xxix
	I appreciate the fact that many of the writers have record.~ cd sensitively. The writer who wrote “ret“ for right is probab-. :I.y as accurate as the one who spelled it “raght.“ But in a single publication, not devoted to a study of local speech, the reader may conceivably be puzzled by different spellings of the sar~e word. The words “whafolks,“ “whufoiks,“ ??whi~folks,fl etc., cJn all be heard in the South. But “whitefolks“ is easier for t~ďe reader, and the word itself is suggestive of the setting and the attitude.

	~Iords that definitely have a notably different pronunciation fro~i the usual should be recorded as heard. More important is the recording of words with a different local ::ieaning. 1~.‘iost iL~1pOrtaflt, however, are the turns of phrase that have flavor and v~vidness~ Exa~iples occurring in the copy I read are:

dunn‘ of de war
out~an my daddy (good, but uirnecessariiy put into quotes)
piddled in de fields skit of woods kinder chillish

	There are, of course, questionable words, for which it may be hard to set up a single st~dard. Such words are:

paddyrollers, padrollers, pattyroilers for patroliers
	missis, mnistess	for mistress
	marsa, mass~ inaussa, ~:~astuh	for master
	ter, tuh, teh	for to

I believe tat there should he, for this book, a uniform ~~ord for each of these.

	The following list is composed of words which I think ~hou1d not be used. These &re :ierely s~~~p1es of certain faults: