Chapter IV: On Spelling (1)

The remarks which I venture to offer in these pages on the corrupt state of the present spelling of English, and on the advantages and disadvantages connected with a reform of English orthography, were written in fulfillment of a promise of very long standing. Ever since the publication of the Second Volume of my “Lectures on the Science of Language,” in 1863, where I had expressed my sincere admiration for the courage and perseverance with which Mr. Isaac Pitman and some of his friends (particularly Mr. A. J. Ellis, for six years his most active associate) had fought the battle of a reform in English spelling, Mr. Pitman had been requesting me to state more explicitly than I had done in my “Lectures” my general approval of his life-long endeavors. He wished more particularly that I should explain why I, though by profession an etymologist, was not frightened by the specter of phonetic spelling, while such high authorities as Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford had declared that phonetic spelling would necessarily destroy the historical and etymological character of the English language.

If I ask myself why I put off the fulfillment of my promise from year to year, the principal reason I find is, that really I had nothing more to say than what, though in few words, I had said before. Every thing that can be said on this subject has been said, and well said, not only by Mr. Pitman, but by a host of writers and lecturers, among whom I might mention Mr. Alexander J. Ellis, Dr. Latham, Professors Haldeman, Whitney, and Hadley, Mr. Withers, Mr. E. Jones, Dr. J. H. Gladstone, and many others. The whole matter is no longer a matter for argument; and the older I grow, the more I feel convinced that nothing vexes people so much, and hardens them in their unbelief and in their dogged resistance to reforms, as undeniable facts and unanswerable arguments. Reforms are carried by Time, and what generally prevails in the end, are not logical deductions, but some haphazard and frequently irrational motives. I do not say, therefore, with Dean Swift, that “there is a degree of corruption wherein some nations, as bad as the world is, will proceed to an amendment; till which time particular men should be quiet.” On the contrary, I feel convinced that practical reformers, like Mr. Pitman, should never slumber nor sleep. They should keep their grievances before the public in season and out of season. They should have their lamps burning, to be ready whenever the right time comes. They should repeat the same thing over and over again, undismayed by indifference, ridicule, contempt, and all the other weapons which the lazy world knows so well how to employ against those who venture to disturb its peace.

I myself, however, am not a practical reformer; least of all in a matter which concerns Englishmen only—namely, the spelling of the English language. I should much rather, therefore, have left the fight to others, content with being merely a looker-on. But when I was on the point of leaving England my conscience smote me. Though I had not actually given a pledge, I remembered how, again and again, I had said to Mr. Pitman that I would much rather keep than make a promise; and though overwhelmed with other work at the time, I felt that before my departure I ought, if possible, to satisfy Mr. Pitman’s demands. The article was written; and though my own plans have since been changed, and I remain at Oxford, it may as well be published in discharge of a debt which has been for some time heavy on my conscience.

What I wish most strongly to impress on my readers is that I do not write as an advocate. I am not an agitator for phonetic reform in England. My interest in the matter is, and always has been, purely theoretical and scientific. Spelling and the reform of spelling are problems which concern every student of the science of language. It does not matter whether the language be English, German, or Dutch. In every written language the problem of reforming its antiquated spelling must sooner or later arise; and we must form some clear notion whether any thing can be done to remove or alleviate a complaint inherent in the very life of language. If my friends tell me that the idea of a reform of spelling is entirely Quixotic, that it is a mere waste of time to try to influence a whole nation to surrender its historical orthography and to write phonetically, I bow to their superior wisdom as men of the world. But as I am not a man of the world, but rather an observer of the world, my interest in the subject, my convictions as to what is right and wrong, remain just the same. It is the duty of scholars and philosophers not to shrink from holding and expressing what men of the world call Quixotic opinions; for, if I read the history of the world rightly, the victory of reason over unreason, and the whole progress of our race, have generally been achieved by such fools as ourselves “rushing in where angels fear to tread,” till, after a time, the track becomes beaten, and even angels are no longer afraid. I hold, and have confessed, much more Quixotic theories on language than this belief—that what has been done before by Spaniards and Dutchmen—what is at this very moment being done by Germans, namely, to reform their corrupt spelling—may be achieved even by Englishmen and Americans.

I have expressed my belief that the time will come when not only the various alphabets and systems of spelling, but many of the languages themselves which are now spoken in Europe, to say nothing of the rest of the world, will have to be improved away from the face of the earth and abolished. Knowing that nothing rouses the ire of a Welshman or a Gael so much as to assert the expediency, nay, necessity, of suppressing the teaching of their languages at school, it seems madness to hint that it would be a blessing to every child born in Holland, in Portugal, or in Denmark—nay, in Sweden and even in Russia—if, instead of learning a language which is for life a barrier between them and the rest of mankind, they were at once to learn one of the great historical languages which confer intellectual and social fellowship with the whole world. If, as a first step in the right direction, four languages only, namely, English, French, German, Italian (or possibly Spanish) were taught at school, the saving of time—and what is more precious than time?—would be infinitely greater than what has been effected by railways and telegraphs. But I know that no name in any of the doomed languages would be too strong to stigmatize such folly. We should be told that a Japanese only could conceive such an idea; that for a people deliberately to give up its language was a thing never heard of before; that a nation would cease to be a nation if it changed its language; that it would, in fact, commit “the happy despatch,” _à la Japonaise_. All this may be true, but I hold that language is meant to be an instrument of communication, and that in the struggle for life, the most efficient instrument of communication must certainly carry the day, as long as natural selection, or, as we formerly called it, reason, rules the world.

The following figures may be of use in forming an opinion as to the fates of the great languages of Europe:(68)—

Portuguese is spoken in
Portugal, by 3,980,000
Brazil, by 10,000,000
Total: 13,980,000
Italian, by 27,524,238
French, in France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc., by 40,188,000
Spanish, in
Spain, by 16,301,000
South America, by 27,408,082
Total: 43,709,082
Russian, by 51,370,000
German, by 55,789,000
English, in
Europe, by 31,000,000
America, by 45,000,000
Australia, etc., by 2,000,000
the Colonies, by 1,050,000
Total: 79,050,000

According to De Candolle, the population doubles in

England, in 56 years America, among the German races, in 25 years Italy, in 135 years Russia, in 100 years Spain, in 112 years South America, in 27-½ years Germany, in 100 years France, in 140 years

Therefore, in 200 years (barring accidents)

Italian will be spoken by 53,370,000
French will be spoken by 72,571,000
German will be spoken by 157,480,000
Spanish will be spoken in
Europe, by 36,938,338
South America, by 468,347,904
Total: 505,286,242
English will be spoken in
Europe, by 178,846,153
United States, and British Dependencies, by 1,658,440,000
Total: 1,837,286,153

But I shall say no more on this, for as it is, I know I shall never hear the end of it, and shall go down to posterity, if for nothing else, at least for this the most suicidal folly in a student of languages; a folly comparable only to that of Leibniz, who actually conceived the possibility of one universal language.

To return, however, to the problem to the solution of which Mr. Pitman has devoted the whole of his active life, let me say again that my interest in it is purely philological; or, if you like, historical. The problem which has to be solved in England and the United States of America is not a new one, nor an isolated one. It occurs again and again in the history of language; in fact, it must occur. When languages are reduced to writing, they are at first written phonetically, though always in a very rough-and-ready manner. One dialect, that of the dominant, the literary, or priestly character, is generally selected; and the spelling, once adopted, becomes in a very short time traditional and authoritative. What took place thousands of years ago, we can see taking place, if we like, at the present moment. A missionary from the island of Mangaia, the Rev. W. Gill, first introduced the art of writing among his converts. He learned their language, at least one dialect of it, he translated part of the Bible into it, and adopted, of necessity, a phonetic spelling. That dialect is gradually becoming the recognized literary language of the whole island, and his spelling is taught at school. Other dialects, however, continue to be spoken, and they may in time influence the literary dialect. For the present, however, the missionary dialect, as it is called by the natives themselves, and the missionary spelling, rule supreme, and it will be some time before a spelling reform is wanted out there.

Among the more ancient nations of Europe, not only does the pronunciation of language maintain its inherent dialectic variety, and fluctuate through the prevalence of provincial speakers, but the whole body of a language changes, while yet the spelling, once adopted in public documents, and taught to children, remains for a long time the same. In early times, when literature was in its infancy, when copies of books could easily be counted, and when the _norma scribendi_ was in the hands of a few persons, the difficulty of adapting the writing to the ever-varying pronunciation of a language was comparatively small. We see it when we compare the Latin of early Roman inscriptions with the Latin of Cicero. We know from Cicero himself that when he settled among the patricians of Rome, he had on some small points to change both his pronunciation and his spelling of Latin. The reform of spelling was a favorite subject with Roman scholars, and even emperors were not too proud to dabble in inventing new letters and diacritical signs. The difficulty, however, never assumes serious proportions. The small minority of people who were able to read and write, pleased themselves as best they could; and, by timely concessions, prevented a complete estrangement between the written and the spoken language.

Then came the time when Latin ceased to be Latin, and the vulgar dialects, such as Italian, French, and Spanish took its place. At that time the spelling was again phonetic, though here and there tinged by reminiscences of Latin spelling. There was much variety, but considering how limited the literary intercourse must have been between different parts of France, Spain, or Italy, it is surprising that on the whole there should have been so much uniformity in the spelling of these modern dialects. A certain local and individual freedom of spelling, however, was retained; and we can easily detect in mediæval MSS. the spelling of literate and illiterate writers, the hand of the learned cleric, the professional clerk, and the layman.

[A style of spelling will now be introduced which has received the name of Semiphonotypy. It requires no new letter: “[D] [p]” for the vowel in _but_, _son_, are made from “D p” by a pen-knife. The short vowels, diphthongs, and consonants are all written phonetically, except an occasional “n” = “[n]” before _k_ and _g_, and “th” = both “[t]” and “[dh]” leaving only the long vowels in the old spelling. Six syllables out of seven are thus written as in full phonotypy. The italic and script forms of “[P [italic form] ]” are “[p [italic form] ]” (a turned italic “_a_”) and [P p [script form] ].]

The great event hwich formz a deseisiv epok in the histori ov speling iz the introd[p]kshon ov printing. With printed buks, and partikiularli with printed Beibelz, skaterd over the k[p]ntri, the speling of w[p]rdz bekame rijid, and universali beinding. S[p]m langwejez, s[p]ch az Italian, wer more fortiunate than [p]therz in having a more rashonal sistem ov speling tu start with. S[p]m, agen, leik Jerman, wer abel tu make teimli konseshonz, hweil [p]therz, s[p]ch az Spanish, D[p]ch, and French, had Akademiz tu help them at kritikal periodz ov their histori. The most [p]nfortiunate in all theze respekts woz Inglish. It started with a Latin alfabet, the pron[p]nsiashon ov hwich woz [p]nseteld, and hwich had tu be apleid tu a Tiutonik langwej. After this ferst fonetik kompromeiz it had tu pas through a konfiúzd sistem ov speling, half Sakson, half Norman; half fonetik, half tradishonal. The histori ov the speling, and even ov the pron[p]nsiashon, ov Inglish, in its pasej from Anglo-Sakson tu midel and modern Inglish, haz lateli been st[p]did with great s[p]kses bei Mr. Ellis and Mr. Sweet. Ei m[p]st refer tu their buks “On Erli Inglish Pron[p]nsiashon,” and “On the Histori ov Inglish Soundz,” hwich kontain a welth ov il[p]strashon, almost bewildering. And even after Inglish reachez the period ov printing, the konfiuzhon iz bei no meanz terminated; on the kontrari, for a teim it iz greater than ever. Hou this kame tu pas haz been wel il[p]strated bei Mr. Marsh in hiz ekselent “Lektiurz on the Inglish Langwej,” p. 687, _seq_.(69) Hwot we nou kall the establisht sistem ov Inglish orthografi may, in the main, be trast bak tu Jonson’z Dikshonari, and tu the stil more kaprishus sway ekserseizd bei larj printing ofisez and p[p]blisherz. It iz true that the evil ov printing karid tu a serten ekstent its own remedi. If the speling bekame [p]nchanjabel, the langwej itself, too, woz, bei meanz ov a printed literatiur, chekt konsiderabli in its natiural growth and its dealektik vareieti. Nevertheles Inglish haz chanjed sins the invenshon ov printing; Inglish iz chanjing, though bei imperseptibel degreez, even nou; and if we kompare Inglish az spoken with Inglish az riten, they seem almost leik two diferent langwejez; az diferent az Latin iz from Italian.

This, no dout, iz a nashonal misfortiun, but it iz inevitabel. Litel az we perseive it, langwej iz, and alwayz m[p]st be, in a state ov fermentashon; and hwether within hundredz or thouzandz ov yearz, all living langwejez m[p]st be prepared tu enkounter the difik[p]lti hwich in Ingland starez us in the fase at prezent. “Hwot shal we do?” ask our frendz. “Ther iz our hole nashonal literatiur,” they say, “our leibrariz aktiuali b[p]rsting with buks and nuizpaperz. Ar all theze tu be thrown away? Ar all valiuabel buks tu be reprinted? Ar we ourselvz tu [p]nlern hwot we hav lernd with so much tr[p]bel, and hwot we hav taught tu our children with greater tr[p]bel stil? Ar we tu sakrifeiz all that iz historikal in our langwej, and sink doun tu the low level ov the _Fonetik Nuz_?” Ei kud go on m[p]ltipleiing theze kwestionz til even thoze men ov the w[p]rld who nou hav onli a shrug ov the shoulder for the reformerz ov speling shud say, “We had no eidea hou strong our pozishon reali iz.”

But with all that, the problem remainz [p]nsolvd. Hwot ar peopel tu do hwen langwej and pron[p]nsiashon chanje, hweil their speling iz deklared tu be [p]nchanjabel? It iz, ei believ, hardli nesesari that ei shud prove hou kor[p]pt, efete, and [p]terli irrashonal the prezent sistem ov speling iz, for now[p]n seemz inkleind tu denei all thát. Ei shal onli kwote, therefor, the j[p]jment ov w[p]n man, the late Bishop Thirlwall, a man who never uzed ekzajerated langwej. “Ei luk,” he sez “[p]pon the establisht sistem, if an aksidental k[p]stom may be so kalld, az a mas ov anomaliz, the growth ov ignorans and chans, ekwali rep[p]gnant tu gud taste and tu komon sens. B[p]t ei am aware that the p[p]blik kling tu theze anomaliz with a tenasiti proporshond tu their abs[p]rditi, and ar jel[p]s ov all enkroachment on ground konsekrated tu the free play ov bleind kaprise.”

It may be useful, houever, tu kwote the testimonialz ov a fiu praktikal men in order tu show that this sistem ov speling haz reali bek[p]m w[p]n ov the greatest nashonal misfortiunz, swolowing [p]p milionz ov m[p]ni everi year and bleiting all atempts at nashonal ediukashon. Mr. Edward Jones, a skoolmaster ov great eksperiens, having then siuperintendens ov the Heibernian Skoolz, Liverpool, rote, in the year 1868:

“The G[p]vernment haz for the last twenti yearz taken ediukashon [p]nder its kare. They diveided the subjekts ov instr[p]kshon intu siks gradez. The heiest point that woz atempted in the G[p]vernment Skoolz woz that a piupil shud be abel tu read with tolerabel eaze and ekspreshon a pasej from a niuzpaper, and tu spel the same with a tolerabel amount ov akiurasi.”

Let [p]s luk at the rez[p]lts az they apear in the report ov the Komíti ov Kounsil on Ediukashon for 1870-71:

Skoolz or Departments [p]nder separate hed teacherz in Ingland and Walez
inspekted diuring the year 31st August, 1870, 15,287
Sertifikated asistant, and piupil teacherz emploid in theze skoolz,
28,033
Skolarz in daili averej atendans throughout the year, 1,168,981
Skolarz prezent on the day ov inspekshon, 1,473,883
Skolarz prezented for ekzaminashon:
[P]nder ten yearz ov aje, 473,444
Over ten yearz ov aje, 292,144
Total: 765,588
Skolarz prezented for Standard VI.:
[P]nder ten yearz ov aje, 227
Over ten yearz ov aje, 32,953
Total: 33,180
Skolarz who past in Standard VI.:
1. Reading a short paragraf from a niuzpaper, 30,985
2. Reiting the same from diktashon, 27,989
3. Arithmetik, 22,839

Therfor, les than w[p]n skolar for each teacher, and les than two skolarz for each skool inspekted, reacht Standard VI.

In 1873 the state ov thingz, akording tu the ofishal ret[p]rnz ov the Ediukashon Department, woz m[p]ch the same. Ferst ov all, ther ought tu hav been at skool 4,600,000 children between the ajez ov three and therteen. The number ov children on the rejister ov inspekted skoolz woz 2,218,598. Out ov thát number, about 200,000 leav skool aniuali, their ediukashon beïng supozed tu be finisht. Out ov theze 200,000, neinti per sent. leav without reaching the 6th Standard, eighti per sent. without reaching the 5th, and siksti per sent. without reaching the 4th Standard.

The report for 1874-75 showz an inkreas ov children on the buks, b[p]t the proporshon ov children pasing in the vari[p]s standardz iz s[p]bstanshali the same. (See “Popiular Ediukashon,” bei E. Jones, B.A., an eks-skoolmaster, 1875.) It iz kalkiulated that for such rezults az theze the k[p]ntri, hwether bei taksashon or bei voluntari kontribiushonz, payz nearli £3,500,000 aniuali.

Akording tu the same authoriti, Mr. E. Jones, it nou takes from siks tu seven yearz tu lern the arts ov reading and speling with a fair degree ov intelijens—thát iz, about 2,000 ourz; and tu meni meindz the difik[p]ltiz ov orthografi ar ins[p]rmountabel. The bulk ov the children pas through the G[p]vernment skoolz without having akweird the abiliti tu read with eaze and intelijens.

“An averej cheild,” sez anuthcr skoolmaster, “begining skool at seven, ought tu be abel tu read the Niu Testament fluentli at eleven or twelv yearz ov aje, and at therteen or fourteen ought tu be abel tu read a gud leading artikel with eaze and ekspreshon.” That iz, with seven ourz a week for forti weeks for feiv yearz, a cheild rekweirz 1,400 ourz’ w[p]rk, tu be abel tu read the Niu Testament.

After a kareful ekzaminashon ov y[p]ng men and wimen from therteen tu twenti yearz ov aje in the faktoriz ov Birmingham, it woz proved that onli 4-½ per sent. wer abel tu read a simpel sentens from an ordinari skool-buk with intelijens and akiurasi.

This apleiz tu the lower klasez. B[p]t with regard tu the heier klasez the kase seemz almost w[p]rs; for Dr. Morell, in hiz “Maniual ov Speling,” aserts that out ov 1,972 failiurz in the Sivil Servis Ekzaminashonz 1,866 kandidates wer pl[p]kt for speling.

So much for the piupilz. Am[p]ng the teacherz themselvz it woz found in Amerika that out ov w[p]n h[p]ndred komon w[p]rdz the best speler am[p]ng the eighti or neinti teacherz ekzamind faild in w[p]n, s[p]m preiz-takerz faild in four or feiv, and s[p]m [p]therz mist over forti. The Depiuti State Siuperintendent deklared that on an averej the teacherz ov the State wud fail in speling tu the ekstent ov 25 per sent.

Hwot, houever, iz even more seri[p]s than all this iz not the great waste ov teim in lerning tu read, and the almost komplete failiur in nashonal ediukashon, but the aktiual mischef d[p]n bei s[p]bjekting y[p]ng meindz tu the illojikal and tedi[p]s dr[p]jeri ov lerning tu read Inglish az speld at prezent. Everithing they hav tu lern in reading (or pron[p]nsiashon) and speling iz irrashonal; w[p]n rule kontradikts the [p]ther, and each statement haz tu be aksepted simpli on authoriti, and with a komplete disregard ov all thoze rashonal instinkts which lei dormant in the cheild, and ought tu be awakend bei everi keind ov helthi ekserseiz.

Ei nó ther ar personz who kan defend enithing, and who hold that it iz diu tu this veri disiplin that the Inglish karakter iz hwot it iz; that it retainz respekt for authoriti; that it d[p]z not rekweir a reazon for everithing; and that it duz not admit that hwot iz inkonseivabel iz therefor imposibel. Even Inglish orthodoksi haz been trast bak tu thát hiden sourse, bekauz a cheild akustomd tu believe that t-h-o-u-g-h iz _tho_, and that t-h-r-o-u-g-h iz _throo_, w[p]d afterwardz believe enithing. It may be so; stil ei dout hwether even such objekts wud justifei s[p]ch meanz. Lord Lytton sez, “A more leiing, round-about, p[p]zel-heded deluzhon than thát bei hwich we konfiúz the klear instinkts ov truth in our ak[p]rsed sistem ov speling woz never konkokted bei the father ov fol·shud.... Hou kan a sistem ov ediukashon fl[p]rish that beginz bei so monstr[p]s a fols·hud, hwich the sens ov hearing s[p]feisez tu kontradikt?”

Though it may seem a w[p]rk ov siupererogashon tu bring forward stil more fakts in s[p]port ov the jeneral kondemnashon past on Inglish speling, a fiu ekstrakts from a pamflet bei Mr. Meiklejohn, late Asistant-Komishoner ov the Endoud Skoolz Komishon for Skotland, may here feind a plase.

“Ther ar therteen diferent wayz ov reprezenting the sound ov long _o_:—_note_, _boat_, _toe_, _yeoman_, _soul_, _row_, _sew_, _hautboy_, _beau_, _owe_, _floor_, _oh!_, _O!_”

And agen (p. 16),

“Double-you-aitch-eye-see-aitch is _which_ Tea-are-you-tea-aitch is _truth_ Bee-o-you-gee-aitch is _bough_ See-are-eh-bee is _crab_ Bee-ee-eh-see-aitch is _beach_ Oh-you-gee-aitch-tee is _ought_ Oh-enn-see-ee is _once_

“Or, tu sum up the hole indeitment agenst the kulprit: 1. Out ov the twenti-siks leterz, onli eight ar true, fikst, and permanent kwolitiz—thát iz, are true both tu eí and ear. 2. Ther ar therti-eight distinkt soundz in our spoken langwej; and ther ar about 400 distinkt simbolz (simpel and kompound) tu reprezent theze therti-eight soundz. In [p]ther wurdz, ther ar 400 servants tu do the w[p]rk ov therti-eight. 3. Ov the twenti-siks leterz, fifteen hav akweird a habit ov heiding themselvz. They ar riten and printed; b[p]t the ear haz no akount ov them; such ar _w_ in _wrong_, and _gh_ in _right_. 4. The vouel soundz ar printed in diferent wayz; a long o, for ekzampel, haz therteen printed simbolz tu reprezent it. 5. Fourteen vouel soundz hav 190 printed simbolz atácht tu their servis. 6. The singel vouel e haz feiv diferent funkshonz; it ought onli tu hav w[p]n. 7. Ther ar at least 1,300 w[p]rdz in hwich the simbol and the sound ar at varians—in hwich the w[p]rd iz not sounded az it iz printed. 8. Ov theze 1,300, 800 ar monosilabelz—the komonest w[p]rdz, and s[p]pozed tu be eazier for children. 9. The hole langwej ov k[p]ntri children leiz within theze w[p]rdz; and meni agrikultiural laborerz go from the kradel tu the grave with a stok ov no more than 500 w[p]rdz.”

The kwestion, then, that wil hav tu be anserd sooner or later iz this:—Kan this unsistematik sistem ov speling Inglish be aloud tu go on for ever? Iz everi Inglish cheild, az kompared with [p]ther children, tu be m[p]lkted in two or three yearz ov hiz leif in order tu lern it? Ar the lower klasez tu go through skool without lerning tu read and reit their own langwej intelijentli? And iz the kuntri tu pay milionz everi year for this [p]ter failiur ov nashonal ediukashon? Ei do not believ that s[p]ch a state ov thingz wil be aloud tu kontiniu for ever, partikiularli az a remedi iz at hand—a remidi that haz nou been tested for twenti or therti yearz, and that haz anserd ekstremli wel. Ei mean Mr. Pitman’z sistem ov fonetik reiting, az apleid tu Inglish. Ei shal not enter here intu eni miniút disk[p]shon ov fonetiks, or re-open the kontroversi hwich haz arizen between the advokets ov diferent sistemz ov fonetik reiting. Ov kourse, ther ar diferent degreez ov ekselens in diferent sistemz ov fonetik speling; but even the w[p]rst ov theze sistemz iz infinitli siuperior tu the tradishonal speling.

Ei giv Mr. Pitman’z alfabet, hwich komprehendz the therti-siks broad tipikal soundz ov the Inglish langwej, and aseinz tu each a definit sein. With theze therti-siks seinz, Inglish kan be riten rashonali and red eazili; and, hwot iz most important, it haz been proved bei an eksperiens ov meni yearz, bei niumer[p]s p[p]blikashonz, and bei praktikal eksperiments in teaching both children and ad[p]lts, that such a sistem az Mr. Pitman’z iz perfektli praktikal.

THE PHONETIC ALPHABET.

The phonetic letters in the first column are pronounced like the italic letters in the words that follow. The last column contains the _names_ of the letters.

CONSONANTS.

_Mutes._

P p ro_p_e p[i] B b ro_b_e b[i] T t fa_t_e t[i] D d fa_d_e d[i] [Ch] [ch] e_tch_ [ch][e] J j e_dg_e j[e] K k lee_k_ k[e] G g le_ag_ue g[e]

_Continuants._

F f sa_f_e ef V v sa_v_e v[i] [T] [t] wrea_th_ i[t] [Dh] [dh] wrea_th_e [dh][i] S s hi_ss_ es Z z hi_s_ z[i] [Sh] [sh] vi_ci_ous i[sh] [Z] [Z] vi_si_on [z][i]

_Nasals._

M m see_m_ em N n see_n_ en [N] [n] si_ng_ i[n]

_Liquids._

L l fa_ll_ el R r _r_a_r_e ar

_Coalescents._

W w _w_et w[e] Y y _y_et y[e]

_Aspirate._

H h _h_ay [e][ch]

VOWELS.

_Guttural._

A a _a_m at [A] [a] _al_ms [a] E e _e_ll et [E] [e] _a_le [e] I i _i_ll it [I] [i] _ee_l [i]

_Labial._

O o _o_n ot [W] [w] _a_ll [w] [U] [u] _u_p [u]t [O] [o] _o_pe [o] U u f_u_ll ut [Ue] [ue] f_oo_d [ue]

DIPHTHONGS: Ei ei, IU iu, OU ou, AI ai, OI oi, as heard in b_y_, ne_w_, no_w_, K_ai_ser, b_oy_.

[In the next fourteen pages, five of the new letters will be employed, viz., [a], [u], [t], [z], [n], for the sounds represented by the italic letters in f_a_ther, _s_on, b_u_t, _th_in, vi_si_on, si_ng_.]

Nou ei ask eni intelijent reader who d[u]z not [t]i[n]k that everi[t]i[n] niu and stranje iz, _ipso facto_, ridikiul[u]s and abs[u]rd, hwether after a fiu dayz’ praktis, he or she wud not read and reit I[n]glish, akordi[n] tu Mr. Pitman’z sistem, with perfekt eaze? Ov kourse it takes more than feiv minits tu master it, and more than feiv minits tu form an opinion ov its merits. B[u]t admiti[n] even that peopel ov a serten aje shud feind this niu alfabet tr[u]bels[u]m, we m[u]st not forget that no reform kan be karid out without a jenerashon or two ov marterz; and hwot true reformerz hav tu [t]i[n]k ov iz not themselvz, b[u]t thoze who k[u]m after them—thoze, in fakt, who ar nou growi[n] [u]p tu inherit hereafter, hwether they leik it or not, all the gud and all the evil hwich we chooz tu leav tu them.

It meit be sed, houever, that Mr. Pitman’z sistem, bei[n] enteirli fonetik, iz too radikal a reform, and that meni and the w[u]rst irregiularitiz in I[n]glish speli[n] kud be removed without goï[n] kweit so far. The prinsipel that haf a loaf iz beter than no bred iz not without s[u]m tru[t], and in meni kasez we nó that a polisi ov kompromeiz haz been prod[u]ktiv ov veri gud rez[u]lts. B[u]t, on the [u]ther hand, this haf-harted polisi haz often retarded a real and komplete reform ov ekzisti[n] abiúsez; and in the kase ov a reform ov speli[n], ei almost dout hwether the difik[u]ltiz inherent in haf-me[z]urz ar not az great az the difik[u]ltiz ov karii[n] a komplete reform. If the w[u]rld iz not redi for reform, let [u]s wait. It seemz far beter, and at all events far more onest, tu wait til it iz redi than tu kari the rel[u]ktant wurld with you a litel way, and then tu feind that all the impulsiv forse iz spent, and the greater part ov the abiúsez establisht on fermer ground than ever.

Mr. Jones,(70) who reprezents the konsiliatori reformerz ov speli[n], wud be satisfeid with a moderet skeme ov speli[n] reform, in hwich, bei obzervi[n] analoji and folowi[n] presedent in olteri[n] a komparativli small n[u]mber ov w[u]rdz, it wud be posibel tu simplifei ortografi tu a konsiderabel ekstent without apleii[n] eni niu prinsipel, or introdiúsi[n] niu leterz, and yet tu rediús the teim and labor in teachi[n] readi[n] and speli[n] bei at least w[u]n-haf. It meit at all events be posibel tu setel the speli[n] ov thoze two or three touzand w[u]rdz hwich at prezent ar speld diferentli bei diferent au[t]oritiz. This skeme, advokated bei Mr. Jones, iz sertenli veri klever; and if it had a chans ov s[u]kses, ei meiself shud konsider it a great step in adváns. Mei onli dout iz hwether, in a kase leik this, a small me[z]ur ov reform wud be karid more eazili than a komplete reform. It iz diferent in Jerman, hwere the diseaz haz not spred so far. Here the Komíti apointed bei G[u]vernment tu konsider the kwestion ov a reform ov speli[n] haz deklared in favor ov s[u]m s[u]ch moderet prinsipelz az Mr. Jones advokates for I[n]glish. In I[n]glish, houever, the difik[u]ti leiz in chanji[n] eni[t]i[n]; and if the prinsipel ov eni chanje iz w[u]ns admited, it wud reali be eazier, ei believ, tu begin _de novo_ than tu chanje s[u]m[t]i[n], and leav the rest [u]nchanjed.

Let [u]s nou see hou Mr. Pitman’z or eni similar sistem ov fonetik reiti[n] haz w[u]rkt hwere it haz been put tu the test.

Mr. William White reits: “Ei speak from eksperiens. Ei hav taught poor children in Glasgow tu read the Sermon on the Mount after a kourse ov ekserseizez ekstendi[n] over no more than siks ourz.”

The folowi[n] iz an ekstrakt from a leter riten s[u]m teim ago bei the late Mr. William Colbourne, manajer ov the Dorset Ba[n]k at St[u]rminster, tu a frend ov hiz a skoolmaster. He sez:—

“Mei litel Sidney, who iz nou a fiu m[u]n[t]s more than four yearz old, wil read eni fonetik buk without the sleitest hezitashon; the hardest namez or the lo[n]gest w[u]rdz in the Old or Niu Testament form no obstakel tu him. And hou lo[n] do you [t]ink it tuk me (for ei am hiz teacher) tu impart tu him this pouer? Hwei s[u]m[t]i[n] les than eight ourz! You may believ it or not, az you leik, b[u]t ei am konfident that not more than that amount ov teim woz spent on him, and that woz in snachez ov feiv minits at a teim, hweil tea woz geti[n] redi. Ei no you wil be inkleind tu say, ‘All that iz veri wel, b[u]t hwot iz the use ov readi[n] fonetik buks? he iz stil az far of, and may be farther, from readi[n] romanik buks.’ B[u]t in this you ar mistaken. Take an[u]ther ekzampel. Hiz nekst elder br[u]ther, a boi ov siks yearz, haz had a fonetik ediukashon so far. Hwot iz the konsekwens? Hwei, readin in the ferst staje woz so deleitful and eazi a [t]i[n] tu him that he taught himself tu read romanikali, and it wud be a difik[u]lt mater tu feind w[u]n boi in twenti, ov a korespondi[n] aje, that kud read haf so wel az he kan in eni buk. Agen, mei oldest boi haz riten more fonetik shorthand and lo[n]hand, perhaps, than eni boi ov hiz aje (eleven yearz) in the ki[n]dom; and now[u]n ei daresay haz had les tu do with that abs[u]rditi ov abs[u]rditiz, the speli[n]-buk! He iz nou at a ferst-rate skool in Wiltshire, and in the haf-year presedi[n] Kristmas, he karid of the preiz for or[t]ografi in a kontest with boiz s[u]m ov them hiz seniorz bei yearz!”

Bei the adopshon ov the fonetik alfabet, the difik[u]ltiz that lei in the way ov forenerz lerni[n] I[n]glish, also wud be d[u]n away with. The Rev. Newman Hall reits, “Ei met with a Danish jentelman the [u]ther day who heili preizd the I[n]glish fonotipik Niu Testament. It had been ov great use tu him, and _enabeld him tu read [buks in the komon speli[n]] without an instr[u]kter_, removi[n] the greatest obstakel in akweiri[n] I[n]glish, the monstr[u]s anomali[z] ov pron[u]nsiashon.” Ekzampelz leik theze go a lo[n] way.

Mr. A. J. Ellis, than whom now[u]n haz labord more devotidli for a reform ov speli[n], az a ferst step in a reform ov nashonal ediukashon, and who haz himself elaborated several most injeni[u]s sistemz ov fonetik reiti[n], givz [u]s the folowi[n] az the rez[u]ltz ov hiz praktikal eksperiens:

“With the fonetik sistem ov speli[n], the Primer iz masterd within tree m[u]n[t]s at most. The children then proseed tu praktis this fonetik readi[n] for s[u]m teim, til they kan read with fluensi from the jeneral luk ov the w[u]rd, and not from konsideri[n] the pouerz ov its leterz. [T]ree m[u]n[t]s more, at most, ar rekweird for this staje.

“Hwen this pouer ov fluent readi[n] in fonetik print iz akweird, buks in the ordinari print, suited tu their kapasitiz, ar tu be put intu the children’z handz and they ar told tu read them. Each w[u]rd hwich they fail tu ges iz told them immedietli; but it iz found that children ar mostli abel tu read the ordinari print without eni f[u]rther instr[u]kshon. The teim nesesari for kompleti[n] this step may be taken, at the lo[n]gest, az two m[u]n[t]s, so that the hole teim ov lerni[n] tu read in the ordinari print, on the Readi[n] Reform sistem, may be rekond az feiv ourz a week for eight m[u]n[t]s. The hole task haz, in meni kasez, been akomplisht in les teim, even in [t]ree m[u]n[t]s. On the [u]ther hand, in w[u]n skool hwere it iz uzed, eleven m[u]nts ar okupeid, az the master feindz it advantaj[u]s in [u]ther respekts tu keep the piupil lo[n]ger at fonetik readi[n] B[u]t onli w[u]n our a day iz rekweired.” Mr. Ellis s[u]mz [u]p az folowz:

“Kareful eksperiments in teachi[n] children ov vari[u]s ajez and ra[n]ks, and even pauperz and kriminal ad[u]lts, hav establisht—

“1. That piupilz may be taught tu read buks in fonetik print, slowli b[u]t shureli, in from ten tu forti ourz, and will atain konsiderabel fluensi after a fiu weeks’ praktis.

“2. That hwen the piupilz hav ataind fluensi in readi[n] from fonetik print, a veri fiu ourz wil s[u]feis tu giv them the same fluensi in readi[n] ordinari print.

“3. That the hole teim nesesari for imparti[n] a nolej ov bo[t] fonetik and ordinari readi[n] d[u]z not ekseed eight m[u]nts for children ov averaj intelijens, between four and feiv yearz ov aje, taught in klas, at skool, not more than haf-an-our tu an our each day; and that in this teim an abiliti tu read iz akweird siuperior tu that u[z]uali ataind in two or [t]ree teimz the period on the old plan; hweil the pron[u]nsiashion ov the piupil iz m[u]ch improved, hiz interest in hiz st[u]diz iz kept aleiv, and a lojikal traini[n] ov endiuri[n] valiu iz given tu hiz meind bei the habitual analisis and sin[t]ensis ov spoken soundz.

“4. That thoze taught tu read in this maner akweir the art ov ordinari speli[n] more redili than thoze instr[u]kted on the old me[t]od.”

Tu all who no Mr. A. J. Ellis, this evidens wil be be s[u]fishent az tu the praktikal usefulnes ov the Fonetik Sistem ov speli[n]. Tu thoze who wish for more evidens ei rekomend a pamflet bei Mr. G. Withers, “The I[n]glish La[n]gwej Speld az Pronounst,” 1874; and w[u]n bei Dr. J. W. Martin, “The Gordian Not K[u]t,” 1875, hwere they wil feind the konk[u]rent testimoni ov praktikal teacherz in I[n]gland, Skotland, Eirland, and Amerika, all agreei[n] that, bo[t] az a praktikal and a lojikal traini[n], the Fonetik Sistem haz proved the greatest s[u]kses.

Ther remainz, therefor, this w[u]n objekshon onli, that hwotever the praktikal, and hwotever the [t]eoretikal advantejez ov the fonetik sistem may be, it wud [u]terli destroi the historikal or etimolojikal karakter ov the I[n]glish la[n]gwej.

S[u]poze it did; hwot then? The Reformashon iz s[u]pozed tu hav destroid the historikal karakter ov the I[n]glish Ch[u]rch, and that sentimental grievans iz stil felt bei s[u]m stiudents ov ekleziastikal antikwitiz. B[u]t did I[n]gland, did all the reali progresiv nashonz ov Europe, alou this sentimental grievans tu outweigh the praktikal and [t]eoretikal advantejez ov Protestant Reform? La[n]gwej iz not made for skolarz and etimolojists; and if the hole rase ov I[n]glish etimolojists wer reali tu be swept away bei the introd[u]kshon ov a Speli[n] Reform, ei hope they wud be the ferst tu rejois in sakrifeizi[n] themselvz in so gud a kauz.

B[u]t iz it reali the kase that the historikal kontiniúiti ov the I[n]glish la[n]gwej wud bei broken bei the adopshon ov fonetik speli[n], and that the profeshon ov the etimolojist wud be gon for ever? Ei say No, most emfatikali, tu bo[t] propozishonz. If the seiens ov la[n]gwej haz proved eni[t]i[n], it haz proved that all la[n]gwejez chanje akordi[n] tu law, and with konsiderabel uniformiti. If, therefor, the reiti[n] folowd _pari passu_, on the chanjez in pron[u]nsiashon, hwot iz kalld the etimolojikal konsh[u]snes ov the speakerz and the readerz—ei speak, ov kourse, ov ediukated peopel onli—wud not s[u]fer in the least. If we retain the feeli[n] ov an etimolojikal konekshon between _gentlemanly_ and _gentlemanlike_, we shud shureli retain it hwether we reit _gentlemanly_ or _gentelmanli_. If we feel that _think_ and _thought_, _bring_ and _brought_, buy and _bought_, _freight_ and _fraught_, belo[n] tugether, shud we feel it les if we rote _t[w]t_, _br[w]t_, _b[w]t_, _fr[w]t_? If, in speaki[n], thoze who no Latin retain the feeli[n] that w[u]rdz endin in -_ation_ korespond tu Latin w[u]rdz in -_atio_, wud they looz the feeli[n] if they saw the same w[u]rdz speld with _[e][sh]on_, or even “-e[sh][u]n?” Do they not rekogneiz Latin -_itia_, in -_ice_; or -_ilis_ in -_le_, az in -_able_ (Latin _abilis_)? If the skolar noz, at w[u]ns, that s[u]ch w[u]rdz az _barbarous_, _anxious_, _circus_, _genius_, ar ov Latin oriji[n], wud he hezitate if the last silabel in all ov them wer uniformli riten “[u]s?” Nay, iz not the prezent speli[n] ov _barbarous_ and _anxious_ enteirli misleadi[n], bei konfoundi[n] w[u]rdz endi[n] in _-osus_, s[u]ch az _famous_ (_famosus_) with w[u]rdz endi[n] in _-us_, leik _barbarous_, _anxious_, ets.? Bekauz the Italianz reit _filosofo_, ar they les aware than the I[n]glish, who reit _philosopher_, and the French, who reit _philosophe_, that they hav before them the Latin _philosophus_, the Greek φιλόσοφος? If we reit _f_ in _fansi_, hwei not in _phantom_? If in _frenzy_ and _frantic_, hwei not in _phrenology_? A la[n]gwej hwich tolerates _vial_ for _phial_, need not shiver at _filosofer_. Everi eidiukated speaker nóz that s[u]ch w[u]rdz az _honour_, _ardour_, _colour_, _odour_, _labour_, _vigour_, _error_, _emperor_, hav past from Latin tu French, and from French tu I[n]glish. Wud he nó it les if all wer speld aleik, s[u]ch az _onor_ (_onorable_), _ardor_, _vigor_ (_vigorous_), _labor_ (_laborious_), or even “on[u]r, ard[u]r, vig[u]r?” The old speli[n] ov _emperor_, _doctor_, _governor_, and _error_, woz _emperour_, _doctour_, _governour_, and _errour_. If theze kud be chanjed, hwei not the rest? Spenser haz _neibor_ for _neighbor_, and it iz difik[u]lt tu say hwot woz gaind bei chanji[n] _-bor_ intu _-bour_ in s[u]ch piurli Sakson w[u]rdz az _neighbor_, _harbor_. No dout if we see _laugh_ riten with _gh_ at the end, thoze who nó Jerman ar at w[u]ns remeinded ov its etimolojikal konekshon with the Jerman _lachen_; b[u]t we shud soon nó the same bei analoji, if we found not onli “laf,” b[u]t “kof” for _cough_ (Jerman, _keuchen_), en[u]f for _enough_ (Jerman, _genug_), ets. In “draft,” fonetik speli[n] haz nearli s[u]planted the so-kalld historikal speli[n] _draught_; in “dwarf” (_dwergh_, _thweorh_) and in “ruff” (_rough_), altugether.

Hwot peopel kall the etimolojikal konsh[u]snes ov the speaker iz striktli a mater ov oratorikal sentiment onli, and it wud remain nearli az stro[n] az it iz nou, hwotever speli[n] be adopted. B[u]t even if it shud s[u]fer here and there, we ought tu bear in meind that, eksept for oratorikal p[u]rposez, that konsh[u]snes, konfeind az it iz tu a veri fiu ediukated peopel, iz ov veri small importans, [u]nles it haz ferst been korekted bei a strikt etimolojikal disiplin. Without that, it often dejenerates intu hwot iz kalld “popiular etimoloji,” and aktiuali tendz, in s[u]m kasez, tu vishiate the korekt speli[n] ov w[u]rdz.

Ei hav frekwentli dwelt on this before, in order tu show hou, hwot iz nou kalld the etimolojikal or historikal speli[n] ov w[u]rdz iz, in meni kasez, [u]terli [u]netimolojikal and [u]nhistorikal. We spel to _delight_, and th[u]s indiús meni peopel tu believ that this w[u]rd iz s[u]mhou konekted with _light_ [lux], or _light_ [levis]; hwereaz the old speli[n] woz _to delyt_ or to _delite_ (Tyndale), reprezenti[n] the old French _deleiter_. On the [u]ther hand, we feind for _quite_ and _smite_, the old speli[n] _quight_, _smight_, hwich may be old and historikal, b[u]t iz deseidedli [u]netimolojikal.

_Sovereign_ and _foreign_ ar speld az if they wer konekted with _reign_, _regnum_; the true etimoloji ov the former beï[n] _superanus_, Old French, _sovrain_, Old I[n]glish, _soveraine_; hweil _foreign_ iz the late Latin _foraneus_; Old French _forain_; Old I[n]glish _forein_. And hwei du we reit _to feign_? Archbishop Trench (“I[n]glish Past and Prezent,” p. 238) [t]i[n]ks the _g_ in _feign_ iz elokwent tu the eí; b[u]t its elokwens iz misleadi[n]. _Feign_ iz not taken from Latin _fingo_, az litel az _honour_ iz taken from Latin _honor_. _Feign_ k[u]mz from the Old French _faindre_; it woz in Old I[n]glish _faynen_ and _feynen_, and it woz therefor a mere etimolojikal feint tu insert the _g_ ov the Latin _fingo_, and the French _feignant_. The Old I[n]glish _shammfasst_ (Orm.), formd leik _stedefasst_ (stedfast), iz nou speld _shamefaced_, az if it had s[u]m[t]i[n] tu do with a bl[u]shi[n] fase. _Aghast_, insted ov Old I[n]glish _agast_, iz s[u]pozed tu luk more freitful bekauz it remeindz [u]s ov _ghost_. The French _lanterne_ woz riten _lant-horn_, az if it had been so kalld from the transparent sheets ov horn that enklozed the leit. The _s_ in _island_ owez its orijin tu a mistaken belief that the w[u]rd iz konekted with _isle_ (_insula_), hwereaz it iz the A[n]glo-Sakson _eáland_ (Jerman _eiland_), that iz, water-land. The speli[n] _iland_ woz stil k[u]rent in Shakspere’z teim. In _aisle_, too, the _s_ iz [u]netimolojikal, though it iz historikal, az havi[n] been taken over from the Old French _aisle_.

This tendensi tu olter the speli[n] in order tu impart tu a w[u]rd, at all hazardz, an etimolojikal karakter, beginz even in Latin, hwere _postumus_, a siuperlativ ov _post_, woz s[u]mteimz riten _posthumus_, az if, hwen apleid tu a late-born s[u]n, it woz dereivd from _humus_. In I[n]glish, this fols speli[n] iz retaind in _posthumous_. _Cena_ woz speld bei peopel who wonted tu show their nolej ov Greek _cœna_, az if konekted with κοινή, hwich it iz not.

B[u]t nou let [u]s luk more karefuli intu the far more important statement, that the I[n]glish la[n]gwej, if riten fonetikali, wud reali looz its historikal and etimolojikal karakter. The ferst kwestion iz, in hwot sens kan the prezent speli[n] ov I[n]glish be kalld historikal? We hav onli tu go bak a veri short way in order tu see the modern [u]pstart karakter ov hwot iz kalld historikal speli[n]. We nou reit _pleasure_, _measure_, and _feather_, b[u]t not veri lo[n] ago, in Spenser’z teim, theze w[u]rdz wer speld _plesure_, _mesure_, _fether_. Tyndale rote _frute_; the _i_ in _fruit_ iz a mere restorashon ov the French speli[n]. For _debt_, on the kontrari, we feind, b[u]t [t]ree or four h[u]ndred yearz ago, _dett_. This iz more historikal therefor than _debt_, bekauz in French, from hwich the w[u]rd woz borowd, the _b_ had disapeard, and it woz a piurli etimolojikal fansi tu restore it. The _b_ woz leikweiz re-introdiúst in _doubt_, b[u]t the _p_ woz not restored in _tu kount_ (French _compter_, Latin _computare_), hwere _p_ had at least the same reit az _b_ in _doute_. Th[u]s _receipt_ reziúmz the Latin _p_, b[u]t _deceit_ d[u]z without it. Tu _deign_ keeps the _g_, tu _disdain_ d[u]z without it. Ther iz an[u]ther _b_ hwich haz a serten historikal air in s[u]m I[n]glish w[u]rdz, b[u]t hwich woz orijinali piurli fonetik, and iz nou simpli siupérflu[u]s. The old w[u]rd for _member_ woz _lim_. In s[u]ch kompoundz az _lim-lama_, lim(b)-lame; _lim-leas_, lim(b)-less; it woz imposibel tu avoid the interkalashon ov a _b_ in pron[u]nsiashon. In this maner the _b_ krept in, and we hav nou tu teach that in _limb_, _crumb_ (crume), _thumb_ (thuma), the _b_ m[u]st be riten, b[u]t not pronoúnst. Agen, _tung_ (Jerman _zunge_), _yung_ (Jerman _jung_), az speld bei Spenser, hav a far more historikal aspekt than _tongue_ and _young_.

If we wisht tu reit historikali, we ought tu reit _salm_ insted ov _psalm_, for the inishal _p_, beï[n] lost in pron[u]nsiashon, woz dropt in reiti[n] at a veri erli teim (A[n]glo-Sakson _sealm_), and woz re-introdiúst simpli tu pleaz s[u]m ekleziastikal etimolojists; also _nevew_ (French _neveu_) insted ov _nephew_, hwich iz both [u]netimolojikal and [u]nfonetik.

In hwot sens kan it be kalld historikal speli[n] if the old pluralz ov _mouse_ and _louse_, hwich wer _mys_ and _lys_, ar nou speld _mice_ and _lice_? The plural ov _goose_ iz not speld _geece_ b[u]t _geese_, yet everibodi nóz hou tu pronoúns it. The same mistaken atempt at an okazhonal fonetik speli[n] haz separated _dice_ from _die_, and _pence_ from _pens_, thát iz, _penyes_; hweil in _nurse_, hwere the speli[n] _nurce_ wud hav been useful az remeindi[n] [u]s ov its true etimon _nourrice_, the _c_ haz been replast bei _s_.

Ther ar, in fakt, meni speli[n]z hwich wud be at the same teim more historikal and more fonetik. Hwei reit _little_, hwen now[u]n pronoúnsez _little_, and hwen the old speli[n] woz _lytel_? Hwei _girdle_, hwen the old speli[n] woz _girdel_? The same rule apleiz tu nearli all w[u]rdz endi[n] in _le_, s[u]ch az _sickle_, _ladle_, _apple_, ets., hwere the etimoloji iz kompleteli obskiúrd bei the prezent or[t]ografi. Hwei _scent_, b[u]t _dissent_, hwen even Milton stil rote _sent_? Hwei _ache_, insted ov the Shaksperian _ake_? Hwei _cat_, b[u]t _kitten_; hwei cow, b[u]t _kine_? Hwei _accede_, _precede_, _secede_, b[u]t _exceed_, _proceed_, _succeed_? Hwei, indeed, eksept tu waste the presh[u]s teim ov children?

And if it iz difik[u]lt tu say hwot konstitiuts historikal speli[n], it iz ekwali perpleksi[n] tu defein the real meani[n] ov etimolojikal speli[n]. For hwere ar we tu stop? It wud be konsiderd veri [u]netimolojikal wer we tu reit _nee_ insted ov _knee_, _now_ insted ov _know_, _night_ insted ov _knight_; yet now[u]n komplainz about the los ov the inishal _h_, the reprezentativ ov an orijinal _k_, in _loaf_, A. S. hlâf (cf. κλίβανος), in _ring_ (A. S. _hring_); in _lade_, _ladder_, _neck_, ets.

If we ar tu reit etimolojikali, then hwei not ret[u]rn tu _loverd_, or _hlaford_, insted ov _lord_? tu _nosethrill_, or _nosethirle_ insted ov _nostril_; tu _swister_ insted ov _sister_; hwich wud not be more tr[u]bels[u]m than _sword_. _Wifmann_ shureli wud be beter than _woman_; _meadwife_ beter than _midwife_; _godspel_ beter than _gospel_, _ortyard_ beter than _orchard_, _puisne_ beter than _puny_. Frekwentli the prezent rekogneizd speli[n] luks etimolojikal, b[u]t iz [u]terli [u]netimolojikal. _Righteous_ luks leik an ajektiv in _-eous_, s[u]ch az _plenteous_, b[u]t it iz reali a Sakson w[u]rd, _rightwis_, thát iz _rightwise_, formd leik _otherwise_, ets.

_Could_ iz riten with an _l_ in analoji tu _would_, b[u]t hweil the _l_ iz j[u]stifeid in _would_ from _will_, and _should_ from _shall_ we feind the Old I[n]glish imperfekt ov _can_ riten _cuthe_, then _couthe_, _coude_. The _l_, therefor, iz neither fonetik nor etimolojikal. N[u][t]i[n], agen, kan be more misleadi[n] tu an etimolojist than the prezent speli[n] ov _whole_ and _hale_. Both k[u]m from the same sourse, the Go[t]ik _hail-s_, Sanskrit _kalya-s_, meani[n] orijinali, _fit_, _redi_; then _sound_, _complete_, _whole_. In A[n]glo-Sakson we hav _hæl_, hole; and _hal_, hel[t]i, without eni trase ov a _w_, either before or after. The Old I[n]glish _halsum_, holes[u]m, iz the Jerman _hailsam_. _Whole_, therefor, iz a mere mis-speli[n] the _w_ havi[n] probabli been aded in analoji tu _who_, _which_, ets. From a piurli etimolojikal point ov viu, the _w_ iz ro[n]li left out before _h_ in _hou_; for az A[n]glo-Sakson _hwy_ bekame _why_, A[n]glo-Sakson _hwa_ shud hav bek[u]m _whow_.

If we reali atempted tu reit etimolojikali, we shud hav tu reit _bridegroom_ without the _r_, bekauz _groom_ iz a mere kor[u]pshon ov _guma_, man, A[n]glo-Sakson _bryd-guma_. We shud hav tu reit _burse_ insted ov _purse_, az in _disburse_. In fakt, it iz difik[u]lt tu say hwere we shud stop. Hwei do we not reit _metal_ insted ov _mettle_, _worthship_ insted ov _worship_, _chirurgeon_ insted ov _surgeon_, _furhlong_ (thát iz, f[u]row lo[n]) insted ov _furlong_, _feordhing_ (thát iz four[t] part) insted of _farthing_? If we reit piuni _puisne_, we meit az wel reit _post-natus_. We meit spel koi, _quietus_; pert, _apertus_; priest, _presbyter_; master, _magister_; sekston, _sacristan_; alms, _eleemosyne_, ets. If enibodi wil tel me at hwot date etimolojikal speli[n] iz tu begin, hwether at 1,500 A. D. or at 1,000 A. D., or 500 A. D., ei am wili[n] tu disk[ú]s the kwestion. Til then, ei beg leav tu say that etimolojikal speli[n] wud play greater havok in I[n]glish than fonetik speli[n], even if we wer tu draw a lein not more than feiv h[u]ndred yearz ago.

The two stro[n]gest argiuments, therefor, agenst fonetik speli[n], nameli, that it wud destroi the historikal and etimolojikal karakter ov the I[n]glish la[n]gwej, ar, after all, b[u]t veri parshali true. Here and there, no dout, the etimoloji and histori ov an I[n]glish w[u]rd meit be obskiúrd bei fonetik speli[n]; az if, for instans, we rote “Y[ue][o]p” insted ov _Europe_. B[u]t even then analoji wud help [u]s, and teach thoze who nó Greek, ov whom ther ar not meni, that “Y[ue]r” in s[u]ch w[u]rdz az _Europe_, _Eurydice_, reprezented the Greek εὐρύς. The real anser, houever, iz, that now[u]n kud onestli kall the prezent sistem ov speli[n] either historikal or etimolojikal; and, ei believ, that, taken az a hole, the los oka[z]ond bei konsistent fonetik speli[n] wud not be greater than the gain.

An[u]ther objekshon [u]rjd agenst fonetik speli[n], nameli, that with it it wud be imposibel tu disti[n]gwish homonimz, m[u]st be met in the same way. No dout it iz a serten advantej if in reiti[n] we kan disti[n]gwish _right_, _rite_, _write_, and _wright_. B[u]t if, in the h[u]ri ov konversashon, ther iz hardli ever a dout hwich w[u]rd iz ment, shureli ther wud be m[u]ch les danjer in the slow proses ov readi[n] a kontiniu[u]s sentens. If vari[u]s speli[n]z ov the same w[u]rd ar nesesari tu point out diferent meani[n]z, we shud rekweir eight speli[n]z for _box_, tu signifei a chest, a Kristmas gift, a h[u]nti[n] seat, a tree, a slap, tu sail round, seats in a [t]eater, and the fr[u]nt seat on a koach; and this prinsipel wud hav tu be apleid tu ab[u]v 400 w[u]rdz. Who wud [u]ndertake tu proveid all theze variashonz ov the prezent uniform speli[n] ov theze w[u]rdz? And we m[u]st not forget that, after all, in readi[n] a paje we ar seldom in dout hwether _sole_ meanz a fish, or the _sole_ ov a fut, or iz uzed az an ajektiv. If ther iz at eni teim eni real difik[u]lti, la[n]gwej proveidz its own remedi. It either drops s[u]ch w[u]rdz az _rite_ and _sole_, replasi[n] them bei _seremony_ and _only_, or it uzez a perifrastik ekspreshon, s[u]ch az the sole ov the fut, or the sole and onli ground, ets.

[Five other new letters, representing the long vowels, will now be introduced, namely

[e], [i], [w], [o], [ue],

for the sounds heard in