those who have a just title to it, upon great masters in the art of speech, upon speakers whose eloquence carries captive all hearts, upon writers whose power in wielding the common instrument of thought is felt and acknowledged through all ranks. Such a one may now and then coin a new word, if he follow established analogies; he may revive and bring again into currency one which had fallen into desuetude; he may confer on an old word a new value, not too far differing from that already belonging to it—and the license shall be ratified by general acceptance. A great author may, by his single authority, turn the trembling scale in favour of the admission to good usage of some popular word or phrase, born of an original corruption or blunder, which had hitherto been frowned upon and banned; nay, even his mannerisms and conceits may perhaps become the law of the language. The maxim usus norma loquendi, 'usage is the rule of speech,' is of supreme and uncontrolled validity in every part and parcel of every human tongue, and each individual can make his fellows talk and write as he does just in proportion to the influence which they are disposed to concede to him.
In a language circumstanced like ours, a conscious and detailed discussion sometimes arises on the question of admitting some new word into its recognized vocabulary. We all remember the newspaper controversy, not long ago, as to whether we ought to call a message sent by telegraph a telegraph or a telegram; and many of us, doubtless, are yet waiting to see how the authorities settle it, that we may govern our own usage accordingly. We have a suffix able, which, like a few others that we possess, we use pretty freely in forming new words. Within no very long time past, some writers and speakers have added it to the verb rely, forming the adjective reliable. The same thing must have been done at nearly the same time to other verbs, awakening neither question nor objection; while, nevertheless, reliable is still shut out from the best—or, at least, from the most exclusive—society in English speech. And why? Because, in the first place, say the objectors, the word is unnecessary; we have already trustworthy, which means the same thing: fur-
