in error Pickering was about the future course of American. His dominant fear in 1816, it appears, was not of new words, but of old ones preserved in America after their abandonment in England, and of new meanings attached to words still surviving.
Our greatest danger now is that we shall continue to use antiquated words which were brought to this country by our forefathers nearly two centuries ago (some of which, too, were at that day provincial words in England), and that we shall affix a new signification to words which are still used in that country solely in their original sense. Words of these descriptions having long formed a part of the language, we are not led to examine critically the authority on which their different significations rest; but those which are entirely new, like strangers on their first appearance, immediately attract attention, and induce us to inquire into their pretensions to the rank they claim.1
Pickering’s Vocabulary runs to more than 500 terms, and some of his discussions of them are of considerable length: he gives, for example, nearly five pages to to advocate. This verb was frowned upon by Benjamin Franklin, who asked Noah Webster, in a letter of December 26, 1789, to use his authority “in reprobating” it, but Webster admitted it to his American Dictionary of 1828 — and supported it with a number of examples from high English sources. It was, in fact, not an American invention, but had been used in England long before the English reviewers began to denounce its use by such Americans as Alexander Hamilton and John Quincy Adams. Pickering quoted at length from a discussion of it in the Rev. Henry J. Todd’s edition of Johnson’s Dictionary, “with numerous corrections and additions,”2 as follows:
To advocate, v.a. [Lat. advoco; Fr. avocasser]. To plead, to support, to defend. Mr. Boucher3 has remarked that though this verb has been said to be an improvement on the English language, which has been discovered by the United States of America since their separation from Great Britain, it is a very common and old Scottish word, which, indeed it is, both as an active and neuter verb. But Mr. Boucher has been misled in this literary concession which he has made to the Americans, for it is also an old English word, employed by one of our finest and most truly manly writers; and if the Americans affect to plume themselves on this pretended improvement of our language let them as well as their abetters withdraw the unfounded claim to discovery in turning to the prose writings of Milton. In the dictionaries of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, however, as in the Latin of Thomas, the Spanish of Minsheu, the Italian of Florio, and the French of Cotgrave, advoco, advogar, avocare and advocasser are rendered, not to advocate but to play the advocate.
Todd then quoted Milton: “Parliament … thought this petition worthy, not only of receiving but of voting to a commitment, after it had been advocated,”1 and Burke: “This is the only thing distinct and sensible that has been advocated.”2 Todd’s sneer at imaginary American inventors of the term got under Pickering’s skin, despite his general willingness to accept British admonitions docilely, and he hastened to enter a plea of not guilty:
Mr. Todd seems to suppose that the Americans “affect to plume themselves on this pretended improvement of our language,” and he then, in a tone which the occasion seemed hardly to require, calls upon them as well as their “abetters,” to “withdraw their unfounded claim to discovery.” I was not aware that the Americans did “plume themselves” upon this word. We did, indeed, believe it to be a word not in use among Englishmen, because they themselves have considered it as a word invented by us, and have censured it as one of the faults of our writers. The truth is that although most Americans have adopted it, yet some of our writers who have been particularly attentive to their style have (whether there is any merit in this or not, let scholars judge) avoided using it. Nor would they probably have felt themselves warranted in employing this, any more than they would many other ancient words (the word freshet, for example)3 because it is to be found in Milton or Burke, unless it were also in general use at the present day among Englishmen.
To this, as an afterthought, he added the following in the brief supplement that followed his vocabulary:
If the Americans have not a right to “plume themselves” on this word as a “discovery,” they may justly claim the merit (if there is any in the case) of reviving it.
To advocate is now perfectly good English on both sides of the water, though Robert Southey led a belated attack upon it so late as 1838. So is to belittle, though when Thomas Jefferson used it in his “Notes on the State of Virginia,” 1781–82, the European Magazine and London Review let go with a veritable tirade against it.4 Pickering sought to get rid of it by pretending that only Jefferson used it seriously. It was “sometimes heard here,” he said primly, “in conversation; but in writing it is, I believe, peculiar to that gentleman.” This imbecility was echoed by Dr. Robley Dunglison, in his treatise on Americanisms in the Virginia Literary Museum, 1829. Belittle, he opined, was “not an Americanism, but an individualism.” Noah Webster, in his American Dictionary of 1828, described it as “rare in America, not used in England,” but it was already lodged firmly on this side of the water and was soon making progress on the other, and today it is everywhere accepted as a perfectly sound word.
Pickering’s list included a number of terms that are now obsolete, for example, to admire (in the sense of to be pleased),1 alone (as in “the alone God”),2 applicant (in the sense of a diligent student),3 brief (in the sense of prevalent, as of an epidemic disease),4 citess (a female citizen, borrowed from the French citoyenne),5 to compromit (in the sense of to involve by indiscretion, to compromise, to imperil),6 docity (described by Pickering as “a low word, used in some part of the United States to signify quick comprehension”),7 to doxologize (defined by Webster as “to give glory to God”), to happify (to make happy),8 to improve (in the sense of to occupy),9 to missionate, publishment, redemptioner,10 releasement, and to squale (“to throw a stick, or other thing, with violence, and in such a manner that it skims along the ground”).1 Some of the terms listed by Pickering, in fact, were so little used, even in his day, that Noah Webster, in a letter to him, professed to be unfamiliar with them, e.g., brash (brittle and easily split, as of wood),2 clitchy (clammy, sticky, glutinous),3 docity, kedge (brisk, in good health and spirits), to quackle (to choke or suffocate), rafty (rancid), to slat (to throw down with violence), to squale, and to squat (to squeeze or press).4 But a much larger number of Pickering’s terms survive in the speech of today, e.g., accountability, to americanize, to appreciate (to raise in value), appellate (of a court), authority (in the sense of a person or group), backwoodsman, balance (remainder), betterments, bookstore, dutiable, to energize, to evoke, Fall (for Autumn), governmental, gunning (for what the English call shooting), to heft, immigrant (as the newcomer is seen from the receiving end), influential, lean-to, mad (angry), nationality, to obligate, passage (of a legislative act), caucus, census, checkers (the English call the game draughts), chore, clapboard, to consider (without as following), constitutionality, corn (maize) creek (an inland brook), to debark, to deed (to convey by deed), to demoralize, departmental, to deputize, to locate, poorly (ill), presidential, to progress, to solemnize, squatter, stockholder and to systematize. Many of these, of course, were not actually American inventions, but most of them were in greater vogue in this country than in England, and not a few were denounced violently by the English purists of the time, e.g., appellate, balance, dutiable, influenti
al, to obligate, caucus, to debark, to demoralize, presidential, and to progress. Appellate, in the sense in which it is used in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, 1788, was employed by Blackstone in the first volume of his “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in 1765, and was used again by Burke in “Reflections on the Revolution in France,” 1790, but so late as 1808 the Annual Review denounced John Marshall for using it in his “Life of Washington.” Pickering, ordinarily disposed to yield to English censure, defended it by quoting an unnamed correspondent as follows:
If appellate, in the sense in which it is employed in the Constitution, has not found its way into English dictionaries, it has found its way into English minds.… The word is intelligible to every scholar, and is pointed, useful and sonorous.1
Balance, in the sense of remainder, is apparently a genuine Americanism. The DAE’s first example is dated 1788, and by the turn of the century the word was in general use. The purists, however, continued to belabor it. Noah Webster, writing to Pickering in 1817, said that its use was “forced, and not warranted by any good principle,” and so late as 1876 Richard Grant White, in “Words and Their Uses,”2 was calling it “an abomination,” and denying patriotically that it was an Americanism. The reviewer of the Monthly Anthology (published in Boston, 1803–11) censured Marshall for using dutiable in his “Life of Washington,” 1804–07, but the DAE shows that it was used in England fifteen years before it was heard in the debates of Congress, 1789. It was, however, so much more frequently in use in America than in England that it came to be thought of as an Americanism, and it strikes most Englishmen as such to this date. Influential belongs to the same category. It has been traced back to c. 1734 in England, and Johnson admitted it to his dictionary, but it was used only seldom, and when it began to appear frequently in American books and newspapers it was mistaken for an Americanism, and denounced as such. To obligate is even older in English: the NED’s first example is from one of Robert South’s sermons, 1692. But it began to go out in England as it came into vogue in this country, and the NED lists it as “not now in good use.” The DAE’s first example is from no less a dignitary than George Washington, 1753, but so recently as 1927 George Bernard Shaw was commenting tartly upon its use by Woodrow Wilson.3 The Monthly Anthology, in its review of Webster’s first dictionary of 1806, denounced it as “unnecessary” and without “respectable support,” and the British Critic, in noticing a book in which it was used by an Oxford don, called it “a low colloquial inaccuracy.” The same British Critic deplored the use of to debark by Washington, and called it “a Gallicism … without rational ground of preference for melody or force” to a “genuine English word,” to wit, disembark. The DAE passes over to debark as obviously English, and the NED traces it to 1654. To demoralize was introduced into American, in the form of demoralizeing, by Webster in 1794, and he entered the infinitive in his dictionary of 1806. It is said to have been his only original contribution to the American vocabulary. The Edinburgh Review sneered at it when it appeared, as demoralization, in a book by an English lady publicist, Miss Helen Maria Williams (1762–1827), and it got some thwacks from other English reviews, but it continued to flourish in this great Republic, and is still flourishing today. Pickering thought that it had been “adopted from France since the revolution” there. “It is used,” he said, “by some English writers, but not as often as by us. It is not in any of the dictionaries, except Mr. Webster’s.” One finds it hard to believe that so logical and necessary a word as presidential should have been denounced, but it is a fact. The Monthly Anthology called it a “barbarism,” and the North American Review agreed. “English writers,” said Pickering, “have sometimes used it, but only in speaking of American affairs.” So late as 1876 Richard Grant White was arguing that it was “not a legitimate word” and pleading for the substitution of presidental. The DAE’s first example is dated 1799, but in all probability it is older. To progress, according to the NED, was in common use in England in the Seventeenth Century, but then became obsolete there. It was “retained (or formed anew) in America, where it became very common, c. 1790.” It was readopted by the English after 1800, but is still “characterized as an Americanism, and is much more used in America than in Great Britain.” The DAE’s first example is from Franklin, 1789: it comes from his letter of December 26 to Noah Webster, in which he described it as “most awkward and abominable” and asked Webster to use his authority to “reprobate” it. The Monthly Anthology for August, 1808, censured Marshall for using it in his “Life of Washington.” Pickering, writing in 1815, said that it had had “extraordinary currency for the last twenty or thirty years, notwithstanding it has been condemned by the English, and by the best American writers.” He noted that it was in Johnson’s Dictionary, 1755, but also noted that it was marked “not used.” In 1876 Richard Grant White was still hot against it, even in the form of progressive.
The rest of the words on the Pickering list may be noticed briefly. Accountability, authority (in the collective sense), to energize, to evoke, Fall, gunning, to heft, lean-to, mad (angry), nationality, passage (of a legislative act), census, checkers, chore, clapboard, to deputize, poorly, to solemnize and to systematize were not, of course, American inventions, but most of them were in wider use in this country than in England, and some are still regarded as Americanisms by Englishmen, notably Fall, gunning, checkers and clapboard. Of the genuine Americanisms, to americanize has been traced to 1797, to appreciate (in value) to 1778, backwoodsman to 1784 (backwoods goes back to 1742), betterments (in real property) to 1785, bookstore to 1763, governmental to 1744, immigrant to 1789, constitutionality to 1787, to deed to 1806, and to locate (on land) to 1652. To americanize was listed in Noah Webster’s dictionary of 1806, but Pickering, writing in 1815, said that he had never encountered it in either writing or conversation. It had been used, as a matter of fact, by John Jay in 1797 and by Jefferson in 1801. Rather curiously, americanization did not appear until the middle of the Nineteenth Century. To appreciate (to raise in value) is traced by the DAE to 1778, but when Webster listed it in his dictionary the Monthly Anthology alleged that it was “only admitted into genteel company by inadvertence.” It seems to be going out, and the DAE’s last example is dated c. 1889. In the sense of to rise in value (intransitive) it goes back to 1779. The corresponding noun, appreciation, was used by John Adams in 1777, and is still sound American. Pickering says that in his time backwoodsman was applied “by the people of the commercial towns to those who inhabit the territory westward of the Allegany [sic]1 mountains.” The word was commonly used, he adds, “as a term of reproach (and that, only in the familiar style) to designate those people who, being at a distance from the sea and entirely agricultural, are considered as either hostile or indifferent to the interests of the commercial states.” “Thirty years ago,” said a writer in Niles’ Register in 1818, “the heart of Pennsylvania was considered as the backwoods, and appeared as distant to the citizens of the Atlantic border as the Mississippi does now.”
Pickering says that betterments, in the sense of “the improvements made on new lands, by cultivation, the erection of buildings, etc.,” was first used in Vermont, and the DAE’s first example, dated 1785, actually comes from that State. From Vermont it spread to New Hampshire, and then to Massachusetts. Webster omitted it from his first dictionary of 1806, but included it in his American Dictionary of 1828. It was noted as an Americanism by Edward Augustus Kendall in his “Travels Through the Northern Parts of the United States in 1806–08,”1 and when it was embodied in the titles of betterment acts it took on official standing. Book-store, of course, was one of the new words that followed the transformation of the English shop (for a retail establishment) to store — a very characteristic Americanism, still often remarked by English travelers. The DAE’s first example of this use of store is dated 1721 and comes from the American Weekly Mercury of March 16. “What are called shops in England,” observed Thomas Anburey in his “Travels Through the Interior P
arts of America” in 17892 “are here denominated stores.” Pickering says that the word was similarly used in Canada and the West Indies. To keep store, also an Americanism, is traced by the DAE to 1752, but store-clothes is not found before 1840, and store-teeth not before 1891. Storekeeper in the American sense goes back to 1741 and storekeeping to 1774. Book-store is first recorded in 1763 (in Boston), drug-store in 1819 (in Louisville), and grocery-store in 1774 (in Pennsylvania).
Governmental seems to have appeared in the South in 1744, but by 1796 it had spread to New England. The ever-watchful Monthly Anthology denounced it as a barbarism, and Noah Webster excluded it from his dictionary of 1806, but he admitted it to his American Dictionary of 1828, and ascribed it to Alexander Hamilton. When it was used by William Belsham (1752–1827) in his “Memoirs of George the Third,” the Edinburgh Review condemned it, along with liberticidal and royalism, as “innovations” of a “thirsty reformer,” and declined to give up the English language to his “ravages.” Pickering discusses immigrant, immigration and to immigrate at some length. He says that they were first used by Jeremy Belknap (1744-98) in his “History of New Hampshire,” 1784–92, but the DAE’s first example of immigrant, apparently the oldest of the three words, comes from an “American Geography,” by one Morse, published in 1789. In the United States it is usual to employ immigrant to designate an incoming wanderer and emigrant to designate one leaving. In England it seems to be more common to use emigrant in both cases, maybe under the influence of the French émigré. When John Marshall’s “Life of Washington” was brought out in England immigrations, in “The immigrations from England continued to be very considerable,” was changed to emigrations. It is rather astonishing that constitutionality did not appear in England before it was used by Alexander Hamilton in 1787, but such seems to have been the case. The NED’s first example of its English use is dated 1801. Constitutionalist goes back to 1766 in England, sixteen years before it is recorded in America, and constitutional to 1682. Constitutionally, in the political sense, has been traced to 1756. The DAE classes constitutional-amendment, constitutional-lawyer and constitutional-convention as Americanisms. The first is first recorded in 1854, the second in 1830 and the third in 1843. To deed, defined by Webster as to give or transfer by deed, is listed by Pickering as “a low word, used colloquially, but rarely, except by illiterate people.” “None of our writers,” he continued, “would employ it. It need hardly be observed that it is not in the English dictionaries.” But J. Fenimore Cooper was using it by 1845, and it is today reasonably respectable. So with to locate, which goes back to 1652 in America, but did not appear in England until 1837.
American Language Supplement 1 Page 11