Chapter X: Part 10

In the following it is used for a disagreeable noise.

"All full of _chirking_ was that sory place."

Knight's Tale, 2006.

"And al so ful eke of _chirkings_
And of many other wirkings."

House of Fame, 858.

_Shet_ for _shut_ is now become vulgar; yet this is the true original orthography and pronunciation. It is from the Saxon _scitten_, and I believe was always spelt _shette_ or _shet_, till after Chaucer's time, for he was a correct writer in his age, and always spelt it in that manner.

"Voideth your man and let him be thereout,
And _shet_ the dore."----

Chau. Yem. Tale, 16, 605.

"And his maister _shette_ the dore anon."

Ibm. 16, 610.

And in a variety of other places. This word is almost universally pronounced _shet_ among all classes of people, not only in New England, but in Great Britain and the southern states of America. How the spelling came to be changed, is not known; but it was certainly a corruption.

_An_ for _if_ is seen in most old authors. It remains among the common people, both in England and America. "_An_ please your honor;" that is, "_if_ your honor please." In New England, the phrases in which it occurs most frequently are, "Let him go, _an_ he will;" "Go, _an_ you will;" and others of a similar kind.

_Because_ and _becase_ were used promiscuously by our ancestors. _Becase_ is found in some ancient writings, tho not so frequently as _because_. In New England, we frequently hear _becase_ to this day. It is pronounced _becaze_. It is a compound of _be_ and _cause_ or _case_; both of these words with the verb _be_ make good English; but _becase_ is vulgar.

The vulgar pronunciation of _such_ is _sich_. This is but a small deviation from the ancient elegant pronunciation, which was _swich_ or _swiche_, as the word is spelt in Chaucer. Such is the force of national practice: And altho the country people in New England, sometimes drawl their words in speaking, and, like their brethren, often make false concord, yet their idiom is purely Saxon or English; and in a vast number of instances, they have adhered to the true phrases, where people, who despise their plain manners, have run into error. Thus they say, "a man is going _by_," and not _going past_, which is nonsense: They say, "I _purpose_ to go," and not _propose_ to go, which is not good English. They say, "a ship _lies_ in harbor," not _lays_, which is a modern corruption. They say, "I _have_ done," and never "I _am_ done," which is nonsense. They say, "it was _on_ Monday evening," not "_of_ a Monday evening," which is an error. They never use the absurd phrases "_expect it was_;" and "the ship will sail in _all_ next week." They never say "he is home," but always, "at home." They use the old phrase, "it is half _after_ six o'clock," which is more correct than _half past six_. They say, if a person is not in health, he is _sick_. The modern English laugh at them, because the English say a man is _ill_; and confine sick to express the idea of a nausea in the stomach. The English are wrong, and the New England people use the word in its true sense, which extends to all bodily disorders, as it is used by the pure English writers. _Ill_ is a contraction of _evil_; and denotes a moral disorder. Its application to bodily complaints is a modern practice, and its meaning figurative. So that whatever improprieties may have crept into their practice of speaking, they actually preserve more of the genuin idiom of the English tongue, than many of the modern fine speakers who set up for standards.

[N], page 120.

The letters _ch_ in Roman answered nearly to the Greek _ki_ or _chi_; for _c_ had the sound of _k_, at least before _a_, _o_, _u_. _Ch_ or _kh_ was therefore the proper combination for the Greek letter; which had the sound of _k_ followed by an aspirate. This combination was copied into our language; and perhaps the aspirate was once pronounced, like the Irish guttural in _Cochran_. But when the aspirate was lost, _k_ became the proper representative of the sound. It is wished, that in all the derivatives from the ancient languages, where this character occurs, _k_ might be substituted for _ch_; that persons unacquainted with etymology, might not mistake and give _ch_ its English sound.

FOOTNOTES:

[128] It is said that the Celtic has a great affinity with the oriental languages. "Magnam certe cum linguis orientalibus affinitatem retinet, ut notant Dr. J. Davies passim in Dictionario suo Cambro Britannico, et Samuel Bochartus in sua Geographica sacra."----Wallis, Gram.

[129] The invention of letters is ascribed to Taaut or Theuth, the son of _Misraim_, soon after the flood.

[130] I strongly suspect that the primitive language of the north of Europe was the root of the Sclavonic, still retained in Russia, Poland, Hungary, &c. and that the Gothic was introduced at a later period.

[131] This objection however may be obviated by Lluyd's supposition, mentioned in the note, page 50, that the primitive inhabitants of Britain were denominated Guydelians, and the Cymri or Welsh were another branch of the Celtic Cimbri, who came from the North, settled in Britain and gave name to the language.

[132] It is commonly observed, that different climates, airs and aliments, do very much diversify the tone of the parts and muscles of human bodies; on some of which the modulation of the voice much depends. The peculiar moisture of one country, the drought of another (other causes from food, &c. concurring) extend or contract, swell or attenuate, the organs of the voice, that the sound made thereby is rendered either shrill or hoarse, soft or hard, plain or lisping, in proportion to that contraction or extension. And hence it is, that the Chinese and Tartars have some sounds in their language, that Europeans can scarcely imitate: And it is well known in Europe itself, that an Englishman is not able agreeably to converse with a stranger, even in one and the same Latin; nay, even in England, it is noted by Mr. Camden and Dr. Fuller, that the natives of Carleton Curlew in Leicestershire, by a certain peculiarity of the place, have the turn of their voice very different from those of the neighboring villages.

[133] _JILD Teka_, thou art my son. Psalm ii. 7.

[134] _MEREDUTH_ is the same with _Merad_, a British name.

[135] It has this sound in most of the ancient tongues.

[136] The armorial ensign of Carthage was a _horse_.

[137] It is remarkable that the Germans pronounce this word _wollen_, and _woll_, like the Roman _volo_, pronounced _wolo_. Many old people in America retain this pronunciation to this day; I _woll_, or _wool_, for _will_.

The Roman pronunciation of _v_ is still preserved in England and America; _veal_, weal; _vessel_, wessel; and _w_ is often changed into _v_ or _f_; _wine_, vine, or even fine.

The Romans often pronounced _t_ where we use _d_; as _traho_, draw.

[138] In teaching English to a Spaniard, I found that in attempting to pronounce words beginning with _w_, he invariably began with the sound of _gu_; _well_, he would pronounce _guell_.

[139] This word is found in most of the branches of the Gothic.

[140] Allusive to the ancient custom of pardoning by giving permission to depart.

[141] Frontier settlement; so called, because the Romans _passed thro_ this territory, in going to or from Rome.

[142] The French and Spanish rarely or never aspirate an _h_; and in this word they have omitted it mostly in writing.

[143] The above specimen of the ancient Irish is judged to be a thousand years old. See O'Conner's Dissertation on the History of Ireland. Dublin, 1766, 8 vo.

[144] Feichneinibh.

[145] "Hunc sonum (gh) Anglos in vocibus _light_, _might_, &c. olim protulisse sentio; at nunc dierum, quamvis scripturam retineant, sonum tamen fera penitus omittunt. Boreales tamen, presertim Scoti, fere adhuc retinent seu potius ipsius loco sonum _b_ substituunt."----Wallis.

[146] The Runic excepted. The Runic letters were sixteen in number, and introduced very early into the North; but they went into disuse about the tenth or eleventh century.

[147] _BENJAMIN is son of the right hand._

[148] Their.

[149] Mixture; an old French word, now written _melange_.

[150] corrupted.

[151] These words represent barbarity and roughness in speaking.

[152] Corruption of the native tongue.

[153] hear

[154] since

[155] know. The Germans preserve the verb _koennen_, to be able. The pronouns _hir_ and _hire_ for _their_, still remain in the German _ihr_.

[156] Country-people, so called from, their living on the mountains or high lands; hence _outlandish_.

[157] attempt with eagerness.

[158] time.

[159] _sithe_ is the origin of _since_.

[160] _Del_ signifies a _part_ or division; it is from the verb _dæler_ to divide, and the root of the English word _deal_. _Dæler_ is preserved in the Danish.

[161] learning.

[162] their.

[163] In the original these words are obscure.

[164] This is from the verb _sollen_, implying obligation, duty.

[165] their.

[166] foreign; Lat. _advena_.

[167] realm.

[168] divided.

[169] Scarcely.

[170] hardly.

[171] dwelleth.

[172] far.

[173] I find in an "Essay on the language and versification of Chaucer" prefixed to Bell's edition of his works, part of this extract copied from a Harlein manuscript, said to be more correct than the manuscript from which Dr. Hickes copied it. But on comparing the extracts in both, I find none but verbal differences; the sense of both is the same.

[174] In a charter of Edward III. dated 1348, _yeven_ is used for _given_. _Yave_ for _gave_ is used by Chaucer.--Knight's Tale, line 2737. "And _yave_ hem giftes after his degree." In a charter of Edward the Confessor, _gif_ is used in its Saxon purity. In the same charter, _Bissop his land_, is used for a genitive. The Scotch wrote _z_ for _y_; _zit_ for _yet_; _zeres_ for _years_.--Douglass. I do not find, at this period, the true Saxon genitive in use: The _Bissop his land_, is deemed an error. This mode of speaking has however prevailed, till within a few years, and still has its advocates. But it is certain the Saxons had a proper termination for the genitive or possessive, which is preserved in the two first declensions of the German.

Example of the declension of nouns among the Saxons.

A WORD.

_Sing._ _Plu._

Nom. Word word
Gen. Wordes worda
Dat. Worde wordum
Acc. Word word
Voc. Eala thu word eala ge word
Abl. Worde wordum

Hickes Sax. Gram.

[175] CUSTODES in castellis strenuos viros ex Gallis collocavit, et opulenta beneficia, pro quibus labores et pericula libenter tolerâ rent, distribuit.--Orderic. Vital. lib. 4.

[176] The word _ax_ for _ask_ is not a modern corruption. It was an ancient dialect, and not vulgar.

[177] So Gillies, in his Hist. of Greece, chap. II. talks about the death of the "_friend_ of Achilles;" but leaves the reader to discover the person--not having once mentioned the name of _Patroclus_. I would observe further that such appellations as the _son of Leda_ are borrowed from the Greek; but wholly improper in our language. The Greeks had a distinct ending of the name of the father to signify son or descendants; as _Heraclidæ_. This form of the noun was known and had a definite meaning in Greece; but in English the idiom is awkward and embarrassing.

[178] Readers of the last description are the most numerous.

[179] _Czar_, the Russian appellation or Emperor, is a contraction of _Cæsar_. It is pronounced in the Russian, _char_ or _tshar_.

[180] In ancient inscription, and the early Roman authors, _v_ was written _u_, and pronounced _oo_ or _w_. The following extracts from the laws of Romulus, &c. will give the reader an idea of the early orthography of the Latin tongue:--

1 DEOS patrios colunto: externas superstitiones aut fabulas ne admiscento.

3 NOCTURNA sacrificia peruigiliaque amouentor.

8 VXOR farreatione viro iuncta, in sacra et bona eius venito--ius deuortendi ne esto.

13 SI pater filiom ter venumduit, filius a patre liber esto.

_A law of Numa._

5 QUI terminum exarasit, ipsus et boues sacrei sunto.

_A law of Tullius Hostillius._

2 NATI trigemini, donicum puberes esunt, de publico aluntor.

_APPENDIX._

AN

ESSAY

_On the_ NECESSITY, ADVANTAGES _and_ PRACTICABILITY _of_ REFORMING _the_ MODE _of_ SPELLING, _and of_ RENDERING _the_ ORTHOGRAPHY _of_ WORDS CORRESPONDENT _to the_ PRONUNCIATION.

It has been observed by all writers on the English language, that the orthography or spelling of words is very irregular; the same letters often representing different sounds, and the same sounds often expressed by different letters. For this irregularity, two principal causes may be assigned:

1. The changes to which the pronunciation of a language is liable, from the progress of science and civilization.

2. The mixture of different languages, occasioned by revolutions in England, or by a predilection of the learned, for words of foreign growth and ancient origin.

To the first cause, may be ascribed the difference between the spelling and pronunciation of Saxon words. The northern nations of Europe originally spoke much in gutturals. This is evident from the number of aspirates and guttural letters, which still remain in the orthography of words derived from those nations; and from the modern pronunciation of the collateral branches of the Teutonic, the Dutch, Scotch and German. Thus _k_ before _n_ was once pronounced; as in _knave_, _know_; the _gh_ in _might_, _though_, _daughter_, and other similar words; the _g_ in _reign_, _feign_, &c.

But as savages proceed in forming languages, they lose the guttural sounds, in some measure, and adopt the use of labials, and the more open vowels. The ease of speaking facilitates this progress, and the pronunciation of words is softened, in proportion to a national refinement of manners. This will account for the difference between the ancient and modern languages of France, Spain and Italy; and for the difference between the soft pronunciation of the present languages of those countries, and the more harsh and guttural pronunciation of the northern inhabitants of Europe.

In this progress, the English have lost the sounds of most of the guttural letters. The _k_ before _n_ in _know_, the _g_ in _reign_, and in many other words, are become mute in practice; and the _gh_ is softened into the sound of _f_, as in _laugh_, or is silent, as in _brought_.

To this practice of softening the sounds of letters, or wholly suppressing those which are harsh and disagreeable, may be added a popular tendency to abbreviate words of common use. Thus _Southwark_, by a habit of quick pronunciation, is become _Suthark_; _Worcester_ and _Leicester_, are become _Wooster_ and _Lester_; _business_, _bizness_; _colonel_, _curnel_; _cannot_, _will not_, _cant_, _wont_.[181] In this manner the final _e_ is not heard in many modern words, in which it formerly made a syllable. The words _clothes_, _cares_, and most others of the same kind, were formerly pronounced in two syllables.[182]

Of the other cause of irregularity in the spelling of our language, I have treated sufficiently in the first Dissertation. It is here necessary only to remark, that when words have been introduced from a foreign language into the English, they have generally retained the orthography of the original, however ill adapted to express the English pronunciation. Thus _fatigue_, _marine_, _chaise_, retain their French dress, while, to represent the true pronunciation in English, they should be spelt _fateeg_, _mareen_, _shaze_. Thus thro an ambition to exhibit the etymology of words, the English, in _Philip_, _physic_, _character_, _chorus_, and other Greek derivatives, preserve the representatives of the original ~Ph~ and ~Ch~; yet these words are pronounced, and ought ever to have been spelt, _Fillip_, _fyzzic_ or _fizzic_, _karacter_, _korus_.[183]

But such is the state of our language. The pronunciation of the words which are strictly _English_, has been gradually changing for ages, and since the revival of science in Europe, the language has received a vast accession of words from other languages, many of which retain an orthography very ill suited to exhibit the true pronunciation.

The question now occurs; ought the Americans to retain these faults which produce innumerable in conveniencies in the acquisition and use of the language, or ought they at once to reform these abuses, and introduce order and regularity into the orthography of the AMERICAN TONGUE?

Let us consider this subject with some attention.

Several attempts were formerly made in England to rectify the orthography of the language.[184] But I apprehend their schemes failed of success, rather on account of their intrinsic difficulties, than on account of any necessary impracticability of a reform. It was proposed, in most of these schemes, not merely to throw out superfluous and silent letters, but to introduce a number of new characters. Any attempt on such a plan must undoubtedly prove unsuccessful. It is not to be expected that an orthography, perfectly regular and simple, such as would be formed by a "Synod of Grammarians on principles of science," will ever be substituted for that confused mode of spelling which is now established. But it is apprehended that great improvements may be made, and an orthography almost regular, or such as shall obviate most of the present difficulties which occur in learning our language, may be introduced and established with little trouble and opposition.

The principal alterations, necessary to render our orthography sufficiently regular and easy, are these:

1. The omission of all superfluous or silent letters; as _a_ in _bread_. Thus _bread_, _head_, _give_, _breast_, _built_, _meant_, _realm_, _friend_, would be spelt, _bred_, _hed_, _giv_, _brest_, _bilt_, _ment_, _relm_, _frend_. Would this alteration produce any inconvenience, any embarrassment or expense? By no means. On the other hand, it would lessen the trouble of writing, and much more, of learning the language; it would reduce the true pronunciation to a certainty; and while it would assist foreigners and our own children in acquiring the language, it would render the pronunciation uniform, in different parts of the country, and almost prevent the possibility of changes.

2. A substitution of a character that has a certain definite sound, for one that is more vague and indeterminate. Thus by putting _ee_ instead of _ea_ or _ie_, the words _mean_, _near_, _speak_, _grieve_, _zeal_, would become _meen_, _neer_, _speek_, _greev_, _zeel_. This alteration could not occasion a moment's trouble; at the same time it would prevent a doubt respecting the pronunciation; whereas the _ea_ and _ie_ having different sounds, may give a learner much difficulty. Thus _greef_ should be substituted for _grief_; _kee_ for _key_; _beleev_ for _believe_; _laf_ for _laugh_; _dawter_ for _daughter_; _plow_ for _plough_; _tuf_ for _tough_; _proov_ for _prove_; _blud_ for _blood_; and _draft_ for _draught_. In this manner _ch_ in Greek derivatives, should be changed into _k_; for the English _ch_ has a soft sound, as in _cherish_; but _k_ always a hard sound. Therefore _character_, _chorus_, _cholic_, _architecture_, should be written _karacter_, _korus_, _kolic_, _arkitecture_; and were they thus written, no person could mistake their true pronunciation.

Thus _ch_ in French derivatives should be changed into sh; _machine_, _chaise_, _chevalier_, should be written _masheen_, _shaze_, _shevaleer_; and _pique_, _tour_, _oblique_, should be written _peek_, _toor_, _obleek_.

3. A trifling alteration in a character, or the addition of a point would distinguish different sounds, without the substitution of a new character. Thus a very small stroke across _th_ would distinguish its two sounds. A point over a vowel, in this manner, _[.a]_ or _[.e]_, or _[.i]_, might answer all the purposes of different letters. And for the dipthong _ow_, let the two letters be united by a small stroke, or both engraven on the same piece of metal, with the left hand line of the _w_ united to the _o_.

These, with a few other inconsiderable alterations, would answer every purpose, and render the orthography sufficiently correct and regular.

The advantages to be derived from these alterations are numerous, great and permanent.

1. The simplicity of the orthography would facilitate the learning of the language. It is now the work of years for children to learn to spell; and after all, the business is rarely accomplished. A few men, who are bred to some business that requires constant exercise in writing, finally learn to spell most words without hesitation; but most people remain, all their lives, imperfect masters of spelling, and liable to make mistakes, whenever they take up a pen to write a short note. Nay, many people, even of education and fashion, never attempt to write a letter, without frequently consulting a dictionary.

But with the proposed orthography, a child would learn to spell, without trouble, in a very short time, and the orthography being very regular, he would ever afterwards find it difficult to make a mistake. It would, in that case, be as difficult to spell _wrong_, as it is now to spell _right_.

Besides this advantage, foreigners would be able to acquire the pronunciation of English, which is now so difficult and embarrassing, that they are either wholly discouraged on the first attempt, or obliged, after many years labor, to rest contented with an imperfect knowlege of the subject.

2. A correct orthography would render the pronunciation of the language, as uniform as the spelling in books. A general uniformity thro the United States, would be the event of such a reformation as I am here recommending. All persons, of every rank, would speak with some degree of precision and uniformity.[185] Such a uniformity in these states is very desireable; it would remove prejudice, and conciliate mutual affection and respect.

3. Such a reform would diminish the number of letters about one sixteenth or eighteenth. This would save a page in eighteen; and a saving of an eighteenth in the expense of books, is an advantage that should not be overlooked.

4. But a capital advantage of this reform in these states would be, that it would make a difference between the English orthography and the American. This will startle those who have not attended to the subject; but I am confident that such an event is an object of vast political consequence. For,

The alteration, however small, would encourage the publication of books in our own country. It would render it, in some measure, necessary that all books should be printed in America. The English would never copy our orthography for their own use; and consequently the same impressions of books would not answer for both countries. The inhabitants of the present generation would read the English impressions; but posterity, being taught a different spelling, would prefer the American orthography.

Besides this, a _national language_ is a band of _national union_. Every engine should be employed to render the people of this country _national_; to call their attachments home to their own country; and to inspire them with the pride of national character. However they may boast of Independence, and the freedom of their government, yet their _opinions_ are not sufficiently independent; an astonishing respect for the arts and literature of their parent country, and a blind imitation of its manners, are still prevalent among the Americans. Thus an habitual respect for another country, deserved indeed and once laudable, turns their attention from their own interests, and prevents their respecting themselves.

OBJECTIONS.

1. "This reform of the Alphabet would oblige people to relearn the language, or it could not be introduced."

But the alterations proposed are so few and so simple, that an hour's attention would enable any person to read the new orthography with facility; and a week's practice would render it so familiar, that a person would write it without hesitation or mistake. Would this small inconvenience prevent its adoption? Would not the numerous national and literary advantages, resulting from the change, induce Americans to make so inconsiderable a sacrifice of time and attention? I am persuaded they would.

But it would not be necessary that men advanced beyond the middle stage of life, should be at the pains to learn the proposed orthography. They would, without inconvenience, continue to use the present. They would read the _new_ orthography, without difficulty; but they would write in the _old_. To men thus advanced, and even to the present generation in general, if they should not wish to trouble themselves with a change, the reformation would be almost a matter of indifference. It would be sufficient that children should be taught the new orthography, and that as fast as they come upon the stage, they should be furnished with books in the American spelling. The progress of printing would be proportioned to the demand for books among the rising generation. This progressive introduction of the scheme would be extremely easy; children would learn the proposed orthography more easily than they would the old; and the present generation would not be troubled with the change; so that none but the obstinate and capricious could raise objections or make any opposition. The change would be so inconsiderable, and made on such simple principles, that a column in each newspaper, printed in the new spelling, would in six months, familiarize most people to the change, show the advantages of it, and imperceptibly remove their objections. The only steps necessary to ensure success in the attempt to introduce this reform, would be, a resolution of Congress, ordering all their acts to be engrossed in the new orthography, and recommending the plan to the several universities in America; and also a resolution of the universities to encourage and support it. The printers would begin the reformation by publishing short paragraphs and small tracts in the new orthography; school books would first be published in the same; curiosity would excite attention to it, and men would be gradually reconciled to the plan.

2. "This change would render our present books useless."

This objection is, in some measure, answered under the foregoing head. The truth is, it would not have this effect. The difference of orthography would not render books printed in one, illegible to persons acquainted only with the other. The difference would not be so great as between the orthography of Chaucer, and of the present age; yet Chaucer's works are still read with ease.

3. "This reformation would injure the language by obscuring etymology."

This objection is unfounded. In general, it is not true that the change would obscure etymology; in a few instances, it might; but it would rather restore the etymology of many words; and if it were true that the change would obscure it, this would be no objection to the reformation.

It will perhaps surprize my readers to be told that, in many particular words, the modern spelling is less correct than the ancient. Yet this is a truth that reflects dishonor on our modern refiners of the language. Chaucer, four hundred years ago, wrote _bilder_ for _builder_; _dedly_ for _deadly_; _ernest_ for _earnest_; _erly_ for _early_; _brest_ for _breast_; _hed_ for _head_; and certainly his spelling was the most agreeable to the pronunciation.[186] Sidney wrote _bin_, _examin_, _sutable_, with perfect propriety. Dr. Middleton wrote _explane_, _genuin_, _revele_, which is the most easy and correct orthography of such words; and also _luster_, _theater_, for _lustre_, _theatre_. In these and many other instances, the modern spelling is a corruption; so that allowing many improvements to have been made in orthography, within a century or two, we must acknowlege also that many corruptions have been introduced.

In answer to the objection, that a change of orthography would obscure etymology, I would remark, that the etymology of most words is already lost, even to the learned; and to the unlearned, etymology is never known. Where is the man that can trace back our English words to the elementary radicals? In a few instances, the student has been able to reach the primitive roots of words; but I presume the radicals of one tenth of the words in our language, have never yet been discovered, even by Junius, Skinner, or any other etymologist. Any man may look into Johnson or Ash, and find that _flesh_ is derived from the Saxon _floce_; _child_ from _cild_; _flood_ from _flod_; _lad_ from _leode_; and _loaf_ from _laf_ or _hlaf_. But this discovery will answer no other purpose, than to show, that within a few hundred years, the spelling of some words has been a little changed: We should still be at a vast distance from the primitive roots.

In many instances indeed etymology will assist the learned in understanding the composition and true sense of a word; and it throws much light upon the progress of language. But the true sense of a complex term is not always, nor generally, to be learnt from the sense of the primitives or elementary words. The current meaning of a word depends on its use in a nation. This true sense is to be obtained by attending to good authors, to dictionaries and to practice, rather than to derivation. The former _must_ be _right_; the latter _may_ lead us into _error_.

But to prove of how little consequence a knowlege of etymology is to most people, let me mention a few words. The word _sincere_ is derived from the Latin, _sine cera_, without wax; and thus it came to denote _purity of mind_. I am confident that not a man in a thousand ever suspected this to be the origin of the word; yet all men, that have any knowlege of our language, use the word in its true sense, and understand its customary meaning, as well as Junius did, or any other etymologist.

_Yea_ or _yes_ is derived from the imperative of a verb, _avoir_ to have, as the word is now spelt. It signifies therefore _have_, or _possess_, or _take_ what you ask. But does this explication assist us in using the word? And does not every countryman who labors in the field, understand and use the word with as much precision as the profoundest philosophers?

The word _temper_ is derived from an old root, _tem_, which signified _water_. It was borrowed from the act of _cooling_, or moderating heat. Hence the meaning of _temperate_, _temperance_, and all the ramifications of the original stock. But does this help us to the modern current sense of these words? By no means. It leads us to understand the formation of languages, and in what manner an idea of a visible action gives rise to a correspondent abstract idea; or rather, how a word, from a literal and direct sense, may be applied to express a variety of figurative and collateral ideas. Yet the customary sense of the word is known by practice, and as well understood by an illiterate man of tolerable capacity, as by men of science.

The word _always_ is compounded of _all_ and _ways_; it had originally no reference to time; and the etymology or composition of the word would only lead us into error. The true meaning of words is that which a nation in general annex to them. Etymology therefore is of no use but to the learned; and for them it will still be preserved, so far as it is now understood, in dictionaries and other books that treat of this particular subject.

4. "The distinction between words of different meanings and similar sound would be destroyed."

"That distinction," to answer in the words of the great Franklin, "is already destroyed in pronunciation." Does not every man pronounce _all_ and _awl_ precisely alike? And does the sameness of sound ever lead a hearer into a mistake? Does not the construction render the distinction easy and intelligible, the moment the words of the sentence are heard? Is the word _knew_ ever mistaken for _new_, even in the rapidity of pronouncing an animated oration? Was _peace_ ever mistaken for _piece_; _pray_ for _prey_; _flour_ for _flower_? Never, I presume, is this similarity of sound the occasion of mistakes.

If therefore an identity of _sound_, even in rapid speaking, produces no inconvenience, how much less would an identity of _spelling_, when the eye would have leisure to survey the construction? But experience, the criterion of truth, which has removed the objection in the first case, will also assist us in forming our opinion in the last.

There are many words in our language which, with the _same orthography_, have _two_ or more _distinct meanings_. The word _wind_, whether it signifies _to move round_, or _air in motion_, has the _same spelling_; it exhibits no distinction to the _eye_ of a silent reader; and yet its meaning is never mistaken. The construction shows at sight in which sense the word is to be understood. _Hail_ is used as an expression of joy, or to signify frozen drops of water, falling from the clouds. _Rear_ is to raise up, or it signifies the hinder part of an army. _Lot_ signifies fortune or destiny; a plat of ground; or a certain proportion or share; and yet does this diversity, this contrariety of meanings ever occasion the least difficulty in the ordinary language of books? It cannot be maintained. This diversity is found in all languages;[187] and altho it may be considered as a defect, and occasion some trouble for foreign learners, yet to natives it produces no sensible inconvenience.

5. "It is idle to conform the orthography of words to the pronunciation, because the latter is continually changing."

This is one of Dr. Johnson's objections, and it is very unworthy of his judgement. So far is this circumstance from being a real objection, that it is alone a sufficient reason for the change of spelling. On his principle of _fixing the orthography_, while the _pronunciation is changing_, any _spoken language_ must, in time, lose all relation to the _written language_; that is, the sounds of words would have no affinity with the letters that compose them. In some instances, this is now the case; and no mortal would suspect from the spelling, that _neighbour_, _wrought_, are pronounced _nabur_, _rawt_. On this principle, Dr. Johnson ought to have gone back some centuries, and given us, in his dictionary, the primitive Saxon orthography, _wol_ for _will_; _ydilnesse_ for _idleness_; _eyen_ for _eyes_; _eche_ for _each_, &c. Nay, he should have gone as far as possible into antiquity, and, regardless of the changes of pronunciation, given us the primitive radical language in its purity. Happily for the language, that doctrine did not prevail till his time; the spelling of words changed with the pronunciation; to these changes we are indebted for numberless improvements; and it is hoped that the progress of them, in conformity with the national practice of speaking, will not be obstructed by the erroneous opinion, even of Dr. Johnson. How much more rational is the opinion of Dr. Franklin, who says, "the orthography of our language began to be fixed too soon." If the pronunciation must vary, from age to age, (and some trifling changes of language will always be taking place) common sense would dictate a correspondent change of spelling. Admit Johnson's principles; take his pedantic orthography for the standard; let it be closely adhered to in future; and the slow changes in the pronunciation of our national tongue, will in time make as great a difference between our _written_ and _spoken_ language, as there is between the pronunciation of the present English and German. The _spelling_ will be no more a guide to the pronunciation, than the orthography of the German or Greek. This event is actually taking place, in consequence of the stupid opinion, advanced by Johnson and other writers, and generally embraced by the nation.

All these objections appear to me of very inconsiderable weight, when opposed to the great, substantial and permanent advantages to be derived from a regular national orthography.

Sensible I am how much easier it is to _propose_ improvements, than to _introduce_ them. Every thing _new_ starts the idea of difficulty; and yet it is often mere novelty that excites the appearance; for on a slight examination of the proposal, the difficulty vanishes. When we firmly _believe_ a scheme to be practicable, the work is _half_ accomplished. We are more frequently deterred by fear from making an attack, than repulsed in the encounter.

Habit also is opposed to changes; for it renders even our errors dear to us. Having surmounted all difficulties in childhood, we forget the labor, the fatigue, and the perplexity we suffered in the attempt, and imagin the progress of our studies to have been smooth and easy.[188] What seems intrinsically right, is so merely thro habit.

Indolence is another obstacle to improvements. The most arduous task a reformer has to execute, is to make people _think_; to rouse them from that lethargy, which, like the mantle of sleep, covers them in repose and contentment.

But America is in a situation the most favorable for great reformations; and the present time is, in a singular degree, auspicious. The minds of men in this country have been awakened. New scenes have been, for many years, presenting new occasions for exertion; unexpected distresses have called forth the powers of invention; and the application of new expedients has demanded every possible exercise of wisdom and talents. Attention is roused; the mind expanded; and the intellectual faculties invigorated. Here men are prepared to receive improvements, which would be rejected by nations, whose habits have not been shaken by similar events.

_Now_ is the time, and _this_ the country, in which we may expect success, in attempting changes favorable to language, science and government. Delay, in the plan here proposed, may be fatal; under a tranquil general government, the minds of men may again sink into indolence; a national acquiescence in error will follow; and posterity be doomed to struggle with difficulties, which time and accident will perpetually multiply.

Let us then seize the present moment, and establish a _national language_, as well as a national government. Let us remember that there is a certain respect due to the opinions of other nations. As an independent people, our reputation abroad demands that, in all things, we should be federal; be _national_; for if we do not respect _ourselves_, we may be assured that _other nations_ will not respect us. In short, let it be impressed upon the mind of every American, that to neglect the means of commanding respect abroad, is treason against the character and dignity of a brave independent people.

To excite the more attention to this subject, I will here subjoin what Dr. Franklin has done and written to effect a reform in our mode of spelling. This sage philosopher has suffered nothing useful to escape his notice. He very early discovered the difficulties that attend the learning of our language; and with his usual ingenuity, invented a plan to obviate them. If any objection can be made to his scheme,[189] it is the substitution of _new_ characters, for _th_, _sh_, _ng_, &c. whereas a small stroke, connecting the letters, would answer all the purposes of new characters; as these combinations would thus become single letters, with precise definite sounds and suitable names.

A specimen of the Doctor's spelling cannot be here given, as I have not the proper types;[190] but the arguments in favor of a reformed mode of spelling shall be given in his own words.

_Copy of a Letter from Miss S----, to Dr._ FRANKLIN, _who had sent her his Scheme of a Reformed Alphabet. Dated, Kensington (England) Sept. 26, 1768._

DEAR SIR,

I have transcribed your alphabet, &c. which I think might be of service to those who wish to acquire an accurate pronunciation, if that could be fixed; but I see many inconveniences, as well as difficulties, that would attend the bringing your letters and orthography into common use. All our etymologies would be lost; consequently we could not ascertain the meaning of many words; the distinction too between words of _different meaning_ and _similar_ sound would be useless,[191] unless we living writers publish new editions. In short, I believe we must let people spell on in their old way, and (as we find it easiest) do the same ourselves.---- With ease and with sincerity I can, in the old way, subscribe myself,

Dear Sir,

Your faithful and affectionate Servant,

M. S.

_Dr. Franklin._

_Dr._ FRANKLIN'S _Answer to Miss S----._

DEAR MADAM,

The objection you make to rectifying our alphabet, "that it will be attended with inconveniences and difficulties," is a very natural one; for it always occurs when any reformation is proposed, whether in religion, government, laws, and even down as low as roads and wheel carriages. The true question then is not, whether there will be no difficulties or inconveniences; but whether the difficulties may not be surmounted; and whether the conveniences will not, on the whole, be greater than the inconveniences. In this case, the difficulties are only in the beginning of the practice; when they are once overcome, the advantages are lasting. To either you or me, who spell well in the present mode, I imagine the difficulty of changing that mode for the new, is not so great, but that we might perfectly get over it in a week's writing. As to those who do not spell well, if the two difficulties are compared, viz. that of teaching them true spelling in the present mode, and that of teaching them the new alphabet and the new spelling according to it, I am confident that the latter would be by far the least. They naturally fall into the new method already, as much as the imperfection of their alphabet will admit of; their present _bad_ spelling is only bad, because contrary to the present _bad_ rules; under the new rules it would be _good_.[192] The difficulty of learning to spell well in the old way is so great, that few attain it; thousands and thousands writing on to old age, without ever being able to acquire it. It is besides, a difficulty continually increasing;[193] as the sound gradually varies more and more from the spelling; and to foreigners it makes the learning to pronounce our language, as written in our books, almost impossible.

Now as to the inconveniences you mention: The first is, "that all our etymologies would be lost; consequently we could not ascertain the meaning of many words." Etymologies are at present very uncertain; but such as they are, the old books still preserve them, and etymologists would there find them. Words in the course of time, change their meaning, as well as their spelling and pronunciation; and we do not look to etymologies for their present meanings. If I should call a man a _knave_ and a _villain_, he would hardly be satisfied with my telling him, that one of the words originally signified a _lad_ or _servant_, and the other an under _plowman_, or the inhabitant of a village. It is from present usage only, the meaning of words is to be determined.

Your second inconvenience is, "the distinction between words of different meaning and similar sound would be destroyed." That distinction is already destroyed in pronouncing them; and we rely on the sense alone of the sentence to ascertain which of the several words, similar in sound, we intend. If this is sufficient in the rapidity of discourse, it will be much more so in written sentences, which may be read leisurely, and attended to more particularly in case of difficulty, than we can attend to a past sentence, while the speaker is hurrying us along with new ones.

Your third inconvenience is, "that all the books already written would be useless." This inconvenience would only come on gradually in a course of ages. I and you and other now living readers would hardly forget the use of them. People would long learn to read the old writing, tho they practised the new. And the inconvenience is not greater than what has actually happened in a similar case in Italy. Formerly its inhabitants all spoke and wrote Latin; as the language changed, the spelling followed it. It is true that at present, a mere unlearned Italian cannot read the Latin books, tho they are still read and understood by many. But if the spelling had never been changed, he would now have found it much more difficult to read and write his own language;[194] for written words would have had no relation to sounds; they would only have stood for things; so that if he would express in writing the idea he has when he sounds the word _Vescovo_, he must use the letters _Episcopus_.[195]

In short, whatever the difficulties and inconveniences now are, they will be more easily surmounted now, than hereafter; and some time or other it must be done, or our writing will become the same with the Chinese, as to the difficulty of learning and using it. And it would already have been such, if we had continued the Saxon spelling and writing used by our forefathers.

I am, my dear friend,

Your's affectionately,

B. FRANKLIN.

_London, Craven Street, Sept. 28, 1768._

FOOTNOTES:

[181] _Wont_ is strictly a contraction of _woll not_, as the word was anciently pronounced.

[182] "_Ta-ke_, _ma-ke_, _o-ne_, _bo-ne_, _sto-ne_, _wil-le_, &c. dissyllaba olim fuerunt, quæ nunc habenter pro monosyllabis."----Wallis.

[183] The words _number_, _chamber_, and many others in English are from the French _nombre_, _chambre_, &c. Why was the spelling changed? or rather why is the spelling of _lustre_, _metre_, _theatre_, _not_ changed? The cases are precisely similar. The Englishman who first wrote _number_ for _nombre_, had no greater authority to make the change, than any modern writer has to spell _lustre_, _metre_ in a similar manner, _luster_, _meter_. The change in the first instance was a valuable one; it conformed the spelling to the pronunciation, and I have taken the liberty, in all my writings, to pursue the principle in _luster_, _meter_, _miser_, _theater_, _sepulcher_, &c.

[184] The first by Sir Thomas Smith, secretary of state to Queen Elizabeth: Another by Dr. Gill, a celebrated master of St. Paul's school in London: Another by Mr. Charles Butler, who went so far as to print his book in his proposed orthography: Several in the time of Charles the first; and in the present age, Mr. Elphinstone has published a treatise in a very ridiculous orthography.

[185] I once heard Dr. Franklin remark, "that those people spell best, who do not know how to spell;" that is, they spell as their ears dictate, without being guided by rules, and thus fall into a regular orthography.

[186] In Chaucer's life, prefixed to the edition of his works 1602, I find _move_ and _prove_ spelt almost correctly, _moove_ and _proove_.

[187] In the Roman language _liber_ had four or five different meanings; it signified _free_, _the inward bark of a tree_, _a book_, sometimes _an epistle_, and also _generous_.

[188] Thus most people suppose the present mode of spelling to be really the _easiest_ and _best_. This opinion is derived from habit; the new mode of spelling proposed would save three fourths of the labor now bestowed in learning to write our language. A child would learn to spell as well in one year, as he can now in four. This is not a supposition--it is an assertion capable of proof; and yet people, never knowing, or having forgot the labor of learning, suppose the present mode to be the easiest. No person, but one who has taught children, has any idea of the difficulty of learning to spell and pronounce our language in its present form.

[189] See his Miscellaneous Works, p. 470. Ed. Lond. 1779.

[190] This indefatigable gentleman, amidst all his other employments, public and private, has compiled a Dictionary on his scheme of a Reform, and procured types to be cast for printing it. He thinks himself too old to pursue the plan; but has honored me with the offer of the manuscript and types, and expressed a strong desire that I should undertake the task. Whether this project, so deeply interesting to this country, will ever be effected; or whether it will be defeated by indolence and prejudice, remains for my countrymen to determine.

[191] This lady overlooked the other side of the question; viz. that by a reform of the spelling, words now spelt alike and pronounced differently, would be distinguished by their letters; for the nouns _abuse_ and _use_ would be distinguished from the verbs, which would be spelt _abuze_, _yuze_; and so in many instances. See the answer below.

[192] This remark of the Doctor is very just and obvious. A countryman writes _aker_ or _akur_ for _acre_; yet the countryman is _right_, as the word _ought_ to be spelt; and we laugh at him only because _we_ are accustomed to be _wrong_.

[193] This is a fact of vast consequence.

[194] That is, if the language had retained the old _Roman_ spelling, and been pronounced as the modern _Italian_. This is a fair state of facts, and a complete answer, to all objections to a reform of spelling.

[195] In the same ridiculous manner, as _we_ write, _rough_, _still_, _neighbor_, _wrong_, _tongue_, _true_, _rhetoric_, &c. and yet pronounce the words, _ruf_, _stil_, _nabur_, _rong_, _tung_, _tru_, _retoric_.

Transcriber's Notes:

Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant
preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

Simple typographical and spelling errors were corrected. The
double commas occurring three times on p. 311 & 312 appear to be
intentional.

In DISSERTATION V the author was inconsistent in the use of
italics in the minor headings--most of the time the language was
italicized but when there were two or more languages then the
language name was in standard font and the articles, conjunctions
etc. were italicized. The usage was changed so that languages were
always italicized and the other words were unitalicized.

Italics words are denoted by _underscores_.

Bold words are denoted by =equals=.

Gespert font is denoted by +plus signs+.

Greek text has been transliterated and enclosed in ~tildes~.

Hand pointing right is denoted by -->

Symbols for Diacritical Marks Encountered in the Text.

In the table below, the "x" represents a letter with a diacritical
mark.

DIACRITICAL MARK SAMPLE ABOVE BELOW
macron (straight line) ¯ [=x] [x=]
1 dot · [.x] [x.]
acute accent (aigu) ´ ['x] [x']
breve (u-shaped symbol) ∪ [)x] [x)]
tilde ˜ [~x] [x~]
numbers 2 [2x] [x2]