LOCAL WORDS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ENGLISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATION.

SIR,-There is a variation in print from the order in which the Local Words (inserted in the May number of the ENGLISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATION) were written.

The words shim, smudge, swip, wattle, wrest, yax, ought to appear amongst those used in Kent, and the following-tar-marl, teem, thrushel, topping, toppled, tray, tumbrel, unheppen, vartual, welsh, wemble, whallop, wimbeam, ought to be amongst the Lincolnshire words. The term printed "leawt was "lean to.' The postscripts are reversed; the one under the second letter belonging to the first, and that under the first to the Kent words of the second. In defining "wimbeams," I ought to have used the word rafters, instead of "joists of the roof."

If you will be kind enough to insert this, I shall feel greatly obliged. The accompanying list of Lincolnshire words is at your service.-I am, &c.,

Cull, to select the worst things from a Sheder, used for she, in composition; as a

Grew, a greyhound.

Grob, to grub.

Harrow, to overcome with fatigue.

Slape, smooth.

Squad, mud.

Squaddy, muddy.

Stavers, the rounds or steps of a ladder.
Stew, dust raised.

Heder) for he in composition; as a 'he- Stodge, a kind of soup or porridge.

der'-lamb for he-lamb.

Hobble, a difficulty.

Hoin a pig is said to 'hoin' when he squeals.

Jalp, to shake a liquid by carrying so as
to spill it.

Kell, the fat about the kidneys of a hog.
Kibble, a kind of bat for driving a ball.
Limmick, flexible.

Lithe, to thicken milk, &c., with flour.

Stowp, a low post.
Strinkling, a sprinkling.

Swall, to wash by throwing with large
quantities of water.
Tang, a barb or sting.
Tidy, a pinafore.
To-year, this year.
Weant, will not.

Whinnick, to laugh loudly.
Wreak, drifted snow, &c.

THE PUNCTUATION QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ENGLISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATION.

SIR, I trust you will not deem me intrusive or litigious if I again trespass upon your pages for a brief space: I would be the last to desire they should become the

field of unprofitable controversy; but as fact is stranger than fiction, and as "C. H. D.'s" replication to my former letter may produce a false impression in the minds of your readers, and still lead them to attempt a chase after a mirage, I would endeavour to spare them the pains, and set them right in the somewhat inutile path they would thereby tread.

My original object in criticising Mr. Davis's remarks was to show the inexpediency of necessarily incompetent persons attempting to legislate with regard to the innumerable minutiæ of typographical arrangement, or, in their own particular instances, essaying to make exception to the style adopted in any printing-office, especially when such alteration was unfamiliar to and inappreciable by those for whom the benefit was intended. I briefly drew attention to his crude attempts at reform, therefore, by way of caution, and refrained from entering largely into reasons, because I deemed they would be only too apparent, as I still believe they must be, to the majority of your readers. Mr. Davis having experienced some annoyance at the hands of careless, or it might be ignorant printers, seeks to show that the body are unable to legislate for themselves, and that it is high time for the Public to step in, and duly instruct this sadly deficient guild-a remedy, according to his own showing, 80 inefficient, as to permit every author to exercise individual judgment [query whim?] in the production of his work ;-for as to imagining that the public would be guided by Mr. Davis's infallible rule, even if printers consented, is simply to entertain an impossibility.

I did not in my communication think it necessary to give specimens of the diversities of plan mentioned, but Mr. Davis would have had a tangible reply to his question if he had reflected sufficiently to refer to the plan pursued in your own Journal, which, taken in toto, is unlike either of the two instances he cites as being the ones in use in London offices. I will now, however, partly comply with his request, remarking that the subjoined variations are more or less used, wholly and in part, in the printing of books in this 19th century :

Perplexing enough, truly, you will say; and too plainly evidencing the difficulty of maintaining a fanciful discrimination in their use.

There is no accounting for such crotchets, many of which seem quite untenable ; but the plan most generally adopted (in the JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, for instance,— always excepting "C. H. D.'s "articles) avoids, to a great extent, unsightliness and eccentricity, whereas the one propounded by Mr. Davis is inutile in practice, unpleasant to the eye, and perplexing to the sense.

I must plead guilty to having misquoted Mr. Davis's article, but quite unintentionally so, and not sufficiently, I think, to affect the real argument. Your readers will judge whether my criticisms do not even now stand the test of Mr. Davis's reply, with the single exception of the italicising the word " v.," which is, I again urge, unnecessary and improper, because, in the case he cites, the contraction" the word 66 verse," itself, is recognised as a proper distinction, instead of the false emphasis which he would substitute.

ver., or

In conclusion, I must again suggest to Mr. Davis that he is standing on unsound premises; and repeat, that if he had discoursed on Punctuation proper, with a view to its more general adaptation, and not run foul of typographical eccentricity, upon which 66 doctors" themselves cannot agree, he would more profitably have employed both his own time and that of your readers.—I am, yours truly,

F. F. W.

[This discussion must terminate here. It does not touch on topics of broad educational interest, nor is it of any great practical moment even as a matter of detail.— ED. E. J. E.]

Notes of New Books.

LITTLE BOOKS.

Memoirs of Little Arthur. This is a pretty little book, containing the sayings of a little child who died at an early age; and the authoress has not fallen into the common error of many mothers who write their children's memoirs; namely, that of portraying the children they have lost as nearly perfect beings.

The Golden A B C. (London: Parker, 1856.) This is beautifully illustrated; but, we must confess, a more useless book we have seldom seen, as children cannot be expected to learn their alphabets, much less how to read, from such fanciful letters. Text-Book, or the Method of Working the First Four Rules in Arithmetic. By Henry D. Brooke. Second edition. Pp. 15. (London: Simpkin and Marshall.) This very useful little book has passed through a second edition, and we hope the succeeding numbers will be equally serviceable in helping children to comprehend the more difficult rules.

Bell's Series of Poets.-Ben Jonson.-(Parker & Son.) This is an admirably biographed and annotated edition, and is a valuable gem in this choice poetical diadem. We shall shortly give an article on some of the most favourite poets who have already had their niches in the Messrs. Parker's gallery.

Fraser's Magazine for May. A good number; but we must greatly modify our former praise of Kate Coventry. There is now an absence of all womanly decency of conduct in the heroine, which no pluck or other good quality can possibly atone for. What can have possessed the writer thus to blur so promising a tale? The condemnation of it is now universal.

The Massachusetts Teacher. Vol. I. No. 5. (Boston: Coolidge.) A most excellent educational periodical. The United States set a good example to Europe in this important branch of school literature.

Manual of Prayers for the Use of Schools. Pp. 43. (London and Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1856.) This is a useful little book, and some of the prayers are very good and pious, without fanaticism, as are also the heads for self-examination. We hope it may be generally used in schools.

Florum Sacra. By the Rev. G. H. Smythan, B.A. 2nd edition. Pp. 54. (London: J. & H. Parker, 1856.) This a prettily-written book, and calculated to inspire good and kindly feelings.

The Training School Song-Book. Edited by A. D. Thomson & W. Sugden. (London : Simpkin & Marshall, 1856.)

The Choral Wreath. Parts I., II., III. (London: Simpkin & Marshall, 1856.) These are very useful additions to the school-room, containing good secular and sacred pieces, and will aid in making children cheerful and giving them a chaste taste for harmony.

Cottage Pictures from the Old Testament. (London and Oxford: Parker, 1856.) These are very prettily done, and calculated to add considerably to children's interest in the Old Testament history.

Notes of Lessons on the Collects. Part I. By Henry Brooke, C.L.S. Pp. 52. (London: Wertheim and Mackintosh, 1856.) These notes supplement the collects with useful facts and explanations, chiefly historical and etymological, but they should be fuller, and explain the meaning of each petition more instructively.

Daily Text Book. By J. Drage. Pp. 28. (London: Stevenson.) This small book has its merits; but its fault is, that the precepts, &c. are too curt, except as a sort of index to the texts they refer to. It would be useful as a skeleton for a thesis on all duties and scripture principles. It is very suggestive of lessons for questioning.

** Several books received will be reviewed next month.

SERIALS RECEIVED.

Frazer's Magazine; the Penny Post; Museum of Science and Art; Greek Texts, with notes,-Sophocles; Sophocles-short notes; Two to One.

TH

LUNAR MOTION DEFINED.*

[FROM THE MINING JOURNAL."]

HE discussion respecting the Moon's movement has lately created great excitement and very animated arguments amongst our scientific men, both in England and on the Continent. This discussion has originated in a letter sent to the Times from one of her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, Mr. Jelinger Symons, in which he maintained that the astronomers were wrong in stating that the Moon rotated on her own axis. The non-rotation of the Moon appears to us self-evident, from the description given by the astronomers themselves; viz. "The Moon, in revolving about the Earth, keeps the same face always towards us." This observed fact is admitted by all. But astronomers state, that because she does always present the same face to us, she must rotate on her own axis once a month; and that if she did show her whole body to us all round once a month, she would then have no rotation. It is difficult to conceive how they arrive at these conclusions, which appear so opposite to the ordinary effects of rotation and revolution in terrestrial movements. However, as Mr. Symons, in his pamphlet, has fully entered into the merits of the argument, pro and con., and has rendered the question clear and free from all obscurities, and as our correspondent, Mr. Hopkins, has also maintained the same view as Mr. Symons, and has lately elucidated the question in the Mining Journal, we need not repeat many of the illustrations, but refer our readers to the pamphlet itself.

The notion of the Moon's rotation must have originated in a misconception, and the confounding of the turning round by means of revolution with that of turning round by rotation. This error having been once accepted and then established, is, like many other errors, obstinately retained by our mathematicians, simply on that account, in opposition to their better judgment, and to the laws of, and the terms employed in, the science of dynamics. It is very commonly remarked, that it is a singular fact that men who have been trained in the science of mathematics, from whom we have a right to expect a clear conception of what they undertake to instruct, and precise definition of all matters pertaining to that science, should be so often found the most confused, contradictory, and unintelligible in their arguments.† We are taught in

* "Lunar Motion: the whole Argument stated, with Letters from the Astronomer Royal on the subject." By J. Symons, Esq., B.A. Price 6d., 8vo. Groombridge & Sons, Paternoster Row.

+ The "Moderators" of Cambridge have lately called the attention of the Mathematical Board to the following points:-"They complain at the want of giving definitions and explanations of fundamental principles completely and fully.... This remark applies more especially to elementary dynamics and astronomy; in both which subjects the papers, even of the more distinguished of the candidates for honours, have frequently exhibited a want of clearness of conception, and of habits of close and accurate thought. The course of examination for ordinary degrees is, in too many cases, merely got by rote, without being at all understood.' A reformation in University training is much wanted, and it is gratifying to observe that such a reformation is now recommended in the right quarter. Mathematical students will, before long, cease to be deep in the calculus and the binomial theorem before they clearly understand the additions of two fractions, the common laws of mechanics, and the difference between spinning round and moving round a centre. 2 z

VOL. X. NO. 116, N.S.

dynamics that rotation simply means the act of turning round on an axis or centre situated within the body; revolution means the act of turning round on an axis or centre situated outside of the body. Although both necessarily turn round, the two motions are yet quite distinct, and their respective centres of motion have definite positions—that is, the one within and the other without.

When we were informed that the Astronomer Royal had condescended to enter into this discussion, and had written two explanatory letters on the subject to Mr. Symons, we anticipated that such an eminent authority would have removed some of the obscurity which has caused the dispute; that he would not only employ the terms rotation and revolution strictly according to their true meaning, and confine himself within the circle of the Moon, but also boldly enter into the dynamical merits of the question, showing how astronomers prove that the Moon rotates.

We have been much disappointed. Professor Airy's letters appear to us somewhat incongruous and contradictory, and tend to envelop the points in dispute in increased darkness. We shall quote a few paragraphs that bear on the question. Mr. Symons requested the Astronomer Royal to give his opinion on the subject; the following is an extract from his first reply, dated Greenwich, April 19:-"Suppose that a body moving freely in space, whose motion is determined by the attraction of two (the Sun and the Earth), rotates. If we wish to determine either the fact or the velocity of its rotation, we must refer the direction of some produced radius of the body to some zero point. What shall that zero point be? The Sun? Not at all. Ought it to be the Earth? A fortiori, no. What then is it to be? Clearly the same which is the point of reference for all other rotations [revolutions ?]; viz. some point (as a star) at a distance so great that the motion of the Moon in going round the Sun does not sensibly disturb the direction of the line from the Moon to the star."

It must be admitted that this is a strange way to determine whether the Moon rotates or not. We need not observe, that the question of rotation has nothing whatever to do with the attraction of the Sun and the Earth, nor yet with the annual motion of the Moon round the Sun, but simply, does the Moon turn round on an internal centre or not? Surely such a simple dynamical movement ought to be easily demonstrated, by referring only to the Moon herself within the space of her monthly orbit, without bringing in the whole of the solar system, and the sidereal regions besides.

The Astronomer Royal then proceeds :-"Having thus come to the point that rotation is to be referred to something very distant, as a star, and not to anything near, as the Sun or Earth, there is little difficulty in ascertaining from observable appearances whether the Moon does or does not rotate. Does she always turn the same part of her face to the same star? No. Then she does rotate [revolve?]. If her face has been once turned to a star, how long a time elapses before it is turned to the same star again? 274 days. Then 27 days is the time of her rotation" [revolution?].

This is an extraordinary mode of reasoning, by so high an authority as the Astronomer Royal. If the Moon truly and simply revolves round the Earth, she must, as a natural consequence, show different