named it India, and the people Indians. But when the mistake was
discovered, and the truth fully known, instead of effecting a change in
the name already very generally understood, and in common use, another
word was chosen to distinguish between countries so opposite and _West_
India became the word to distinguish the newly discovered islands; and
as India was little better known in Europe at that time, instead of
retaining their old name unaltered, another word was prefixed, and they
called it _East_ India. When, therefore, we desire to be definite, we
retain these words, and say, East Indians and West Indians. Without this
distinction, we should understand the native people of our own country;
but in Europe, Asia, and Africa, they would think we alluded to those in
Asia. So with all other adjectives which are not understood. _Indian_,
as an adjective, may also be employed to _describe_ the character and
condition of the aborigines. We talk of an indian temper, indian looks,
indian blankets, furs, &c.

In writing and conversation we should employ words to explain, to define
and describe, which are better understood than those things of which we
speak. The pedantry of some modern writers in this respect is
ridiculous. Not satisfied to use plain terms which every body can
understand, they hunt the dictionaries from alpha to omega, and not
unfrequently overleap the "king's english," and ransack other languages
to find an unheard of word, or a list of adjectives never before
arranged together, in so nice a manner, so that their ideas are lost to
the common reader, if not to themselves. This fault may be alleged
against too many of our public speakers, as well as the affected gentry
of the land. They are like Shakspeare's Gratiano, "who speaks an
infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice; his reasons
are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff: you shall seek
all day ere you find them; and, when you have found them, they are not