'•■■*'. mmmmmmmmmmmmm^^SMHKM Ex Libris C. K. OGDEN THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES >y } ^ o \' ^ A PLEA FOR SPELLING EEFORM BY W. R. EVANS AUTHOR OF "FLOWERS OF FABLE," ETC. EDITED BY ISAAC PITMAN LONDON: F. PITMAN, PHONETIC DEPOT, 20 PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. BATH : ISAAC PITMAN, PHONETIC INSTITUTE. Or of the Author, 37 Devonshire Street, Queen Square, London. Price 2d., or Is. 6d. per dozen. Bound in Cloth, together with £00| Pages of Spelling Jitform Tracts, 8d. Ib77. CONTENTS. Paet I-DESIRABILITY OF REFORM:— English Vowels : — Table of Vowel signs Table of Vowel sounds Conventianal Short and Long Vowels Lengthened Vowels . , Exceptional sounds of the Vowels ... Vowel Digraphs Table of Digraphs English Vowel sounds as variously represented Diphthongs English Consonants: — Single Consonants Consonantal Digraphs Silent Consonants and Digraphs Pronounced Consonants Pronounced Digraphs English Consonant sounds, as variously represented Some Obthogbaphical Details: — Fanciful Spellings Useless and Preposterous Etymological Spellings . Etymologically Misleading Spellings 10 10 11 13 15 17 IS 18 19 Paet II— PRACTICABILITY OF REFORM :— Phonetic Spelling with Old Letters :— Dependent Vowels ... 22 Independent Vowels 23 Rule I ... 24 Rule II 24 Vowel Digraphs ... 24 Rule III 26 Diphthongs ... 27 Rule IV 28 Consonants ... 28 RuleV 28 Rule VI ... 28 Table of Phonetic and Semiphonetic Symbols 29 Remarks on the Alphabet ... 29 Some Objections Anticipated 33 The Letter H as a Digraph-Former ... 37 A Glance at other Peoposed Schemes... 40 ADDENDUM :- Schemes of Phonetic Printing, Specimens : — Major Beniowsky; Phonetic, 1843; Evans, I; Evans, II j Semiphonotypy j Phonetic, 1877 11 SPELLING REFORM. 3PAIRT I. DESIRABILITY OF REFORM. The linguistic student will not need to be told that our language possesses the most anomalous orthography of any of the languages using the Roman alphabet. To see Roman letters applied to ex- press sound with something like systematic regularity, one must look to the Welsh, the Spanish, the Italian, the German, and other languages ; but the English can hardly be named in the same breath even as the French, with all the silent consonants of the latter, and its exceptions to general rules. The irregular character of our orthography is doubtless due to various causes. The dis- crepancies in spelling exhibited by Anglo-Saxon manuscripts ap- pear to show that Roman letters were originally applied in a rough-and-ready fashion to express the sounds of our ancestral tongue. After the Norman conquest there was an infusion of French words with a different system of orthography ; and later on Latin and Greek derivatives were largely brought in, without any care to adapt them to a vernacular system of spelling ; while in later days all sorts of foreign intruders have been received, without requiring them to change their original dress. Amid this confusion of elements in the language, all attempts at a regu- lar scientific representation of sound by letters appear to have been abandoned. It was enough that a word had a fixed ortho- graphy in Roman characters, and that it should acquire some vernacular pronunciation, more or less connected with its spelling. The result is that, with us, most letters represent various sounds, and most sounds are variously represented by letters. ENGLISH VOWELS. The first thing that strikes a foreigner, or a native-born intelli- gent child, in learning to read English, is the want of correspond- ence between what we call the short and the long sounds of our vowels, as in bad and bade, met and mete, fin and fine, con and cone, duck and duke. For these variations of the posver of the vowel-signs we might find causes in the history of the language, ^5 Q jTVQO *>fl but we will content ourselves now with pointing to the discrepancy between the above so-called short and long sounds, and to the ad- ditional fact that all the vowel-signs are made to represent other incongruous sounds besides these, as in the following Table of Vowel-Signs. A — fat, fate, father, was, wall, any E — met, meter, there, pretty I — fin, final, pique, fir — pot, potent, wolf, move, love TJ — pirn, puny, full, rule. In this table we have only represented what may be called regular uses of the five ordinary vowel-signs, adding a scheme of accents which will hereafter be useful in discriminating the sounds. At first sight, we appear to have five vowel-signs representing twen- ty-three different sounds, all according to what may be called the common orthography of the language, for we have purposely ex- cluded a few such exceptionally anomalous spellings as sergeant, women, bury, busy, (which, according to ordinary analogy, should be spelt sargeant, toimen, berry, bizzy). But, on examining the table, we shall find that we have not actually twenty-three distinct sounds, because the same sounds recur under different signs. We may exhibit this in the following Table of Vowel-Sounds. a— fat o— pot, was a— father 6— wall a — fate, there 6 — potent \ %— met, any, fir ii — pirn, love e— meter, pique ii— puny (diphthong) i— fin, pretty u — full, wolf i— final (diphthong) u— rule, move From this attempt to make somewhat like a systematic tabulation of the sounds represented by the five English vowel-signs, it will be seen that although the five characters are really used in twen- ty-three ways altogether, giving four uses in three cases, five in one, and six in the other, yet there are really only fourteen vowel- -sounds, including two diphthongs. Conventional Short and Long Vowels. English grammarians and lexicographers attempt to lay down rules for the various uses of each vowel-sign. They tell us, for instance, that what we may call the conventional short and long sounds (for they do not stand in this relation in nature) are dis- tinguished by a consonant closing the syllable in one case, and a vowel in the other, as in fat, fa-tal ; met, me-ter ; fin, fi-nal ; not, no-tiec ; dull, du-ly ; and that final mute e (once pronounced) makes, as it were, an artificial syllable with the preceding consonant, and thus gives an antecedent vowel the same force as if it ended a syllable, as in fate, mete, mile, shore, tune. But how are we to tell when a consonant is intended to end a syllable, and when a vowel ? Take such examples as sane, sanity; nation, national; navy, na- vigate ; meter, metrical; final, finish ; floral, florid ; student, study; punitive, punish (where each pair of words is from the same root) ; and we ask, how does the orthography distinguish the sound in these and in thousands of similar cases ? Again, if we scrutinize the supposed effect of final e in producing the conventional long sound of our vowels, we light at once upon such anomalies as are and fare, have and save, were and mere, give and dive, notice and entice, active and arrive, doctrine and divine, gone and bone, dove, move, and rove, with many others. Nor would the mere dropping of the final e after the above short vowels make the required dis- tinctions without other changes. We may further note here that in many other positions where the conventional long sounds of the vowels are supposed to be regularly used we frequently find the short ones. Thus, if we have change and range, we have also flange ; paste andtvaste have caste for an ill-assorted fellow ; bind and pint must keep company with wind and mint ; toll and droll with doll ; while torn, port, and most are readily confronted with corn, short, and cost. Thus no certain means are provided in thousands of cases to mark whether a vowel-sign represents the conventional long or the short sound, quite different in nature as those sounds are, and the spelling-books only partially surmount the difficulty by adopting a plan of syllabication which is often in conflict with etymology and phonetics. Lengthened Vowels. Having exemplified the confusion which arises from attempting to express ten vowel-sounds in discordant pairs by five signs, it may now be noted that the natural lengthening of the short vowels a and i? causes ambiguity with regard to a few words, iar father and rather are quite out of keeping with bather ; and there and where assort ill with here and mere. More or less lengthened a in such words as part, past, path, palm, would at first sight appear open to no criticism ; still we have such discrepancies as casting and pasting, lasting and hasting, fasting and wasting. A similar extension of o in cork, com, cost, cloth, has the objectionable fea- ture of being confounded with the conventional long o in pork, torn, post, both, etc. Exceptional Sounds of the Vowels. We have now disposed of twelve uses of the five vowel- signs, but we have still eleven more to treat of as exceptional though fre- quently-occurring sounds. First we have short and long broad a as in tvds and wall. The grammarians tell us that the preceding w, wh, and qu cause the first sound ; and so they do in tvds, what, quality, but not in wax, whack, equal, or equation. It would seem, too, that water is supposed to come under this rule ; but if so, are wafer and waver irregular spellings ? So much for the alleged na- tural broadening effects of letters preceding a ; from which we will pass to another pretended rule, that //, or I and another con- sonant, following a, produce the long broad sound ; but though all may agree in sound with awl, and hull with haul, shall is quite differ- ently sounded from shawl. Then we have one vowel-sound in laid and suit, and quite others in balm and scalp. Or, if we take words in which the sound of the / is lost, and the loss might be supposed to be similarly compensated for, we find equal discre- pancy, as in chalk, talk on one side, and calf, salve on the other. As for the exceptional sound of d in any and many, this, like the sound of e in pretty, would have been left out of consideration here, and have been placed among isolated anomalies, but that some orthoepists recognise this sound of a in savage, populace, etc., and that the sound of e is frequent in terminations like igneous, bounteous, area, lineal, etc. There is a natural long sound of i in pique, clique, police, pres- tige, machine, marine, magazine, and many other words, and we have only need to ask, How is this distinguishable in English orthography from the i in pike, advice, oblige, divine, or from that in novice, vestige, doctrine ? Another accidental sound of i is that in fir, mirth, etc., where e would be the more natural sign, and where an abnormal sound of the i is heard which is often imported by the imperfectly-educated into irregular, irritate, etc. "We next have three exceptional uses of the vowel-sign o to no- tice. Here again, as with broad a, we may be told of the influ- ence of to and wh in producing the sounds 6 and 6, as in wolf, womb, and whose ; but there is no w or wh to account for the vowel-sound in tomb and lose, so different from the conventional long o in comb and rose, while the consonantal prefix does not de- prive wold and whole of the latter sound. The fact is that the 6 and 6 sounds, as in the common words to and do (compare so and no) occur independently of any preceding letters, while the gen- eral effect of w upon o appears to be to produce another exceptional sound, as in won, word, icorse, worth, though that does not prevent our having the regular short o in wot, nor the conventional long o in sworn. Indeed, o is the vowel-sign upon which we can place least dependence of any as regards its sound in any particular po- sition, as will be seen by comparing, in addition to the above ex- amples, both and troth with moth and doth, cove and rove with prove and move or dove and love, on and con with son and ton, and tone with gone and done ; or we may instance five distinct sounds of o in positions where i would only have one sound— thus, pot most, wolf, tomb, son, as compared with pit, mist, wilt, limb, sin. ^ We have now leit only the exceptional sound (in English) of u input, pull, puss, push, with its natural extension u, as in ruth and truth. As for the former, it is the occasion of as awkward anoma- lies as o in con and son, as we may readily see by comparing but, dull, fuss, flush, with the words just cited. The u in rule, runic, is regularly used for conventional long it after r, but this u is lia- ble to confusion with conventional short it in run. "We will close this review of the single vowel-signs by saying that we have as yet advisedly refrained from complicating our subject by introducing y and w as vowel-signs, because y may be considered as only the alter ego of i in three sounds, represented by the former in myth, by, and myrrh ; and w is not a vowel-sign ex- cept when used in combination. These letters must now, however, come upon the scene. Vowel Digraphs. After all the complication and confusion which we have exhib- ited as the result of endeavoring to express fourteen sounds by using five signs in twenty-three different ways, without any real means of discriminating when one sound and when another is in- tended, or what sign should be used to denote a particular sound, we have not done with the representation of vowel-sounds in English. Besides the separate vowel-signs, there are digraphs, or combinations of two signs, and even trigraphs, or combinations of three signs, to the number of twenty-two, used to express the same fourteen sounds as we have already seen represented (or mis- represented) by the five vowel-signs, with the addition of two more diphthongal sounds, making sixteen distinct sounds in all. Table of Digraphs. ai— pail (a), said (e), plaid (a) oa— road (5) ay— pay (a), says (e) oe — toe (6), shoe (6) a'u— yaul (a), aunt (a.) oi — toil (of) aw— yawn (a) oy— toy (of) ea— "beat (e), sweat (e), great oo— wood (6), food (6), flood (Li), heart (a) («>). door (o) eau— beau (6), beauty (ii) ou— sour (68), pour (o), would ee— heel (e) (ii), tour (ii), cough (6), ei— receive (e), vein (ii), sought (6), couple (6) height (i) ow— town (oil), sown (o) ey— key (e), prey (ii), eye (0 ue— due (ii), rued (u) eu— eulogy (ii), rheum (u) ui— suit (ii). fruit (u), build ew— ewe (ii), drew (u), sew (6) (t), guile (i) ie— lie (i), lief (e), sieve (i) uy— buy (i) We have excluded from notice in this table all digraphs or sounds of digraphs which occur only in isolated cases, as in the word3 gaol, gauge, heifer, people, yeoman, parliament, friend, view, broad, does, bellows, guard, and in many terminations, as captain, mercies ; just as we disregarded isolated sounds of the single vowel-signs. A cursory examination of the Digraph Table will at once show that only four of the digraphs (oi, oy, ou, and ow) are employed in expressing the two additional diphthongs, and that twenty of them (including ou and ow) are used to represent the same sounds as the single vowel-signs. Yet, though twenty-two auxiliaries are brought into the field to help five characters to give expression to fourteen sounds, their aid only makes the confusion more con- founded. The condition of our vowel notation may be briefly stated thus in figures (including now y with its three powers) : — 6 single vowel-signs with 26 uses 22 digraphs „ 54 „ Total ... 28 signs „ 80 „ to express 16 sounds ; or an average of nearly 3 uses for each sign, and of 5 signs used for each sound. But even this arithmetical average gives no approximate idea of the state of confusion in some instances. The digraph ou expresses ordinarily seven different sounds, as may be seen in the preceding table, and the vowel-sign o alone expresses five of the very same sounds (see page 4). One of these sounds in each case is that of o in do ; but this same sound is represented, not only by o and by ou, but by seven other signs, making nine in all, as in do, truth, rheum, dreio, shoe, tool, soup, true, fruit ; the vowel-sound in all of which words might be expressed by oo. It must not be thought, however, that even yet we are making the worst of English vowel-notation. "We have put aside all the isolated anomalies in vowel-signs as not essential to the ordinary orthographic system of the language ; but we must not lose sight of the fact that there is a special source of confusion attaching to about half of the di- graphs — namely, that the letters ordinarily constituting these combinations are not used for this purpose, but to express two conjoined, though separately-pronounced vowel-sounds. Thus we have real, creator, seest, reiterate, lenient, diet, coagulate, in- choate, poet, coeval, doeth, coincide, cooperate (better co-operate), duel, ruin, etc. Even the mark of diaeresis in its ordinary use would be of little service in such words, seeing that the separated vowel-signs would still be indeterminate in their sound (as in real, creator ; poet, doeth). Altogether, therefore, the digraphs are perhaps a greater source of confusion in English spelling than the single vowel-signs, since there is hardly the appearance of rule for their use. "We may now give a complete table of the vowel-sounds in the English language, with the ordinary modes of representing them by single or conjoined characters, omitting, as we have hitherto done, all isolated anomalies in spelling. If the reader will look carefully down, as well as across the Table, he will see not only how many ways there are of expressing each syund, but how many sounds each vowel-sign or digraph is made to express. Perhaps, 9 if inexperienced in the subject, it is only in thus investigating for himself that he will appreciate the full force of our remarks on this subject. English Voice! -Sounds, as variously represented. 1. a, — fat, Isaac, plaid 2. a — father, aunt, heart 3. a — fatal, pail, pay, there, great, vein, prey 4. e — met, sweat, any, said, says, fir, myrtle 5. e— meter, heat, heel, pique, piece, receive, key 6. i — fin, sylph, build, sieve 7. o — pot, was, cough 8. 5 — wall, yaul, yawn, sought 9. o — potent, road, toe, door, pour, low, beau, sew 10. ii — dull, love, flood, cousin 11. ii — pull, wolf, wood, would 12. u — rude, move, rood, wound, rheum, drew, shoe, rued, bruise Diphthongs. 13. i— final, try, height, eye, lie, guile, buy 14. oi — oil, toy 15. oil — our, town 16. ii — use, due, suit, eulogy, few, beauty. Here we have eighty ways of expressing sixteen sounds, as pre- viously reckoned, used in a haphazard fashion, without any cer- ' tainty or definite rule. ENGLISH CONSONANTS. In the application of the Roman consonants to express sounds in the English language, the resulting confusion is happily not so great, in proportion to the number of signs, as in the employment of the vowels, or we might well shrink from the task of analysis; but still the anomalies occurring will require notice in some detail. As with the vowels, so here we have at once too few single signs and too many ways of using those signs. A large proportion of the consonants are made to represent two or more sounds, so that in the aggregate they are used in nearly twice as many ways as there are consonantal sounds in the language, without expressing some of these sounds at all under any circumstances ; so that the aid of digraphs has to be called in as with the vowels, and these digraphs are employed quite as irregularly as the simple conso- nant-signs. Another source of confusion is that most of the single consonants and some of the digraphs have occasionally no sound at all, which, of course, constitutes a distinct mode of employing the signs, and a very objectionable one, too. We proceed at once to give tables of the uses of the single consonants and digraphs, as both species of signs are required to give a view of all the sim- ple consonant-sounds in the language. 2 10 Single Consonants. b — bat; — (silent) debt, limb c — cat, city, gracious ; — indict d — dell, picked (= pickt) f— fell, of (= ov) g— get, gem ;— gnat, sign, phlegm h — hot; — heir, hour J— jot k— king; — knell, know* 1 — lie; — calf, yolk, baulk m — may ; — mnemonics n — nay, uncle ( = ung-cle) ; — kiln, condemn p — pit; — psalm, pneumatic, receipt qu — quit, antique r — run s — sun, sure, measure ; — isle, aisle t — tun, notion ; — castle, tmesis, depot v — veil "w — wail ; — wrist, sword, answer x — axis, exert, noxious, xylograph y — yield z — zeal, azure Consonantal Digraphs. ch — church, chaise, ache ; — yacht, dracbm ck- — pick dg— ledge gh— ghost, cough, hough ; — night, inveigh ng — singer, linger, infringer ph — physic, nephew ; — phthisical rh — rhetoric ;— myrih, catarrh bc — science, conscience, discern, score sch — schism, schedule, scheme sh — short tch — match th — thistle, this,' thyme wh — what, whole. In the above tables the distinct sounds are first represented by one example for each, and then instances of silence are given after a dash. Counting silence, wherever or however occurring, as oue use for each sign subject to it, we have then 21 single consonant-signs, with 47 uses 13 digraphs „ 32 ,, Total ... 34 signs „ 79 „ to express the various consonant-sounds of the language, which it will be presently shown are only 24 in number, giving an average 11 of exactly 2J uses to each sign, and of nearly 3± ways of expressing each sound. Yet here, as with the vowels, we have exaggerated nothing, for we might have added all the cases in which letters usually forming digraphs are separately pronounced with their usual powers as single consonants, as in publichouse, congratulate, headgear, staghound, loophole, detrliouud, mischance, mishap, knighthood* cowherd. We might also have treated all doubled consonants as digraphs, except when both letters are sounded, as in midday, missent, etc. ; but it is enough to advert to these matters to show what a captious critic might do who under- took such an examination as this. Silent Consonants and Digraphs. We commence a brief review of the consonants and consonantal digraphs by a few remarks on the silent signs. Grammarians and lexicographers will tell us that we ought to spell know and know- ledge with k because this letter belongs to the root, and the sound of it is preserved in acknowledge. Yet the Romans, from whom we took our alphabet, had no scruple in a strictly analogous case to omit a letter when no longer sounded. Their primitive root for the verb know was gno, radically identical with our own word ; but in Classical times the g was omitted in nosco (I know), notus (known), etc., although it was retained in cognosco and ignottu. So gnu was the original root of nascor (I am born), natus (born) ; but the g was dropped when no longer sounded, though it was preserved in cognatus. In strict analogy, -\ve should spell noicledge, acnowledge (or noledge, if we prefer the customary short sound). What can be said for such anomalies as debt and doubt, as ne- cessary to elucidate etymology, we are at a loss to know, when in the French language, from which these words were directly taken, they were then and have ever since been spelt dette and doute, with- out risk of losing sight of their origin from the Latin debitum and dubito, and they were actually written in English for centuries without the b. Then there is receipt, upon whose p some etymolo- gists would think it sacrilege to lay violent hands ; yet they do not hesitate to write conceit and deceit from the same root. One might be accused of vandalism in proposing to take the g out of deign ; yet scholars can dispense with it in the negative form of the word, disdain, and in many analogous cases. So it might be declared unwarrantable to deprive feign of its silent consonant, though it has been transposed as compared with the Latin etymon Jingo, and only serves to obscure the relationship with, feint. To be consistent, we should have g in complain (from plango), restrain (from stringo),joiu (from jungo), and so in various other cases. But if we are referred to the French for the direct derivation of reign, sign, etc., -we reply that our neighbors only use g in regne, signe, etc. for a specific phonetic purpose, and that they omit the letter in other words from the same roots, such as reine, dessein, 2* 12 etc., where it would be superfluous, whereas they interpolate it in other instances for an orthographic purpose where it is not found in the Latin, as in vigne, ligne (from vinea, linen). But what is the etymological use of g in sovereign and foreign ? To suggest the false notion that these words are connected with the French regne, Latin regnum (a kingdom), instead of being, as they really are, derivatives from the Latin super and. fore by merely adding the termination anus ? Milton wrote sovran, and we should write toverain (from French souverain) and forain, if our spelling were etymologically correct. The fact is that silent b, p, and g in La- tin derivatives, coming to us through the French, occur in a hap- hazard fashion, without subjection to any rule whatever, just like e in indict, or s in isle, aisle, demesne, and puisne ; and even where such a mute consonant may be supposed to have an orthographic effect in giving the conventional long sound to a preceding vowel, ■we have a confusion of orthography in attaching different termi- nations, as in sign, signing, signal ; assign, assignee, assignation. We cannot complain of the same sort of irregularity in direct derivatives from the Greek, for here the silent letters are system- atically retained, and are only silent because to Englishmen they are unpronounceable in the positions in which they occur. It may therefore be allowed that y in gnome, m in mnemonics, p in pneu- monic or psalm, t in tmesis, andrA in myrrh and catarrh, are com- paratively harmless, as, besides being found in rarely-used words, they cause no ambiguity of pronunciation ; and the latter excuse may also be made for n in the Latin derivatives condemn, contemn ; though in the latter instance it is hardly worth while to perpetrate an anomaly for the sake of retaining a useless letter which is re- placed by another equally useless in the derivatives contempt, con- temptuous, contemptible. We need not here dwell upon such mon- strosities as accompt, comptroller, etc., which are only archaic barbarisms. As for silent consonants in Saxon words, whatever powers they might once have had, they are now mere useless excrescences, for which in many cases even the greatest stickler for etymological spel- ling could have nothing to say. For instance, the b in lamb, dumb, etc. was not used in Anglo-Saxon, and does not help us to trace the relationship of these words to tbeir German congeners la mm and dumm. For kn and gn in knit, knife, know, gnat, gnaw, etc., and for wr in ivrist, wrest, wrong, etc., the etymologist might make a plea on the ground of their comparative harmlessness ; but he could hardly show the necessity for weighting such common words with a superfluous letter, in order to fix simple meanings which require no etymological elucidation. As for I in calf, half salve, talk, walk, yolk, folk, baulk, caulk (for it is our impression that it may well be, and often is, sounded in calm, palm, psalm, etc.), it is only necessary to say that this is worse than a useless anomaly, for where it is said to guide pronunciation it involves positive confusion 13 of sound, as in half and Alfred snipe and salvation, folk and polka talkative and alkali ; while in i«w/A and c««//v it is merely superflu- ous and misleading. The only one of the consonantal digraphs that is commonly si- lent, gh, has such a variety and uncertainty of sound and silence that a mere glance at its vagaries is enough to condemn it. It is only an intruder in ghost and ghastly in place of the Saxon g, Still preserved in gust (all three words heing from a common root signifying breath, Latin spiritus). In laugh, cough, trough, rough, enough, etc. it arrogates to itself the power of Jf; in hough and lough it usurps the function of ek ; and in many other words it is sulkily silent, only seeming to take a perverse pleasure in caprici- ously distorting the sound of a preceding vowel-digraph, as in eight, height ; bough, bought ; though, through. In all the pre- ceding words and in others analogous to them, this refractory di- graph gh would have to be eliminated from the language in attempting the most moderate spelling reform. But even gh may have its friends when it follows i, and is supposed to be useful not only in marking the etymology, but in showing the sound of the vowel. Something might on the former consideration be said for high, nigh-, sigh, flight, fright, light, might, night, sight, tight, as also for straight, slaughter, eight, sleight, and other such words; but then, on the same etymological principle, I,flg, afraid, mag, tie, slag, lie, lay, slg, dag, etc., ought to be spelt also with gh— thus, Igh,fligh, afraiyhed, maigh, tigh, slaigh, Ugh, laigh, sligh, daigh, etc., which would be rather questionable reform if carried out to the large extent that consistency would require. The fact is, gh in Saxon, like silent g in Latin derivatives, has been retained only in some words in a haphazard way by the accidental whim of writers. As for the utility of such spellings to denote sound, we may simply say that much better means for the purpose may be easily found. Pronounced Consonants. "We may dispose of fourteen of the single consonant-signs — that is, of two-thirds of the whole — by saying, that when they are not silent, b,f, h,j, k, I, m, m,* p, q, r, v, w, and y regularly have hxed and distinct sounds, except that q only expresses the same sound as k. But c, d, g, s, t, x, z require a little detailed consideration. Of these d in the termination ed of the regular past tense or pas- sive participle has the sound of t after sharp consonants, as in tapped, puffed, p ricked, pitched, rushed, etc. (pronounced (apt, puft, prickl, pitcht, rusht, etc.). There was at one time a tendency to remove this anomaly by employing the t as we have done above ; but the old orthography has survived the attempt at correction, and now we have no method of distinguishing between final ed fully sounded as in wicked, or representing d or t only, as inpee/ed ox peeped. Compare wicked-=wiked, and ticked— tikt. * But see pa^e 16, under ng. 14 C and g have the peculiarity of each having a normal sound designated hard (with c the same sound as that of k and q), and an additional one defined as soft, the latter occurring by rule be- fore e, i, and ;/, and the former in other positions, as cull, cell; gum, gem. This characteristic of our orthography we owe to our French and Latin derivatives, it being common to all the Romance languages, and probably having existed in the Latin, only that in that language the soft sound of c would have been ;ts in Italian, or like our eh in child, churl, cheap (whence we may account for the Saxon use in the same words written did, ceorl, ceap). The practical inconvenience of representing two sounds as different as those of k and s by (he same letter cannot therefore be alleged as a special defect of the English language, though it is a defect nevertheless. But in regard to g there is no rule exeept that it is generally hard in any position in Anglo-Saxon derivatives, and soft in the same positions as c in French, Latin, and Greek ones ; bo that we have, in the common language, the gill of a fish with a hard g, and a gill of wine with a soft one ; begin with one sound, and gin with the other, with such further anomalies as give and gibe, get and gem, gear and germ, etc. ; while attempts to denote the hardness of g before e, i, and y leads to such anomalous spel- lings as guild, guilt (compare gild, gilt), guest, guy, plague (com- pare ague). The doubled g, too, has irregularities of its own. There was for a long time much puzzling on the part of orthoe- pists and general readers how to pronounce the twog's in suggest or exaggerate, but usage has decided to treat them as one soft g, (or as dg) in those words, while they have the hard sound in snuggest, staggering, etc. A third sound of c, as in vicious, will be considered in another connection. S and x (the latter being really a double letter representing pri- marily cs or ks) have each the peculiarity of assuming often a flat sound, instead of their normal sharp one. S will take this sound between two vowels or at the end of words after vowels or flat consonant-sounds ; but there is little certainty in regard to this mutation, for the capricious letter has one sound in dose, loose, ob- tuse, and the other in rose, choose, refuse; while it claims to itself both in close, use, house, etc. Then we have grease rhyming with peace, please with tease, mouse sounding as mouce, and rouse as rouze. ; while as a final we have s sharp in gas, us, gratis, lotos, gal- lows, bellows (the instrument), and flat in as, has, is, his, quartos, hallows, bellows (the verb). There is less instability about x, which'takes the flat sound regularly when between two vowels (or a vowel and the letter h) with the accent upon the following syl- lable. Thus it is sharp in wax, axle, and flat in example, exert, exhibit. The sound of x like z at the beginning of Greek words may be regarded as a variation of this flat x, with the former ele- ment of the compound consonant (c or k) silent, but it exhibits another irregularity of the letter x. 15 We have now to notice additional anomalous sounds of c, s, and *, in connection with exceptional sounds of t and z. Before th© terminations ial, tan, iate, ience, lent, ion, ious, these letters undergo characteristic mutations, for c, sharp s, and / assume the sound of sh, as in vicious, vitiate, version ; x in the same position assumes the same sound with k prefixed, as in noxious, while s flat (z) as in fusion, pleasure, takes a pronunciation which has no special representation in the English language, though Walker attempted to express it hy inventing the digraph zh. With s, z, and x simi- lar mutations occur, with some speakers, before diphthongal u ( = iu) in terminations, as in sensual, usual, flexure. But here, as elsewhere, there are exceptions to rule, for, while t retains its nor- mal sound in such terminations as the above when preceded by t, as in question, combustion, s undergoes the mutation irregularly at the beginning of sure. Pronounced Digraphs. In considering the sounds of the digraphs we naturally take first those which ordinarily represent sounds not normally, if at all, expressed by single letters — namely, ch, sh, th, ng. The first would be a very serviceable sign if it were restricted to its more English use of expressing the sound in the Saxon words child chin, chew, chop, or in such thoroughly naturalized French deriv- atives as chase, change, cherish, choose ; but when we find it repre- senting also the modern French ch in chaise, machine, parachute, etc., and taking the place of a Greek letter in chymical, chasm, ache, and many other words, we lose our faith in this digraph. Sh, on the other hand, has no irregularity to complain of, except its liabil- ity to represent two distinct sounds in compound words, such as dishearten, mishap. Th represents two sounds not otherwise provided for, one sharp as in thistle, thin, and the other flat as in this, then (analogous in sound to t and d, or s and z). Both are common in Saxon deriva- tives, but only the sharp sound is heard in words of Classical origin. The only rule for the initial sound of the digraph is one that in- volves a knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the language for its application, and that is that nouns, adjectives, adverbs end- ing in /if, and verbs, have the sharp sound, as in thatch, thick, tho- roughly, think, while the definite article, pronouns, adverbs of pronominal origin, and conjunctions, have the flat sound, as in the, thou, (his, then, thus, than. As for medial and final th, the flat sound, as in either, rather, mother, is usual between two vowels in Sax:on derivatives (though not invariable, asfrothing will show), while Classic derivatives take the sharp sound in such a position, as in ether, author, mythic. But when we come to final th, and com- pare pith and with, tooth and booth, south and smooth, we cannot attempt to find rules for such anomalies. Kg represents very frequently a sound not normally expressed by any single letter, as in fang, sing, long, hung. In such mono- 16 syllables its tise is unexceptionable ; but when we come to words like hanger, anger, danger, or singer, finger, and infringer, we find the letters ng having three different powers (which we might represent by hang-er, ang-ger, dain-jer), -svithout anything to point a distinction. There is also a fourth sound, which may be exem- plified thus— con -grata late, in-grain. It cannot, of course, be im- puted as a fault to ng that single n assumes the ordinary power of the digraph before c hard, *, and q (as well as before g hard) in accented syllables, as in uncle, ankle, conqntr, while n retains it3 usual sound in unaccented syllables, as in include, unkempt, in- quire ; but this anomaly is best noted in this connection. Ck, ilg, and tch may be treated as analogous contrivances for preparing a root with a short vowel to receive terminations where the doubling of a final consonant would not effect the purpose, as quick and lock are prepared to become quicker and locking, lodge and hedge to be augmented to lodger and hedging, watch and latch to increase to watches and la/ekes. While the soft powers of e and g are preserved, and ch retains its present most frequent use, these signs are necessary to produce the same effect as double consonants in matting and rubber ; but why should mimic, allege, rich, etc., not be written mimick, alledge, rilch ? Ph,rh,sc,sch, and wh are the remaining digraphs. Of these fh represents a Greek letter which we pronounce exactly like /, though probably ph and / were not sounded alike in Latin; but there is no need that we should continue to make a useless distinc- tion which the Italians and Spaniards have abandoned, in writing filosofia for our philosophy; besides which, conjoined p and h are wanted to express their normal powers in uphill, upheave, etc. Iih is merely an attempt to represent a fine distinction which the Greeks made between r ending a syllable and r commencing one. The difference may probably be exemplified in the word earring, but if we make no such distinction in our own vernacular words, we want none in our Greek derivatives. Sc with us, when the letters have not separate sounds, as in scale, is in effect^ merely another mode of expressing the sounds of s or e soft, as in seeue, science, discern, conscious, conscience. Se-h has a very anomalous sound, like that of single s in schism ; in schedule it_ is equivalent to sh, and in scheme to sk. Such are the irregularities in the pronun- ciation of a combination of letters which perhaps does not occur in a score of English words, even including such as mischief, where it has a fourth use. Wh is put among the digraphs because, written thus, and not in its old Saxon form of hw, with the aspirate before the semi-vowel, it may well be regarded as a single symbol. In whole, if not elsewhere, wh i3 quite out of place, as there is no sound of w in the word, which is etymologically connected with heal, hale, and holy. Compare wholesome and healthy. We have now made a sufficient analysis of English sounds and their expression in writing to show into what a chaotic, state tlia 17 language has fallen, and we will conclude this part of our task by appending a table of the consonant-sounds and their representative signs, analogous to that which we gave of the vowel-sounds in closing our remarks upon them. English Consonant-Sounds as Variously Represented. — Sharp— P ■ — pit —Flat — B —bit — Sharp — F — fat, physic, laugh — Flat ■ — V — vat, of, nephew — M — may ■ — Sharp — T — tear, thyme, tacked ( = tackt) —Flat — D —dear — Sharp— TH— thistle fMute » ■^ Aspirate L Nasal 5= i Mute >> Aspirate -1 Sibilant 5 -Flat — „ —this — Sharp — S — seal, city, science, schism, axis, ( = ak-sis) — Flat — Z — zeal, desire, xylograph, ex- ert ( = ek-zert), discern ^ Nasal — N — nay Mute — Sharp— K — kilt, cat, quit, pick, chaos, axis ( = ak-sis), hough, antique ,,_ — Flat — G — gilt, ghost Sibilant — Sharp — SH — sheer, sure, chaise, schedule, vicious, nation, noxious ( = nok-shus) „ — Flat — ZH — azure, vision Compound — Sharp — CH — cheer, batch ,, — Flat — J — jeer, gem, badge _Nasal — NG — sung, uncle ( = ung-kel) Liquids. — L — late ; E — rate, rhyme. Semivowels. — Y— yield ; W — wield. Aspiration.— H — heal, whole SOME ORTHOGRAPHICAL DETAILS. "We have so far confined ourselves to what may be considered as regular and systematic in the current English orthography, with only an occasional glance at anomalous spellings which could not well be brought into the scope of a synoptical review. "We may have erred in leaving out of consideration many half- Angli- cized foreign words, such as beaux, prestige, vermicelli, seraglio, etc. ; but as most languages, as well as nations, have thus domi- ciled foreigners on their territory, we have thought it better to leave such words out of account in examining the native ortho- graphy. We have also thought it unadvisable to attempt classifying the anomalies and monstrosities of the spelling and pronunciation of surnames, or of special technical terms. If the reader only attends to our exposition of the orthography of the ordinary language, we hope to convince him that it contains defects enough 8 18 to need reform, without bringing forward a mass of evidence too great and complicated for popular examination. But we cannot overlook the specially anomalous words of the common language in a treatise like this, for the English tongue bristles all over with them, and they form an essential, though not a systematic part of its orthography. Fanciful Spellings. Does it only arise from a curious consensus of insular eccen- tricity, or from a rule laid down by some whimsical lexicographer, that in all cases where nouns, adjectives, and principal verbs would normally have only two letters in them, a third shall be added to make up a word of something like respectable dimensions ? At all events, we have amusing exemplifications of such spellings in aye, awe, owe, eye, ewe, yew, lye, buy, dye, rye, axe, ebb, egg, err, inn, odd, where in every instance a totally superfluous letter has been inserted as compared with the normal representation of the language, only in order that the said excrescence should often disappear in derivatives, as awful, owing. These may seem com- paratively trivial anomalies, but we look at the exceptional treat- ment of such little words as leading to lawless whimsicality which has run wild in our tongue. If we account such spellings as awe, owe, ebb, odd, perfectly legitimate, how can we wonder at Messrs. Shawe, Lowe, Webb, and Dodd for following the example ? But fanciful spellings branch out in all directions. It is an old rule that i and u are replaced by y and w at the end of English words ; but i" by itself stands alone in its capital and terminational glory ; while for ages there has been some fancy for writing thou by the side of how and now, and you has received a like termination, with an utterly incongruous sound. The curious unwritten law of the language that v must not end a word nor be doubled, leads to all sorts of fantastical spellings, such as have, give, love, captive, etc. ; but the fancy for final e where it is not wanted does not end here, since we have such examples as are, were, done, gone, where the e is of no orthographic or etymological use, and was often omitted in earlier stages of the language. But we here naturally come to another closely-connected division of our subject ; though we may previously instance one, once, two, who, whom, and eighth (for eightth) as monstrosities that can be tolerated by a people accustomed to fanciful spellings. Useless and Preposterous Etymological Spellings. "When we remember that 3p0 years ago in Tyndale's time, and even for nearly three hundred years before that, it was usual to write heven or hevene, halowed or halowid, bred or brede, dettes or detlis, detters or dettours, in the Lord's Prayer, and that in Spen- ser's time mesure, plesure,f ether were current, we must be aston- ished at the perversity which has restored digraphs or silent letters in such words as bread and earth, which might surely be connected 19 as well with Swedish bred and German erde without the presence of a. If the a in all such cases were omitted from ea, no difficulty would be placed in the way of etymologists, pronunciation would be less uncertain, and many words, like treasure (French fresor), would be recovered from a vitiated orthography. If we were to substitute the simple i or e for ei in surfeit and forfeit, we should get rid of two very anomalous spellings, and make the connection with benefit and comfit somewhat clearer, while not preventing anyone from tracing the etymology beside that of the two latter words. The irregular use of the digraphs in great, heifer, heart, friend, broad, people, leopard, yeoman, feod is a standing reproach to En- glish orthography, and yet will any philologist deny that grait, hefer, hart,frend, brand, peeple, lepard, yoman, feted, might just as easily be traced to their etymons or congeners in other langua- ges ? The exceptional use of single vowels in any, many, pretty, women, busy, bury, leads to popular corruption of sound as in beu- rial for berial, is orthographically indefensible, and, so far from being etymologically useful, perverts the original Anglo-Saxon i or y in women and busy. The e in forehead may be a little thing to cavil at, but it is or- thoepically misleading, and cannot be etymologically necessary, more than va. former ox forward. What can be shown from the spelling manoeuvre more than might be from the simpler and more sightly maneuver ? Would journey, couple, double, be less traceable through the French to the Latin diurnus, copula, and duplex, be- cause we omitted the o, which is useful in French but only mis- leading in English ? Would speak and speech be less amenable to the etymological inquirer if they were both consistently spelt with ee, or break and breach if their diversity of vowel-sound were marked by the spellings braik and breech? Finally, under this head of supposed etymological, at the expense of phonetic, indi- cation, let the reader seriously consider whether it is worth while keeping such orthographical (?) monstrosities in any language as thyme, ache, cupboard, colonel, isle, aisle, viscount, victuals, just to indicate their derivation, while altogether obscuring their pronun- ciation. But, without further examples under this head, we pass on to another. Etymologically Misleading Spellings. We have already alluded to sovereign and foreign, as spellings falsely suggesting a connection with the Latin regnum (kingdom), instead of appearing as plain soverain and forain ; but these are not the only cases in which current spelling violates etymological truth. In island and rhyme there is a suggestion made of connection with isle and rhythm, but it is an utterly false one, the former words being from Anglo-Saxon roots and properly written Hand and rime. Kerchief presents a needless variation from another French derivative beginning with the same prefix — curfew; while the c in scent is wholly unjustified by the Latin seniio or French 20 sentir ; just as scissors, with two superfluous s's seems to point to scindo, scissus (to split) as its true etymon, instead of cdedo, cisus (to cut), whence the orthography would be cisors (compare in- cisors, incision, etc.). Clumsy expedient as gue is in words like plague, intrigue, league, it certainly ought only to appear where its presence is thought to be necessary and is justified by some sort of etymological consideration ; but some genius originated the spelling tongue, with a false analogy to French langue, instead of the old Saxon tung, and perhaps devised the anomalous spelling young at the same time. Nothing is more certain than that tung and yung are the historical, as they are the etymological, spellings of these words. We may complain of the same ue as simply su- perfluous for sound and misleading for both sound and etymology in harangue, demagogue, decalogue, synagogue, etc. The intrusive u in build only seems to have been put there to obscure the connection with Anglo-Saxon byldan, German bilden; while what to make of the extraordinary trigraph in view we can- not conceive, unless some wiseacre conceived the notion of dimly representing the Latin video by this collocation of letters, instead of the French vue, from which our word is derived (as due from French da, due). Parliament, as now spelt suggests, but errone- ously, some other direct origin than the French parlement, which was tlie older form of the word in English, and the unphonetic ia is worse than meaningless. Honourable, favourable, favourite, and many such secondary Latin derivatives have no right to the u, if honour and favour have, according to the respective forms of the words in Norman and modern French ; and we might as well write discoloration, elaborate, laborious with u, as the Pall Mall Gazette did years ago in its zeal for "conservative" spelling. Shamefaced, landscape, and. frontispiece are mere corruptions for shamefast (like stedfast), landskip (or landship), aud frontispice (sjrice, view, as in auspice). Height, sieve, birth, mirth, like many other words, are unnecessarily dissociated in spelling from their relatives, in these cases high, sift, bear, merry ; flight and drought would require^^A and drigh as their consistent primitives ; while in could (ancient cunde, cude), I has been interpolated in mistaken analogy to would and should. "We might say a great deal more upon the many offences against history and etymology, as well as against common sense, in English spelling ; but we will just add that the current spelling, unlike the Anglo-Saxon, obscures the etymological relation between such words as cow and kine, cat and kitten, corn and kernel, kill and quell, quack and cackle, skim and scum ; while it also does the same with Greek derivatives like fancy and phantom, frenzy and phrenetical. In fact, in the details of its working, as in its first principles, English orthography is utterly inconsistent, ineffective, misleading, and irrational ; and no reader, who has accompanied us thoughtfully thus far, will doubt the correctness of this con- clusion. PART II. PRACTICABILITY OF REFORM. That a considerable reform in our spelling is desirable, has been abundantly shown, we think in the former part of this essay, and we have now only to consider the practicability of effecting such reform. To constitute practicability in this case, two conditions are requisite— (1) public conviction of the necessity for change; and (2) a definite, effective, and generally-accepted scheme of reform. "We shall say little on the first point here. The working of the Elementary Education Act has given a stimulus to public opinion on the matter which has every day an increasing effect. School teachers, school boards, and school inspectors come forward with their testimony, not in a few cases, but in hundreds, to the effect that teaching our anomalous system of spelling to the children of the poor is in most cases impracticable ; and that when the task is in exceptional instances accomplished, it entails either the loss of much other instruction that might be imparted during school attendance, or the sacrifice to indigent parents of a child's possible earnings during a considerable period. It is this practical view of the matter that is every day making spelling reform more feas- ible, as regards public opinion of the necessity for change. People are coming to recognise the truth that alphabetical written language was intended to be a reflex of spoken sounds ; that it has no vigor, or even life, when dissociated from these sounds ; that a reconcili- ation of signs and sounds ought to be effected when the discordance between the one and the other produces grave practical inconve- nience; and that, sounds being the essential and vital principle of language, it is signs that must be changed in effecting the recon- ciliation. We assume, and we know, that these considerations are rapidly gaining recognition, not only among the most eminent philologists of the day (like Professors Max Miiller and Sayce), or among persons who have had official supervision of primary education (like Mr Eobert Lowe, Sir Charles Reed, Dr Morell, etc.), but amongst the great body of school teachers and the gen- eral public in all grades of society ; and when we think of the force of growing public opinion in a country like the United King- dom, we see that one condition of practicability will not be wanting for such a spelling reform as has long ago been effected in Holland, Spain, and Italy (not to mention minor reforms in other countries), without equally pressing considerations with regard to popular education. 22 The second condition necessary for reform is the existence of a definite, effective, and generally-accepted scheme. This condition has in a theoretical and scientific sense been fulfilled by the in- vention of the enlarged alphabet used every week in printing a con- siderable portion of the Phonetic Journal. It was the most obvious and natural method of reform to supplement the deficiencies of an alphabet which has only 23 useful letters to express 38 sounds by adding 15 new characters. After more than thirty years of prac- tical experience, criticism, and improvement, these characters have now assumed a form which commands general approval. There is only one drawback in connection with them, and that is that the types to represent them do not exist in ordinary printing-offices, and are not likely to be found in them until phonetic writing and printing is demanded by public opinion. Hence the necessity for a reformed orthography without new letters, which shall be, not the rival, but the forerunner, the herald, and the exponent of Mr Pitman's system, until general attention and appreciation is secured to his " more excellent way " of spelling, and which shall also be the consistent and permanent representative of phonetic English in foreign countries where the new types will rarely be found in printing-offices, until at least long after their general use in Great Britain, her dependencies, and the United States. PHONETIC SPELLING WITH OLD LETTERS. Various schemes of more or less phonetic spelling with old let- ters have been put before the public, of which one by the present writer (devised in 1863) was published in No. 24 of the Phonetic Journal for this year. That system, as may be gathered from a few references hereinafter made to it, was more scientifically pre- cise and consistent than the one here propounded, but it failed in the two important desiderata, not to say necessities, (1) of as com- plete as possible a concord with Phonotypy in spelling details, and (2) of ready interlegibility between the old spelling and the pro- posed new one. With a view to obtain these conditions, one alteration after another has been imperatively suggested by the writer's own reflections or by intercommunication with leading spelling reformers, until he finds himself at last writing " Semi- phonotypy." Much thought and attentive consideration of different schemes of orthography have led to the conviction that the only practicable new scheme of spelling with old letters is one which must sacrifice scientific symmetry and analytical consistency for the practical but regular employment of existing orthographic expedients as substitutes for the new letters provided in Phonotypy. Dependent Vowels. We have only five vowel-signs in the English alphabet— a, <■, i, o, m (for y and w as vowels are but duplicates of * and «)— and 23 there are six distinct dependent short vowel-sounds (so called be- cause each is definitely heard only before a consonant following in the same syllable, on which it is therefore 6aid to depend for its sound) ; — thus, pat, pet, pit, pot, but, put. Excluding the u in but, we have here what may be called fair representations of the natural and general short powers of the Roman vowels. Now, as the sound of u in but is almost peculiarly English, and as the same sound is also often represented by o, oo, or ou (as in son, flood, couple), while that of it in put not only occurs singly in many words, but also as a constituent part of diphthongs, it was only natural to think of some new orthographic expedient for writing the u in but or o in son (such as bat, sin, bost, seen, or the Phonotypic bst, sun) ; but, in view of the grave practical objection to the use of any unfamiliar signs except those of Phonotypy itself (which may often not be attainable), it has been thought, that, as dependents commonly occurs as in but, and only seldom as input, a sufficient distinction will be made by marking the latter as is here done. "We have then provided for the representation of the six English short dependent vowel-sounds ;— thus, to give a practical exempli- fication of phonetic reform : — New Spelling— plad, bred, siv, kqf, flud, wild. Old „ — plaid, bread, sieve, cough, flood, would. "While most consonants (especially those of the mute or explodent order), following in the same syllable, have the effect of stopping or shortening a simple vowel, the continuants and liquids (especially when followed by mutes in the same syllable) often more or less lengthen or draw out the vowel-sounds ; so that occasionally we have each of the six dependent voweis " long by position," as the Classic grammarians say. Thus, we have lengthened a in palm, park, past, path ; e in held, helm, herd ; i in film, mist, pith ; o in north, cost, cloth ; u in bulk, burn, bust ; and it in riith, truth. It must be carefully noted, however, that we treat here only of simple and regular prolongations of the vowel-sounds. Irregular prolongations in the dependent position, entailing change in the quality as well as the quantity of sound, as in bald, salt, bind, mild, bold, colt, are now out of the question. Their phonetic ex- pression will be presently provided for ; but here we have only to deal with sounds that remain substantially the same as with the dependent short vowels, and for which no separate notation is re- quired in such an orthography as we are propounding; though we cannot be surprised at some persons preferring past, path, north, kost, etc. in Phonotypy, where long vowels are provided without resorting to digraphs. Independent Vowels. Five of the vowels have also a regular independent sound at the end of unaccented syllables, as iu the initial syllables of about, 24 career; emit reform ; divert, divide ; omit, provide; crusade, Inasmuch as the u in but never occurs in the independent position, that is at the end of syllables, it would not be imperative to put the distinguishing mark on u in crusade, garrulus, etc. ; but the fol- lowing rule will be safest, especially for elementary purposes :— Eule I. — The mark on u is omitted when the single vowel doea not precede a consonant ; that is, when it precedes another vowel (as in confluent), helps to form a diphthong (as in feud, foul), or occurs at the end of a word (as in tu, intu, for to, into). Unaccented vowels are often pronounced obscurely by English speakers, but it is the more elegant usage to give to a, e, and u, in such words as AcadEmy, virvlent, the same sounds as they have in pat, pet, put. But there are slight variations of sound with the independent short i and o, these vowels being not so broad or open in pertinent and impotent as in tin and pot. The distinction with the i is exactly that between i and y in Welsh, and with the o it is that between o chiuso and o aperto in Italian. If both of the short sounds of either of these vowels had occurred, as they might have done, in the dependent position, it would have been necessary to mark the variation, as we do the more distinct one in but and put ; but as the discrepancies are denoted by the positions in which the vowel-signs occur, we simply call attention to the true char- acter of i in divert, and especially of o in obey, police, provincial, provide, etc., in illustration of the following Rule and of Rule IV. Rule II.— Unaccented short vowels, both dependent and inde- pendent, should be written phonetically (as they are at present generally written) in correspondence with accented short vow- els in related words ;— thus similxr (agreeing with similAriti), leegkl (with leegAlili), reform (with rEfor»iais/ion), akadEmy (with akad-Emikal), benufshal (with benvfsens), infinit (with inflniti), diveid (with dividend), proveid (with provident), provinsl/al (with provins), depozishon (with depozit) ; except where the sound clearly requires the use of distinct vowel-signs as in jenervs and jenerositi. Vowel Digraphs. AlHhe simple vowel-signs having been appropriated to repre- sent six dependent short or long vowel-sounds, and five independent short ones (with two slight variations of sound denoted by position, and a more distinct one denoted by the same means or by a diacrit- ical mark where necessary), we are driven to the expedient of digraphs, or combinations of vowel-signs, to express the actually or approximately corresponding independent long sounds. Let us take them seriatim, with a few words of comment upon each, pre- mising, however, that they must be regarded as simple signs representing single letters in Phonotypy. 25 AA. — The prolongation of a in pat, when it must bo marked (and we see no reason for marking it in 'part, past, halh, Bath, and many other words), would perhaps be more definitely denoted to English readers by ah than by aa, but there is an objection to this solitary use of the h as a prolonging letter in one digraph, when we use only vowel-signs in the others, and we submit that the aa found in baa or bazaar will be found practically effective in kaaf, laaf, saav (for calf, laugh, salve) ; but as we prefer sounding the / in balm, palm, etc., we should write the words thus, though others might spell baam, paam, etc. AI. — The independent long sound that corresponds nearest to e in pen (that is, a in vane, ai in vain, or ei in vein), when not oc- curring before r, we regard as often, if not always, diphthongal in English speech, and so have no scruple in writing it with two characters. We should prefer to represent it by ei (as in rein and veil), but that symbol is wanted for another sound, while ai (as in rain and avail) is little less phonetical, and is more commonly and consistently used in current spelling. In favor of this digraph French and Modern Greek usage may be adduced, as also the fact that in the Sanskrit alphabet ai (diphthong) is treated as the long sound of e, the intermediary in the natural vowel-scale between a and i. N. S. — aid, ailc, plaig, grait, praiz, tvai, obai, nai. 0. S. — aid, ache, plague, great, praise, way, obey, neigh. EE. — The exact phonetic prolongation of independent short * in divert, cordial (for it is not the precisely corresponding long sound of i in did), we should theoretically prefer to represent by a digraph formed from i (ie or ih) ; but we are overcome by the practical considerations — (1) that ee is in possession in so many hundreds of words like see, degree, seed, meek, peel, deem, green, peep, sweet, etc. ; (2) that it ordinarily has only this use in current spelling ; (3) that it can inoffensively be made to take the place of the more anomalous digraphs in meal, receive, chief (meet, reseev, cheef), or of single e in compete, menial (compeet, meenial) ; and (4) that for the foregoing reasons it is accepted by most reformers as the most feasible and effective Romanic representative of Phono- typic i. We shall therefore write : — N. S. — deer, meel, impeed, seez, pleez, tee, l:ee, inlreeg. 0. S. — dear, meal, impede, seize, please, tea, key, intrigue. ATJ. — The prolongation of dependent o (when not denoted as in north, cost, cloth, etc.) would be represented by the ordinary digraph au, now commonly used in Greek, Latin, French, and Saxon derivatives for this sound (as in autocrat, audience, vault, daughter). The combination au naturally expresses a diphthongal sound, as in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and German, or as aw 26 in "Welsh ; but this sound does not exist in our language, having beenmerged into a corresponding long vowel sound (as it has been also in French), and the phonetic connection here is shown by the Sanskrit grammarians treating au (diphthong) as the long sound of o (just as with ai and e). N. S. — aul,tauk,aul/er, hauti, slauter, paun, pan. 0. S. — all, talk, alter, haughty, slaughter, pawn, paw. OA. — The prolongation of the independent o in obey, omit, pro- vide, we propose to render by the only.digraph generally serviceable for the purpose, oa. We have no great partiality for this digraph, and should theoretically prefer ou (as in soul, mould), if we had the character ce or 9 to phonetically express the diphthong in noun, now {noeun, noeu) ; but ou is wanted for that sound, and oa is a thoroughly English and workable symbol (requiring very seldom to be separated, as in ko'alishon). It was used by our ancestors more freely than we employ it (as in the old spellings smoak, choak, boalh, cloaths, provoak, etc.), and to those who object to our introducing it into Classical or French derivatives, we only say, Why do you use it in coach, approach, jl 'oat, coast, roast, etc. ? N. S. — oak, oan, poar, smoak, moa, toa, doaz, doa. 0. S. — oak, own, pour, smoke, mow, toe, doze, dough. 00. -The exact prolongation of u in pull would be represented by oo (in analogy with ee for lengthened i). We might here pre- fer a digraph derived from ii if there were one available, but sim- ilar reasons weigh with us as in the case of ee, and we have no option but to write : — N. S.—pool, root, rood, troo, /root, soop, too, hoo. 0. S.—pool, route, rude, true, fruit, soup, two, who. But here we may observe that we would not use oo (for the old long u) after / or s. and that we should write leuminari, inkleud, seat, aseum (for luminary, include, suit, assume). Rule III.— Simple*?, o, and u would be written foree, oa, and oo, before vowels in the body of words, as in real, creait, je- otoji, peoni, poet, coers, co'insident, Aero'ik, truant, kruel, fluid ;* also at the end of subordinate words, or words preserv- ing a foreign termination, as in we, me, be, so, no, go, tu, epitome, groto. It will thus be seen that it is intended to employ the vowel digraphs only before consonants in the body of words, as in eeven, meedial,floaral, soalar, foolish, and trooth, (where a clear distinc- tion is required from the spelling in ever, medal, florid, solid, fidi, * It is not only in the Classic languages but in nature that one vowel before another is generally short, although it may be independent and under the tonic accent. 27 and dufh,) and at the end of principal words liable to inflection, like see, agree, goa,Jloa, shoa, woo, broo, in order to prepare the words for taking the consonantal terminations s, d, and n. The digraphs ai and au very exceptionally, and aa never, would occur before other vowels in the hody of words ; and ai is unobjectionable at the end of the subordinate words thai and mai, and both ai and au before vowel terminations, as in gaiist, sawing. There is, therefore, no difficulty in the general and consistent use of ai and au : but aa, ee, oa, and oo might require a mark of separation before the affixes ing, ish, and i (y), to show that the digraphs ai, ei, and oi were not intended to be written in solfaa'ing, dekree'ing, shoa'ing, icoo'ing,snoa'i (snowy), etc. Diphthongs. EL — The dipthongal sound of ei in either or height (y in my, i in mine, igh in sight, etc.) would be written generally ei, as the only feasible spelling without a new character for u in but, to ex- press what is really the initial constituent of the diphthong (thus si or cei). There is no common digraphic representation of this diphthong in the current orthography (for ie is virtually i + nilj ; and so we must be content with the limited authority of a few words like either, neither, height, sleight, eye, and with a' near approach to phonetic truth, pleading to the scholar that we shall at least restore the native orthography in some Greek deriva- tives by writing eidol, keirografi, etc., and bring out some now obscured analogies to German in bei, mein, thein, icein, etc. N. S. — Ei, bei, mei, treial, neil, heit, hei, lei, bei, ei. 0. S. — I, by, my, trial, night, height, high, lie, buy, eye. ETJ. — The digraph eu (with its equivalent ew) is the only ap- proximately phonetic representation in the old orthography for the sound of u in compute and computation ; and since the symbol eu has undoubted currency in Greek, Latin, French, and Saxon de- rivatives (as in eulogy, neuter, feud, few), it must be accepted as in possession, though unfamiliar iu or yu would be theoretically more exact ; but goo would be employed at the commencement of some words (as yiu is in Phonotypy), as yoo, yooth, yoo, Yool (for you, youth, yew, Yule). N. S. — deuli, teun, feud, sent, beuti, eu, veil, inkleud. 0. S. — duly, tune, feud, suit, beauty, ewe, view, include. 01. — The diphthong in toil, join, would continue to be expressed by its old and strictly phonetic symbol ; and we should only re- quire to separate the vowels in a very few words like ko'insidens, sto'ik, etc., where the o has its independent sound. OU. — This diphthong would be retained for expressing the sound in noun or now, though its real initial sound is the o in son, (o or ce) ; but the discrepancy is too small to require the introduction of a new symbol. * 28 N. S. — about, alou, rouz, plou, ploud, Icon, kovard. 0. S. — about, allow, rouse, plough, ploughed, cow, coward. Rule IV. — The digraphs ai, ee, ei, and oa in long accented sylla- bles of Latin primary derivatives are regularly replaced by the simple vowels a, e, i, and o in corresponding short unac- cented (as in short accented) syllables of secondary derivatives. Examples :—eksplk\n, ekspl knaishon (eksplknalor'j) ; grkid, degrkxd, grkdaishon, degrkdaishon (grkdeual) ; repETJ, kom- pEZt, repetishon, kompEtishon (/competitor) ; defEln, defmi- shon (defwitiv) ; divFAn, divmaishon (divmili) ; kompOkz, kompozishon (kompozitor) ; provokk, provokaishon (provoka- tiv). But the digraph en under such conditions remains in writing, though its elements may be appreciably shortened in sound, as in kompeut, kompeutaishon ; refeut, refeutaishon. Consonants. Of the consonantal symbols we may here very shortly dispose. If the reader will refer to the table at the end of the first part of this little treatise, he will find the normal representative signs of the twenty-four distinct English consonantal sounds, with the various exceptional modes in which the latter are represented. The essential and chief reform required is to bring the exceptions within the rules. Thus, taking the variations in consecutive or- der, we should write fizik, laaf (physic, laugh) ; ov, neveu (of, nephew) , teim, takt (thyme, tacked) ; siti, seiens, sizm, aksis (city, science, schism, axis) ; dezelr, zeilograf, ekzert, dizern, (desire, xylograph, exert, discern) ; Teat, Icwit, pik, kazm, aksis (cat, quit, pick, chasm, axis) ; goast (ghost) ; shoor, shaiz, shedeul, visions, naishon, nokshus ; (sure, chaise, schedule, vicious, nation, noxious) ; azhur, vizhon (azure, vision) ; lach (latch) ; jem, lej (gem, ledge) ; reim (rhyme) ; hoal (whole). It will be seen that we adopt zh analogically to represent the z in azure — a distinct consonantal sound which has no special re- presentative sign in the old orthography. But we have still th with a double power, as in thistle and this. Analogically we might substitute dh in the latter case ; but as this would be an unfamiliar symbol, and as th with the power in this occurs eight or nine times as often as with the power in thistle, we feel compelled to retain the symbol in its more frequent present use, and to mark the sharp sound thus : — jhisel. A distinct capital form may readily be made from "F," thus " Th," or " Th," using, of course, " TH " or " th " in a word printed altogether in capitals or " small capitals." To ng we must leave the three powers which, besides the more anomalous one in danger (dainjer), it now has; but they may be distinguished under Rule VI. subjoined. Rule V. — Doubled consonants should be written only when they are pronounced, as in middai, tmnerv, eerring. Rule VI. — When two consonants usually forming a digraph 29 must be pronounced with their separate powers, a dot is interposed after an unaccented syllable (as in mis-hap, m'gratiteud), the tonic accent after an accented syllable (as in neit'hiul, an'ger), and a hyphen between the constituent parts of compound words (as mpot-hous, lees-hoald,gnen-gaij). Thus the sounds of ng may be distinguished in singer, Jin' gcr, and iivgraishiait. "We may now give a tabular view of the orthographic scheme proposed, in conjunction with the Phonetic Alphabet, of which it is intended to be the imperfect and, we trust, only temporary re- presentative. As it fails to represent speech, in several points, so perfectly as Phonotypy, it is called Semiphonot) py. Table of Phonetic and Semiphonetic Symbols. Phonetic. Semiphonetic. Phonetic. Semiphonetic. VOWELS. CONSONANTS. a in pat a in pat P in p.ip p in peep e .. pet e .. pet b .. beb b .. baib (babe) i .. pit i .. pit t .. tot t .. taut (taught) o .. pot o .. pot d .. did d .. deed s .. bat u .. but k .. kek k .. kaik (cake) u .. put u .. put* 5 •• gig g •• gig £ .. Ifif aa .. laaf (laugh) 9 .. gsrg ch.. church e .. led ai .. laid J •• j*j j .. jnj (judge) i .. Lid ee .. leed*(lead) f .. fif f .. feef (fief) o .. lod au .. land V .. valv v .. valv er .. lerd oa .. load* S .. Jisel ill .. chisel (thistle) ui .. ruid oo .. rood* d .. dis th.. this s .. SOS s .. sans DIPHTHONGS. z .. zoanz (zones) z .. zemz i *« $t ei in feit (fight) / .. vijss sh..vishus(vicious) U .. hid eu .. feud 3 .. vi3on zh..vizhon (vision) oi .. foil oi .. foil m .. msm in .. mum ou .. foul on .. foul n .. nsn n .. nun rj .. sxrj n".. sun sr 1 O" o * For u, ee, oa, and oo, before 1 .. hi 1 .. lul vowels and at the end of subordinate r .. rer r .. roar words, simple u, e, o, and u are re- w .. wet w .. wet spectively written. See rule under y .. yet y .. yet Vowel Digrap hs. 1 h .. he h .. hai (hay) EEMAEKS ON THE ALFABET. In whot we hav further tu sai we shal ekzemplifei in praktis the skeem ov orihografi thus skecht out, konfident that the reeder wil hav litel difikulti in folo-ing us, wheil he wil lern nioar ov the troo spirit ov fonetik reiting in wun paij ov ekzampel than in twenti paijez ov meer preesept. He wii see, az he goaz on, 30 hou the esenshal karakteristik ov fonetik reiting iz tu giv sertenti az tu the pronunsiaishon ov wurdz, insted ov vaig and often mis- leeding hints, az in the ordinari speling. This iz akomplisht at wuns seientifikali and elegantli in the Fonetik Alfabet hei proveid- ing a distinkt sein for eech sound ov the lan'gwaij, and restrikting the sein tu the reprezentaishon ov that sound. In Semifonetiks we, az far az praktikabel, but les preseisli and les neetli, efektthe saim objekt, (1) bei emploiing regeularli aul the eusful oald leterz for wun sound eech (rejekting c, q, and x), but alouing three ov them tu hav too pouerz eech, redili and defiuitli asertainabel from thair pozishonz (az e in me and met, o in no and not, u in tu and tub) ; and (2) bei adopting such ov the oald deigrafs az praktikali best ekspres, tu In'glishmen, the soundz ov the neu leterz ov tne Fo- netik Alfabet. Az for the former ekspeedient (the eksepshonal eus ov e, o, and u), it iz meerli a konseshon tu avoid popeular preju- dis, wheil not sakrifeizing fonetik sertenti, in reiting litel wurdz leik me, ice, he, she, no, so, to, tu, intu, or such polisilabelz az the- ater, realeiz, permeait, epitome, koershon, potaito, deuodesimo, fo- balco ; but in aul theez kaisez it wild be posibel tu kum striktli within the jeneral roolz bei reiting ee, oa, and u or oo, for simpel e, o and u, respektivli. "Whether it iz wur}h wheil be - ing so ofen- sivli punktilius for the saik ov meer ^heoretikal konsistensi in whot iz at best a maikshift sistem, we wil not nou stai tu diskus, but proseed tu konsider the wurking ov the esenshal prinsipelz ov Semifonotipi. Nateurali, we ferst deel with the simpel vouelz a, e, i, o, u, (for we releev y and w from aul deuti az vouelz,) which wild be re- -naimd at, et, it, ot, ut (u az in put, not az in bid), the leter t being aded tu fasilitait the uterans ov the stopt soundz. We shud never naim u from its sound in but, bekauz that iz an eksepshonal, not tu sai perverted, eus ov the leter. But in speling out lesonz, so far az ther wud be eni such ihing rekweird in teeching children tu reed Semifonotipi, we wild taik litel wnrdz leik at, eg, in, od, us, az our baisez, and train the skolar simpli tu prefiks or apend konsonant3, as p-at, b-at, th-at, k-eg, b-eg-z, d-in, w-in-d, n-od, p-od-z,f-us, m-us-t ; thus treeting the stopt vouelz and thair im- meediaitli folo'ing konsonants az sin'gel orihografik seinz. This wild graitli fasilitait the task ov lerning tu reed fonetikali, but iz a plan that kanot be adopted with the prezent speling, bekauz the simplest kombinaishonz ovleterz ar euzd tu ekspres vairius soundz, az an, m-an, w-an-t (=an and on) ; in,f-in,f-in-d( = in and ein) ; on, d-on, s-on { = on and un) ; at, al-p, b-al-d (=«/and aul) ; ,or f-or-k, p-or-k ( = or and oar) ; wheil a graiter obstakel iz found in the multiplisiti ov seinz for the saim soundz, az in sad, plaid ; fed, head, said ; pith, myth, give, sieve ; off, cough, want ; run, son, done, tough ; put, wood, would, ets. Semifonetiks wil hav theez advantaijez in komon with peur fonetiks that too konjoind soundz wil aulwaiz be eksprest bei the saim simbolz, and konversli that 31 too konjoind simbolz wil aulwaiz reprezent the saim soundz ; so that the yoo;hful lerner wil feind the task ov wurd-bilding, out ov the smaulest kompleet voakabelz (leik at, ad, ar, an, eb, eg, el, it, if, in, il, od, or, on, up, us, un, ets.), a simpel, eezi, and interesting The deigrafs aa, ai, ee, au, oa, oo, wild not he kauld dubel a, a-i, dubel e, a-u, o-a, and dubel o, az they nou ar in kurent In'- glish speling, but wud be nainid aa deigraf, ai deigraf, or aa long, ai long, ets., for distinkshon from the simpel vouelz. Thai wild aulwaiz be konsidered az fonetikali sin'gel simbolz, be-ing rneerli termd aa, ai, ee, au, oa, oo, in speling wurdz, and distin'gwisht from the short vouelz bei saiing p-ai-t, fait ; f-ee-t, feet ; p-au-l, paul ; r-oa-b, roab ; p-oo-l, pool; insted ov p-et, pet ; f-it, fit ; p-ol, pol; r-ub, rub ; p-ul, piil. Heer we mai maik the sujestion that whair e and o ar euzd in the independent pozishon for ee and oa, thai meit be formali kauld breef ee and breef oa, tho in speling thai wud not rekweir tu be naimd, az thai wud aulwaiz be red az maiking wun sound with a preevius konsonant, az in me, ne-o-feit, kre-ait, no, po-et, po-tai-to. Indeed, the beuti and the grait advantaij in the wurking ov fonet- iks iz that children wild no moar rekweir tu painfull eneumerait the leterz ov a wurd and then ges at thair posibel meeningz, but wild be redili traind tu reed silabelz at seit and with sertenti. The difjhongz ei, eu, oi, ou, wud not be distin'gwisht bei naim- ing thair separait konstiteuent leterz, az e-i (ee ei), e-u (ee eu), but wild be kauld bei the soundz thai reprezent in wurdz, with the apelaishon " difyhong " atacht whair it woz ^haut nesesari, az " ei difihong," ets. "We hav nou gon far enuf tu point out the kontrast between this onhografi and the oald wun in the vouel-notaishon. "We heer euz feiv vouel-seinz in ait sensez (the ekstra fhree sensez be-ing defi,- nitli markt bei pozishon), siks deigrafs with unvairiing pouerz, and foar difthongz just az regeularli. If the reeder wil refer tu the analisis at paij 8 ov this treetis, in the ferst part, he wil feind this tu be the improovment efekted bei fonetik speling. Oald onhografi— 28 seinz, with 80 inkonstant eusez \ ^ ek g Semifonotipi -16 „ „ 19 definit „ 16 ^ Fonotipi —16 „ „ 16 invainabel „ J In Semifonotipi we, ov koars, inkleud u az a separait sein, and the alouing ov e, o, and u tu stand sumteimz az independent vou- elz, tu be separait eusez ov thoaz seinz ; and heer we mai ad that az a mater ov predilekshon we shiid prefer the analogus eus ov i tu the anomalus wun ov e in me, we, neoloji, realeiz ; but the sub- stiteushon wild be so un-In'glish in apeerans that feu reformerz insist upon it, at leest for the prezent, beseidz that independent singel e leedz up tu the deigraf ee. "We must thairfor be kontent with having efekted a moast substanshal and praktikal reform ov 82 In'glish vouel-notaishon in Semifonotipi, 'without seeking tuatain tu seientifik and analitikal neisetiz, which wud be moar satisfak- tori tu the lerned than eusful tu the grait mas ov the peepel. Heer ar a feu ekzampelz ov the neu speling, ilustraiting (1) Distinkshonz maid whair thai ar wonted : — 0. S.— fat, fatal, father, waz, wal, any; pot, potent, wolf; N. S.—fal,faital,faather, woz, waul, eni ; pot, poatent, wulf ; 0. S.— heat, sweat, great, heart; wood, food, flood, door; N. S. — heei, swet, grait, hart ; wud, food, flud, doar; 0. S. — sour, pour, would, tour, cough, sought, cousin. N. S. — sour, poar, wud, toor, kof, saut, kuzin. (2) Eusles and mischevus distinkshonz abolisht : — 0. S.— fatal, pail, pay, there, great, vein, prey ; N. S^—faital,pail,pai, t/iair, grait, vain, prai ; 0. S. — meter, heat, heel, pique, piece, receive, key ; N. S. — meeter, heet, heel, peek, pees, reseev, kee ; 0. S. — potent, road, toe, door, pour, low, beau, sew ; N. S. — poalent, road, toa, doar, poar, loa, boa, soa; 0. S. — final, try, height, eye, lie, guile, buy. N. S.—feinal, irei, heit, ei, lei, geil, lei. The improovment efekted bei fonetik speling wil be az markt in its wai in the notaishon ov the konsonants az in that ov the vouelz. The aiteen konsonants p, b, t, d, k, g,j, f v, s, z, in, n, I, r, w, y, and h wil be restrikted eech tu its prezent normal and moast free- kwent eus, and thai wil never be seilent. Thai wil be asisted bei the oald deigrafs ch, th, s/i, and ng tu ekspres the soundz which theez regeularli hav at prezent in chin, she, then, and sing. The sharp or bre^h pouer ov th in thin, faith, orthography, wil be marked ")h ;" zh wil be introdeust for the flat sound koresponding tu sh — that iz, z in azure or s in vision. Theez deigrafs wil be treeted az sin'gel leterz, and be naimd leik thair reprezentativz in the Fonetik Alfabet, chai, ijh, the, ish, zhe, ing, in the vast major- iti ov kaisez when thai reali reprezent sin'gel soundz ; but when thair constituent parts ekspres too soundz, and ar tbairfor separai- ted bei an interpoazd dot or aksent, az in neit'hud, mis-hap, koir- grateulait, an'ger, eech simpel karakter wil bair its separait naim. It wil be notist that we diskard c, q, and x, az be'ing boajh toatali seupeifiuus and often mischevus, and we doo the saim with aul deigrafs or eusez ov deigrafs not absoleutli rekweird tu ekspres soundz ov the lan'gwaij for which ther ar not sin'gel kar- akterz. Our aim iz, in short, wheil selekting our bilding mateerialz from the kurent or;hografi, tu konstrukt a skeem ov fonetik speling with oald leterz which shal striktli korespond with whot shiid be the ultimait eideal ov aul reformerz — peur Fonotipi. 33 SUM OBJEKSHONZ AXTISIPAITED Ov koars, we shal nothav gon so far without vairiusobjekshonz areizing in (liferent reederz' nieindz. Much fault kanot be found with our regeulareizing the eus ov the short vouelz, eksept az tu the dubel deuti given tu u eeven when not distin'gwisht bei the mark ( N ). In replei, we urj the nesesiti ov the kais, and aulso the ekzampel ov the Duch retorrad orihografi, in which a preseisli analogus eus ov u, for u (French it) in oapen silabelz, and for s (u in but) in kloas wunz, iz found tu wurk satisfaktorili ; and we mai further refer tu a similar ekspeedient in the moar fonetik Welsh speling, in which the oanli anomali iz that y iz sounded az our y id. myth in feinal silabelz (inkleuding moast monosilabelz), and leik it in but in uther silabelz (inkleuding a feu litel subordinait monosilabelz). But in regard tu the vouel-notaishon we ekspekt the strongest objekshonz wil be tu our eus ov deigrafs or difihongz for simpel karakterz in long aksented silabelz. Theez dubel sim- bolz ar not eniwhair unnesesarili obtrooded, and thai wud not be ofensiv if we meerli rekweird tu emploi them in speling wurdz leik aim, feel, fraud, roam, pool, ei, feu, either, feud, neerli or kweit az thai ar speld nou. Perhaps we shal be forgiven eeven for introdeusing theez kombinaishonz intu naitiv Sakson roots leik grait, teech, tank, stoar, looz ; but tu put them in plais ov sin'gel leterz, espeshali in Klasik roots, wil be denounst az vandahzm. " Whei abolish our oald a, e, i, o, u, for ai, ee, ei, oa, eu, in the long oapen silabelz ? " Just bekauz ov the kapital defekt noatist erlfin this treetis, that veri distinkt souudz ar thus konfeuzd, in pozishonz whair ther iz no meenz ov distin'gwishing them, az in nation, national (naishon, nashonalj, medial, medal (meedial, medal), final, finish (feinal, finish), solar, solid (soalar, solid), puny, punish (peuni, punish), and that az a distinkshon must be maid m eni atempt at fonetik reform, we prefer the neet and kouveenient aid ov deigrafs tu the aukward and unseitli ekspeedients ov dubeld konsonants (which kanot be euzd in the kais ov the konsonantal deigrafs), deiakritikal marks, or heifenz. We wil, houeyer, sai a feu wurdz upon the deigrafs that wud speshali afekt Latin roots. We doonot blink the fakt that we propoaz reyeulavli tu ekspres the Latin a, e, i, d, it bei ai, ee, ei, oa, eu in In'glish derivative. But whei doo we adopt theez deigrafs ? Tu ekspres Latin soundz ? No; but tu ekspres peurli In'glish soundz, which ar so far remoovd from the Latin that everi reit-feeling Klasikal skolar aut to rejois at the propoazal ov such distinkshonz, which wil in the feuteur prevent In'glishmen from impoarting thair oan pekeuliar pronun- Biaishon intu the Klasik tungz ; wheil the patriotik Briton shud felisitait himself that the idiosinkrasiz ov hiz naitiv lan'gwaij ar at last tu reseev deu rekognishon. For ourselvz, we ar perfekth kontent tu aksept the pronunsiaishon ov Klasik derivativz az nou jenerali establisht in In'glish, beleeving that, oa the hoal, wurdz 34 hav teen renderd moar akseptabel tu our inseular mouthz and eerz bei the chainjez that hav been maid in sound ; but we objekt, on the wun hand, az fermli tu the reprezentaishon ov peurli In'glish soundz bei inkon'gruus Latin simbolizaishon, az we doo, on the uther, tu the introdukshon ov pekeuliarli In'glish soundz intu Latin and Greek. In boath ov theez direkshonz, if we had not the short vouelz tu luk after at aul, ther wud be grait inkon- veeniens in stil kontineuing tu euz a, e, i, o, u with the pouer ov thair oald alfabetik naimz. But we hav the short vouel soundz tu konsider, and az thai okur foar or feiv teimz az often az the konvenshonal long souiidz, whot kan we reezonabli doo but retain the simpel vouel-seinz for the former, and emploi the moast kon- veenient and efektiv In'glish deigrafs for the later ? But the opozishon evinst tu deigrafs insted ov simpel vouel- -seinz in Latin derivativz wud infer that we ar propoazing kweit an inovaishon in speling. Let us see whether this iz the kais, bei maiking a feu seitaishonz from kurent orjhografi: — Zat. or Fr. Radikal. exclamo reparo prsevaleo decado In'glith Derivativz. exclaim, exclamation repair, reparation prevail, prevalence decay, decadence complango complain despero despair, desperate restringo restrain, restriction maintenir maintain, maintenance contineo contain, continent appareo appear, apparent repeto repeat, repetition revelo reveal, revelation appello appeal, appellant "Wei, we oanli want tu Lat . or Fr. R.idikal. procedo discretus red i mo estimo inveho disjno In'glish Derivativz. proceed, procedure discreet, discretion redeem, redemption esteem, estimable inveigh, invective deign, dignity approcher approach, approximate reprocher reproach, reprobate devoro devour, voracious pronuntio pronounce, pronuncia- tion confnndo confound, confusion abundo abound, abundant doo regeularli and sistematikali whot haz heer and in meni uther instansez been dun in a forteuitus and haphazard wai — tu ekspres bei apropriait In'glish deigrafs pekeu- liarli In'glish soundz which hav been substiteuted for Latin wunz, speling fcompair and prepair in analoji with repair, reseed with proseed, kompeet and repeet for compete and repeat, etc. Whei shiid not our lan'gwaij be permited tu mark theez chainjez ov vouel- soundz, az the dauter tungz ov the Latin doo ? The French reit, for instans, mourir (to dei), je meurs (ei dei), mort (ded), sain (sain), mniti (saniti), favcnr (faivor), favorable ; wheil the uther Romanik lan'gwaijez ofer freekwent instansez ov such chainjez in the vouel-notaishon ov Latin roots. But the Romanz themselvz reed us lesonz on tne nesesiti ov thus vairiing speling tu seut sound, az when thai roat nomen, nominis ; robur, robori? ; caput, capitis ; teneo, contineo ; ccedo, incido ; clando, includo ; f actus, 35 perfectus, etc. ; wheil the Greeks had a moar elahorait sistem ov vouel-meutaishon, veri similar tu whot we hav in sound, and shal maik apairent tu the ei in fonetik speling. Thus, in diferent formz ov the saim roots a woz interchainjabel with at, 77, and ei ; e with 17 and e< ; 1 with ei ; o with to and ov, and v with ev. Wil the Klasikal skolar, hoo haz studid the naiteur ov theez meutai- shonz, objekt tu the ekspreshon ov the saim sort ov }hing aulredi ekzisting in In'glish ? But we mai be toald that our deigrafs ar unseientifik, and doo not korektli ekspres the soundz for which thai ar euzd. Wei, we kud deveiz, and hav deveizd, a moar analitikali ekzakt ekspreshon ov In'glish soundz, but konsiderabel ekspeeriens and retiekshon hav konvinst us that fonetik speling with oald leterz must be baist upon In'glish analojiz, and that in remodeling our or;hografi we sbud keep whotever ov the oald sistem we kan that iz not in glairing opozishon tu peur fonetiks. In the vouel-deigrafs we hav rejekted feinal y and?r, after mateur reflekshon, in faivor ov the " wun-sein wun-sound " prinsipel ov the Fonetik Alfabet, and we hav nou left ten deigrafs that ar In'glish, praktikali wurkabel, and kompairabel for fonetik ekspreshon tu thoaz ov eni lan'gwaij emploiing such seinz. The meer In'glisbman mai objekt to ei and en az we emploi them, but thai wil be aksepted bei the skolar and the lin'gwist az the best praktikabel simbolz for the too difjhongz. On the uther hand, wheil the ordinari In'glish reeder wil apree- shiait the retenshon ov ee and 00, az wel az ov oa, the filolojistmai komplain that ther iz heer no preten? tu fonetik presizhon. But aul theez deigrafs must be treeted az singel simbolz, az ie, ij, and oe ( = our ee, ei, and 00) ar in Duch ; as ai, au, oi, and on (=our ai, oa, tea, and 00) ar in French, or az at, ei, av, ev, and ov ( = our ei, ee,av, ev, and 00) ar in Modern Greek. It duz not mater at aul tu a Duthman that + e, tu a Frenchman that + u (=«), or tu a Greek that o + v (=y), kanot posibli konstiteut a fonetik eks- preshon ov the sound which we, with les irregeulariti, simboleiz bei 00 (Fonetik m, jeneral European ii), lie haz the simbol with a definit meening atacht tu it, and feindz no difikulti in wurking it; and if we kan maik our lan'gwaij az praktikali fonetik az the Duch hav maid thairz, we need not feer the perpeteuaishon ov a feu deigrafs not periektli analitikal in thair konstrukshon. But we must pas on tu konsider a feu objekshonz that mai be urjd agenst our konsonant skeem. The moast obvius eisoar tu meni wil be the jeneral eus ov k in plais ov hard c, eh, and q. Wel, we hav konsiderd this mater in aulmoast everi posibel leit, and until laitli wer in faivor ov retaining hard c az a ko-ordinait sein with k. But meni reezonz havindeust us tu giv up the dubel eimbolizaishon. K iz the moar eusful and unatnbigeuus leter, and haz been definitivli adopted in the Fonetik Alfabet, after much eksperimenting and diskushon. If we trei the konkurent eus ov hoath leterz, we ar kontineuali geling intu such inkonsistensiz az 36 Jizilc, fizical ; provoak, provocaishon ; embark, embarcaishon (en- tailing a retrograid moovnient in the last kais) ; and we feel that we ar taiking painz tu maik distinkshonz that hav no fonetik valeu or objekt. We thairf'or spel our Anglo- Sakson derivativz with k, az the saim roots ar speld in Jernian, Duch, Sweedish, Dainish, Norweejian, Eislandik, Frizian, ets. We noa that our ansestorz hapend tu euz c, and not k ; but so meni ov the deutiz thai impoazd on c hav been aulredi shifted tu k (az in ken, keep, king, kine, kitten, ankle, twinkle, bake, weak, talk, soak, look), and 60 inadekwait haz c bekuin, throo the Norman introdukshon ov its "soft" pouer (or raather weeknes), tu a rezumshon ov its oald wurk, that in maikingthe elekshon between them we had no chois but tu adopt the independent and servisabel simbol. Bei the jen- eral eus ov k we shal at leest maik evident etimolojikalrelaishonz that ar nou obskeurd in such wurdz az kou, kein ; kat, kiten ; korn, kernel ; kan, ken, kuning ; kil, kwel ; kick, kichen ; kwak, kakel ; kurfeu, kerchef ; skim,skum ; skeuer,sekeur. In Greek derivativz, bei euzing k for hard ewe nieerli restoartheorijinal naitiv simbol, and we shud ihink everi skolar M-ud be glad tu substiteut k for the soft c aulso, in such wurdz az cynic, scene, scepter, if it wer stil praktikabel tu doo so. " But whot kan be sed in ekskeus for introdeusing k intu Latin derivativz ? " We anser this kvvestion bei asking anuther. Iz it so intolerabel tu hav k in convoke, pro- voke, ets., that we must seuperseed it at the ferst oporteuniti in convocation, ets., and yet we kan bair it in embarkation and re- markable az wel az in embark and remark ? Meni Latin roots ar aulredi speld with a k in In'glish, and we ar no moar tu be thaut barbairianz for jenerali sub>titeuting k for c hard than the prezent Germanz ar for reiting kritisch and grammatik in Boaman karakterz, or the oald Greeks wer for transkreibing Ccesar and Cicero az Kaicrap and Ki/ce/w. Ov koars, it wil be alejd agenst us that we korupt Greek roots bei reitingy, k, aad r for ph, ch, and rh ; but we replei that we iu eecb. kais put wuu In'glish for a singel Greek letcr (<£, x* p), reitiug the leter that cksprcsez the souud we must euz iu In'glish ; aud, uou that we jiijk ov it, it mai be az wel tu introdeus heer Fonetik 6 aud y for )h and ng (or n'), tu kom])leet the transkripshon ov Greek, kousouant for konsouaut (eksept iu the kais ov thoaz that ar uot pronouust at aul in Irjglish, which ar ornited, az in salm, neumaliks). Nou, we put it tu the skolar, whether, leter for leter, komik, Jizik, midoloji, kronik, eufoni, ridmikal, fonografi, and ornidoriykos ar not moar literal trauskripshonz ov Greek than the kurent irjglish spelirjz. We mai regret the okaizhoual seuperseshou ov wuu leter bei anuther, az ov ch (x) Dv &> ov s De i z > or ov so" c anu 9 De ' s au dy ; but our plain deuti iz tu reit the soundz ov our oan larjgwaij, aud not to reit its histori, in our oriografi. It iz ov far moar importans tu the skoolboi tu hav the undouted prouuusiaishon ov arkitekt kouvaid tu Mm bei this spelin 37 than tu obtain sum glimerirj eidea that the wurd iz ov Greek or sum outlandish orijin, and aulwaiz tu be mispronouusirj it architekt (with ch az in arch). But thoaz that meit agree with us so far, and hoo meit uter oanli feebel proatests at sivil, seen, asid (for civil, scene, acid), or jentel, aijent, jeohji (for gentle, agent, geology), wil perhaps tel us point - -blank that our feinal s for ce, and our terminaishonz shal, shan, shi- ait, shon, zhon, z/iur, ets., ar intolerabel korupshonz ov the Latin. Tu this we anser that s or si iz at leest az gud a reprezentativ az ce or 6y for Latin tia or than in veis, spais,grais, esens, providens, kurensi, kreedensi, and meni other wurdz (Lai in villain, spat i inn, gratia, es- sentia, providentia, currentia, credentia) ■ for the wurdz hav been so hoaplesli korupted, or aulterd, in sound az wel az in the kurent spelirj, that we kanot konseev hou a Klasikal skolar can maik eni plee for them az thai stand. This stiklirj for the prezervaishon ov tcrminaishonal silabelz in Latin derivativz must be ameuzirj tu the steudent ov the modern Romanik larjgwaijez, h<>o feindz the Latin natio, nalionalis metamorfoazd tu nazlone, nazionale in Italian, tu nacion, naclonal in Spanish, and tu nacao, nagonal in Poiteugeez. If theez peepelz ar aloud to akomodait thair orfografi tu thair pronunsiaishon, vvhei mai we not doo so, and reit naishon, nashonal ? Az for Jiijkirj that bei reitin, vicious we reprezent the Latin vitios-us moar korektli than bei spelirj the wurd in Semifonotipi vis/ius, or in peur Fonotipi vifxs, we konsider that tu be an evident falasi. We oanli sukseed in kre- aitig an ortfografikal anomali, which maiks our larjgwaij unnesesarili difikult tu our oan yoot and tu foienerz. Sh iz a Juroli Irjglish and efishent deigraf, and zh formz a konveenient kompaniou tu it. Kon- tentir) ourselvz for the moament with introdeusir) too ov the " fifteen neu leterz," we wil heer apend a taibel which mai be interestii) in this konekshon. The Leter H az a I) eigraf- former. BH — in Ers ekspresez a meutaishon ov b tu the sound ov v (in Welsh reprezented bei/, aulso =v). CH — in Italian reprezents c hard befoar e and i, az chi, die { = ki, ke) ; in Spanish iz ekwivalent tu Inglish ch (in church) ; in Porteugeez and French soundz leik our sh, eksept in Greek wurdz (whair it iz eekwal tu k) ; in Jerman, Duch, Loaland Skotish, Welsh, and Ers ekspresez the sharp gutural kontineuant (Fonetik x, Greek x) ; iu Irjglish reprezents the dree soundz in church, chaise, aud chorus. DH — in Ers doutles sounded formerli az th (in this), but it nou partaiks moar ov the naiteur ov y. FH — in Ers iz a meutaishon ov/tu the sound ov a stron h. (See a similar chainj in Spanish hierro, hacer for Latin ferrum, fa- cere.) 38 GH — in Ers reprezents the flat guturalkontineuantkorespondirj tu ch (Jerman g in tag) ; iu Irjglish it iz meut, or irregeularli re- prezents vairins souadz. KH — in Irjglish iz often euzd for the sharp gutural kontiueuant in Oarieutal wurdz (German ch). LH — in Porteugeez iz ekwivaleut tu Spanish //, Italian gl, and French // \nfille ; in Welsh it haz suinteirnz- been euzd for a Btrorjli aspiraited /, koinonli riten //. MH — denoats au aspiraited m in Welsh, and a meutaishon ov m tu v in Ers {m tVLjf=v in Welsh). NH — in Porteugeez ekspresez the Spanish », Italian ^w, French gn in signe ; in Welsh it iz an aspiraited n. FH — iu moast Europeau larjgwaijez replaisez Greek in Greek deriv- ativz, with simpli the sound ov r (for which the Italian/ and Spaniardz reit r oauli) ; in Welsh it iz a stronli-aspirailed r. SH — iu Ers deuoats ameutaishou ov s tu a strorj h ; its oauli uther eus iz in Irjglish, az in shed. SCH — iu Italian reprezeuts sk {ch = k) ; in Jerman it iz the ekwiva- lent ov our sh. TH— jenerali ekspresez in Greek derivativz, tho on the Kontinent it haz oauli the pouer ov t (which the Italianz aud Spaniardz reit); in Jerman it iz a uaitiv sinibol, with the pouer ov siuipel t ; in Welsh and Ers it ekspresez a meutaishon ov I eckwal tu th in thin ; in Irjglish it haz the wel-noan pouerz in thin and then. WH — iz a pekeuliarli Irjglish sein for aspiraited w. This taibel iz ov sum interest az shoairj the vairius eusez tu which h haz been put in formirj deigrafs, and the ekzampelz from sum ov the moast fonetik larjgwaijez in Euroap wil justifei the Semifonotipik ekspeedients. But ther ar sum materz adverted tu in the taibel which mai wel be treeted ov in a separait paragraf. For instans, the Italiauz and Spaniardz reit simpel/, t, and c, for the Greek MiNZ EKSEPTED,) SAM TU AEGIU JEM, NOT TU HAV BiN dE PEODVKT OV DIVEIN SKIL, BVT dE REZVLT OV SVC A KONK.VREN8 OV AKSIDENT AND GRADIUAL IMPBWVMENT, AZ CIL HIUMAN ARTS, AND WHOT Wi KaL INVENOONZ, t> d3R BER1 TU : FOR SERTENLI dE ALFABETS IN IU8 B3R NO MARKS OV dE REGIULARITI OV dE WVRKS OV N3TIUR : dE MOR WA KONSIDER dE LATER, dE Mt»R RX.ZON Wi Si TU AD- MEIR d3R BIUTI, JVST PRftPtlROONZ, AND KONSEKWENT FITNE8 TU ANSER d3R RESPEKTIV ENDZ ; WH3RAZ, dE Mt)R WA EKZAMIN dE FORMER, dE MDR DEFEKTS, SIUPERFLIUITIZ, AND IMPERFEKDONZ OV OL KEINDZ, DK Wi DISKVVER IN dEM. EVANZ, 2. Dhe imperfecsjonz ov aul alfabets, (dhe Hiebruh bei no mienz ec- septed,) siem tu argew dhem not tu bav bien dbe prodcect ov divein skil, beet dhe resoelt ov soetj a concaerens ov acsident and gradeual ira- pruhvment az aul heuman arts, and hwot wi caul iuvensjonz, ow dhair berth tu ; for sertenly dhe al (abets in ens behr no marks ov dhe regeu- larity ov naiteur : dhe mohr wi consider dhe later, dhe mohr riezon wi sih tu admeir dhair beuty, jcest propohrsjonz, and consecwent fitnes ' tu anser dhair respectiv eudz ; hweraz dhe mohr wi ekzarnin dhe for- mer, dhe mohr defects, seupei fleuitiz, and imperfecsjonz ov aul keindz du wi disceever in dhem. Semifonotipi. The imperfekshonz ov aul alfabets, (the Heebroo bei no meenz ek- septed,) seem tu argeu them not tu hav been the produkt ov divein skil, but the rezult ov such a konkurens ov aksident and gradeual im- proovment az aul heuman arts, and whot we kaul invenshonz, oa thair berth tu, for sertenli the alfabets in eus bair no marks ov the regeu- lariti ov naiteur : the moar we konsider the later, the moar reezon we see tu admeir thair beuti, just propoarshonz, and konsekwent fitnes tu anser thair respektiv endz ; whairaz the moar we ekzamin the for- mer, the moar defekts, seuperfleuitiz, and imperfekshonz ovaul keindz, doo we diskuver in them. Fonetik, 1877. _ 3e imperfekjonz ov ol alfabets, (de Hibrui bj no- minz eksepted,) sim tu argil dem, not tu hav bin de prodskt ov Divju skil, bst de rezslt ov ssq a kouksrens ov aksident and gradual impnuvment, az ol human arts, and whot wi kol invenfonz, 6 tier berJ tu : for ser- tenli, de alfabets in us, ber nc marks ov tie regujariti ov tie wsrks ov nEtur: de mer wi konsider de later, tie mer rizon wi si tu admjr tier biiti, jsst praperrjonz, and konsekwent fitnes tu anser tier respek- tiv endz : wheraz, tie mor wi ekzamin de former, tie merr defekts, superfluitiz, and imperfekjonz ov ol kjndz, dm wi disksver in dem. Printed by Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Bath. ON SPELLING. BY F. MAX MULLER, PROFESSOR OF PHILOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. LONDON : F. PITMAN, PHONETIC DEPOT, 20 PATERNOSTER ROW, E.G. BATH: ISAAC PITMAN, PHONETIC INSTITUTE. Trice Twopence. ON SPELLINa. 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 fulfilment 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 Pit- man 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 explic- itly than I had done in my " Lectures' 5 my general approval of his life-long endeavours. He wished more particularly that I should explain why I, though by profession an etymologist, was not frightened by the spectre of phonetic spelling, while such high authori- ties as Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford had declared that phonetic spelling would necessarily de- stroy the historical and etymological character of the English language. If I ask myself why I put off the fulfilment 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. Everything that can be said on this subject has been said and well said, not only by Mr Pitman, but by a host of writ- ers 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 mat- ter 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 undenia- ble 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 con- trary, I feel convinced that practical reformers, like Mr Pitman, should never slumber nor sleep. They should keep their grievances before the public in sea- son 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 con- science 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 depar- ture 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 read- ers 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 anything 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 Quix- otic, 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 wis- dom 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 be- 6 comes 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 what 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 noth- ing 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 con- fer 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 stigmatise 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," a la Japonaise. All this ma}' 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 for forming an opinion as to the fates of the great languages of Europe :' — Portuguese is spoken in Portugal, by 3,980,000 Brazil, by .. 10,000,000 13,980,000 Italian, by 27,524,238 French, in France, Belgium, Swit- zerland, etc., by 40,188,000 Spanish, in Spain by . . 16,301,000 in South America by 27,408,082 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 79,050,000 According to De Candolle, the population doubles in England in . . . . 56 years America, among the Ger- man races, in 25 „ Italy in . . . . 1 35 „ Russia in .. . . 100 „ Therefore, in 200 years (barring accidents) Italian will be spoken by . . . . . . 53,370,000 French „ „ 72,571,000 German „ „ 157,480,000 Spanish, in Europe, by .. 36,938,338 South America, by 468,347,904 505,286,242 English will be spoken in Europe by .. .. 178,846,153 United States & British dependencies, by 1,658,440,000 1,837,286,153 1 See W. E. A. Axon's " The Future of the English Language," the Almanack de Gotha, and De Candolle's Histoire des Sciences, 1873. Spain in .. 112 years South America in 27^ „ Germany in . . 100 ,, France in . . 140 „ 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 com- parable 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 his- tory of language ; in fact, it must occur. When lan- guages 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 class, 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 mong his converts. He learned their language, at least one dialect of it, he trans- lated part of the Bible into it, and adopted, of neces- sity, a phonetic spelling. That dialect is gradually becoming the recognised 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 9 only docs the pronunciation of a 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 diffi- culty 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 patri- cians of Rome, he had on some small points to change both his pronunciation and his spelling of Latin. The reform of spelling was a favourite subject with Roman scholars, and even emperors were not too proud to dabble in inventing new letters and diacritical signs. The difficulty, however, never assumed 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 com- plete 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 in- tercourse 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 re-> 2 10 tained ; and we can easily detect in mediaeval 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 : " U u," 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, ex- cept an occasional " n " = "rj " before &and g, and " th" =both" 4 " and " d ;" leaving only the long vowels in the old spelling. Six sylla- bles out of seven are thus written as in full phonotypy. The italic and script forms of " u " are " o " (a turned italic " a ") and cf* m | The great event hwich formz a deseisiv epok in the histori ov speling, iz the introdukshon ov printing. With printed buks, and partikinlarli with printed Beibelz, skaterd over the kuntri, the speling ov wurdz bekame rijid, and universali beinding. Sum langwejez, such az Italian, wer more fortiunate than utherz in having a more rashonal sistem ov speling tu start with. Sum, agen, leik Jerman, wer abel tu make teimli kon- seshonz, hweil utherz, such az Spanish, Duch, and French, had Akademiz tu help them at kritikal periodz ov their histori. The most unfortiunate in all theze respekts woz Inglish. It started with a Latin alfabet, the pronunsiashon ov hwich woz unset- eld, and hwich had tu be apleid tu a Tiutonik larj- gwej. After this ferst fonetik kompromeiz it had tu pas through a konfnizd sistem ov speling, half Sakson, half Norman ; half fonetik, half tradishonal. The his- tori ov the speling, and even ov the pronunsiashon, ov Inglish, in its pasej from Anglo-Sakson tu midel and modern Inglish, haz lateli been studid with great sukses bei Mr Ellis and Mr Sweet. Ei must refer tu their buks " On Erli Inglish Pronunsiashon," and "On the Histori ov Inglish Soundz," hwich kontain a welth ov ilustrashon, almost bewildering. And even after Inglish reachez the period ov printing, the kon- fiuzhon iz bei no meanz terminated ; on the kontrari, 11 for a teira it iz greater than ever. Hou this kame tu pas haz been wel frustrated bei Mr Marsh in hiz ek- selent "Lektiurz on the Inglish Langwej," p. 687. seq. ( l ) Hwot we nou kail 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 publish- erz. It iz true that the evil ov printing karid tu a serten ekstent its own remedi. If the speling bekame unchanjabel, the langwej itself, too, woz, bei meanz ov a printed literatiur, chekt konsiderabli in its natiu- ral growth and its deialektik vareieti. Nevertheles Inglish haz chanjed sins the invenshon ov printing; Inglish iz chaujing, though bei imperseptibcl dcgreez, 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 must be, in a state ov fermentashon ; and hwether within hundredz or within thouzandz ovyearz, all living langwejez must be prepared tu enkounter the difikulti 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 bursting with buks and niuz- paperz. Ar all theze tu be thrown away ? Ar all valiuabel buks tu be reprinted ? Ar we ourselvz tu unlern hwot we hav lernd with so much trubel, and hwot we hav taught tu our children with greater trubel stil ? Ar we tu sakrifeiz all that iz historikal in our langwej, and sink doun tu the low level ov the 1. The pronoun it woz speld in eight diferent wayz bei Tyndale, thus hpt, hytt, hit, hitt. it, itt, tit, ijtt. Another author speld tongue in the folowing wayz ; twig, tong, tunge, tonge, tounge. The wurd head woz va- riusli speld hed, heede, hede, hefode. The spelingz obay, survay, pray, vail, vain, ar often uzed for obey, survey, prey, veil, vein. 2* 12 Fonetik Nm?" Ei kud go on multipleiing theze kwestionz til even thoze men ov the wurld 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 unsolvd. Hwot ar peopel tu do hwen langwej and pronunsia- shon chanje, hweil their speling iz deklared tu be unchanjabel? It iz, ei believ, hardli nesesari that ei shud prove hou korupt, efete, and uterli irrashonal the prezent sistem ov speling iz, for nowun seemz inkleind tu denei all that. Ei shal onli kwote, therefor, the jujment ov wun man, the late Bishop Thirlwall, a . man who never uzed ekzajerated langwej . " Ei luk/' he sez, " upon the establisht sistem, if an aksidental kustom may be so kalld, az a mas ov anomaliz, the growth ov ignorans and chans, ekwali repugnant tu gud taste and tu komon sens. But ei am aware that the publik kling tu theze anomaliz with a tenasiti proporshond tu their absorditi, and ar jelus ov all en- kroachment on ground konsekrated tu the free play ov bleind kaprise." It may be useful, houever, tu kwote the testimonials ov a fm praktikal men in order tu show that this sistem ov spelirj haz reali bekum wun ov the greatest nashonal misfortiunz, swolowingupmilionz ov muni everi year and bleiting all atempts at nashonal ediukashon. Mr Edward Jones, a skoolmaster ov great eksperiens, having then the siuperintendens ov the Heibernian Skoolz, Liverpool, rote in the year 1868 : "The Guvernment haa for the last twenti yearz taken ediukashon under its kare. They diveided the subjekts ov instrukshon intu siks gradez. The heiest point that woz atempted in the Guvernment Skoolz woz that a piupil shud be abel tu read with tolerabel eaze and ekspreshon a pasej from a niuzpaper, and 13 tu spel the same with a tolerabel amount ov akiu- rasi." Let us luk at the rezults az they apear in the report ov the Komiti ov Kounsil on Ediukashon for 1870-/1 : Skoolz or Departments under separate hed teacherz in Ingland and Walez inspekted diuring the vear 31st August, 1870 ... ... _" ... 15,287 Sertifikated, asistant, and piupil teacherz emploid in theze skoolz ... ... ... 28,0.33 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 : — Under ten yearz ov aje ... 473,444 Over ten yearz ov aje 292,144 765,588 Skolarz prezented for Standard VI. : — Under ten yearz ov aje ... 227 Over ten yearz ov aje 32,953 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 Therefor, les than wun skolar for each teacher, and les than two skolarz for each skool inspekted, reacht Standard VI. In 1873 the state ov thingz, akordingtu the ofishal returnz ov the Ediukashon Department woz much 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 that num- ber, about 200,000 leav skool aniuali, their ediukashon being supozed tu be finisht. Out ov theze 200,000, neinti per sent, leav without reaching the 6th Stan- dard, 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, but the proporshon ov children pasing in the varius standardz iz substanshali the same. (See " Popiular Ediukashon," bei E. Jones, B.A.j an 14 eks-skoolmaster, 1875.) It iz kalkiulated that for such rezults az theze the kuntri, hwether bei taksa- shon or bei voluntari kontribiushonz, payz aniuali nearli £3,500,000. Akording tu the same authority 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 — that iz, about 2,000 ourz ; and tu meni meindz the difikultiz ov orthografi ar insurmountabel. The bulk ov the children pas through the Government skoolz without having akweird the abiliti tu read with eaze and intelijens. " An averej cheild," sez another skoolmaster, " be- gining skool at seven, ought tu be abel tu read the Niu Testament fluentli at eleven or twelv yearz ov aje, and at thcrteen 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' work tu be abel tu read the Niu Testament. After a kareful ekzaminashon ov yung men and wimen from therteen tu twenti yearz ov aje in the fak- toriz ov Birmingham, it woz proved that onli 4h per sent, wer abel tu read a simpel sentens from an ordinari skool-buk with intelijens and akiurasi. This apleiz tu the lower klasez. But with regard tu the heier klasez the kase seemz almost wurs ; for Dr Morell, in hiz " Maniualov Speling " asertsthat out ov 1,972 failiurz in the Sivil Servis Ekzaminashonz, 1,866 kandidates wer plukt for speling. So much for the piupilz. Among the teacherz themselvz it woz found in Amerika that out ov wun hundred tomon wurdz, the best speler amung the eighti or neinti teacherz ekzamind faild in wun, sum preiz-takerz faild in four or feiv, and sum utherz mist over forti. The Depiuti State Siuperintendent 15 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 serins 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 dun bei subjekting yung meindz tu the illojikal and tedius drujeri ov lerning tu read Inglish az speld at prezent. Everithing they hav tu lern in reading (or pronunsiashon) and speling iz irrashonal ; wun rule kontradikts the uther, and each statement haz tu be aksepted simpli on authority and with a komplete disregard ov all thoze rashonal iustinkts which lei dormant in the cheild, and ought tu be awakend bei everi keind ov helthi ekserseiz. Ei no 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 duz 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 bale tu that hiden sourse, bekauz a cheilcl akustomd tu believe that t-h-o-u-g-h iz tho, and that t-h-r-o-u-g-h iz throo, wud afterwardz believe enithing. It may be so ; stil ei dout hwether even such objekts wud justifei such meanz. Lord Lytton sez, "A more leiing, round-about, puzel-heded deluzhon than that bei hwich we konfiuz the klear instinkts ov truth in our akursed sistem ov speling woz never konkokted bei the father ov fols-hud. . . . Hou kan a sistem ov ediukashon flurish that beginz bei so monstrus a fols - hud, hwich the sens ov hearing sufeizez tu kon- tradikt ? " Though it may seem a wurk ov siupererogashon tu bring forward stil more fakts in suport ov the jeneral kondemnashon past on Inglish speling, a fiu ekstrakts 16 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 I 0!" And agen (p. 16), — " Double-you-aitch-eye-see-aitch is which Tea-are-you-tea-aitch. ... >> truth Bee-o-you-gee-aitcli )? bough See-are-eh-bee ... is crab Bee-ee-eh-see-aitch 33 beach Ok-jou-gee-aitch-tee ... 33 ought Oli-enn-see-ee ... 33 once. " Or, tu sum up the hole indeitment agenst the kulprit : 1. Out ov the twenti-siks leterz, ouli eight ar true, fikst, and permanent kwolitiz — that iz, ar true both tu ei 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 uther wurdz, ther ar 400 servants tu do the work ov therti-eight. 3. Ov the twenti-siks leterz, fifteen hav akweird a habit ov heiding themselvz. They ar riten and printed; but the ear haz no akount ov them ; such ar w in wrong, and ffh 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 atachttu their servis. 6. The singel vouel e haz feiv diferent fynkshonz ; it ought onli tu hav wue. 7. Ther ar at least 1,300 wurdz in hwich the simbol and the sound ar at varians — in hwich the wurd iz not sounded az it iz printed. 8. Ov theze 1,300, 800 ar monosilabelz — the kom- onest wurdz, and supozed tu be eazier for children. 9. The hole langwej ov kuntri children leiz within theze wurdz ; and meni agrikultiural laborerz go from 17 the kradel tu the grave with a stok ov no more than 500 wurdz." 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 uther children, tu be mulkted 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 rcit their own lan- gwej intelijentli ? And iz the kimtri tu pay milionz everi year for this uter failiur ov nashonal cdiukashon ? Ei do not believ that such a state ov thingz wil be aloud tu kontiniu for ever, partikiularli az a remedi iz at hand — a remedi that haz nou been tested for twenti or therti yearz, and that haz anserrl ekstremeli wel. Ei mean Mr Pitman'z sistem ov fonetik reiting, az apleid tu Inglish. Ei shal not enter here intu eni miniut diskoshon ov fonetiks, or re-open the kontro- versi hwich haz arizen between the advokets ov difer- ent sistemz ov fonetik reiting. Ov kourse, ther ar diferent degreez ov ekselens in diferent sistemz ov fonetik speling ; but even the wurst ov theze sistemz iz infinitli siuperior tu the tradishonal speling. Ei giv Mr Pitman's 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 niumerus pnblikashonz, and bei praktikal eksperi-. ments in teaching both children and adults, that such a sistem az Mr Pitman's iz perfektli praktikal. 18 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 B T D G J P b t d J K k G e rojie. . . . robe .... fate .... fade .... etch . . . edge . . . leek. . . . g league. . Continuants. F f V v a d S s Z z X X Pi • js ke gs ef J Mm N n TJij sa/e save vj wreath . . . if wrea/Ae. . dj hiss es his zj vicious ... if vision. . . .3J Nasals. seem. . . . em seeft en sing iij Liquids. L 1 fa// el R, r rare ar Coalescents. W w i#et ws Y y yet ye Aspirate. h A ay ec, VOWELS. Guttural. a om at c e/rns s e ell et e «le s i ill it 1 eel j Labial, O o on ot O © all o 15 s wp yt £T a ope a U u foil ut LI ii food ii H A R E 8 I Diphthongs : EI ei, IU in, OU on, AI ai, 01 oi. as heard in by, new, noiv, Ka/ser, hoy. 19 [In the next fourteen pages, five of the new letters will he employed, viz., b, s, $, 3, r), for the sounds represented by the italic letters in father, son hid, thin, vision, si«^.] Nou ei ask eni intelijent reader who dsz not 5iijk that everiftn niu and stranje iz, ipso facto, ridikrulss and absurd, hwether after a fiu dayz' praktis, he or she wud not read and reit Inglisk, akordirj tu Mr. Pitman's 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. Bit admitin even that peopcl ov a serten aje shud feind this niu alfabet trsbelssm, we rasst not forget that no reform kan be karid out without a jenera- shon or two ov marterz ; and hwot true reform erz hav tu rhrjk ov iz not themselvz, bit thoze who kym after them — thoze, in fakt, who ar nou growiij yp tu inherit hereafter, hwether they leik it or not, all the gud and all the evil hwich Ave chooz tu leav tu them. It meit be sed, houever, that Mr Pitman's sistem, beiij enteirli fonetik, iz too radikal a reform, and that meni and the w^rst irregiularitiz iu Inglish speliij kud be removed without goiij kweit so far. The prinsipel that hsf a loaf iz beter than no bred iz not without syni trul, and in meni kasez we no that a polisi ov kompromeiz haz been prodxktiv ov veri gud rezslts. Bit, on the ^ther hand, this hcf-harted polisi haz often retarded a real and komplete reform ov ekzistiij abiiisez ; and in the kase ov a reform ov spelirj, ei almost dout hwether the difikyltiz inherent in hrfif- megurz ar not az great az the difik^ltiz ov kariiij a komplete reform. If the wyrld iz not redi for re- form, let -jts wait. It seemz far beter, and at all events far more onest, tu wait til it iz redi than tu kari the rebktant wsrld with you a litel way, and then tu feind that all the impilsiv forse iz spent, and "the greater part ov the abiiisez establisht on former ground than ever. 3* 20 Mr Jones, 1 who reprezents the konsiliatori re- formerz ov spelirj, wud be satisfeid with a moderet skeine ov spelirj reform, in hwich, hei obzervirj analoji and folowiij presedent in olteriy a komparativli small number ov w^rdz, it wud be posibel tu sim- plifei ordografi tu a konsiderabel ekstent without apleiiij eni niu prinsipel, or introdiusirj niu leterz, and yet tu redius the teim and labor in teachiij readiy and spelirj bei at least wsn-hfif. It meit at all events be posibel tu setel the speliij ov thoze two or three douzand w^rdz hwieh at prezent ar speld diferentli bei diferent auloritiz. This skeme, advokated bei Mr Jones, iz sertenli veri klever ; and if it had a chans ov sokses, ei meiself shud konsider it a great step in advans. Mei onli dout iz hwether, in a kase leik this, a small me3ur 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 Komiti apointed bei Government tu konsider the kwestion ov a reform ov spelirj haz deklared in favor ov sym soch moderet prinsipelz az Mr Jones advo- kates for Iijglish. In Iijglish, houever, the difikylti leiz in chanjiij eniiiij ; and if the prinsipel ov eni chanje iz wsns admited, it wud reali be eazier, ei be- liev, tu begin de novo than tu chanje synrfiij, and leav the rest snchanjed. Let ys nou see hou Mr Pitman's or eni similar sistem ov fonetik reitiij haz wzrrkt hwere it haz been put tu the test. Mr William White reits : — ' ' Ei speak from ekspe- riens. Ei hav taught poor children in Glasgow tu read the Sermon on the Mount after a kourse ov ekser- seizez ekstendiij over no more than siks ourz." The folowiij iz an ekstrakt from a leter riten s>rm 1 Popular Education — A Revision of English Spelling a National Ne- cessity. By E. Jones, B.A. London, 1875. 21 teiin ag;o bei the late Mr William Colbourne, man- ajer ov the Dorset Bank at Sturminster, tu a trend ov hiz, a skoolmaster. He sez : — " Mei litel Sidney, who iz nou a fin nrmls more than fonr yearz old, wil read eni fonetik bnk without the slcitest hezitashon ; the hardest namcz or the longest wsrdz in the Old or Niu Testament form no obstakel tu him. And hou Ion do you dink it tuk me — for ei am hiz teacher — tu impart tu him this pouer ? Hwei ssmiin les than eight ourz ! You may believ it or not az you leik, hst ei am konfident that not more than that amount ov teim woz spent on him, and that woz in snacliez ov feiv minits at a teim, hweil tea woz getirj redi. Ei no you wil be inkleind tu say, ' All that iz veri wel, b^t hwot iz the use ov readirj fonetik buks ? he iz stil az far of, and may be farther, from readiij romanik buks.' Bst in this you ar mistaken. Take another ekzampel. Hiz nekst elder brother, a boi ov siks yearz, haz had a fonetik ediukashon so far. Hwot iz the konsekwens ? Hwei, readirj in the ferst staje woz so deleitful and eazi a frrj tu him, that he taught himself tu read romanikali, and it wud be a dinkxlt mater tu feind w>n boi in twenti, ov a korespondin aje, that kud read hsf so wel az he kan in eni buk. Agen, mei oldest boi haz riten more fonetik shorthand and loij- hand, peril aps, than eni boi ov hiz aje (eleven yearz) in the kindom ; and nowyn ei daresay haz had les tu do with that abs>rditi ov absyrditiz, the speliij-buk ! He iz nou at a ferst-rate skool in Wiltshire, and in the hr.f-year presedii] Kristmas, he karid of the preiz for orfografi in a kontest with boiz sym ov them hiz seniorz bei yearz ! " Bei the adopshon ov the fonetik alfabet, the difi- kxltiz that lei in the way ov forenerz lernin Tnglish, also wud be dyn away with. The Rev. Newman 22 Hall reits, " Ei met with a Danish jentelman the sther day who heili preizd the Iijgiish fonotipik Niu Testament. It had been ov great use tu hiin, and enabeld him tu read [buks in the komon speliy] without an instrakter, removiij the greatest obstakel in akweirirj Irjglish, the monstrys anomaliz ov pronyn- siashon." Ekzanipelz leik theze go a Ion way. Mr A. J. Ellis, than whom nowsn haz labordmore devotedli for a reform ov speliij, az a ferst step in a reform ov nashonal ediukashon, and who haz himself elaborated several most injeniys sistemz ov fonetik reitin, givz ys the folowiij az the rezylts ov hiz praktikal eksperiens : — " With the fonetik sistem ov spelirj, the Primer iz masterd within free mynis, at most. The children then proseed tu praktis this fonetik readiij for ssm teim, til they kan read with fluensi from the jeneral luk ov the wyrd, and not from konsiderirj the pouerz ov its leterz. Kree mynJs more, at most, ar rekweird for this staje. " Hwen this pouer ov fluent readirj in fonetik print iz akweird, buks in the ordinari print, siuted tu their kapasitiz, ar tu be put intu the children'z handz, and they ar told tu read them. Each wsrd 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 ftrrther instrykshon. The teim nesesari for kompletiij this step may be taken, at the longest, az two nrsuis, so that the hole teim ov lemin tu read in the ordinari print, on the Readirj Reform sistem, may be rekond az feiv ourz a week for eight mynifs. The hole task haz, in meni kasez, been akomplisht in les teim, even in free nrsnis. On the yther hand, in wjii skool hwere it iz uzed, eleven mynds ar okiupeid, az the master feindz it advantajys in yther respekts tu keep the piupil logger at fonetik 23 readirj. Bst onli wxn our a day iz rck weird." Mr Ellis symz yp az folowz : "Kareful eksperiments in teacliiij children ov varies ajez and raijks, and even pauperz and kriminal adults, liav establisht — " 1. That piupilz may be taught tu read buks in fonetik print, slowli byt shureli, in from ten tu forti ourz, and wil atain konsiderabel fluensi after a fiu weeks' praktis. " 2. That hwen the piupilz hav ataind fluensi in readiij from fonetik print, a veri fiu ourz syfeiz tu giv them the same fluensi in readiij ordinari print. "3. That the hole teim nesesari for impartirj a nolej ov boi fonetik and ordinari readiij dxz not ekseed eight vcmnis for children ov averej intelijens, between four and feiv yearz ov aje, taught in Idas, at skool, not more than hcf-an-our tu an our each day ; and that in this teim an abiliti tu read iz akweird siuperior tu that U3iiali ataind in two or dree teimz the period on the old plan ; hweil the pronynsiashon ov the piupil iz mych improved, hiz interest in hiz stardi iz kept aleiv, and a lojikal trainirj ov endiuriij valiu iz given tu hiz meind bei the habitiual analisis and siniesis ov spoken soundz. " 4. That thoze taught tu read in this maner akweir the art ov ordinari spelir] more redili than thoze in- structed on the old mciod." Tu all who no Mr Alexander J. Ellis, this evidens wil be syfishent az tu the praktikal usefulues ov the Fonetik Sistem ov spelin. Tu thoze who wish for more evidens ei rekomend a pamflet bei Mr G. Withers, " The Iijglish Langwej Speld az Pronounst." 1874 : and wxn bei Dr J. W. Martin, " The Gordian NotK^t," 1875, hwere they wil feind the koukyrent testimoni ov praktikal teacherz in Irjgland, Skotland, Eirland, and Amerika, all agreeiij that, bott az a 24 praktikal and a lojikal trainiij, the Fonetik sistem haz proved the greatest sykses. Ther remainz, therefor, this w\n objekshon onli, that hwotever the praktikal, and hwotever the fcoreti- kal advantejez ov the fonetik sistem may he, it wnd yterli destroi the historikal or etimolojikal karakter ov the Irjglish larjgwej. Sypoze it did ; hwot then ? The Reformashon iz sypozed tu hav destroid the historikal karakter ov the Irjglish Chyrch, and that sentimental grievans iz stil felt bei s?m stindents ov ekleziastikal antikwitiz. Byt did Ii] gland, did all the reali progresiv nashonz ov Europe, alou this sentimental grievans tu outAveigh the praktikal and ieoretikal advantejez ov Protestant Reform ? Larjgwej iz not made for skolarz and ethnologists : and if the hole rase ov Irjglish etimo- lojists wer reali tu he swept away bei the introdykshon ov a Speliij Reform, ei hope they wud be the ferst tu r,ejois in sakrifeiziij themselvz in so gud a kauz. Byt iz it reali the kase that the historikal kontin- iiiiti ov the Irjglish larjgwej wud be broken bei the adopshon ov fonetik spelirj, and that the profeshon ov the etimolojist wud be gon for ever ? Ei say, No, most emfatikali, tu boi jiropozishonz. If the seiens ov larj- gwej haz proved enrfiij, it haz proved that all larjgwejez chanje akordiij tu law, and with konsiderabel uni- formiti. If therefor, the reitirj folowd, pari passu, on the chanjez in pronynsiashon, hwot iz kalld the etimolojikal konshysnes ov the speakerz and the readerz — ei sjieak, ov kourse, ov ediukated peopel onli — wud not syfer in the least. If we retain the feelirj ov an etimolojikal konekshon between gentle- manly and gentlemanlike, we shud shureli retain it hwether we reit gentlemanly or jentetmanli. If we feel that think and thought, bring and brought, buy and bought, freight and fraught, belorj tugether, shud we 25 feel it les if we rote dot, brat, bot, frot ? If, in speakirj, thoze who no Latin retain the feelin that wyrdz endiij in -ation korespond tn Latin wxrdz in -atio, wud they looz the feelin if they saw the same wyrdz speld with sfon ? or even " -efsn ? " Do they not rekogneiz Latin -itia in -ice ; or -ills in -le, az in -able (Latin abilis) ? If the skolar noz, at wyns, that s>ch wsrdz az barbarous, anxious, circus, genius, ar ov Latin orijin, wild he hezitate if the last silabel in all ov them wer uniformlir iten " ss ? " Nay, iz not the prezent speliij ov barbarous and anxious enteirli misleadhj, bei konfoundii) wxrdz endiij in -osus, ssch az famous (famosusj with wsrdz endiij in -us, leik barbarous, anxious, ets. ? Bekauz the Italianz reit filosofo, ar they les aware than the Iij- glish, who reit philosopher, and the French, who reit phitosophe, that they hav before them the Latin philosophies, the Greek ch piurli Sakson wsrdz az neighbor, harbor. No dout if we see laugh riten with gh at the end, thoze who no Jerman ar at wsns remeinded ov its etimolojikal konekshon with the Jerman lachen; bst we shud soon no the same 26 bei analoji, if we found not onli "Mf byt " kof " for cough (Jer. keuchen), "ensf" for enough (Jerman genug), ets. In " draft/' fonetik speliij haz nearli syplanted the so-kalld historikal speliij draught ; in "dwarfs (dwergh, thweorh) and in "ruff" {rough), altugether. Hwot peopel kail the etimolojikal konslrssnes ov the speaker iz striktli a mater ov oratorikal sentiment onli, and it wild remain nearli az strorj az it iz nou, hwotever speliij be adopted. B>t even if it shud syfer here and there, we ought tu bear in meind that, ek- sept for oratorikal pyrposez, that konskxsnes, konfeind az it iz tu a veri fiu ediukated peopel, iz ov veri small importans, ynles 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 sym kasez, tu vishiate the korekt speliij ov wxrdz. Ei hav frekwentli dwelt on this before, in order tu show hou, hwot iz nou kalld the etimolojikal or historikal spelirj ov wyrdz, iz in meni kasez, yterli yn- etimolojikal and ynhistorikal. We spel to delight, and tlvss melius meni peopel tu believ that this wsrd iz sxmhou konekted with light (lux), or light (levis) ; hwereaz the old speliij woz to delyt or to delite (Tyn- dale) reprezentirj the old French deleiter. On the yther hand we fcind for quite and smite, the old spelirj quight, smight, hwich may be old and historikal, byt iz deseidedli xnetimolojikal. Sovereign and foreign ar speld az if they wer kon- ekted with reign, regnum ; the true etimoloji ov the former bei'rj superanus, Old French sovrain, Old Irj- glish soveraine ; hweil foreign iz the late Latin fora- neus ; Old French forain ; Old Irjglish forein. And hwei do we reit to feign ? Archbishop Trench (" Iij- glish Past and Prezent," p. 238) links the g in feign 27 iz elokwent tu the ei; bst its elokwens iz misleadhj. Feign iz not taken from Latin jingo, az litel az honour iz taken from Latin honor. Feign k>mz from the Old French faindre ; it woz in Old Iijglish faynen and feynen, and it woz therefor a mere etimolojikal feint tu insert the g ov the Latin Jingo, and the French feignant. The Old Iijglish shammfasst (Orm.) , formd leik stedefasst (stedfast), iz nou speld shamefaced, az if it had symiiyj tu do with a bbshiij fase. Aghast, insted ov Old Iijglish agast, iz sypozed tu luk more freitful bekauz it remeindz ys 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 wsrd iz konekted with isle (insula), hwereaz it iz the Aijglo-Sakson edland (Jerman ei- land), that iz, water-land. The speliij Hand woz stil kyrent in Shakspere'z teim. In aisle, too, the s iz snetimolojikal, though it iz historikal, az bavin been taken over from the Old French aisle. This tendensi tu olter the speliij in order tu im- part tu a wyrd, at all hazardz, an etimolojikal kar- akter, beginz even in Latin, hwere postumus, a siuperlativ ov post, woz symteimz riten posthumus, az if, hwen apleid tu a late-born syn, it woz dereivd from humus. In Iijglish, this fols spelirj iz retaind in posthumous. Cena woz speld bei peopel who wonted tu show their nolej ov Greek, coena, az if konekted with Koiv-h, hwich it iz not. Byt nou let ysluk morekarefuli intu the far more important statement, that the Inglish larjgvvej, if riten fonetikali, wud reali looz its historikal and eti- molojikal karakter. The ferst kwestion iz, in hwot sens kan the prezent speliij ov Iijglish be kalld his- torikal ? We hav onli tu go bak a veri short way in order tu see the modern upstart karakter ov hwot iz 28 kalld historikal speliij. We nou veit frfeasure, measure, and feather, byt not veri loij ago, in Spenser'z teim, theze wsr&z wer sipeldplesure, mesure,f ether. Tyndale rote frute ; the i in fruit iz a mere restorashon ov the French spelirj. For debt, we feind, on the kontrari, ■hst dree or four hundred yearz ago, dett. This iz more historikal therefor than debt, bekauz in French, from hwich the wyrd woz borowd, the b had disapeard, and it woz a piurli etimolojikal fansi tu restore it. The b woz leikweiz re-introdiust in doubt, byt the p woz not restored in tu kount (French compter, Latin computare), hwere p had at least the same reit az b in doute. Thys receipt reziumz the Latin p, byt deceit cbz without it. Tn deign keeps the g, tu disdain dyz without it. Ther iz another b hwich haz a serten historikal air in sym Iijglish wyrdz, tart hwich woz orijinali piurli fonetik, and iz nou simpli siuperfhiss. The old wyrd for member woz lim. In sych kom- poundz az lim-Iama, lim (b) -lame lim-leas lim (b) -Jess, it woz imposibel tu avoid the interkalashon ov a b in pronynsiashon. In this maner the b krept in, and we hav nou tu teach that in limb, crumb (crume), thumb (thuma) the b myst be riten, byt not pro- nounst. Agen, tung (Jer. zunge), yung (Jer.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, beuj lost in pronynsiashon, woz dropt in reitirj at a veri erli teim (Aijglo-Sakson sealm) and woz re-introdiust simpli tu pleaz sym ekleziastikal ctimolojists ; also nevew (French neveu) insted ov nephew, hwich iz both ynetimolojikal and ynfonetik. In hwot sens kan it be kalld historikal speliij if the old pluralz ov mouse and louse, hwich wer mys and lys, ar nou speld mice and lice ? The plural ov goose iz 29 not speld geece byt geese, yet evcribodi noz hou tu pronouns it. The same mistaken atempt at an oka- zhonal fonetik speliij haz separated dice from die, and pence horn, pens, that \z,penyes ; hweil in nurse, hwere the speliij nurce wud hav been useful, az remeindin ss ov its true etimon nourrice, the c haz been replast bei s. Ther ar, in fakt, meni spelinz hwich wud be at the same teim more historikal and more fonetik. Hwei reit little, hwen nowsn pronoiinsez little, and Irwen the old spelin woz lytel ? Hwei girdle, hwen the old spelig woz girdel ? ' The same rule apleiz tu nearli all wyrdz enclin in le, sych az sickle, ladle, apple, ets., hwere the etimoloji iz kompleteli obskhird bei the prezent ordografi. Hwei ascent, tort dissent, hwen even -Milton stil rote sent? Hwei ache, instcd ov the Shaksperian ake ? Hwei cat, byt kitten ; hwei cow, byt kine ? Hwei accede, precede, secede, b\t exceed, proceed, succeed ? Hwei indeed, eksept tu waste the preshys teim ov children ? And if it iz difikylt tu say hwot konstitiuts histori- kal spelig, it iz ekwali perpleksirj tu defcin the real meaniij ov etimolojikal spelirj. For, hwere ar we tu stop ? It wud be konsiderd veri ynetimolojikal wer we tu reit nee insted ov knee, now instcd ov know, night insted ov knight ; yet nowyn komplainz about the los ov the inishal h, the reprezentativ ov an orijinal k, in loaf, A. S. hlaf (cf. kaIPwos), in ring (A.S. hring) ; in lade, ladder, neck, ets. If we ar tu reit etimolojikali, then hwei not retyrn tu lover d, or hlaford, insted ov lord ? tu nose-thrill, or nosethirle insted ov nostril ; tu swister insted ov sister ; hwich wud not be more trybelsym than sivord. Wif- mann shureli wud be beter than woman ; meadwife beter than midwife ; godspelheter than gospel, ortyard beter than orchard, puisne beter than puny. Fre- 30 kwentli the prezent rekogneizd speliij luks etimoloji- kal, b^t iz ^terli^netimolojikal. Righteous luks leik an ajektiv in -eous, ss~ck az plenteous, bst it iz reali a Sakson wyrd, rightivis that iz rightwise, formd leik otherwise, ets. Could iz riten with an / in analoji tu would, byt hweil the I iz jystifeid in would from will, and should from shall, we feind the Old Irjglish imperfekt ov can riten cuthe, then couthe, coude. The I, therefor, iz neither fonetik nor etimolojikal. INbiiij, agen, kan be more misleadirj tu an etimolojist than the prezent speliij ov whole and hale. Both k^m from the same sourse, the Godik hails, Sanskrit kalya-s, meanirj orijinali, fit, redi ; then sound, complete, ivhole. In Aijglo-Sakson we hav hal, hole; and hal, heldi, with- out eni trase ov a w, either before or after. The Old Irjglish halsum, holesym, iz the Jerman hailsam. Whole, therefore, iz a mere misspelhj, the w bavin probabli been aded in analoji tu who, which, ets. From a piurli etimolojikal point ov viu, the w iz rorjli left out before h in hou ; for az Anglo- Sakson hwy be- kame why, Anglo-SaksonAwc! shud hav bek^m whow. If we reali atempted tu reit etimolojikali, we shud hav tu reit bridegroom without the r, bekauz groom iz a mere korypshon ov guma, man, Anglo- Sakson bryd-guma. We shud hav tu reit burse insted ov purse, az in disburse. In fakt, it iz difilo'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 (that iz, fsrow loij) insted ov furlong, feordhing (that iz, fourl part) insted ov far- thing ? If we reit piuni puisne, we meit az wel reit post-natus. We meit spel koi, quietus ; pert, apertus ; priest, presbyter • master, magister ; sekston, sacris- tan ; alms, eleemosyne, ets. If enibodi wil tel me at liwot date etimolojikal speliij iz tu begin, hwether at 31 1,500 a.d., or at 1,000, a.d., or at 500 a.d., ei am wiliij tu clisk^s the kwestion. Til then, ei beg leav tu say that etimolojikal speliij wud play greater havok in Inglish than fonetik speliij, even if we wer tu draw a lein not more than feiv hundred yearz ago . The two strongest argiuments, therefor, agenst fo- netik spelin, nameli, that it wud destroi the historikal and etimolojikal karakter ov the Inglish langwej, ar, after all, bist veri parshali true. Here and there, no dout, the etimoloji and histori ov an Inglish wyrd meit be obskiurd bei fonetik spelin ; az if, for in- stalls, we rote " Yurop " insted ov Europe. Bst even then analoji wud help tss, and teach thoze who no Greek, ov whom ther ar not meni, that " Yip* " in ssc; wsrdz az Europe, Eurydice, reprezented the Greek evpvs. The real anser, houever, iz, that now^n kud onestli kail the prezent sistem ov speliij either his- torikal or etimolojikal ; and ei believ, that taken az a hole, the los okazhond bei konsistent fonetik speliij wud not be greater than the gain. Another objekshon srjd agenst fonetik speliij, nameli, that wi|faitit wud be imposibel tu distinguish homonimz, nrstt be met in the same way. No clout it iz a serten advantej if in reitiij we kan distiijgwish right, rite, write and ivright. Bxt if, in the lrsri ov konversashon, ther iz hardli ever a dout hwich wsrd iz inent, shureli ther wud be mych les danjer in the slow proses ov readiij akontiniuys sentens. If varies speliijz ov the same wsrd ar nesesari tu point out dif- erentmeaniijz, we shud rekweir eight speliijz for box, tu signifei a chest, a Kristmas gift, a Irmtiij seat, a tree, a slap, tu sail round, seats in a heater, and the frMit seat on a koach ; and this prinsipel wud hav tu be apleid tu absr 400 w>rdz. Who wud undertake tu proveid all theze variashonz ov the prezent uniform speliij ov theze wyrdz ? And we msst not forget that, 32 after all, in readiij 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 difikrlti, laijgwej proveidz its own remedi. It either drops sych wsrdz az rite and sole, replasirj them bei seremony and only, or it uzez a perifrastik ekspreshon, sxch az the sole ov the fut, or the sole and onli ground, ets. [Five other new letters, representing the long vowels, will dow he intro. duced, namely, B, j. o, &, \\, for the sounds heard in they, field, saw, no, do mote, see, errll, core, true mare, police, ought, coal, poor] Thys far ei hav treid tu anser the rjali important argiuments hwich hav bhi brot forward agenst fonetik spelin. Ei hav dyn so with speshal referens tu the pouerful remonstransez ov Archbishop Trench, and hiz most ebel pljdin in fevor ov the establisht sistem ov orlografi. Az a mjr skolar, ei fuli slier hiz fjlirjz, and ei sinsjrli admeir hiz elokwent advokasi. Ei difer from him bekoz ei dq, not ftijk, az hj dyz, that the los enteld bei fonetik spelin wud bj so gret az wj imajin ; or that it wud bj ol on wyn seid. Beseidz, ynles hj kan sho hou a reform ov spelin iz not onli for the prezent tu bj avoided, byt oltugether tu bj renderd ynnesesari, ei konsider that the suner it iz teken in hand the beter. It sjmz tu mj that the Archbishop luks on the introdykshon ov fonetik spelin az a mjr krochet ov a fiu skolarz, or az an atempt on the part ov sym lmf-ediuketed personz, wishirj tu avoid the trxbel ov lerniij hou tu spel korektli. If that wer so, ei kweit agrj with him that pyblik opinion wud never asium syfishent fors for kariin ther skjm. Bat ther iz a motiv pouer beheind thjz fonetik reformerz hwich the Archbishop haz hardli teken intu akount. Ei mjn the mizeri endiurd bei milionz ov children at skill, h\\ 33 meit lern in wsn yjr, and with rjal advantej tu tliem- selvz, liwot the nou rekweir for or feiv yjrz tu lern, and seldom syksjd in lernig after ol. If the evidens ov ssch men az Mr Ellis iz tu b\ depended on, and ei beljv hj iz wiliij tu submit tu eni test, then shurli the los ov sym historikal and etimolojikal souvenirs wud we litel agenst the hapines ov milionz ov children, and the stil heier hapines ov milionz ov Inglishmen and Inglishwimen, groin yp az the erz tu ol the wett and strer)3 ov Inglish literatiur, or ynebel tu rjd jvcn ther Beibel. Hjr it iz hwer ei ventiur tu difer from the Archbishop, not az bjirj saijgwin az tu eni imrnjdiet sskses, bst simpli az fjliij it a diuti tu help in a koz hwich at prezent iz most ynpopiular. The jvil de me bj put of for a Ion teim, partikiularli if the wet ov ssch men az Archbishop Trench iz iron intu the j ther skel. Est snles langwej sjsez tu bj langwej, and reitiij sjsez tu h{ reitin, the de wil shurli ksm hwen pjs wil hav tu bj med betwjn the tr[. Jermani haz apointed a Gy v- ernment Komishon tu konsider hwot iz tu h{ dsn with Jerman spelirj. In Amerika, tu, ss'm ljdiij stetsmen sjm inkleind tu tek yp the reform ov spelirj on nash- onal groundz. Iz ther no stetsman in Irjgland s^fish- entli prirf agenst ridikiul tu kol the atenshon ov Parliment tu hwot iz a groiij misfortiun ? M^ch, houever, az ei difer from the Archbishop on thjz groundz, ei kanot bst depreket the ton in hwich hiz pouerful opozishon haz bjn met bei meni ov the ypholderz ov fonctik spelin. Ne, ei nrsst go stil far- ther, and frankli konfes that tu wsn ov hiz argiu- ments ei feind it difik^lt, at prezent, tu giv a satis- faktori anser. " It iz a nrjr as>'mpshon," the Archbishop remarks, " that ol men pronouns ol wsrdz aleik ; or that hwen- ever the ksm tu spel a wsrd the wil ekzaktli agrj az tu hwot the outlein ov its sound iz. Nou wj ar shu.r 34 men wil not du. this, from the fakt that, befor ther woz eni fikst and seteld orfografi in our laijgwej, hwen, therfor, everibodi woz mor or les a fonografer, sjkirj tu reit doun the wsrd az it sounded tu him, — for hj had no 1 yther lo tu geid him, — the verieshonz ov spelirj ar infinit. Tek, for instans, the wyrd sudden, hwich dyz not sjm tu promis eni gret skerp for vareieti. Ei hav meiself met with this vtstA speld in no les than fortjn wez amyij our erli reiterz, Agen, in hou meni wez woz Raleigh's nem speld, or Shakspere's ? The sem iz evident from the spelirj ov ynediuketed personz in our on de. The hav no yther ruj. byt the sound tu geid them. Hou iz it that the du, not ol spel aleik ? " — hjglish Past and Prezent, p. 203. Leik most men hu. pljd with ther hart az wel az with ther hed, the Archbishop haz hjr overlukt wyn obviys anser tu hiz kwestion. The dq, not spel aleik bekoz the hav bjn brot yp Avith a sistem ov spelirj in hwich the sem sound kan bj reprezented in ten difer- ent wez, and in hwich hardli eni wyn leter iz restrikted tu wyn fonetik pouer onli. If children wer brot yp with an alfabet in hwich jch leter had byt wyn sound, and in hwich the sem sound woz olwez reprezented bei the sem sein — and this iz the veri esens ov fonetik reitiij — then it wud bj simpli imposibel that the shud drjm ov reitiij sudden in fortjn, or Woburn in 140, diferent wez. Byt for ol that ther iz sym trujf in the Archbish- op's remark ; and if wj komper the diferent wez in hwich the advokets ov fonetik spelirj — men leik Pit- man, Bell, Ellis, Withers, Jones — reit the sem wyrdz, jven hwen ynziij the sem fonetik alfabet, w\ shal sj that the difikylti pointed out bei the Archbishop iz a rjal wyn. Everiwyn noz hou diferentli the sem wyrdz olwez hav bjn and stil ar pronounst in diferent parts ov Iijgland. And it iz not onli in tounz and kountiz 35 that thjz pekiuliaritiz prevel; ther ar serten wsrdz hwich win famili pronoiinsez difercntli from another ; and ther ar beseidz the stydid and ynstydid pekiuli- aritiz ov individiual spjkerz. Tu konvins pjpel that wyn pronynsisshon iz reit and the yther roij, sjmz yterli hoples. Ei hav herd a heili ksltiveted man defendiij hiz dropiij the h at the beginirj ov serten wyrdz, bei the ynanserabel argiument that in the pies hwer h| woz brot yp, nowyn pronounst thjz inishal la. Hwot Skochman wild admit that hiz pronynsisshon woz folti ? Hwot Eirishman wud sybmit tu loz ov spelin past in Lyndon ? And hwot renderz argiument on eni neisetiz ov pronynsisshon stil mor difikylt iz, that berf the jr and the tyn ar most trecherys Avitnesez. Ei hav herd Amerikanz msnten in gud ernest that ther woz mych les ov nszal twan in Amerika than in Iijgland. Pjpel ar not awer hou the pronouns, and hou diferentli the pronouns wyn and the sem wyrd. Az a forener ei hav had ampel oportiunitiz for obzer- veshon on this point. Sym frendz wud tel mj for instans, that world woz pronounst leik whirl'' 'd, father leik farther, nor (befor konsonants) leik gnaw, bud leik bird, burst leik bust, for leik fur, birth leik berth ; that the vouelz had the sem sound in where and were, in not and war, in God and gaudy ; hweil ytherz ashiird mj that nowyn byt a forener kud link so. And the wyrst iz that jven the sem person dyz not olwez pronouns the sem wyrd in ekzaktli the sem maner. Konstantli, hwen ei askt a frend tu repjt a wyrd hwich hj had JNst pronounst, hj wud pronouns it agen, byt with a sleit diferens. The mjr fakt ov hiz treiin tu pronouns wel wud giv tu hiz pronynsisshon a konshys and emfatik karakter. The prepozishon of iz pronounst bei most pjpel ov, byt if kros-ekzamind, meni wil se that the pronouns ov, byt the o not ek- zaktli leik off. 36 The konfiu3on beksmz gretest hwen it iz atempted tu eidentifei the pronsnsieshon, se ov a vouel in Jer- man with a vouel in Inglish. No tij, Iijglishmen and no- t\\ Jermanz sjmd tu bj ebel tu agrj on hwot the herd with ther jrz, or hwot the sed with ther tsnz ; and the rezylt in the end iz that no vouel in Jerman woz rjali the sem az eni sther vouel in Inglish. Tu tek w\n or tv[ instansez from Mr Ellis's lq tu Palioteip (Palreotype), ei kan hjr no diferens betwjn the a in Italian mano, Iijglish father, and Jerman mahnen, Mi- les ei restrikt mei obzerveshonz tu the yterans ov serten individiualz ; hweraz ei du, hjr a veri deseided, and jenerali adopted, diferens betwjn the vouelz in Jerman bocke and Frcnchjeune. Mr Ellis, tychii] on the sem difiksiti, remarks, " Mr Bell's prommsieshon, in meni instansez, diferz from .that hwich ei am akss- tomd tu giv, espeshali in foren wsrdz. Boi ov ss me bj ron." Mr Sweet remarks, p. 10, " Mr Ellis insists stronli on the monofioijgal karakter ov hiz on eez and ooz. Ei hjr hiz ee and oo azdisthjkt diftoyz, not onli in hiz Inglish pronsnsieshon, byt also in hiz pronsn- sieshon ov French, Jerman, and Latin." If femetik reitirj ment this miniut fotografi ov spoken soundz, in hwich Mes, Bell and Ellis eksel ; if eni atempt had ever bjn med tu emploi this her-splitirj mashjneri for a praktikal reform ov Iyjglish spelir), the objekshonz rezd bei Archbishop Trench wud bj kweit snanserabel . Ther wud bj fifti diferent wsz ov speliij Iijglish, and the konfiivjon wud bj greter than it iz nou. Not jven Mr Bell's ^erti-siks kategoriz ov vouel sound wud bj sxfishent tu render everi pekiuliariti ov vouel kwoliti, pich, and kwontiti, with perfekt akiurasi. (Sj H. Sweet, " Histori ov Iijglish Soundz," pp. 58, 68.) Byt this woz never intended, and hweil konsjdii] much tu the Archbishop's argiuments, ei myst not konsjd tu, nxsch. 37 Hwot ei leik in Mr. Pitman'z sistem ov spelirj iz ekzaktli hwot ei no haz bjn found folt with bei jstherz, nemli, that hj dvz not atempt tu refein tu; mtfch, and tu ekspres in reitiij thoz endles shedz ov pronynsie- shon, hwich me bj ov the gretest interest tu the stiu- dent- ov akoustiks > or ov fonetiks, az apleid tu the stydi ov livin deialekts, b*t hwich, for praktikal az wel az for seientifik filolojikal psrposez, msst bj enteirli ignord. Reitiij woz never intended tu fotograf spo- ken langwejez : it woz ment tu indiket, not tu pent, soundz. If Voltaire sez, " L'ecriture e'est la pein- ture de la voix," hj iz reit ; b^t when hj goz on tu so, " plus elle est ressemblante, meilleur elle est," ei am not serten that, az in a piktiur ov a landskep, so in a piktiur ov the vois, prj-Rfifeleit miniutnes me not destroi the veri objekt ov the piktiur. Laijgwej djk in brod k^lorz, and reitirj ot tu folo the ekzampel ov langwej, hwich tho it alouz an endles vareieti ov pronynsieshon, restrikts itself for its on pyrpos, for the pyrpos ov ekspresin lot in ©1 its modifikeshonz', tu a veri limited number ov tipikal vouelz and kon- sonants. Out ov the larj number ov soundz, for instans, hwich hav bjn katalogd from the verb's Irj- glish deialekts, thoz onli kan bj rekogneizd az kon- stitiuent elements ov the laijgwej hwich in, and bei, ther diferens from jch yther konve a diferens ov mjniij . Ov sych pregnant and lot-konveiij vouelz, Inglish pozesez no mor than twelv. Hwotever the meinor shedz ov vouel soundz in Iijglish deialekts me bj, ths dq not enrich the laijgwej, az sych, that iz, the dq, not enebel the spjker tu konve mor miniiit shedz ov lot than the twelv tipikal sirjgel vouelz. Beseidz, ther jenerali iz hwot the French meit kol a fonetik solid- ariti in jch deialekt. If wyn vouel chenjez, the stherz ar apt tu folo, and the men objekt ov langwej remenz the sem Irqout, nemli, tu prevent wsn ward from 38 rsnirj intu anyther, and yet tu abstsn from til minhit femetik distirjkshonz, hwich an ordinari jr meit feind it difikylt tu grasp. This prinsipel ov femetik solidar- iti iz ov gret importans, not onli in eksplenii) the gradiual c^njez ov vouelz, byt olso sych jeneral chsnjez ov konsonants az wj sj, for instans, in the Jevman Lautverschiebung . Az siyi az wyn pics iz left vekant, ther iz preshur tu fil it, or so mych ov it az iz left vekant, byt no mor. Ther ar, in fakt, tit branchez, or at ol events, ti| kweit distirjkt praktikal aplikeshonz ov the seiens ov Fonetiks, hwich, for wont ov beter nemz, ei designet az filolojikal and deialektikal. Ther iz hwot ms b| kold a filolojikal stydi ov Fonetiks, hwich iz an esen- shal part ov the Seiens ov Larjgwej, and haz for its objekt tu giv a kljr eidja ov the alfabet, not az riten, byt az spoken. It trjts ov the matjrialz out ov hwich, the instruments with hwich, and the proses bei hwich, vouelz and konsonants ar formd ; and af- ter eksplenii) hou serten leterz agrj, and difer, in ther material, in the instruments with hwich, and the proses bei hwich, the ar prodiust, it enebelz ys tu under- stand the kozez and rezylts ov hwot iz kold Fonetik Chenj. In meni respekts the most instryktiv trjt- ment ovthe jeneral d|ori ov Fonetiks iz tu h\ found in the Pratisakhyas ; partikiularli in the oldest (400 b.k.), that atacht tu the Rig Veda. 1 Thothe number ov posibel soundz me sun. infinit, the nymber ov rjal soundz yiizd in Sanskrit or eni yther given langwej for the pyrpos ov ekspresirj diferent shedz ov mjnin, iz veri limited. It iz with thjz brod kategoriz ov sound alon that the Pratisakhyas djl ; and it iz for a proper ynderstandirj ov thjz the Seiens ov Laijgwej haz tu inkhui within its sfir a kerful stydi ov Fonetiks. ' " Kig-Veda-Prati.t hwen wj wont tu ekzost ol posibel shedz ov sound, hwen wj wont tu fotograf the pekiuliaritiz ov serten deialekts, or mejur the djvieshonz in the pro- nynsieshon ov individiualz bei the most miniut degrjz, wj then myst avel oursclvz ov that ekskwizit artistik mashjneri konstr>>"kted bei Mr Bell, and handeld with so mych skil bei Mr A. J. Ellis, tho fiu onli wil bj ebel tu ynz it with rjal sykses. Ssm pjpel sjm tu imajin that the pouer ov distirj- gwishirj miniut diferensez ov soundz iz a natiural gift, and kanot bj ak weird. It me bj so in kweit eksepshonal 40 kesez, bst ei no az a fakt that a cheild that had, az pjpel se, nee jr for niiuzik, and kud not siij " God sev the Kwjn," gradiuali akweird the pouer ov distirj- gwishirj the ordinari nots, and ov siijirj a tiun. Spjkhj from mei on ekspjriens, ei shud se that a gud jr bmz bei inheritans, for, az log az ei kan remember, a fols not, or, az wj yi\st tu kol it, an impiur (unrein) not, woz tu m| fizikali penful. Bst this apleiz tu miuzik onli, and it iz bei no mjnz jenerali trii, that pjpel hu, hav a gud miuzikal jr, hav olso a gud jr for larjgwej. Ei hav non pjpel kweit mi miuzikal, pozest ov a veri gud jr for Iaijgwej, and vice versa. The tq, natiural gifts, therfor, if natiural gifts the ar, ov distil] gwishhj miniut degrjz ov pich and kwoliti ov sound d\\ not sjm tu bj the sem. The rjal difik>lti,houever, hwich meks itself felt in diskyshj miniut shedz ov sound, areizez from the insyfishensi ov our nomenklatiur, from the almost irrezistibel influens ov imajineshon, and in the end, from the wont ov a fonometer. A gud miuzishan kan distir)- gwish betwjn C sharp and D fiat, a gud fonetishan betwjn a "lo-bak-naro" and a " lo-mikst-naro " vouel. Bst the kanot olwez translet ther sentiments iutu definit larjgwej, and if the trei bei aktiual eks- periment tu iniitet thjz ti| soundz or vouelz, .the imperfekshonz ov the jr and ten, bol in the spjker and the lisener, frjkwentli render ©1 atempts at a miutiual ynderstandiij imposibel. Wj shal never areiv at seientifik presi3on til wj hav a fonometer for kwoliti ov sound, nor &x\ ei sj hwei ssch an instru- ment shud bj imposibel. Ei wel remember Wheatstone teliij mj, that hj wud yndertek tu rjprodius bei mjnz ov an instrument everi shed ov vouel in eni langwej ov the wsrld, and ei shud dink that Willis's and Helmholtz's eksperiments wud syplei the elements from hwich ssch a fonometer meit bj konstitiuted. 41 Az sipi az wj kan me3ur, defein, and rjprodiiis, at ple3ur, hwot at prezent wj kan ernli deskreib in aproksimet terniz, the seiens ov fonetiks wil beksm mcrst fruitful, and asium its lejitimet pks az a sine qua non tu the stiudent ov laijgwej. Ei hav symteiniz bjii blemd for havig insisted on Fonetiks bni] rekogneizd az the foundsshon ov the Seiens ov Larjgwej. Prof. Benfey and sther skolarz protested agenst the chapter ei hav devoted tu Fo- netiks in the Sekond Sjrjz ov mei " Lektiurz/' az an ynnesesari inoveshon, and thoz protests hav bekym stil stronger ov let. Bxt hjr, tu, wj msst distiijgwish betwjn tq, linz. Filolojikal or jeneral Fonetiks, ar, ei hold az stronli az ever, an integral part ov the Seiens ov Laijgwej ; deialektik Fonetiks me bj yusful hjr and ther, bst the shud bj kept within ther proper sfjr ; stherweiz, ei admit az redili az eniwm els, the obskiur rcther than revjl the brod and masiv folorz ov sound hwich langwej yujzez for its ordinari wsrk. If wj reflekt a litel, wj shal sj that the filolojikal konsepshon ov a vouel iz s^mliij totali diferent from its piurli akoustik or deialektik konsepshon. The former iz chjfli konsernd with the sfjr ov posibel verieshon, and the later with the piurli fenomenal individiualiti ov jch vouel. Tu the filolojist, the toj vouelz in Septimus, for instans, hwotever ther ekzakt pronsnsieshonz me hav bjn at diferent teimz, and in diferent provinsez ov the Roman Empeir, ar poten- shali wyn and the sem. Wj luk on Septimus and ePSopos az on Sanskrit saptamas, and onli bei noiij that e, i, and u in Septimus ar ol reprezentativz ov a short a, or that optimus standz for the mor enshent optumus and optomos, d\\ wj tek in at wsn glans the hoi histori and posibel verieshon ov thjz vouelz in dif- erent langwejez and deialekts. iwen hwer a vouel 42 disapjrz kompljtli, az in gtgno for gigeno, in n-tV™ for 7wreTu } the mental ei ov the filolojist disernz and wez hwot no jr kan hjr. And hweil in thjz kesez the eti- molojist, disregardin the kljrest vareieti ov pronynsie- shon, trjts sych vouelz az a, e, i, o, u az vrsn and the sem, in ytherz hwer t\\ vouelz sjm tu hav ekzaktli the sem sound tu the deialektishan, the filolojist on hiz part persjvz diferensez ov the gretest importans. The i in fides and cliens me hav the sem sound az the i in gigno or septimus, the u ov luo me not clifer from the u in optumus or lubens, bst ther intrinsik valiu, ther kepahilitiz ov groi and deke, ar tertali diferent in jch. Wj shal never bj ebel tu spjk with eniliij leik rjal sei- entifik akiurasi ov the pronynsieshon ov ensheut laij- gwejez, bst jven if wj luk tu ther riten apjrans onli, wj sj agen and agen hou vouelz, riten aleik, ar his- torikali tertali distiijkt. Grimm introdiust the dis- tinkshon betwjn di and ai, betwjn du and au, not bekoz it iz bei eni mjnz serten that the pronynsieshon ov thjz difforjz verid, b^t bekoz hj wisht tu indiket that the antesjdents ov di and du wer diferent from therz ov ai and au. In Gofrk faihu, (Sk. pasu, pecu,) ai iz a shortend tu i, and broken befor h tu di ; in Gotik vdit (Sk. veda, (o!8a) } ai iz radikal i streijlend tu di. In Goftk dauhtar (Sk. duhitar Ovydrnp), au iz radikal u broken tu au ; in auhna, yven (Sk. asna, lirv6=\Kvo = a.Kvo) , the au iz a, darkend tu u, and broken tu du; hweil in Goiik bdug (ir^evya) , du iz orijinal u streijlend tu du. Hwen wj hjr e and 6 in GoJik, wj sj a, jyst az wj sj Dorik a beheind Eionik y. Hwen wj hjr c in canis, wj sj Sanskrit s ; hw e n wj hjr c in cruor, wj sj Sanskrit k. Hwen wj hjr y in yevos, wj sj Rrian g ; hwen wj hjr y in , wj sj Rrian z. Thjz fiu ihstreshonz wil eksplen, ei hop, the esen- shal diferens in the aplikeshon ov fonetiks tu filoloji and deialektoloji, and wil sho that in the former our 43 brash niyst ov nesesiti bj brod, hweil in the later it nrsst bj fein. It iz bei miksiij yp t\\ separet leinz ov reserch, jch Leili important in itself, that so nrscli konfiu^on haz ov let bjn oke3ond. The valiu ov piurli fonetik obzerveshonz shud on no akount b\ ynder- rsted ; bst it iz nesesari, for that veri rjzon, that dei- alektikal az wel az filolojikal fonetiks shud b{ konfeind tu ther proper sfjr. The filolojist haz msch tu lern from the fonetishan, hist h\ shud never forget that hjr, az elshwer, hwot iz brod and tipikal iz az impor- tant and az seientifikali akiuret az hwot iz miniut and speshal. Hwot iz brod and tipikal iz often mor akiuret jven than hwot iz miniut and speshal. It meit b\ posibel, for instans, bei a fertografik proses, tu reprezent the ekzakt pozishon ov the ton and the inseid wolz ov the mouJ hweil wj pronouns the Italian vouel %. Byt it wud h\ the gretest mistek tu sypoz that this imej givz ys the emli we in hwich that vouel iz, and kan b\, pronounst. Tho jch individiual me hav hiz on we ov plesiij the ton in pronounshj j, wj hav onli tu trei the eksperiment in order tu konvins ourselvz that, with sym efort, wj me veri that pozishon in mcni wez and yet prodius the sound ov j. Hwen, therfor, in mei " Lektiurz on the Seiens ov Laijgwej," ei gev piktiurz ov the pozishon z ov the vokal organz rekweird for pronounsin the tipikal leterz ov the alfabet, ei tuk gret ker tu mek them tipikal, that iz, tu ljv them rsf skechez rcther than miniut fotografs. Ei kanot beter ekspres hwot ei fjl on this point than bei kwotin the wsrdz ov Hseckel : — " For didaktik pxrposez, simpcl slqmatik figiurz ar far mor yusful than piktiurz prezervin the gretest felfulnes tu netiur and karid out with the gretest akiurasi." (« Ziele und Wege/' p. 37). 44 [The following three letters, now introduced, will complete the Phonetic Alphabet — d, q, j", for the sounds heard in — then, cheap, she.] Tu return, after dis digrefon, tu Mr Pitman'z alfa- bet, ei repjt dat it rekomendz itself tu mei meind bei hwot yderz kol its inakiurasi. It Jerz its rjal and praktikal wizdom bei not atemptin tu fiks eni distirjk- Jonz hwic, ar not absohrtli nesesari. If, for instans, wj tek de gstyral teniuis, wj feind that IngliJ" rekog- neizez wsn k emli, oldo its prommsiejon veriz kon- siderabli. It iz symteimz pronounst ser az tu prodius olmost a Jarp krak; symteimz it haz a djp, holer sound ; and symteimz a soft, lezi, mouille karakter. It veriz konsiderabli akordin, tu de vouelz hwic, folo it, az enibodi ms hjr, ne ffl, if hj pronounsez, in syk- sejon, kot, kitf, kar, kat, kit. Byt az IrjgliJ" dyz not yi^z djz diferent kz for the pyrpos ov distingwijiij WM'dz or gramatikal formz, wsn brod kategori emli ov voisles gxtyral c,eks haz tu bjadmitedin reitin In- glij. In de Semitik laygwejez de kes iz diferent ; not emli ar kaf and kof diferent in sound, hyt dis diferens iz yxizd tu distingwij" diferent mjninz. Or if wj tek de vouel a in its orijinal, piur pronyn- siefon, leik Italian a, wj kan jzili persjv dat it haz diferent kylorz in diferent kountiz ov Ingland. Yet in reitin, it ms bj trjted az wyn, bekoz it haz hist wyn and de ssra gramatikal intenfon, and d^z not konve a niu m|nirj til it eksjdz its weidest limits. Gud spjk- erz in Irj gland pronouns de a in last leik de piur Italian a ; wid sderz it bekymz brod, wid yderz ftn. Bst der it me dys osilet konsiderabli, it myst not enkrerc, on de provins ov e, hwic, wud c,enj its mjnin, tu lest ; nor on de provins ov o, hwic, wud qenj it tu lost ; nor on de provins ov u, hwic, wud tjenj it tu lust. cle difikylti, derfor, hwic, Arcjbijop Trench haz pointed out iz rjali restrikted tu derz kesez hwer de 45 pronanskjon ov vouelz — for it iz wid vouelz qjfli dat wj ar trabeld — veriz so mac, az tu overstep de brodest limits ov wan ov de rekogneizd kategoriz ov sound, and tu enkroc; on ana der. If wj tek de ward fast, hwic, iz pronounst veri diferentli jven bei ediuketed pjpel, der wud b\ no nesesiti for indiketiij in reitirj de diferent Jedz ov pronsnsisfon hwic, lei betwjn de sound ov de fort Italian a and de loij a herd in father. Bat hwen de a in fast iz pronounst leik de a in fat, den de nesesiti ov a niu grafik eksponcnt wud areiz, and Ar^bijop Trench wud h\ reit in twitiij fonetik re- formerz wid sankfonirj tq speliijz for de sem ward. Ei kud menfon de nsmz ov drj bijops, wan ov hu.m pronounst de vouel in God leik God, anader leik rod, a 3erd leik gad. 3e last pronansiejon wud probabli b| kondemd bei everibodi, bat de ader t\\ wud remtn, sank/on d bei de heiest oloriti, and dsrfor retend in fonetik reitirj. So far, den, ei admit dat Arc,biJop Trench haz pointed out a rjal difikalti inherent in fonetik reitirj ; bat hwot iz dat wan difika'lti kompsrd wid de difi- kaltiz ov de prezent sistem ov IngliJ speliij ? It wud not bj onest tu trei tu eved hiz c,arj, bei seirj dat der iz bat wsn pronansiejon rekogneizd bei de yu.zej ov ediuketed pjpel. clat iz not so, and doz hq no best de beioloji ov laijgwej, no dat it kanot bj so. n defendz de prezent sistem ov speliij • everiwsn admits de sjrbs injuri hwiq it in- flikts on najonal ediukefon. Everibodi admits de praktikal advantejez ov fonetik speliij, bxt after dat, ol eksklem dat a reform ov speliij, hweder parfal or kompljt, iz imposibel. Hweder it iz imposibel or not, ei gladli ljv tu men ov de wsrld tu deseid. Az a skolar, az a stiudent ov de histori ov laijgwej, ei simpli menten dat in everi riten langwej a reform ov speliij iz, suner or leter, inevitabel. No dout de jvil de me bj put of. Ei hav litel dout dat it wil bj put of for meni jenerejonz, and dat a rjal reform wil probabli not bj karid eksept konkxrentli wid a veiolent sofal konvxljon. CFnli let de kwestion bj argiud ferli. Let fakts hav sym wet, and let it not bj sxperzd bei men ov de wsrld dat doz hn defend de prinsipelz ov de Fxmettk Nivz ar onli tjtotalerz and vejeterianz, hij, hav never lernd hou tu spel. If ei hav spoken stroijli in sxport ov Mr Pitman' z sistem, it iz not bekoz on ol points ei konsider it siu- pjrior tu de sistemz preperd bei xder reformerz, \i\\ ar deli inkrjsin in number ; bxt cjfli bekoz it haz bjn tested so 1 larjli, and haz stud de test wel. Mr Pitman'z Fvnetik Jvrnal haz nou [1880] bjn pxblijt ferti-et yjrz, and if it iz non dat it iz pxblijt wjkli in 12,400 kopiz, jq kopi reprezentin at ljst for or feiv rjderz, it me not sjm so veri fulif, after ol, if wj imajin dat der iz sxm veital pouer in dat insignifikant jerm. ■"°- 15.J [Price 2<£. 2>er dozen. WHAT IS PHONOGRAPHY P Phonography is a very brief system of writing, founded upon the spoken sounds of the English language, and based upon the principle of having a sign for every sound. It differs from other systems of shorthand in this important respect,— that it does not consist of ar- bitrary signs, but has for its foundation the true principles of the science of phonetics, and for its supports reason and truth. This beautiful system of writing, called Phonography, a term derived from the Greek, signifying the art of writing by sound, was invented by Mr Isaac Pitman in 1837, and is now used by thousands of persons wherever the English tongue is spoken, for the ordinary purposes^of writing.^ It is so simple that a child can master it, and is at the same time so inestimably valuable, that no one ought to rest content till he has made himself familiar with it. Its principles can be learned in a few hours, and a month's intelligent practice for an hour per day will render it a possession for life. It is equally adapted to all kinds of writing, while its absolute legibility makes it perfectly safe for all the purposes to which the cumbrous longhand is now applied. Phonography is now used — By clergymen, who read their sermons from its legible characters; By physicians, who use it for their diaries, etc., where exactitude is often life to their patients ; By lawyers, who find it of immense professional advantage in pre- paring their briefs, etc.; By public writers, who, by its use, are enabled to secure the "evanescent sparks of genius, e'er they fade and disappear," By students, for taking notes of lectures and for making extracts ; By reporters, among whom Pitman's shorthand takes the lead, both in this country and in America; By merchants, by clerks, for writing from dictation, and by " all rauks and conditions of men " whose avocations in life call them to " drive a quill." Si? Reasons why Everyone should Learn Phonography. 1. Because it saves time, and "time is money." 2. Because it saves labor, and labor saved is strength reserved. 3. Because it is more rational than our common writing. 4. Because it trains the intellect like a second Euclid. 5. Because it induces correct pronunciation. 6. Because all those who use it. speak well of it. The Right Hon. John Bright says: "Phonography is so clear a? to be easily learned by everyone of ordinary capacity, and the public benefits to be derived from it arc entirely incalculable." The ''Phonographic Teacher," price Gd., for self-instruction, and other books and information may be obtained from the inventor, Mr Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Bath, or through any bookseller in the country from the depot, 20 Paternoster row, London. Reader ! do as I have done, Learn it. "W. J. W. The Reading, Writing, and Spelling Reform. The Reading and Writing Reform consists in the introduction of a pho- netic alphabet of thirty-six letters to represent all the sounds of the English language. This alphabet is adapted to Shorthand and Longhand Writing, and to Printing. Phonetic Shorthand is as legible as common writing, while it is written in one-fourth of the time, and with half the labour. By means of Phonetic Printing, children and ignorant adults may be taught to read accurately in phonetic books, in from twenty to fifty hours' instruction ; and a few lessons will then render them capable of reading books printed in the common spelling. The education of the poor is thus rendered not only pos- sible, but easy. PHONETIC PUBLICATIONS. Phonetic Shorthand. Phonographic Teacher, or FirstBook of Instruction in Phonetic Short- hand, 6 Prof. Meiklejohn, late assistant-commissioner of the Endowed School Commission for Scotland, there are " thirty-eight distinct sounds in our spoken language ; and there are about 400 dis- tinct symbols (simple and compound) to represent these thirty- eight sounds. In other words, there are 400 servants to do the work of thirty-eight." And when he knows that this is the statc of the case it cannot surprise him to be told that the last edition of Matzner's English Grammar devotes 86 pages to the subject of pronunciation. Yet imagine what this means. Eighty-six octavo pages, containing on an average more than 45 lines each, giving rules, examples, and exceptions on the subject of English pronunciation, all which must be mastered somehow before one is able to speak the English language correctly from the book. (1) He, meal, heave, league, Intrigue, meet, replete, sleeve, receive, con- ceit, praple. key, tvrtus, nuu-hnv. inv;J/il. grief, grieve, quay, mosq?«'to, together with the two singular caprices ui B«a»champ, and C<;/«s College. 6 It must, one would think, have occurred to many a foreigner desirous of learning English, that, if language was given us 10 conceal our thoughts, as has often been said and as many seem to believe, the English, with characteristic reserve, have devised a mode of spelling for concealing their language. If any of my readers are able to spell, what will excite wonder in them is how they ever acquired the art, and those of them who cannot spell will be at no loss for the reason. And after all, my reservation regarding the possibility of some of my readers being able to spell was almost superfluous, for it seems that in this matter of spelling there is none of us perfect ; no, not one. For, availing myself once more of the labors of the statisticians of spelling reform, I find that it stands upon record that "out of every thou- sand adults, promiscuously selected," 25 can properly be called good spellers, 5 can spell almost every word, but the number of those who can spell every word without limitation is zero. It would be in some degree consolatory if we could think that in this respect our language was unique. There would be a certain satisfaction in being able to reflect that there was one particular in which English was indisputably pre-eminent. But I am afraid that we cannot minister to ourselves even this consolation, for it is highly probable that both Gaelic and Tibetan stand upon the same bad eminence, and it is absolutely certain that nobody can spell Chinese. Seeing, then, that these are the facts, it should scarcely be necessary to insist on the evils connected therewith. I can un- derstand the position of those who, admitting the evils of our present system, yet contend that those involved in any remedy would be even greater than those to be remedied, and on that ground resist all proposals of change. But many of those who are most inveterately attached to our present mode of spelling make light of the evils connected with it, and it will therefore be advisable to devote a little space to the consideration of what these evils are. The most obvious and the most serious of these is unquestionably the h indrance that our present system th rows in the way of education by in creasing^ Iought rather to say creating^ the difficulty of learning _£o_xeacI7 I - h"ave~no wish to exaggerate the degree in which it tends to do so, and I am there- fore quite ready to admit that children in learning to read their mother tongue, with which they are already familiar to a large extent by the ear, derive considerable assistance from that famili- arity, and that when they have got from the letters forming a word a hint as to the word intended to be represented, they are able to read that word in spite of a considerable deviation from analogy in the mode in which it is spelled. Yet even with this assistance, practical educationists and others who have given attention to this subject are, I believe, unanimous in coming to the conclusion that the impediments placed by our present sys- tern of spelling in the way of learning to read are really enor- mous, and their consequences deplorable. Let us take on this matter the evidence of Dr Gladstone. Speaking at the first meeting of the English Spelling Reform Association in support of a resolution to the effect " that the existing mode of spelling the English language is a serious hindrance to education," Dr Gladstone is reported to have said that " he should not be be- yond the mark, he thought, if he said that half of the boys and girls of England had to leave school before they had acquired the art of reading so completely and so easily that it would be a simple process for them to continue to read in after life ; and it was well known that those children who did not get beyond the Third or Fourth Standard generally dropped the practice of reading afterwards, and were almost illiterate during the remain- der of their lives." Flow far Dr Gladstone was within the mark in his estimate of the proportion of English boys and girls who fail to read thoroughly will appear from the following extract from a summary of portions of the Education Report presented to Parliament by the Duke of Richmond and Lord Sandon for the years 1875-76 : — " In England and Wales alone, we have in round numbers five million children of the laboring population, between the ages of three and thirteen, who may be expected to attend elementary schools. Of these, one-tenth, or about half-a-million necessarily pass beyond the limit of school age every year. How many of these are able to mount the first round of the ladder fixed by Mr Forster, that is, read with understanding ? Why, from the tables given in this report, it appears that only about 100,000 of the hildren in any year ever get beyond the reading of monosylla- bles, or an easy story-book, or about one in five of the children growing up into manhood year by year, Only about 75,000, or about one in six, satisfy the Inspector on any subject beyond the three R's, and only 20,000, or one in twenty-five, are able to read a short paragraph from the newspaper with a fair degree of ac- curacy and intelligence." Contrast now with these reports and opinions the facts recorded by those who have tried a phonetic system in teaching to read. No contrast could be more striking than that presented by the experience of Mr William White, who writes as follows : — " I speak from experience. I have taught poor children in Glasgow to read the Sermon on the Mount after a course of exercises ex- tending over no more than six hours."( 2 ) Similar evidence is afforded by the success of what is called the phonic method of teaching to read, a method described by its inventor, Dr Leigh, an American, as one "by which first sounds and then names are taught." It shows the exact pronunciation of every word, and (2) Quoted by Professor Max Miiller in his article on Spelling in the Fortnightly. 8 a special form of letter is used for each sound of it. Letters which have no sound are printed in a hair-line, or light-faced type. In 1867 the school-board of St. Louis decided on intro- ducing this method into all the primary schools ; and in 1868 the superintendent writes : — " Its introduction has been followed by far greater results than were at first anticipated ; not only has it tended to the eradication of defects in enunciation, but there has been a saving of time to the extent of a whole quarter in the course of the first half-year." And again in 1870 he writes : — " Each year increases our admiration of the work. Gain in time — quite one-half — distinct articulation, and better spelling repre- sent the undoubted advantages. I am satisfied that with the time we now have to devote to the higher readers, our teachers have it in their power to accomplish results in this department that we have hitherto considered impossible." But the evil of the present system in connection with the teaching of reading does not consist merely in the unnecessary amount of what has to be learned. There is another evil in- volved almost equally serious. If a child learns that g-o is go, and is then told that d-o is not do but doo, when he comes to the word spelled s-o, what can he do but look up into his teacher's face ? His own intellect has been checked, and now rests inac- tive, and practically he shows that he has come to look upon learning to read as consisting in being told what certain groups of letters stand for. To those who think that education means the imparting of instruction, and that it is a thing of little mo- ment what kind of information a child is crammed with, whether arbitrary signs, or scarcely pronounceable names of towns and rivers, or heights of mountains, or parts of speech, or whatever it be, provided only that he is crammed, this may seem a small matter ; but to those who look upon education as the art of leading out a child's intellect by making him interested in what he can discover for himself, and in the success of his own efforts, this effect of our present mode of spelling, which cannot altoge- ther be avoided, will seem of more serious consequence. It is true that the best reading books for children are so drawn up as to escape this evil as far as possible by ringing the changes on words that are for the most part phonetically spelled ; but it is impossible to escape it completely even in the most elementary reading books, and sooner or later the child must be plunged into the chaos in which he will be compelled to give up trusting to his own judgment and place himself unresistingly in the hands of his teacher. And that is not the whole evil yet. So far we have been con- sidering the obstacles to education presented by the existing mode of spelling only in one of its relations, namely in connec- tion with the teaching to read. But that is not all that belongs to the most elementary education of an English-speaking child 9 He must also learn to spell. Now, this is a department of his education in which he will receive no assistance from his famili- arity with the spoken tongue. The whole assemblage of anom- alies will have to be learned by rote, and in learning them the English child will have no advantage over a foreigner except that, from the circumstances of the case, he will be more fre- quently brought face to face with the words whose spelling he has to acquire. And this is a matter which affects the better educated no less than it does those whose education is confined to the more elementary branches. In the case of learning to read, the most lamentable consequences of the difficulty caused by our mode of spelling are to be seen in the crowds of children who leave school every year without having acquired a mastery of the most important instrument of intellectual advancement. But in the loss of time occasioned by the necessity of learning to spell we all suffer alike in having so much time withdrawn from other departments of school learning, and these of more educa- tional value. There can hardly be a doubt that this is one of the principal reasons why the higher class schools of several foreign countries attain results so much more satisfactory than those of our own country. We have reason to be astonished in /nany cases at the thoroughness with which foreign languages, for example, are taught in a Dutch or a German school, and we are likely to be still more astonished when we find that this has been found compatible with an excellent education in the classical languages, in mathematics and science, in history and literature ; but if we ask ourselves what the English youth was doing while his foreign rival was receiving this training, we shall find at least a partial explanation of the difference in the attainments of the two in the answer, He was learning to spell. " English spelling" in the words of Max Miiller " is a national misfortune, and in the keen international race between all the countries of Europe, it handicaps the English child to a degree that seems incredible till we look at statistics. "( 3 ) Surely we are already sufficiently belated in the matter of education without continuing to allow this heavy drag to be put upon our children now that we have got them started on the road ; provided only, as I have said be- fore, that it can be removed without our incurring greater evils than those which are thereby extinguished. Mr R. Grant AVhite takes a bold method of dealing with this argument for reform based on the degree in which it hinders edu- cation. He strikes at its very foundation. " Without doubt," he says, " it is not easy — that is, it is not very easy — to learn to spell English. But why should it be easy ? It is not easy to learn to do anything rightly and readily that is much worth the doing, or to get thoroughly any knowledge that is much worth (3) Contemporary, Nov. 1879. 10 the knowing. "( 4 ) But to this, I should suppose, it will be suffi- cient to reply that there are difficulties enough inseparably asso- ciated with the acquisition of knowledge without our allowing any removable ones to remain, and that all that makes our present spelling worth the knowing is the fact that it exists. " Children toil over the spelling-book," again writes Mr White, " but do they not toil over arithmetic ?''( 5 ) True ; but I have never heard that teachers of arithmetic thought it advisable to use any but the simplest methods of communicating a knowledge of that science to their pupils. But no doubt Mr White would have resisted the introduction of the Arabic numerals on the ground that before that iconoclastic invention, the method of multiplying MDCCCLXXX by CCCLXV and performing simi- lar arithmetical operations was undoubtedly something "worth the knowing," and that nothing " much worth the knowing " is easy to learn. But before proceeding to face the consideration of the losses we should incur and the inconveniences we should encounter by a change in our mode of spelling, there are some other evils caused by our present system (or fashion, as Mr Grant White justly says it should properly be called) to which I must call attention. To my mind no evil can be greater than this of throwing impediments in the way of education, but to many people some of those still to be noticed may seem of even greater magnitude. The greatest of these is undoubtedly the fact that a mode of spelling such as ours favors the progress of change in language, and in the present circumstances of the English language will inevitably promote its being broken up, even as a literary language, into different dialects. Absolutely to arrest change is neither possible nor desirable Change, whether for better or for worse, must always go on. But there are circumstances in which this process of change goes on with ex- traordinary rapidity, and others in which change is almost confined to growth and the progress of decay is almost stopt. With a highly developed civilisation and a splendid literature we know from history that a nation may preserve its language without material modification for centuries. We know, for example, that Lucian in the second century A.D. could write in the same language as was used by Thucydides and Sophocles in the fifth century B.C., and that the Italian language as fixed by Dante at the beginning of the 14th century (earlier than Chaucer) is exactly the same as the literary language of Italy at the present day — the same to this extent even that whole chapters of the Vita Nuova, for instance, can be found in which every word and expression is good modern Italian. ( 6 ) This permanence will per- 4. Every-day English, p. 128. 5. P. 130. 6. It is proper to mention that some of the chapters of the Vita Nuova are remarkably short. 11 haps be ascribed entirely to the genius of Dante himself. But consider how it is that the most consummate genius fixes a lan- guage for ages to come. All that he does and can do is to use a certain structure of language which, in consequence of the pre-eminence of his genius, all educated people born to speak the same tongue aim at cultivating. The literary language becomes, in fact, as far as possible, the spoken language of the educated classes everywhere. But the literary language, as it appears in literature itself, reaches only the eye, and it must be learned by the ear from the intercourse of daily life. Where, however, the spelling of a language of itself indicates the pronunciation in- tended, this pronunciation is as a matter of course, equally with the form and structure of the language, something which all educated persons aim at cultivating ; and accordingly, in such a case, the conditions are entirely favorable to preserving the unity of the language. Now, this is the case for nearly all practical purposes in Italian, and the result is that the Italian language remains at this day, to a very remarkable and scarcely paralleled extent, the same as it was six hundred years ago. Where, on the other hand, the pronunciation has greatly diverged from the spelling, the literature becomes of no service in main- taining the pronunciation, which must accordingly be governed by the custom of different localities and sections of society, in so far as the schoolmaster, the pronouncing dictionary, and a large measure of intercourse between different parts of the country are not effectual in bringing about a uniform standard. That these influences have a considerable effect may readily be granted ; but even with them all, absolute uniformity of pronunciation (even leaving out of account such differences as may be called differences of accent) is far from having been attained. It is obvious, indeed, that all these influences combined cannot possibly have anything like the same power in arresting phonetic decay as a literature in which every word speaks for itself both as to its form and its sound. The consequence is that it may safely be asserted that no civilized language is so liable to change as our own. Mr F. W. Newman complains of the changes that have taken place in his day. " In the memory of the present writer " he affirms in an article in the Contemporary Review, " change (he would rather say corruption, depravation; has been observable enough. "(J) Similar complaints are common ; and indeed no one can help observing that such changes are going on constantly. Now, looking to the fact that our language is already more widespread even than our empire, and that it is spoken by many communities in America and elsewhere to whom it is not their mother tongue, and looking to the small amount of assistance that our spelling gives in resisting local peculiar- 7. March, 1878. 2* 12 ities and local modifications of pronunciation throughout this wide area, can we believe that it is possible for our language to remain for any length of time one and the same ? That Italian, even without an approximately phonetic spelling might have remained as free from change as it has done from the time of Dante to the present day, within the comparatively limited area in which it is spoken, is to me hardly credible ; but that the English language, spoken over half the earth and evidently destined to be spoken more widely still, can with the present spelling continue to maintain its unity even as a literary language is to my mind altogether incredible. If the unity of our language can be maintained at all, it seems to me that the one indispen- sable means of doing so is to introduce with all possible speed a system of spelling in which the appearance of words to the eye shall speak the truth regarding what they are to the ear. It may be that some will object that the basis of my present argument, namely, that the fixity of the Italian language is in a large measure due to its approximately phonetic spelling, is a mere assumption on my part, and will contend that that fixity may be ascribed to quite different causes. Perhaps so, but when I find the actual facts coinciding with what I think might reason- bly be expected, I must think, until those other causes have been pointed out, that the cause I have assigned is the correct one. But before leaving this subject I may point out another circum- stance that affords a striking indication of the manner in which literature tends to preserve even the pronunciation unchanged when it gives any intimation regarding it. Our poets, although they were no more able than our prose writers to indicate the exact pronunciation of words in their own time, yet indicate the accent by the rhythm of their verse ; and the consequence is that, while the pronunciation of English has changed in other respects, as Mr Ellis has shown, in a very great degree since Shakspere's time, the accent has changed comparatively little. Every person must be aware how seldom in reading either Shakspere or Milton the ear is surprised by an accent different from that which is now current. But what need is there to speculate as to what may be the cause of fixity in the Italian language, and the instability of our own ? We have the evidence of experience on this matter. In moving one of the resolutions at the first meeting of the Spelling Reform Association, Mr Westlake, Q.C., is reported to have spoken to this effect : — In moving his resolution he stood before his audience " as a convert, because time was when spelling re- form appeared to him to be ludicrous. He began to be converted during a visit to the United States long ago. He had always taken a great interest in the progress of elementary education, and he went into an elementary school there and found that they were teaching the children exceedingly well. ... In these 13 schools, he observed, they were teaching the children to say national (nsjonal.) instead of national (najonal). In explanation he was told, ' In a country like yours, where there are not many persons who know how to read and write and spell accurately, and where such education is a kind of luxury, you may pay individual attention to each in order to teach them the difference between nation and national; but in a country like ours, where we deal with the millions, and hope to bring them forward with a considerable degree of knowledge, we deal with them in a very simple manner ; and there is no method of teaching the millions so simple as to teach them as far as possible in accordance with the spelling ; and therefore, since we must teach them to say nation we also teach them to say national' That converted him." And if the full significance of that fact were duly appreciated I think it would convert any one. For let it not be imagined that in this way the whole pronunciation of English-speaking people can be reformed into harmony with the spelling. What we have evidence of here is simply this, that our language has already been attacked by another element of confusion. To come now to other evils of still less magnitude than that we have just been considering, I would next draw attention to the hindrances our present spelling throws in the way of the ac- quisition of our language by foreigners. In their case there is not that assistance which, as was pointed out above, our own children derive from familiarity with the words as spoken, and consequently they must learn all the anomalies of pronunciation, as of spelling, by rule or rote as best they can. After what has been said at the beginning of this article on the difficulties of this task not many will be surprised at our present Prime Minister writing in the following terms : — " I honestly can say I cannot conceive how it is that a foreigner learns how to pronounce English, when you recollect the total absence of rule, method, system, and all the auxiliaries which people generally get when they have to acquire something that is difficult of attainment." It is often contemptuously remarked that it is not our business to make our language easy for foreigners. Certainly it is not our primary business, and it is for this very reason that I rate this evil as one of much less magnitude than the two preceding ones. Yet small as this evil is by comparison, we cannot think it altogether of little moment when we remember the literary and political importance of the language itself, when we remem- ber that it is not only our own language but also that of a very numerous and heterogeneous people in the United States, and of other peoples only less heterogeneous in our colonies, that we are now endeavoring to teach it to 240 millions of our fellow-subjects in India, and finally that the Japanese have proposed to adopt it as their national tongue. When we consider the difficulty that 14 pronunciation must present to our Indian fellow-subjects, it is not surprising to find such friends of India as Dr W. W. Hunter and Prof. Monier Williams, the one among the vice-presidents, the other among the supporters of the Spelling Reform Associa- tion. And when we reflect on the admirable and almost exemplary simplicity of the grammar of our language, it is really vexatious to think that a merely arbitrary obstacle should continue to stand in the way of its wider diffusion. The last evil that I will advert to as due to our anomalous spelling is one that can hardly be considered of great magnitude in presence of those which have just been discussed, and yet perhaps it is one that will come home more effectually to many of my readers than any of the others, from its being a constant source of annoyance and irritation. The evil is this, that in consequence of the defects of our alphabet and our irregularity ..-in using it, we cannot spell phonetically if we would. As Mr \ Ellis puts it " No Englishman can tell with certainty how to pronounce any word which he has only seen written, and has not heard spoken." And " No Englishman can tell with certainty how to spell a word which he has only heard spoken, and never seen written. "( 8 ) The annoyance caused by these facts is chiefly felt in connection with proper names. If a strange proper name comes under our eye, unless that name is very simple in its form, we are almost sure to be at a loss as to the right way to pronounce it. In the case of our own proper names that is not very surprising, as nothing could exceed the capricious irregu- larity which characterizes the pronunciation of them. But it is the same with such proper names as we habitually try to write phonetically. A German or Dutchman, and even an Italian or Frenchman can generally tell what pronunciation is intended to be represented when he sees an Indian, Arabic, or Persian name phonetically spelled according to the rules of his own language ; but what certainty can an Englishman have even with such sim- ple instances of phonetic spelling.as Oude, Punjab, Cabul, Ajmir, Bokhara, Khiva, Gundamuk, Beluchistan ? Enough, I presume, has now been said to satisfy everyone of the desirability of making a change in our present system of spelling, provided always that the objections to any change are not more serious than those which can be brought against the maintenance of the system we have. So far I have contended for nothing more than this, and I now go on to examine the ob- jections that have been urged against the suggestion of a change. The first argument against reform that will occur to everyone will probably be the etymological one. It is alleged that our spelling, though it does not help us much in the pronunciation of our words, is of great value in revealing to us their etymo- logical connections. If our present system were abandoned the 8. Plea for Phonetic Spelling, sec. 19. 15 etymology of words would be obscured, and learning thereby suffer a serious loss. This argument is the best known, the most frequently repeated ; it is one that it is considered proper to use by all who can boast of a superior education and the possession of good common sense not liable to be imposed on by crotchets. Yet it is in some respects a singularly unfortunate argument. It will no doubt be a surprise to those who have not given much attention to the movement in favor of spelling reform, but may have frequently dismissed the subject cavalierly with the argu- ment in question, to be told that our leading philologists are almost if not quite unanimous in supporting reform ; that, be- sides Mr A. J. Ellis, President of the Philological Society, who is one of the pioneers of the movement, Dr J. A. H. Murray, and Mr Sweet, both ex-presidents of the same society, Prof. Sayce of Oxford, and Prof. W. W. Skeat of Cambridge are all among the vice-presidents of the Spelling Reform Association, and that Max Miiller and Prof. Whitney are among the most zealous advocates of the cause. But when they are told this it will probably occur to them that there is some reason for it. And the reason is not far to seek. " To the scientific philolo- gist," says Prof. Sayce, " our present spelling is at once an eye- sore and an encumbrance. W hat he wapls-i Q know is, not how words ar e spelled, but how t hey— are prono.un.ced. His object is to trace the gradual changes that sounds undergo, and so de- termine the laws which they obey. A corrupt or antiquated spelling only misleads and confuses. "( 9 ) The opinion of such an authority as Prof. Sayce on a matter of this kind might be held to be of itself sufficient to decide the question of the value to etymological science of our present sys- tem of spelling as compared with that which a phonetic spelling would have ; but a single illustration may help to convince the reader of how much more etymological science is concerned with sounds than signs. The French have an admirable etymological dictionary compiled by Aug. Brachet, the object of which is to trace every French word of Latin origin step by step from its Latin to its present French form, and to illustrate the laws ac- cording to which these successive changes have taken place. Let us follow his tracing of the French verb arnver from the late Latin adripare, from tf kontrakt (n. (accented on the first syllable . For children and foreigners special reading books must be prepared with a profuse use of accents ; but we do not recommend the burdening of our writing and printing with accents on those common words which do no obey the general accent laws, such as within, xpnn ,aloA, which are as well known without the accent mark as they would be with it. — Ed. of Phon . Jour. 26 thus spell our written words exactly as they are spoken. We should do it for just one day ; and the 'we' would be just those few persons, and no more, who would be able to agree upon the number and the nature of the sounds in the language, and upon the signs by which they should be represented. "( 13 ) I should be much more impressed with the force of this argument if I saw any reason for believing that English might not show the same stability as Italian when the same means was taken to ensure that stability, and if it were not the case that Italian, with an approximately phonetic spelling, as before men- tioned, has contrived to get along for at least the last three hundred years with remarkably slight modifications in her spelling — how slight the following sentences taken from the beginning of the First Day of the Decameron as given in an edition published in 1573 (fifty years before the appearance of the first Shakspere folio) will show : — " Ouantunque volte Gratiosissime Donne meco pensando riguardo quanto voi naturalmente tutte siete pietose, tante conosco, che la presente opera al vostro iudicio haura graue, e nodoso principio, si comee la dolorosa ricordatione della pestifera mortalita trapassata, vniuersalmente a ciascuno, che quella vide, o altramenti conobbe, dannosa, la quale ella porta nella sua fronte. Ma non voglio percio, che questo di piu auanti leggere vi spauenti, quasi sempre tra sospiri, e tra le lagrime leggendo dobbiate trapassare. Questo horrido cominciamento vi sia non altramenti, che a camminanti vna montagna aspra, e erta, presso alia quale vn bellissimo piano e diletteuole sia riposto ; il quale tanto piu viene lor piaceuole, quanto maggiore e stata del salire, e dello smontare la grauezza." Comparing the spelling of these sentences with that of mod- ern Italian the chief difference to be found is the use of / before i followed by another vowel, where modern Italian uses z repre- senting the sound of ts. Whether this change indicates a change of Italian pronunciation within the last three hundred years, or whether the / in that situation was pronounced ts, as it still is in German, I am unaware. Besides that difference we have the u and the v distinguished in the same absurd fashion as they were in our own language till long after 1573, both letters being used for both sounds, but the one at the beginning of words, the other in other situations. Then we have ;' used for gi, and c for z in iudicio, and the spelling si come in two words instead of the modern siccome in one. That is the whole amount of change, unless it needs to be mentioned that the long s is always used except before t. We English don't trouble ourselves to adapt our spelling to our pronunciation, and yet the changes that have taken place in the former since the Shakspere folio are much more considerable, and would be much harder to describe. 13. Every -day English, pp. 171-2. 27 I have reserved for final consideration what is undoubtedly the most serious objection to all projects of thorough reform, the objection namely that it would cause a sudden and deplorable "breach of continuity " in our language. If by this is mean: that it would cause a breach of continuity in the words themselvi . we have already seen that that is not the case. There is certainly a breach in that continuity as represented by our spelling, but that breach was made long ago, when the form of the word became divorced from the sound. " The continuity of a language/' to use the words of Prof. Sayce, "consists in its sound, not in its letters ; in the history of the modifications of pronunciation through which it has passed, not in a fossilized and deceitful ^spellkag."( u ) But if it is meant that the adoption of a phonetic system of spelling would cause a sudden and very serious difference in the form of words as they appear to the eye, we cannot deny it. It would certainly do that, the more's the pity. But we can't help that. What we can prevent is, the breach becoming any wider before the reform is actually accomplished. A hundred years hence the breach of continuity which the adoption of a phonetic spelling would bring about would probably be much more tremendous than at the present day. But even at the present day we cannot but admit that any such change must necessarily be attended by grave inconveniences. i"""" But don't let us be frightened. Don't let us settle down in ' despair in face of these inevitable evils, but let us try to gauge their exact amount as well as we can beforehand. In the follow- ing paragraph we have an estimate of these evils from an alarmist's point of view. Replying to the argument for spelling reform based on economical considerations Mr R. Grant White says : — " It might be shown, on the contrary, and I think that 1 shall show, that the cost of the reform would be very much more than fifteen millions of dollars yearly for -a very considerable time. For in the first place, all the books, or at least all the valuable books, that have been printed for the last three hundred years must needs be reprinted, or to the next generation they would be as unreadable as if they were written in Anglo-Saxun, or at least as if they were put into the Old English of that first of our phonographers, the author of the Ormulum, who did his work six hundred years ago. Thiswouldcost very many millions of dollars. Then in the course of a single generation the stock of English books now existing all over the world in public and private libraries would become worthless, except a very few to preserve as curiosities, and for consultation by scholars, involving a loss of many more millions of dollars. All the stereotyped plates now in the hands of publishers would become only so much metal to be melted down ; and this would involve the loss of 14. Science of Language, II. 346. 28 many millions more. Imagine besides the upturning that such a reform would cause in the printing-offices of the whole English speaking people ; the sinking of capital already invested ; the necessary expenses involved ; and the relearning of their trade by the printers, whose art is the growth of centuries ! "( ,5 ) An alarming forecast certainly, but as for its realisation a good deal would depend on the manner in which the introduction of the reform was gone about. There are several ways in which its introduction might be attempted, but there is one plan of opera- tions, which, if one could only hope to see it adopted, would seem likely to cause less inconvenience than any other. All must be agreed that Mr Gladstone is right when he says, with regard to all proposals of reform, that " the main thing is that whatever may be proposed should be proposed with a weight of great authority to back it." Now such a weight of authority we already have in the English Spelling Reform Association, a com- mittee of which is at present busily engaged in trying to find out some practical scheme of reform to recommend for general adoption. Suppose now that the association were able to recommend a scheme which should meet with the general approval, or at least acquiescence of all those interested in the matter (and the ieces- sity of sinking all private proposals in favor of a scheme carry- ing such a general recommendation cannot be too strongly insisted on), a great part of the difficulty of spelling reformation would be got over. Suppose further, that it were possible (and more incredible things have happened) for this association to prevail on the government to decide that the new system should be taught in all the government schools from a certain year, and that, by an understanding with the American and colonial go- vernments, the same should be done at the same time in our colonies and the United States, then the one great step neces- sary for the introduction of the reform would have been taken. The ordinary course of trade might be left to do all the rest. Let us see, then, what would be the evils likely to ensue from this method of procedure. At first there would be a demand for children's reading-books (no longer spelling-books), and this demand would be supplied. In subsequent years what would be wanted would be children's books of a more advanced kind, but still nothing but children's books ; educational, amusing and instructive, together with books of reference, all in fact that children would be likely to need. All these wants would be met exactly in the same way that they are at present, and the only disadvantage connected therewith would be the additional cost involved in supplying in the new type what already existed in the old. But when we consider how constantly such books are replaced by new ones, even as it is, it will be apparent that the 15. Every -day English, pp. 175 -.6. 29 additional cost will not amount to so much as might at first be thought. The change will mean not much more than giving the new instead of the old dress to the multitudes of books that are being poured on the market at every school term and every Christmas. The principal inconvenience that children trained to the new system would suffer from would be the necessity of learning to read the old system as well as the new. But even this necessity is not nearly so formidable as it looks, for we have the evidence of experience to prove that it is actually easier to teach our pre- sent system through a phonetic one, than by starting with it from the first. " Careful experiments," says Mr Ellis, " in teach- ing children of various ages and ranks, and even paupers and criminal adults, have established — That when the pupils have attained fluency in reading from phonetic print, a very few hours suffice to give them the same fluency in reading ordinary print.'' It would be unreasonable, of course, to expect that the chil- dren should learn to spell on the old system ; and indeed people would soon come to put a different estimate on the value of spel- ling as a mark of a good education, when it was found that in this respect all stood on the same footing, and that Tom could spell no better than Harry. Then, as for those who were trained to the old spelling they would continue to use it and for a long time nothing else. The newspapers need not adopt the new spelling for many years after its introduction into schools, and indeed it would be highly undesirable that they should. This is not a matter in which newspapers should take the lead. All that class of literature that was specially intended for those who had been brought up on the old system would continue to be printed in it for a time ; ;.nd when a book was likely to find readers among both classes it would be published in both styles. Neither stereotyped plates nor types last for ever, and the majority of those in exist- ence at the time of the change would probably be worn out in supplying the ordinary demand of the market, and even new works would be stereotyped in the old style and yet entail no ioss on either author or publisher. Compositors would not all at once rush into the new trade, but most of them would con- tinue to find employment in newspaper and magazine offices, and with those printers who still continued to use the old type. Those learning the business of a compositor would no doubt all learn the new system, of which also all the more enterprising of the older compositors would probably make themselves masters. All that portion of our past literature which commanded a wide or even a moderately large circle of present-day readers would in the course of a generation be re-clothed in the new cress, which simply means that the new editions of these which would have been brought out at any rate, would be brought out 30 in a different form from that in which they would otherwise have appeared ; for it is surely notorious and undeniable that the vast majority of books that are read at all, are read in editions which are not a generation old. Then, as for that part of our literature which is still read only by a close student, or omnivorous reader here and there, it is no great hardship, so far as I can see, that such readers should be required to learn to read those books in their old dress, which after all would not be so difficult as read- ing Chaucer now-a-days, since there would not be the difficulty presented by obsolete words, but merely that due to the unfa- miliar form of words already familiar in another form. In all this accordingly the principal evil would be one of cost. This cost would have to be incurred once for all ; and as to its total amount I leave the public to judge, or all that part of the public that cares anything at all about the matter, whether the forecast just given or that of Mr R. G.rant White is most in agreement with facts, probability, and common sense ; and I have to ask the public also to consider whether, on a review of the whole matter, it is not probable that the evils of the change to the advocacy of which this paper is devoted would be passing and comparatively slight, the benefits great and lasting. But even if this is so we can cherish only a very faint hope that the change will be speedily accomplished. The force of custom and tradition, the inertia of the conservative instinct, are foes too strong for us to be able to believe this. " Is there any- thing," asked Setoc, " more respectable than an ancient abuse ? " Yet " Reason," replied Zadig, " is more ancient." Without doubt, and Reason is as persistent in aggression as Custom is stubborn in resistance, and sooner or later may be trusted to carry the day. But that's not enough. The matter is urgent, the mischiefs are great and growing ; and we cannot rest content with the confi- dence that some time Reason will assuredly gain the victory. I would therefore appeal to all those who can influence the event either one way or the other to pay some serious attention to the grounds on which it should be decided ; I would urge them not to allow themselves to be dominated by custom, but to ask them- selves soberly whether in the interest of education, in the interest of philological science, in the interest of the stability and integ- rity of our language itself, in the interest of the diffusion of the English language, English literature, and English modes of thought, it is not desirable that we should face such inconven- iences as must necessarily be encountered in order to have the projected reform accomplished. And upon those who do come to this conclusion I would finally urge the desirability of joining the Spelling Reform Association as the only means of getting that end attained. THE ENGLISH SPELLING REFORM ASSOCIATION Concurs in the following opinions of many eminent scholars, states- men, and educationalists : — 1. The existing mode of spelling the English Language is a serious hindrance to education. 2. It is possible and advisable to re-constitute English Spelling upon rational grounds. 3. Such re-constitution would rather illumine, than obscure, the history and etymology of the English Language. 1. It may be so contrived as to render existing books more acces- sible in their present form, and hence considerably add to their value. ">. Such a re-constituted spelling would greatly abridge the time required for learning to read both iu a new and in the present spelling, and thus materially increase the absolute number of readers. 6. It would thus enable much time, now wasted at school in im- parting a mastery over the present complicated vehicle of knowledge, to be applied to imparting that knowledge itself. 7. It would necessarily facilitate the acquisition of received English pronunciation both by natives and foreigners. 8. And it would hence tend to render universal the use of the English Language, already spoken by more millions than any other on the face of the globe. On these grounds the Englisii Spelling Reform Association proposes: — I. To collect, arrange, and distribute information on the subject of Spelling Reform. II. To collect works on Spelling Reform, and to preserve copies- of articles bearing on the subject from periodicals. III. To institute and watch experiments on teaching to read, spell, and pronounce, with reformed systems. IV. To promote lectures and public meetings for the purpose of imparting information on Spelling Reform, and for memorial- izing Public Bodies in its favor. The Association therefore invites all persons interested in improve- ments of English Spelling, of any kind whatsoever, whether merely (or elementary school instruction or for national adoption, however much they may differ in opinion as to the mode, character, or extent of such improvements, to become members of the Association, and to assist it both by money and advice. To admit of the formation of a very large Association, which will "effectively represent public opinion, the minimum Annual Subscription is fixed at five shilling*. Contributions have already been promised varying from five shil- lings to fifty pounds. Cheques and Post Office Orders (on the Chief Money Order Office) should be made payable to the Secretary, and both Orders and Cheques should be crossed R. Twining and Co. All communications to be addressed to the Secretary, Mr John Fi:nton, at the Offices, 20 John street, Adelphi, London, W.C. 32 PHONETIC PUBLICATIONS. Phonetic Shorthand. The Phonographic TEACHER; containing a series of progres- i i' e Lessons, to be read, and written out by the student ; 686th thousand, 6d. A COMPEND of PHONOGRAPHY, containing the Alphabet, Grammalogues, and principal Rules for Writing. Price Id. A MANUAL of Phonography, containing a complete exposition of the System, with numerous shorthand examples interspersed with the text, and exercises in reading, 328th thousand, Is. 6d. ; cloth, 2s. ; roan gilt, 2s. 6d. The Phonographic COPY BOOK, 3d. Large size, 6d. EXERCISES in PHONOGRAPHY : a series of Graduated Writ- ing Exercises, illustrative of the Principles of the Art, as developed in the " Manual of Phonography," Id. KEY to the P'^onographic TEACHER and to the EXERCISES in PHONOGRAPHY. By Isaac Pitman, 6d. The Phonographic READER; a course of reading lessons in Phonetic Shorthand, 6d. The PHONOGRAPHIC REPORTER, or Reporter's Companion: an adaptation of Phonography to Verbatim Reporting, 2s. 6d. : cloth, 3s. A Phonetic Shorthand and Pronouncing DICTIONARY of the English Language. By Isaac Pitman. Crown 8vo., cloth, 4s. A PERSUASIVE to the Study and Practice of Phonography, Id., Ad. per dozen; 3s. per gross. LIST of the Phonetic Society for the current year, 2d. Ph onetic Sea ding . FIRST BOOK in Phonetic Reading, with " Directions to Teachers " bow to use it, Id. SECOND BOOK in Phonetic Reading, 2d. THIRD BOOK, 3d. FOURTH BOOK in Phonetic Reading, printed both in Phonetic and in the customary spelling, as a Transition Book from Phonetic Reading to the reading of books as now commonly printed, 4d. EDWARD'S DREAM, or Good for Evil, Id. Phonetic Printing. The Phonetic JOURNAL ; published every Saturday, price Id., post-paid, l|d. Monthly, in a wrapper, 5d. Each number contains six columns of shorthand, in the Learner's, Corresponding, and Reporting Styles, Intelligence of the progress of the Phonetic Reform printed in the usual spelling, and articles of general interest printed phonetically. A GLANCE at Phonotypy, or Phonetic Printing, £d. ; 4d. per cozen ; 3a. per gross. See Isaac Pitman's complete Catalogue of Phonetic Publications. Printed by Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institu NOTES ON SPELLING REFORM. BY W. R. EVANS, AUTHOR OF "A PLEA FOR SPELLING REFORM," &C. LONDON : F. PITMAN, PHONETIC DEPOT, 20 PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. BATH: ISAAC PITMAN, PHONETIC INSTITUTE. Price id., or 6d. per Dozen. I88l. SPELLING EEFOM : WHY WE WANT IT ; WHAT IT SHOULD BE ; AND HOW IT MAY BE OBTAINED. In my little " Plea for Spelling Reform " I addressed myself partially, and (as I am now convinced) very imperfectly, to a consideration of the above propositions, or at least to the two former of them. But even if that humble treatise had been as complete and exhaustive as I now recognise it to be imperfect and defective, it would hardly effect the special purpose which I have in view in this present writing. The " Plea " was chiefly intended for the general public, with the object of creating opinion in favor of spelling reform ; but the present matter is submitted principally for the consideration of persons who have already become persuaded of the abstract desirability of such reform. It may savor of presumption, for so obscure an individ- ual as myself to attempt to guide to some definite conclusions the opinion of fellow-reformers, many of whom possess fat superior ability and knowledge ; but I may at least plead in extenuation of my temerity, that, besides having always taken a lively interest in the general subject of phonetics, I have during the past four years devoted by far the greater portion of my time to the particular question of English Spelling Reform. 1 have done so, perhaps, primarily because inclination has drawn me to the work, but secondarily also because I have thought it the most useful way, in my particular case, of occupying a consider- able amount of time at disposal after providing the means of modest personal support. Almost continually engaged in thought on this matter, as I have been since 1877, it should not be sur- prising if I, without having fully worked out the whole problem to my own satisfaction, should have arrived at some definite con- clusions, at least in a negative direction, involving considerations which I fear are too often overlooked by spelling reformers una- ble or indisposed to give so much attention to the subject. It is to such persons that the following remarks are specially addressed, with the hope that these will assist in elucidating some important general principles. I. — Why we want Reform. — In proceeding to consider this point, the question suggests itself at the outset, What function or' functions is written language intended to fulfill ? Some 4 persons may be ready to answer at once, To communicate ideas from one mind to another. And the answer would be perfectly correct so far as it goes ; indeed, it would be complete in regard to some species of what is conventionally included under the term " written language," such as the ancient hieroglyphy of the Egyptians or the present ideography of the Chinese. In these cases, the so-called written language, while having the same object as spoken language, of communicating ideas, was and is a separate and distinct means of doing so, altogether independent of vocal sounds. But alphabetical written language, such as our own is supposed to be, is intended to perform the two func- tions of communicating ideas and of representing the sounds of spoken language — or the complex function of conveying thought by representing speech as the primary vehicle of thought. We can, indeed, conceive of alphabetical writing conveying ideas without recalling to the reader the sounds intended by the writer. So it has long been with English-trained students in reading the Greek and Roman classics ; and so to even a greater extent with persons learning to read Hebrew or Arabic without vowel-points, or deciphering cuneiform inscriptions. But in such cases we significantly apply the epithet "dead" to the language intended to be represented. Alphabetical writing which does not indicate to the reader spoken sounds which would convey ideas to his mind, has become the mere corpse of language, which may indeed be identified, but from which the breath of life has departed. But it is almost an impossibility for alphabetic writing not to suggest some spoken sounds. Knowing the representation of sound to be its object, the mind of the reader instinctively sup- plies sounds obviously omitted in representation, or puts his own interpretation on symbols whose real value he does not know. Thus a Hebrew student who found only the consonantal skeleton DBR (Xoyos) in his reading would supply vocality to make the word pronounceable to his own mind, as D5B3R, or perhaps DaBeR, DiBeR, or even DuBeR. So a person learning Latin with only a conception of English vowel-values, on encountering the word manus would attach to it the pronunciation " menss " (mainus), instead of " menus " (mahnoos); while a mere English reader, on meeting the French word debut, very naturally calls it " djbst " (deebutt). Such illustrations show, that, as alpha- betical writing is known to have the representation of sound for its object, as well as the communication of ideas, it must always convey some notion of sound to a reader's mind ; and, of course, when the representation is imperfect, or its principles are not known to the reader, there will be a suggestion of wrong sounds instead of right ones. If, therefore, as we spelling reformers contend, the alphabetical writing of the English language is in some particulars defective, in some redundant, and in many more ambiguous, then the graphic notation, instead of truly repre- senting the oral speech, tends to corrupt and disfigure it in the mouths of all who draw a considerable portion of their stock of words from books. The frequent and serious mis-suggestion of sound in English alphabetic writing is a characteristic of a kind scarcely to be found in the orthography of any other living language, and certainly in no system of spelling to an extent at all comparable. A Welshman, a Spaniard, a German, or a Dutchman, meeting for the first time in print or writing a word of his own language, at once knows how to pronounce it, though he may never have heard it in discourse, and can only conjecture its meaning ; and the same remark is substantially true of a Frenchman. There is no fear in any of these languages of native readers being betrayed into such erroneous pronunciations as " irrepa'rable, pen'al, ma'niacal, derivative, to'nic, duplicate," common among our half-taught masses, and from which the most highly-educated Englishmen, even those specially versed in philological study, are not wholly exempt. It is impossible for any one in the course of even a prolonged academical, much less in the brief space of a primary, education, to learn the received pronunciation coincident with, rather than represented by, every written word- form in the language ; and until this has been accomplished, there is always a possibility, nay a probability, of error in attempting to deduce the spoken word from a new combination of letters. This is one important reason why we want spelling reform. Of the many millions of pounds expended in this country every year upon education, a considerable proportion is devoted to teaching the received pronunciation of the literary form of the language, and yet the work is only very partially performed, being indeed restricted to such words as a pupil may meet with in his school books, and excluding even some of these, to which the teacher himself may attribute a wrong pronunciation. In this respect, we know what we want spelling reform for — namely, to render both feasible and economical the training of the whole population to one approved form of speech. But there is another and distinct evil connected with our present ambiguous and anomalous orthography. Besides the difficulty of discovering the pronunciation of a new word met with in reading, there is that of learning and remembering the spelling of even a word familiar enough in speech. Take such simple exemplifications as " bane, gain, arraign, skein, deign ; mate, wait, straight, great, weight." Here the pupil has, in two several cases, to learn five different forms of spelling as coin- cident with the same combinations of sound ; and he has to learn also, slowly and toilsomely, the particular form which is coin- cident with each individual spoken word. And there are hundreds of such varied terminal, as well as initial and medial spellings, coincident with identical sound ; so that not only is it necessary to learn all the symbolizations coincident with any sound, but the individual words in which they occur. It is not enough for the pupil to know that nu, nut, neu, new, nue may all correspond to the same spoken syllable ; but he must learn that " nugatory, nutriment " have the first combination ; " nuisance," the second ; " neuter, neuralgia," the third ; " renew, sinew," the fourth ; and "continue, avenue," the fifth. It is this bewildering variety of written symbols coincident with identical sound which gives rise to the " spelling difficulty " in our schools, entailing so large an expenditure of money, time, and labor in teaching and learn- ing what has no effect or value in mental or moral training. Let us only fancy what it costs in all these respects to teach one child that " mole, goal, control, roll, soul, bowl" end with the same vocal elements ; and conceive the impracticability of his ever learning during a course of primary schooling all the words belonging to each class, and also the various words in which most of the endings are coincident with different sounds, as " hyperbole, idol, doll, foul, howl." Such then, is the present state of our alphabetic writing — always suggesting sound because it is alphabetic, but often leading the reader quite astray in his attempts at deducing the right sound by analogy ; supposed also to represent sound, but bewildering an ordinary writer with the variety of symbolization possibly coincident with any sound in almost any connection. The evil is manifest, and may be stated without exaggeration thus — that during a long life a man of culture may not learn to pronounce correctly all the written words of the language, or to spell correctly all the spoken words he uses or hears others use. How much less, then, can we expect this capacity ever to be acquired during a few years' attendance at a primary school ! So far, I think, all spelling reformers will agree that the defective condition of our alphabetic writing has been pretty fairly, if not adequately, described. And with realizing such evils in their own minds, and demonstrating them to their neighbours, many reformers exhaust their energy or interest in the subject. They do not care to learn or consider how our alphabetic writing came into its present condition of confused conflict with the spoken tongue. But the man who essays to provide a remedy, or even to assist in doing so, must go further. He must imitate the careful physician, who is not content with merely observing the manifest and obvious symptoms of his patient, but carefully examines into the history of the disease, and, in serious cases, into the history of the sufferer's previous life. Therefore, without going into technical details, such as those contained in my paper on " English Long Vowel-Sounds" {Phonetic Journal, 3, 10, 17, 24 July, 1880), I wish briefly to advert to the causes which have produced the condition requiring reform, as I think that this course will be helpful in considering the second branch of the subject, " What spelling reform should be." If we begin with the minor causes of our orthographical anomalies, we shall find one in pedantic error, as exemplified in well-known instances like " cou/d, inland, rhyme, foreign," in which the italicized letters were inserted, through the influence of false analogy or etymology, to make the words accord with ■• wou/d, isle, rhythm, rei^n," in which the italicized letters are etymological. This is numerically the smallest class of anomalies in the language, and comprises only a few scores of instances. The next source of anomaly we may attribute to pedantic folly, in re-inserting silent " etymological letters " in written words from which they had long been excluded, as they had been from the spoken words. We have in " de<$t, doubt, receipt, /salm," instances of this class of anomalies, which is also of comparatively •mall numerical extent. A third source of incongruity is found in what may be called pedantic servility, through the influence of which imported words like "rei^n, isle, benign, drac/nn," retained in their spelling letters which scarcely could have been ever pronounced in English. Here we have a larger class of anomalies ; but still perhaps it would only contain a few hundreds out of the many thousands of words to be found in an English dictionary. If we, in fact, corrected all our orthographical discrepancies which could be attributed to mere pedantry, we should still be left with a not very perceptibly diminished mass of incongruities. We must, indeed, look deeper, and into more natural and general causes, for the chief sources of present inconsistency between our spoken and our written language. One fertile source of ambiguous or conflicting notation is to be recognised in the diverse origin of different portions of our iongue. Thus Saxon words retained hard g in "get, anger," while Norman words like " gentle, danger," were introduced which kept the soft g of their own orthography. Or we find ch representing from the beginning one sound in both Saxon and Norman derivatives, like " child, cherish ;" and another in Greco-Latin ones, such as " chemist, christen ;". while later French importations, as " chaise, machine " have the symbol coincident with a third sound. We might multiply examples of incompatible symbolization thus introduced, the fruit of which we still have in the vulgar " architect, parochial, distic//," pronounced with ch in " church." Corresponding to such incom- patible sounds coincident with the same symbol, we have diverse -ymbols used for the same sound in different words, such as s in " sentry," c in " century," and sc in " science," or as /infancy ind ph in phantom, etc.; thus producing a difficulty in spelling >.vhich is perhaps even more serious in its effects than the am- biguity caused by symbols representing diverse sounds. Both of these defects are largely due to the composite nature of oui 8 language, for which a consistent and harmonious system of written representation was never devised. But we must remem- ber also that the languages whose written word-forms were imported into the English were themselves in various respects imperfectly written in respect to the representation of sound ; and that English inherited the defects of all its parent tongues, multiplied by the clashing of different orthographic systems in the same language. The immediately preceding remarks lead to the consideration of the chief and most important cause of the incongruity of our present alphabetic writing — the one great primary cause, it might be said, of direct and obvious causes already mentioned, which are in reality only secondary. This is, the gradual change which in every language occurs from age to age in the fashion of speech. All alphabetic WTiting was originally intended to be phonetic, for at first there was no basis but the spoken sound on which to found the written representation. No doubt, most ancient alphabetic systems were deficient in what modern prac- tical, and much more theoretical, phoneticians consider adequate means of representing sound. We know, for instance, that the Romans used the letters I, V both for vowels, short or long, and for the semivowels which we write byjy, w. But still, so far as the available means of notation would go, the intention of primitive writers was, if using one symbol for several nearly- connected sounds, at least always to represent a sound by the same symbol. Such variety of notation for the same sound a= we have in " .rent, cent, sctnt," was not part of the original intention of alphabetical writing. When the Romans first wrote Centum, they meant to represent the same initial i-sound as in Canto, and not the sound in Sentio. In process of time, the Latin c-sound became palatalized before the vowels e and i into a sound (Mr Sweet's " k/'") midway between the initial one in our " kin" and that in "chin," and ultimately reached the latter sound in later Latin and Italian. The letter c thus became equivocal in representing two sounds, but it did not become equivalent, for there was no other letter to represent the sound in Lat. centum, Ital. cento (with c as ch in " chin "). The Gauls, and indeed some of the Italian peoples, being unable to pro- nounce the late Latin soft c (nearly tsk), substituted ts, and afterwards dropped the initial t ; so that in French cent became phonetically equivalent to sent, before the Norman Conquest. Parallel and contemporary with the change of sound first mentioned was the palatalizing of g before e and i into a sound (Mr Sweet's "g/") between the initial one in our " gig " and that in "jig," which passed into the latter sound in late Latin. Italian, and earlier French, from which it was introduced int i English at the Norman Conquest. During the same period the sound of Roman j, or rather consonant i, originally that of i yet, was strengthened and hardened by accretion into the sound in our jet. Hence we have g representing diverse sounds in Saxon get and Norman gentle ; whilst g and/' represent the same sound in gem and jet. Accompanying these changes in the sounds of c, g, and /, was the development of a sibilation in passing quickly from a purely dental t over a short unaccented t to another vowel. Thus potcntia came to be uttered very much like " potentsia" — a pronunciation retained in Italian potenza or potenzia (potentsia) and Roumanian pntintsa. The Italians gave everywhere what was to them a really phonetic representation of this altered sound, as in nazione, grazia (from Lat. natio-n, gratia) ; but the French, while dropping here the t sound as in cent, continued (as in nation, grace) to write sometimes t, and sometimes c for the interpolated .r-sound which had superseded the / altogether in their speech. Our ancestors imitated their Norman conquerors in spelling French words introduced into the new composite English language, writing sometimes the t which represented not the English or the French but the original Roman sound, and sometimes the c which phonetically and etymologically represented nothing but confusion with another mutation of sound (as in " grace, face," Lat. gratia, fades). Thus 5 was superseded in its proper function, and c diverted from its ; so that k had to be brought in to replace Saxon c in words like " ken, kin." So the beginning of our orthographical incongruities was due to servile retention of symbols for sounds that had ceased to be pronounced in words even before they came into the English language. Though the Romans themselves, like the Greeks, had not scrupled, as their inscriptions show, to adapt their writing to changes of sound from generation to generation, yet the inheri- tors of their gradually disintegrated and variously reconstructed tongue evinced a disposition to imitate the dead letter, instead of the once living spirit, of Roman writing. But what was anomalous as adopted from the servile French into the old English orthography, became worse as time went on, and further changes of pronunciation occurred that created a greater diver- gence between signs and symbols. The s sound variously represented in " mansion, gracious, nation " (at first=mansiern, gTBsiiiS, nEsicn) was palatalized into sh by the absorption of the consonantized i ( =_;')• Thus arose our anomalously-written terminations -cial, -tied, -cian, -cion, -sion, -Hon, -cions, -tious, etc. But while written words, which thus came to us with forms effete in French and discordant with Saxon orthography, became more anomalous as pronunciation changed and they still substantially retained their spelling, contemporaneously many of our originally well-spelled Saxon woids were becoming equally obsolete in their notation through the omission in speech of various consonant sounds, as in "^naw, inow, wrong, two, ha/f, ta/k, yo/k, strai^t, 2 10 e\ght, right, brou^/rt, kibz ;" or through their alteration to other sounds, as in " \augh, cough, rough," etc. Every symbol here italicized was serviceable and effective in its da)-. Even the much-abused ugh constituted a fairly effective representation of the labialized guttural continuant (Mr Sweet's " khw "), written with the voiced consonant because ch was required for the sound in " child." In its time, there was much that was good and effective in the spelling of our Saxon derivatives, which were doubtless more phonetically represented than their ill-assorted Norman companions. But now in words like " kmghi, uroitght, slaughter, draught," we are carrying down in our writing the rude effigies of dead sounds, instead of portraying for our own gener- ation and for posterity the living utterances of our own day. The portion of our written notation which has been rendered most effete through change of pronunciation is undoubtedly that of the vowel-sounds, particularly the long sounds and the diph- thongs. There have been changes in the pronunciation of the short vowels ; but so far as the}- have been general, or affecting whole classes of words, they may be briefly stated. The stopped sound of the normal A in " far, fast" has been narrowed to that in " fat " in one direction, and rounded to that in " what " in another. Stopped E and I, as in "pet, pit," retain their Saxon sounds. Stopped O and U have assumed, the former very often, and the latter usually, an abnormal sound, as in " company, hzanble," which probably was first introduced into the language in imitation of the obscure French nasal vowels in such words as the above, and until comparatively recent times was not so generally used as it is now in other classes of close syllables, at least for the original short U-sound (in " pull "). The prevalence in many words like " dull, nut, done " of this new mixed vowel, not readily distinguishable from the old normal stopped O in " doll, knot, don," caused the latter to move a step in the scale towards the normal A, and so to meet the rounded mutation of the latter in " what, wan." Such is a summary of the changes in our stopped vowel-sounds. "We write " fat " and " what " still, but the alphabetical notation represents not the different vowel- sounds we use in these two words, but the one normal stopped A (of the quality in ''far") which our ancestors used in both of them, and which may still be heard in some rural districts. Similarly, in " con " and " son " we retain the notation of past generations for normal stopped O, but use a new and a diverse sound in the second word. Again, in " pull " and " dull " we preserve in both cases the symbol for the old stopped U, but have introduced a new sound in the latter word. So we find ourselves commonly writing the same symbol where we use different sounds (as in il fat, what, — pull, dull), and different symbols where we utter the same sound (as in " not, what — son, gun "), because we are not representing our own speech, but that of past ages. 11 Still, the written symbolization which is now erroneously assumed to represent our short vowel-sounds (as descending 1 , let it be understood, from original short ones), is simplicity itself as compared with the notation which now happens to be i cident with our long vowel-sounds and our diphthongs, and also with such of our short sounds as have in comparatively recent times been derived from long ones (as in " saith, dread, does, flood, good, couple "). Here the spelling nearly always represents ancient pronunciation, while the sounds of the language have followed a general current of change in certain pretty definite directions, with numerous and diversified exceptions in the case of individual words. In my paper on " English Long Vowel- sounds" {Phonetic Journal, 3, 10, 17, 24 July, 1880), I traced how the original Saxon long I and U sound, both of which probably had a slightly diphthongal effect through commencing as wide and ending as narrow vowels (say ii, iiu) were gradually dilated into the undoubted diphthongs in " bind, bound " (which in the most recent fashion of speech can hardly be distinguished from Continental at, ait), thus leaving vacant the normal I and U places of the scale ; how the original normal long A, to which Anglo-Saxons always seemed to have had an aversion, became sounded in most words first as am " bare," and ultimately as a ■in " bate," or in a smaller number of words first nearly, and then quite, as a in " tall, walk," — thus infringing on the territory of both the long E and the long O sound, and causing the former generally, and the latter to a large extent, to shift into the vacant ground of the I and U position, — the coalition of the diphthongal sounds AI and AU into simple vowels of the E and O type finally helping to push over the original long E and O sounds to long I and U. During all the time occupied by these changes — the shifting of vowel-sounds step by step along the scale, the expansion of simple vowels into diphthongs, and the compression of diph- thongs into simple vowel-sounds — the written form of the language remained nearly stereotyped as regards any indication of such changes, though there was ample and bewildering variety in what may be called fanciful or whimsical spelling. The only notable systematic attempt to denote (it can hardly be said to represent) phonetic change, was effected in the Tudor times, when the long E-sound (written as e-, e-e, or ee), and the long O-sound (written as 0-, o-e, or 00), had to a large extent gone over to the long I and U sounds respectively. When words like "meet" and "moot" (originally pronounced vieht, mokt) assumed their present pronunciation, at the period indicated, an endeavor was made by means of the digraphs ea and oa to dis- tinguish the retention of the old sounds in words like "meat" and " moat." This distinction has remained effective in " oa "- words to the present time, but those whose old pronunciation it 2* 12 was intended to preserve by the " ea " notation have very generally passed over to the I-sound since the 17th century, though some of them still preserve the long, and many have assumed the short E-sound (as " bear, break, great — thread, breast, breath "). But here, be it noted our ancestors did not change the vowel-sign in accordance with change of sound, and write mitt, mind, or mite, male, the introduction of either of which notations (for Phonotypic m\t, myt) would have required a systematic re-arrangement of their vowel-representation ; but, letting the old symbols go with the new sounds, they adopted a new representation for the old sounds still preserved. Beyond such movement of words in bodies or classes from one sound to another, without the introduction of any effective change of notation, we find all sorts of anomalous changes, as well as exceptional absence of change, in individual words or small classes of words. Look at " maid, said, plaid," with three differ- ent sounds and an identical diphthongal notation which really represents none of these sounds. Or take " bear, beat, threat, heard, heart," with five sounds and written with a symbol devised only for that in the first, which sound all the words once had. So we have " door, brood, good, flood," with four sounds, and written with a sign originally intended for the sound in the first word, afterwards allowed to lapse to that in the second, but coincident with two several and quite different sounds in the other two. Let us take one more example in " soul, foul, youth, young, could,'" where it is hardly possible to say what was the original sound of the symbol in English writing, as it appears to have bden used with somewhat different power (or powers) in Saxon from that which it had in Norman derivatives. I might extend this method of illustration indefinitely ; but here I forbear going further into details which are set forth in my " Plea for Spelling Reform " (London, F. Pitman, price 2d.), or in my already cited paper on " English Long Vowel-Sounds " (same publisher, price ^d.). What I wish to do here is not to prove a case, but rather to state the real character of the case to those who, in accepting the principle of Spelling Reform, have not fully appreciated the causes which render a reform necessary. What I particularly wish to impress upon the mind of the reader, in concluding this portion of the present paper, is that our existing English orthography, through the combined operation of the causes I have imperfectly described, does not represent our present English pronunciation, or in many cases a pronunciation ever used in the language. A written form like " scene " never represented English sound. Since the word was borrowed from French it has changed its vowel-sound, as the Saxon "seen" has done (both having been formerly pronounced sehn, with the vowel \x\fSte). But the former did not really represent sound in French ; it was only an artificial written imitation of Latin scena, which 13 we may suppose phonetically represented the Roman form for the Greek core ( coarse ) purse = purse, purrs curs=curse, curs 20 the same as the plural of " needle." Of course, there will be in- stances of such clashing between the old and any reformed ortho- graphy ; but they ought not to occur within a revised orthogra- phy, by using a literal combination in one sense without providing for its supersession in another. It would simplify spelling, no doubt, to write only the simple vowels a, e, i, o, u respectively for any one of the sounds most commonly connected with each, as is done in some systems of shorthand, and to some extent by professed spelling reformers, who would have us spell " quit " for quite, or " proposd " for proposed, etc. So the Jews in the Hebrew script character, which they sometimes apply to modern languages in correspondence with each other, use their aleph, he,yod, ain, and van respectively for any a, e, i, o or it sound, besides retaining he,yod, and vau respectively for the con- sonants h,y, v (or w). With such notation there is scarcely any spelling difficulty in the sense of knowing what letters to use for sounds ; but there is a great and perplexing reading difficulty, in trying to discover what sounds the written letters are intended to represent. It would, of course, be possible thus to use our simple a for the several sounds in Sam, psalm, and same, writing all ■' sam ;" or simple o in not, nought, and note, writing all "not." But this style of notation would afford an even more imperfect indication of sound than we have in the old orthography, and, through the confusion of words of different meaning, would pro- vide a less efficient means of communicating ideas. It occurs to me here that it is not generally realized, that while the established spelling is excessively anomalous and anachro- nous as a supposed representation of our present speech, it is yet a very effective instrument of communicating ideas fcr those con- versant with the meaning of its word-forms, whether they attach the received pronunciation to them or not. It does not scru- ple to confuse diverse sounds under identical representation in " singing, cringing ;" but it takes care to differentiate meaning in " singing, singeing." So in " tooth, booth " it allows unqual- ified th to represent different values ; but not in " sooth, soothe," where confusion of meaning would result from identical nota- tion. The imputation of having contrived our present incongru- ous orthography has been cast upon printers' readers, whereas the causes which have dephoneticized its notation have been quite beyond the control of this class of persons. To them, how- ever, is attributable the credit of devising or utilizing manylittle orthographic distinctions to avoid confusion of meaning, as in " singing, singeing — gravely, gravelly — to, toe — do, doe — ally, alley — give, gyve — born, borne," etc. In such cases, in which the simplest possible spelling of a word was required for another, it doubtless came within the province of printers' readers to pro- vide some trivial distinction of notation. To this ingenious class, also, we doubtless owe a good many variations of orthogra- 21 phy for distinction of meaning where the sound is identical, as "die, dye — place, plaice — borne, bourn — gage, gauge — berth, birth — cruse, cruise," etc. But, be these matters as they may, the old orthography has, by such artificial variations of spelling, or through the assimilation in speech of originally dif- ferent sounds, come to distinguish meaning in many cases in which it is confounded in the spoken tongue ; though, certainly, in other instances, like "hinder" (hinder, to prevent; heinder, more behind), " wind " (wind, moving air ; weind, to turn) ; " lead " (led, a metal ; lid, to guide), " bow " (bv, an instrument for shooting arrows ; Sou, to bend), etc., the converse is true of the current spelling. Now, it appears evident, that if, for a system of writing which is to a great extent independent of sound, and which has artificial distinctions not found in speech, we wish to substitute a system trustworthy in the representation of sound and capable of con- veying ideas by such representation's sound itself would convey them, then we certainly ought not to commence by adopting, in the little fundamental word-forms of our spelling, and those which are first taught to children, notation quite incompatible with sound. If we teach a child that " t-o " is too (hi,), and even use this spelling instead of " too " and " two," as does the re- former above referred to, then on what basis is the representation of the current "toe" and "tow" to be arranged? If "of" is to be retained for the sound ov, then how are we to represent "off"? Are we to keep two /s here, but drop one from "doff, scoff," and re-spell " cough, trough " with only one ? Are we to keep a and 5 in " was " (as also in " wast "), but to alter the one letter in " wasp," and the other in " wise," thus actually increas- ing the number of isolated anomalies in our spelling ? Or, as some persons have proposed, are we to leave undistinguished the two sounds of u in " put, but," or those of th in " this, thistle," and so have occasion to repeat a word in brackets in its old spel- ling when we want to distinguish sound and meaning as " luk (luck)," or " luk (look),"—" reeth (wreath)," or " reeth (wreathe) "? This sort of change would simplify spelling, no doubt, but it would give us a notation less effective than the old one even in distinguishing sound, and much less so in discriminating meaning. If people will only think this matter out for themselves they will arrive at the conclusion already reached by all orthographic reformers who have put their ideas to much practical experience — namely, that we must in a reformed orthography strictly re- present all significant sounds, not only to show the pronunciation, but the meaning of words. In a revised old-letter spelling in which the letter o had normally the two sounds in " on, so," the phrase " won or to " ( = one or two) would be a puzzle only solu- ble through a knowledge of the old spelling, or by means of such special teaching of individual words as the old spelling en- 22 tails. And it should be specially noted here that some of the " near-enough " systems of professedly reformed orthography owe their apparent legibility as to sound, and intelligibility as to meaning, almost entirely to their servile imitation of the estab- lished spelling, already known to the reader. In such systems " haply, simply " on one side, and " aply, comply" on the other, are easily read off, because three of the words preserve a form that represents meaning and recalls sound to the reader through previous mental association ; while the form " aply," quite in- effective to represent sound by the side of " haply," is not so altered as to prevent its being read for "apply." But, in this style of spelling, neither discrimination of meaning by arbitrary notation nor by actual representation of sound would be found in a form like "aly" (substituting both "ally" and "alley"), or "belying" (replacing both" belying" and" bellying"). There- fore, the mere abbreviation or compression of our spelling, if not made on the basis of a strictly phonetic plan, would to pre- sent orthographic adepts give a less effective means of com- municating their ideas, and one which, while presenting the same sort of difficulties to learners, only appears easy when read by the light of the old orthography. We may therefore conclude that a reformed orthography must dispense with arbitrarily equivalent representations of the same sounds, or there will be two arbitrary orthographies to memorize for half a century to come ; that it must be capable of acting as a practically complete pronouncing-key to the old spelling, or we shall want a third notation in our pronouncing dictionaries ; and that, by its representation of sound, it should be able to ex- press all distinctions of meaning conveyed by spoken words, or it will not be effective in communicating ideas. We therefore arrive at a systematic and consistent phonetic orthography as the only one which, under all the circumstances of the case, is at once neces- sary and practicable for spelling reformers to aim at. But to me the necessity, as well as the practicability, seems to be limited to the definite representation of SIGNIFICANT sounds. The origi- nal object of all practical and popular systems of alphabetic writing has ever been to convey ideas by indicating significant distinctions of sound. This object is quite distinct from that of the scientifically precise notation of speech sounds. To attain the former object, it is essential that we should be able to show a distinction between the vowel-sound in " come " and that in " comb " (where the established orthography gives us two arbit- rary forms like the contrarily-distinguished " dome "and " bomb "), as also between the first vowel-sound in " coma " and that in " comma ; " but it is not necessary that any discrimination should be made in writing between the first syllable of " compose " and that of "composition." Indeed, so far from distinction in the last case being necessary in popular alphabetic writing, the 23 object of expressing significance would rather be impeded than facilitated by writing " kamp.ouz, kompaz-ishan," in the notation proposed by one eminent and able scientific phonetician. In the same gentleman's spelling, we should have " senalaiz, an - aelisis — teligraf, tihegrafi — monatoun, mamotanas," with very many similar cross-distinctions of non-significant obscure syllables. Probably the only precedent for such minute dis- tinctions in the practical writing of a language is to be found in the Masoretic notation of Hebrew vowel-sounds by " points " superadded to the original letters ; but this was intended to preserve among the Jews scattered in different countries a pure and identical pronunciation of the Scriptures, though it has certainly failed to achieve this purpose. A notation which gives us " roa, raoriq " for " roar, roaring," may accurately represent a certain style of orthoepy, but it is too intricate for every-day use. The reference to a special style of orthoepy reminds me of the notion entertained by some reformers, that standard and adequate means of notation having been provided, every person should be allowed to write his own pronunciation, or what he fancies to be his pronunciation. The first difficulty here is to provide accept- able means for writing all shade varieties of the same standard significant sounds. We shall find it a quite sufficient task to provide an acceptable symbol for every sound that serves to dis- tinguish one word from another. But even if we had the materials to enable every writer to practise as a painter of shade- -sounds, and if every writer were qualified and disposed for the work, it is pretty evident that by the institution of such a fashion we should seriously impair the efficiency of alphabetically- written language as a means of communicating ideas ; and, in the Babel of notation that would prevail, some practical people might look to the introduction of unvarying Chinese ideographs as a more efficient means of conveying thought than ever-changi no- combinations of letters. But we may set our minds at rest respecting the practicability of any multiform development of our written language. People may write in what notation they like to private correspondents, if they are more solicitous to indicate peculiarities of sound than to convey ideas readily and effectively. But there is little chance of such personal varieties of spelling getting into print, except in rare instances. An at least proximately settled orthography is a necessity of the print- ing-office, unless each compositor, like every writer, is to be allowed to spell as he likes. The labor, and therefore the cost of composing types, reading proofs, and correcting, would be at least doubled if every writer spelled according to his fancy, and the printer had to follow the peculiarities. But when so large a proportion of our printed literature assumes the form of news- papers and periodicals, each containing matter supplied by many writers, and when these publications are continually quoting or 24 appropriating each other's matter, it is evident that personal spelling would create orthographical anarchy. We arrive, then, at the conclusion, that practical and effective spelling reform implies a standard orthography consistently re- presenting the standard significant sounds of the language. A smaller measure than this would not meet the necessity of the case ; and, not being worth the trouble of change, would fail for want of appreciative support. A larger measure is not necessary, and would fail through the impracticability of working it. What we need is simply to re-construct our spelling on a practical pho- netic basis, such as formed the foundation of all complete alpha- betic writing, and which has been preserved or restored in various modern languages, such as Welsh, Spanish, and Dutch. We do not want to represent speech in any novel and scientifically precise fashion, but merely to apply such principles in writing modern English as the ancient Greeks did in representing their language. We require to restrict the existing Roman letters, each consistently to that one sound for which, on a comprehen- sive view of the case, it is found to be most useful and available in a reformed spelling, and to provide other symbols to represent sounds not adequately represented by existing Roman letters. Whether those additional symbols should be digraphs (as aa, dh), or new letters (as a, d), or whether they should be partly digraphs and partly new letters, is a matter of detail, to be settled by ex- periment and discussion. It shouid be understood, however, that new letters involve no new principle. All letters were of course new once, and applied for the first time to represent cer- tain sounds. When the Greeks found the meagre alphabet which they had derived from the Phcenecians, inadequate for the repre- sentation of all their sounds, they did not scruple to add various new letters for unrepresented sounds. What we now call the Roman alphabet contains several new letters unknown in the ancient Latin writing. J and V, as differentiated, for the repre- sentation of consonant-sounds, from the vowel-letters I and U, are comparatively modern inventions ; and the single letter W is also modern — its present English name, "Double U," still reminding us that V was formerly only another shape of the letter U, and that the digraph VV was the original form of mono- graphic W. In modern Roman type we have U, V, W, Y, where the Greeks had only T, and the Latins only V. Neither are di- graphs modern novelties, for the Greeks of later classical times used often ov to represent Latin u (or v), and sometimes ei for Latin long i ; while the Romans employed ///, tk, and cA, for simple letters used by the Greeks, and which probably repre- sented among these, as among their descendants, single elemen- tary sounds. Our ancestors, the Anglo-Saxons, when they found the Roman alphabet did not supply signs for two sounds in their tongue. 25 did not scruple to devise the letters J>, '8 (or perhaps adopted \> from their former Runic system of writing). A later generation applied the form 3 to represent the continuant sound correspond- ing to g. But these forms were not found among the Roman types which Caxton brought over to this country, together with foreign workmen, to introduce the art of printing, He, therefore, used the digraph th for both \> and ft of the Saxon orthography, not availing himself of dh, either because it would have been an innovation, or because he considered the two final sounds of " kith, with" did not absolutely require distinction, any more than those of " this, his." Perhaps he was influenced by boih reasons in conjunction, for if he had entertained an invincible objection to overstepping Classical precedent, he would not have adopted gh as the substitute of the guttural continuant 3, and would perhaps have evinced a disposition to dispense with ch, as representing the sound in " child, cheap," which had been de- veloped by palatalizing Saxon c=k (in did, ceap), or with sh, condensed from sch, which had been developed from Saxon sc (as sailing, schilling, shilling). Such instances are enough to show, that although new letters were probably the earliest, as well as the simplest device, for extending the phonetic capacity of an alphabetic notation, yet digraphs may also claim the sanction of considerable antiquity. Whether, therefore, we employ new let- ters or digraphs for the English sounds (mostly developed since Saxon times) for which the Roman alphabet supplies no suitable letters, or whether we make up the deficiency partly by new letters and partly by digraphs, we should in either case introduce no new principle of representation. It will hardly be disputed by anyone that single letters for simple elementary sounds are abstractly more appropriate than digraphs. The only advantages of the latter are — that they are already to some extent in pretty common use ; that neither adopted old nor analogously-formed new digraphs require writers or readers to familiarize themselves with new literal forms ; and that every fount of printing type supplies the means of digraphic notation. Their disadvantages are — their inconsistency with phonetic accuracy ; their tendency sometimes to mislead the reader ; their bulkiness and consequent incompatibility with chirographical or typographical economy ; their inacceptabiliiy to many persons when of new formation or used in new positions (as in " vizhon, vershon ") ; and the occasional necessity of di- viding their component letters to represent separate sounds (as in " dis'herit "). The advantages of new letters are — their phonetic consistency ; their more obvious suggestiveness to learners ; their neatness and compactness, with the resulting economy of labor and space in writing or printing ; and their greater acceptability in positions in which new digraphs would be required, or old ones would appear almost equally novel (as in " vijon, verj'on "). The 26 disadvantages of new letters are only — that readers and writers must devote some little attention to learning their values and uses ; and that time and expense will be involved in getting new types generally introduced into printing-offices. As no question of principle is involved here, but merely one of conve- nience or practicability, there appears to be no reason why there should not be different but not conflicting styles of representing the same standard phonetic orthography, by digraphs, by new letters, by diacritically-marked letters (which would be new for general printing), or by "modified" letters. The public will decide in the end which of the forms fader, faadher, fudher, food t er, farther, is the fittest for survival. Most of the details hitherto considered are of comparatively minor importance or interest beside the vexed question of " English versus Continental values," as generally designated, though it would be more correctly stated as " Exceptionally- attributed modern English versus original English, ancient Roman, and present general values." I have so recently, in several readily-accessible articles, dealt with points of this ques- tion in detail, that I will only make some general remarks upon it here, and refer for fuller discussion of it to such articles * In the first place, I think it is worth observation that the present names of our vowel-letters, a, e, i (e, j, ei), have a tendency to mislead people as to the actual sounds with which these letters are most usually coincident in our present spelling. A glance down a column of a dictionary or through a paragraph in a book will show that the most frequent sounds of these letters are those in " pat, pet, pit," or the practically equivalent ones represented by the italic letters in " culpable, competent, ep2taph." On the other hand, the most frequent values of o, as in " pot " and " impotent " (treated as equivalent in practical phonetics), are only typical varieties of the name-sound ; while the most frequent powers of u are either its compound name-sound as in " putative, reputation," or the chief element of that sound, as in " full, fowl, feud, influence." The sounds in " pat, pet, pit, pot, put " are no doubt substantially the commonest values which the Roman vowel-letters had in Anglo-Saxon spelling, as they are those with which the letters are now most commonly used in Teutonic and Scandinavian orthographies. Moreover, they are substantially the commonest values that all the letters except u have in Welsh, which adopted them directly from living Latin usuage ; while we have clear inferential evidence that u has changed its value in Welsh, though the other letters have retained theirs. We cannot suppose that so many peoples have been mistaken in the appropriate application of Roman letters to write their tongues. *See especially "English Long Vowel-Sounds."— Phonetic Journal* ', U, «4 July, i88q. 27 Some eccentric phoneticians would have us believe that the only proper permissible uses of Roman vowel-letters are those for the italicized sounds in "father, prey, marme, noble, pradent." The Romans themselves did not appear to think their letters thus exclusively applicable, in writing Germanic and Celtic names, in imparting the use of letters to other peoples, or even in spelling their own language, for i and u, at all events, often represent in Latin the sounds of our consonants y and w. Having, therefore, full warrant for believing that our short- vowel sounds in " pat, pet, pit, pot, put " are of the same type, if not in each case precisely identical, with those to which the Roman letters were first applied in Anglo-Saxon ; and being- convinced, that if an ancient Roman had had those words_ to write, he would have written them with those letters, as foreign transliterators of our tongue generally do now, I conclude that in these words we use the vowel-letters in substantial con- formity with their original typical values. The words just cited, and those before cited in conjunction with them, exemplify by far the most frequent sounds of the a, e, ?', o, and u types to which these letters can be applied in English, and they exemplify, too, much the most frequent sounds with which they are coinci- dent in the current orthography. These letters, also, are the only simbols which can be used for the sounds in question in a practicable old-letter spelling, whether based on " English " or "Continental" values — unless, indeed, we are prepared to write " paet" (pat), or" pwt " (put), when consistency with the latter notation would oblige us to spell " fiwtiwr " or " fewtewr " (future). The propriety and expediency of applying the five vowel-signs to the English short sounds corresponding to the five typical general sounds are evinced by the facts, that the great majority of English orthographic scheme-makers, whether they are advocates of "English" or "Continental" values, so use these letters, and that among those who depart from this arrangement there is no agreement upon any other. In fact, the question whether u should be used as in " put " or as in " but" is simply a question of the most serviceable present English value. (See article "Put versus But," in Phonetic Journal iox 24 April, 1880). If in a reformed spelling we strictly confine the five vowel- letters «, e, i, 0, u, to the accented or unaccented short sounds already specified, and either introduce a new letter (az"y"or " u "), or adopt the typical Teutonic and Scandinavian (not Latin) " ce" for the vowel-sound in " but, does, done, double, flood," we provide for the vowel-notation of something like four syllables out of five in the language, either taking its words in the aggregate as contained in a dictionary, or as they occur in average literary compositions ; and we make this provision on substantially a Roman, an international, and an old Eny 28 basis, by simply retaining the representation of ancient short sounds or their modern shade varieties just as it is, and reducing to the same notation exceptionally-derived short sounds (as in " plaid, spread, sieve, what, good, dull "). We have then to pro- vide consistent representation for about one-fifth of the syllables we meet in reading, which contain long or diphthongal sounds, generally not represented at all in the current orthography (because this represents older and typically-different sounds), but coincident with great variety of symbolization. The ques- tion then arises, How are these long and diphthongal sounds to be represented ? Shall we apply regularly for each such sound the distinctive sign which has become most frequently coincident with it, or shall we write these new sounds by new signs analogous to the symbols for the short vowels to which they are typically related, or of which they are composed ? This is the question that is often mis-stated as that of " English versus Continental values " ; whereas, if there were no European continent, and if there were no other language in the world but English now using the Roman alphabet, this same question must occur in considering a plan of English spelling reform. The fact that no other national orthography has such incongru- ous coincidences of sounds and symbols, and that this is a great ob- stacle to foreigners learning our pronunciation, or to our learning theirs, would render it convenient on international grounds that we should express our long and diphthongal sounds, like our short ones, by as near an approximation as possible to the general use of Roman letters throughout the world. But I do not think that any such consideration should be regarded as more than a collateral and subsidiary one. I am content, in this matter, to accept Mr E. Jones's expressive axiom of " letting every tub stand on its own bottom ; " but I want our tub to stand on a firm bottom in an even place, and not to be con- tinually rocking, spilling its contents, and splashing all who handle it. Whether we can thoroughly steady our tub by propping it up where it is worn, or whether we shall be obliged to cut it down evenly all round, is a question of vital importance for calm and careful consideration. Equally worthy of attention are the questions, What would be the difference in the cost of either operation, if effectually performed ? and, Which would be most beneficial for future ages ? Now, in order to have some- thing like a tangible basis on which to consider these questions, I will give a table of the representation in six proposed ortho- graphic systems of all the words in the Spelling Reform Asso- ciation's test paragraph, that contain sounds treated as long or diphthongal by each orthographer, the former three of these systems being based on developed English, and the latter three orj original and general values : — 29 1. E. Jones Heer dbair few may be found uezhual leev no room dout dhair pronunsiai- shon cwiet we shoor our DOW propoezd moest suetabl employ staitment sho naituer vairius propoezalz aulredy maid conveen- yently eech ortho'epy author so oenly cheef points inclueded law cleer ie aibl apensiation, and that tu atain that end it had no hezitation about sakrifeizing euniformiti. Laugwaje at that erli period woz lernd almost enteirli bei ear, and doutles the veri feu men who at that teim kud read at all wer in the habit ov euzing meni wsrrdz they had never seen bst onli herd. Konsekwentli, when reiterz atempted tu reprezent the spoken sound, they diferd weidli in the ordografi bekauze ther woz often a weid diferens in the ordoepi. This fakt wil eksplain meni ov the variations in the speling ov ancient printed buks, if it be konseded that the speling iz the audor'z and not the printer'z. "Wsn ilsstration wil ssfeiz. Ther iz a komou pronsn- siation ov the wsrd catch, snaudoreizd, and even bei meni ov our diktionariz snrekogneizd, which makes it reim with fetch. Nou this wsrd msst hav been pronounst the same way in the siksteend senteuri, for okasionali it kan be found with the speling ketch. This form iz, indeed, komon in the reitingz ov Gascoigne, a popeular poet ov that period, and iz met with in the "Faerie Queene" ov Spenser. This variing ordografi, kauzd bei variing pronsnsiatiou, haz left pekeuliar trasez ov itself in our tsng, and haz kontribeuted tu swel the nsmber ov anotnalss formationz, which seem so dear tu meni bekauze they ar anomalss. The rezslt haz been that when two medodz ov reiting the same wsrd wer in komon eus, we hav in modern Inglish not snfre- 10 kwentli retaind tlie speling ov the wsn form and the pronsnsiation ov the sther. Perhaps no beter ekzampel kan be given ov this than in the veri termz bei which we designate the langwaje itself and the ksntri ov its bereK The auloreizd speling ov theze iz English and England} their auforeizd pronsnsiation. az given in the diktionariz iz ing-glish and inq-gland. Hou did this diverjens ksm about ? Tu the historikal steudent ov our tsng, th"> anser iz bei no meanz a difikslt wsn. In the erli speech ther wer two wayz ov reiting the wsrdz, koresponding preseisli, without dout, tu the two wayz ov pronounsing thein. In an ekstrakt ahedi given from Chauser we hav had the form Englissh, bst the formz Inglis, Inglish, Ingh/sch, Ingland, and neurnerss stherz veri similar, ar komon in our erli literateur, espeeiali in that riten in the northern deialekt. Out ov skorez ov ilsstrationz that meit be given, the folowing ar all that wil be needed : — This ilk bob is translate In to Inglis tong to rede For the lore of Inglis lede, Inglis lede of Ingland. ' —Cursor Mundi, lines 232-235. This ordynance thaim thocht the best, For at that tvme was pes and rest Betwix Scotland and Ingland bath. — Barbour's Bruce, lines 79-81. Bot Jhesu Christ, that sjttis in trone, Safe Inglysckc men bathe ferre and nerre. — Thomas of Ersseldoune, lines 13, 14. Here woz a jeneuin diferens in the sound konveyd tu the ear, which nateurali found ekspression in a diferens ov oriografi. Modern In- glish gets rid ov eni difikslti ther may be in the ehois bei selekting wsn form tu denote the speling and the sther tu denote the pronsn- siation. Ful az streiking an ekzampel iz the past partisipel ov the verb tu " be," which iz riten " been " and pronounst bin, in akordans with a speling which at wsn teim woz veri komon. It ought tu be aded that the statement iz perhaps true ov this ksrjtri onli [Euneited States ov Amerika] ; at least Hawiorn deklared that the pronsnsiation ov tins wsrd woz hiz test for deseiding spon the nationaliti ov the In- glishrspeaking skamp who ajdeid tu him for aid whcil he woz Ameri- kan kons^l at Liverpool. Bst perhaps the most ssjestiv ilsstration ov alliz the wsrd colonel. The pronsnsiation ov this iz so far removed from the speling, that it woz spoken ov bei Walker in hiz diktionari, az wsn ov " thoze gross irregeularitiz which msst be given sp az inkorijibel." Yet in the leit ov the statements that have been made and the fakts which hav been given ther iz no ditikslti whotever in akounting for this diverjens. It mav be wel tu say, houever, before speaking ov the orijin ov the form, that ther woz a teim when it woz snkwestionabli pronounst often az a wsrd ov dree silabelz, and priti sertenli az it iz nou riten. Two instansez which hav been frekwentli seited wil be ssficient tu prove this point. Milton'z sonet on the asault intended agenst the siti ov Lsndon beginz with the folowing lein : — 11 Kapten, or col-o-nel, or neft in armz. Agen in Bstler'z " Heudibras " we hav this ksplet : — Then did ser Neit abandon dweliug, and out lie rode a-colonelling. In both ov theze kasez it iz absoluteli essential tu the meter that the which iz nou eleided, shal be pronounst az a separate silabel : and ther iz no reazon tu believe, az wil be seen from whot folowz, that the 1 when riten woz then sounded az if it wer r. The derivation ov this wsrd haz been mvch disputed, bst ther iz nou a priti jeneral agreement arnsn the best etimolojists that it kame intu the French langwaje in the siksteenth senteuri from the Italian colonello, which itself kame from colon a, and this agen had for its orijinal the Latin colvmna. "Whether the Inglish borowd the term from the French ordirektli from the Italian may be a kwestion. Bst in both Inglish and French ther woz at the teim ov its introdsktion a permeutation ov I and r, so that in each ov theze tsngz it apearz in the two formz ov colonel and coronel. In akordans with the prinsi- pelz pervading the orioepi ov our speech, the sound ov the sekond o woz frekwentli dropt in the kase ov the later, and with it at that period frekwentli disapeard also the leter itself. Thss in the kores- pondens with the home government ov the Erl ov Lester, who, in 1585-6 komanded the Inglish and Dsch forsez in the Netherlandz agenst the Spaniardz, the wsrd iz speld bei him coronell or cornel. In Spanish, indeed, the wsrd woz at that teim jenerali, perhaps inva- riable coronel, and ssch haz remained its orlograu tuthe prezentday. Nor iz it improbabel that tu that langwaje the speech ov the then greatest militari nation ov Europe, with which Ingland kame kon- stantli intu kontakt, often intu kolision, may be mainli deu the erli adoption and wcid-spred eus ov the partikeular pronsnsiation that haz nou beksm eunivcrsal. At eni rate the two formz colonel and coronel lasted seid bei seid doun tu the midel ov the seventeen! sen- teuri. Est az the tendensi toward a fikst and snvariing oriogmh bekame more and more deseidcd, wsn ov them had tu disapear. Agen the same blundering kompromeiz woz made. The pronsnsiation ov the wsn form had beksm jeneral and woz nesesarili retaind ; bst along with it woz retaind the speling ov the sther. This iz a brief akount ov bst wsn ov the meni wayz in which, bei the operation ov indiferens or ignorans, Inglish orJografi haz been perverted from its legitimate oiis. Storiz ov the same jeneral nature kud be told ov skorez ov wsrdz. The histori ov our speling iz in no small nsmber ov instansez the histori ov blsnderz which, orijinating in illiterasi almost skandalss, hav nou beksm fsroughli sanktiond bei ksstom and konsekrated bei teim. And yet ther ar peopel who onestli believe ther iz ssmiing pekeuliarli sakred about the prezent oretograti ov the Inglish tsng, who luk spon this kreation ov teip-seterz az the krouning mersi tu our rase ov an all-weiz Providens, and akteuali shsder when a neu speling iz emploid, az if the fountenz ov the great deep wer breaking sp and the sivilization ov the wsrld wer dretend with a sekond deleuj ov barbarizm. T. E. LOUNSBUEY. OPINIONS OF EMINENT MEN ON ENGLISH ORTHOGRAPHY. Dr Morell, H. M. Inspector of Schools. — The main difficulty of reading English arises from the intrinsic irregularity of the En- glish language. A confusion of ideas sets in in the mind of the child respecting the powers of the letters, which is very slowly and very painfully cleared up hy chance, habit, or experience, and his ca- pacity to know words is gained by an immense series of tentative efforts. . . . It appears that out of 1,972 failures in the Civil Service examinations, 1,866 candidates were plucked for spelling. That is, eighteen out of every nineteen who failed, failed in Spelling. It is certain that the ear is no guide in the spelling of English — rather the reverse — and that it is almost necessary to form a per- sonal acquaintance with each individual word. It would, in fact, require a study of Latin, French, and Anglo-Saxon to enable a person to spell with faultless accuracy ; but this, in most cases, is impossible. Professor Gregory. — There is no obstacle to general education and improvement nearly so formidable as our thoroughly false or- thography ; and there is no measure which would so powerfully and so rapidly promote the education of the masses as the adoption of a simpler method of spelling. Dr Gilchrist. — This grand stumbling-block to the rapid march of human intellect is by no means irremediable, were people only to set heart, head, and hand about it, by boldly thinking and acting for themselves for the common weal of mankind. The late Lord Lytton. — A more lying, roundabout, puzzle-headed delusion than that by which we confuse the clear instincts of truth in our accursed system of spelling was never concocted by the fa- ther of falsehood. . . . How can a system of education flour- ish that begins by so monstrous a falsehood, which the sense of hearing suffices to contradict. The Eight Hon. W. E. Gladstone. — I honestly can say I cannot conceive how it is that a foreigner learns how to pronounce En- glish when you recollect the total absence of rule, method, system, and all the auxiliaries which people generally get when they havo to acquire something that is difficult of attainment. The late Dr Thirlwall, Bishop of St David's. — I look upon the established system of spelling (if an accidental custom may be so called,) as a mass of anomalies, the growth of ignorance and chance, equally repugnant to good taste and to common sense. But I am aware that the public cling to these anomalies with a tenacity pro- portioned to their absurdity, and are jealous of all encroachment on ground consecrated by prescription to the free play of» blind caprice. Printed by Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Bath. / Price {d.~\ [id. per dozen. ENGLISH SPELLING AND SPELLING EEEORM. No. II. From " Scribner's (United States) Monthly," October, 1879. In 1755 apeard the ferst edition ov the Inglish Diktionari ov Sameuel Jonson. Jsjd bei the modern standard ov rekweirment, it iz not a wsrk that iz enteiteld tu the heiest praize in eni point ov veu, and in ssin points ov veu dezervz no praize at all. Est kompared with eniding that had previssli ekzisted, it woz pozest ov merits so transendent that the date ov its psblikation may be almost sed tu konstiteut an epok in the histori ov the leksikonz ov our tsng. And in nsJing iz the influens it ekzerted so kouspikeussli manifest az in the mater ov Inglish ordografi. This woz praktikali hkst bei Jonson'a diktionari, and az he left it, ssch it haz, with unimportant ekseptionz, remaind. Yet, without deneiing the valeu ov the wsrk, ther iz litel hazard in aserting that, az regardz the speling ov our langwaje it haz been prodsktiv ov far more evil than gud. Jonson'z inkapasiti tu komprehend the prinsipelz that snderlei this partikeular branch ov hiz ssbjekt woz streikingli seen in the veri deklarationz with which he set out. He ridikeuld the men who endevord tu akomodate oriog- rafi tu pronsnsiation, aserting that ssch an atempt woz tu mesure bei a shadow— tu take that for a model or standard which iz chanjing wheil they aplei it. He faild, aparentli, tu perseev the konsekwensez ov the pozition he had aseumd. For, if pronsnsiation iz chanjing konstantli, wheil speling remainz fikst, it then beksmz simplia kwes- tion ov teim when the speling and pronsnsiation shal hav diverjd so far from wsn ansther that they bear no relation tu each sther at all. Kariing out this prinsipel tu its remotest rezslts, we shal in teim be making eus ov a set ov simbolz not, indeed, so elegant in apearans, bst az arbitrari in sound, az Arabik neumeralz, which hav the same form in everi tsng, bst ar sounded diferentli in all ; or, stating it briefli, we shal reit wsn langwaje and speak ansther. Tu this point, in fakt, in the kase ov ssm wsrdz we hav alredi ksm. Bst the injuri that Jonson did the oriografi ov our tsrj kan hardli be askreibd tu hiz teachingz ; it sprang rather from the slavish deferens which soon began tu be paid tu the partikeular speling he had adopted, and for this it iz hardli fair tu hold him direktli respon- sibel. It haz alredi been pointed out that previss tu hiz teim the had been a stedi movement toward a fikst standard ; and although with a larj nsmber ov wsrdz the speling woz stil snseteld and dis- kordant, yet in a rsf we it may be sed that ther ekzisted priti jeneral euniformiti. Bst about this ordografi ther woz no sanktiti. Men did not fall doun before it and worship it, and eni chanje that woz pro- pozed stud a fair chans ov adoption, if it wer rekomended bei konveni- ens or kountenanst bei the analojiz ov the langwaje. It may be altugether too mseh tu aseuni that, snder the konditionz then ekzisting, the ordografi wud, in kourse ov teim, hav reited itself; bst sertenli the temper ov the psblik wud hav been ssch that eni rational skeme ov reform wud hav been welksmd with satisfaktion, and aksepted or rejekted spon its merits. Jonson'z diktionari, houever, almost instantli petrifeid the formz ov the wsrdz inkluded in it. The euniversal adoption ov the speling emploid bei him arested even the few prosesez toward simplifikation that wer then going on. Bst, wsrs than all, it begot a devotion tu hiz ordografi, alongseid ov which all sther formz ov devotion known tu heuman obzervation and eksperiens ar faint and transitori. Ther haz, indeed, been manifested toward it, and stil kontineuz tu be manifested toward it, not simpli a lsv which pased all understanding, bst whot, in meni men'z eiz, iz afektion ov a far heier teip — that; 1st which iz enteirli devoid ov snderstanding. "Snder the influens ov this feeling all atempts at reform hav been defeated, not nesesarili bekauze the chanjez they propozed wer inadekwate or absurd, bst bekauze it woz regarded az a sort ov sakrilej tu propoze eni chanje at all. The stranjest rezslt ov the feeling iz the fansi that springz sp in the meindz ov meni with larj ankzeietiz for the langwaje, bst with limited nolej ov whot it iz, that, in insisting that serten wsrdz shal kontineu tu be speld in serten wayz, they ar ssmhou kon- tribeuting tu the prezervation ov the peuriti ov the Inglish tsng. Wherein leiz the chief strerigd ov the prezent ordografi ? It iz ser- tenli not, even tu the most partial ei, a ding ov beuti ; whei, then, shud we be so ankshss tu make it a joi forever ? Eeazonz ar kon- stantli given for this prejudis in its favor, based ssmteimz spon his- tori which haz been misapleid, or etimoloji which haz been perverted, or, most eusuali, spon mistaken konseptionz ov the fsnktionz ov bod. Bvt the real ground ov the aversion tu chanje iz mainli deu tu asociation. We leik the prezent ordografi bekauze we ar eust tu it. In that wsn sentens the chief argeument for it iz stated. The influ- ens ov this feeling iz not onli meiti in itself, bst the whole tremendss enjinri ov edeukation iz konstantli at wsrk tu ssstain and strengden it. The speling ov Inglish akording tu the ekzisting standard, re- kweirz not the sleitest ekserseiz ov the jsjment, involvz not in the least the aplikation ov fonetik prinsipelz, or, indeed, ov jeneral prin- sipelz ov eni keind, — iz, in short, nsding bst an arbitrari ekzertion ov memori in its veri lowest formz ov aktiviti ; yet it haz ksm tu be wsn ov the most esential and distinktiv rekweirments in the training ov a ksltivated man. It aseumz in our skool leif a faktitiss impor- tans which, though it may be woranted and even renderd nesesari bei the state ov the psblik meind, haz nsding either in reazon or in the nateur ov dingz tu rekomend it. Tu ssch ekstreme lengds iz it karid that at an erli aje everi cheild iz forsed tu go drougb. the proses ov lerning the speling ov a number ov wsrdz which he haz never herd ov before, and which, snles he iz ekseptionali snforteunate, he iz never leikli tu hear ov agen. Bst the efekt wrought bei this kon- stant pressur spon opinions and beliefs iz ssmjing that kanot wel be overestimated. It leadz tu the weildest fansiz, it begets the abssrdest notionz, it erekts a barier not alone agenst reform bst agenst eni kon- sideration ov the kwestion ov reform, spon which reazon wastes its strengj in vain. Ilsstrationz ov the state ov meiud prodeust bei it kan be found everiwhero and in kountles nsmberz ; wsn wil ssfeiz for the prezent psrpos. In 1873 a kontroversi woz going on in In- gland az tu the proper way ov speling wsrdz ending in or or our. In the kourse ov it, a korespondent sent tu the periodikal enteiteld Notes and Kweriz, a komeunikation which kontaind the folowing ekspression ov hiz sentiments — for it wud obvissli be anabeus ov lan- gwaje tu kail it an ekspression ov cfought : — "Ei dink that 'honour' haz a more nobel and 'favour' a more obleijing luk than 'honor' and 'favor.' 'Honor' seemz tu me jsst tu do hiz deuti and nsiing more ; ' favor' tu kwolifei hiz keind deed with an ah- ov koldnes. ' Odor,' agen, may be a fit term for a kemi- kal distilation ; bst a whole May garden ksmz before me in the wsrd ' odour.' " Nou it iz eazi ensf and jsst ensf tu kail sseh remarks az theze " twodel." Bst for all that, the reiter ov them iz not mereli an indi- videual, he iz the reprezentativ ov a klas, and ov a klas bei no meanz sninfluential. The feelingz tu which he givz ekspression krop out konstantli in buks, in periodikalz, in neuzpaperz, though it iz true they ar rareli klothed in the sentimental garb that they here aseum. This fakt iz bst wsn ov meni ilsstrationz ov the tremendss inertia deu tu ignorans and prejudis that msst be overksm before eni reform whotever kan be disksst from the point ov veu ov reazon. Argeu- ment spon thoze who feel thss iz indeed drown away. Nsding bst the lojik ov akomplisht rezslts wil ever make sseh personz rekogneiz the prinsipel that the spoken wsrd haz reits tu which the riten iz ssbservient. Bsttheriz a larj bodi ov edeukated men, who shorn - fuli repel the charj that their opozition tu ordografik reform iz based at all spon sentiment; who wud, in truJ, be the ferst tu ridikeul sseh ekspressionz az thoze jsst kwoted. They preid themselvz spon the fakt that their konklusionz hav been reacht bei prosesez peurli lojikal. Yet it wil be no hard mater tu show that their belief on this ssbjekt rests on a nsmber ov falasiz which, when kritikali ekzamind wil be found tu hav their orijin in most kasez in feeling, and not in reflek- tion; and when not in feeling peur and simpel, in a hasti asent tu in- korekt statements which they hav never taken the painz tn konsider with kare. "Without being aware ov it their konviktionz ar deu tu sen- timent, and not tu reazon. Tu an investigation ov the most komon and most important ov theze falasiz the remainder ov this artikel wil be devoted. Ov all theze falaciss argeuments, that based on etimoloji haz per- haps the strongest hold spon the edeukated klas. It iz konstantli brought forward az if it wcr ssficient ov itself tu setel the kwestion. Wsrdz, we ar told, hav a des6nt ov their own ; and the teiz which beind them tu the past ar not tu be ruJlesli severd. Leterz which ar never herd in the spoken speech and, indeed, kanot be pronounst bei eni konseevabel pozition ov the vokal organz, ar not tu be dropt from the riten speech, bekauze they seem tu remeind ss, or at eni rate ssm ov ss, ov formz in the langwajez from which they orijinali kame. It sendz a pekeuliar tfril ov rapteur, we ar assured, trough the hart ov the steudent tu feind, for ilsstration, in deign, feign, reign and impugn a leter g, which he kan never posibli euz. Seilent az it iz tu the ear, it iz nevertheles elokwent with all the tender asociationz konekted with dignor, Jingo, regno and impugno. That personz with litel edeukation — and, on the sther hand, thoze with the heiest lin- gwistik training — shud not share in theze feelingz, iz not at all tu the psrpos. They ar not reali the wsnz tu be konsslted. Between theze two klasez leiz a vast bodi ov edeukated men whoze wishez in this mater rnsst be konsiderd paramount. That the argeument in their behalf may not be charjd with misreprezentation, it iz dezeirabel tu kwote the folowing wsrdz ov Archbishop Trench, who haz most abli stated this veu ov the kwestion : — " It iz srjd, indeed, az an anser tu this, that the skolar dsz not need theze indikationz tu help him tu the pedigree ov wsrdz with which he dealz, that the ignorant iz not helpt bei them ; that the wsn knowz without, and that the sther dsz not know with, them, so that in either kase they ar profitabel for nsJing. Let it be freeli granted that this, in boi theze kasez, iz true ; bst between theze two ekstremea ther iz a msltiteud ov personz, neither akomplisht skolarz, on the wsn seid, nor yet wholli without the nolej ov all langwajez save their own, on the sther ; and ei kanot dout that it iz ov great valeu that theze shud hav all helps enabling them tu rekogneiz the wsrdz which they ar euzing, whens they kame, tu whot wsrdz in the langwajez they ar nearli related, and whot iz their properest and striktest meaning." The proper anser tu eni ssch argeument iz, ov kourse, that the onli ejitimate ofis ov speling iz tu reprezent pronsnsiation ; that it woz for that psrpos alone that the alfabet, the greatest ov heuman inven- tionz, woz orijinali dezeind ; and that tu tsrn aseid oriografi from this, its proper fsnktion, iz not a praizewsrthi aplikation ov it, bst an akteual perversion. Bst, ekwali, ov kourse, ssch an anser az this wud sterli fail tu satisfei him who makes eus ov the argeument. In hiz meind the derivation ov the wsrd, its konektion with a remote ansestri, iz a weighti, if not the most weighti, konsideration. It be- ksmz, therefor, a mater ov importans tu ssbjekt this falasi tu a strikt ekzamination. Nor need it be deneid that the advokates ov etimoloji- kal oriografi, so far az that kan be sed tu ekzist at all, hav a serten ssport for their veuz in the karakter ov that part ov our speech taken not indirektli, bst direktli, from the Latin. In ssch kasez the spel- ing jenerali reprezents with great akeurasi the derivation. Thss, portion iz the veri root ov portio, seen in the jenitiv portionis. Ther iz akordingli an air ov plauzibiliti about the reazoning which ia direkted agenst chanjing the formz ov ssch wsrdz, and it iz perhaps not wxnderful that tu thoze who liks their atention soleli, or even chiefli, spon this klas, the argeument agenst eni chanje shud seem sn- anserabel. They forget that not onli ar such wurdz az theze kompara- tivli feu in nsmber and litel euzd, save in special steilz ov kompozition, bst that they ar the wunz which in eni reformd ordografi, wud rekweir the least olteration. Moreover, the olteration which they wud undergo wud Mow serten preseis and invariabel rulez, and the rulez wuna being known, the aplikation ov them wud alwayz be a mater ov litel trsbel. Bst the moment we kum tu wurdz dereivd from the Anglo-Sakson the argeument turnz out a konspikeuus faileur. The same remark iz true, though perhaps tu a les ekstent, ov wurdz taken from the Latin drough the medism ov the Norman- French; and theze ar the two klasez that make up the worp and woof ov our speech. In the kaae ov bod, it iz perfektli safe tu say that the prezent speling, in a larj nsmber ov inetansez, not onli oferz no such klue tu the deriva- tion az wud a fonetik speling; it iz itself often absoluteli misleading. In point ov fakt, the advokates ov the falasi ov etimolqji ar nesesarili driven intu the weildest inkonsistensiz in order tu sustain it. They aferm in regard tu wun klas ov wurdz whot they ar kompeld tu denei in regard tu ansther. Hou true this iz, a glans at a feu ekzampelz wil make streikingli manifest. Tu begin with the Anglo-Sakson element, let us aseum an ekstreme kase, that a serius efort iz put ford tu drop the seilent k ov the wurd knave. Nobodi ever pronounsez it nou, — ther iz not the sleitest probabiliti that enibodi wil ever pronouns it in the feuteur. Yet it rekweirz no veiolent efort ov theimajination tupikteur bod the sorow- ful and the indignant protests that such a propozal wud kail ford, if ther ekzisted eni chans ov its adoption. Kountles wud be the refer- ensez tu the stori ov the wurd. We shud be told over and over agen hou it reprezents the Anglo-Sakson cnafa, a boi, and hou the k stil konekts it for us direktli with the Jerman knabe. It meit be dought bei ssm a suflcient anser tu this that az we hav tu a eerten ekstent disregarded the derivation bei ssbstiteuting for c a leter k, which pro- perli did not belong tu the Anglo-Sakson alfabet, no great harm wud rezult if we dropt it alugether ; and that this partikeukr leter the Jermanz hav the best reazon in the wurld for retaining, from the fakt that they sound it. Bst az this tu the believer in etimolojikal ordog- rafi wud be unsatisfaktori, let us kari hiz argeument wsn step further. An initial h, folowd bei I, n and r, began meni wsrdz in the erliest Inglish, from which it iz nou dropt. Thus, for ekzampel, lot woz orijinali hlot, loud woz hi ad, nut woz hnut, roof woz hrof. If it be an outraje tu drop the A; ov knave, whot ar we tu dink ov that erlier outraje, which dropt the h from such wurdz az theze? If etimoloji iz so important in the wun kase, whot reit hav we tu persist in the eu8 ov a speling which disrcgardz it in theuther ? Or iz ther, in this respekt, a privilej granted tu our fatherz which iz deneid tu us ? In all theze instansez, the leterz referd tu hav that charm, so dear tu meni harts, ov perfekt euslesnes az regardz pronunsiation ; bst they ar ekwali esential tu derivation. The onli defens ov the prezent in- konsistensi leiz in the fakt that tu the wun way ov speling we ar akustomd, and tu the uther we ar not akustomd. Bst this, nesesarili, takes the ssbjekt at wuns outseid the domain ov reazon, and plasez it within that ov sentiment. 6 Bst the inkonsistensi ov the advokates ov etimolojikal speling apearz ful az konspikeussli in the kase ov wsrdz taken from the Latin drough the medism ov the Norman-French. No beter il- sstration, tu start with, kan be found than in honor or honour, a wsrd about which an ortografikal batel, not partikeularli kreditabel tu the heuman intelekt, haz rajed for more than a hundred yearz. From the teim ov Jonson the importans ov reiting it with an u haz been strongli insisted spon ; and the impropreieti, and even depraviti, ov reiting it without that leter haz ekserseizd the meindz, and dis- tsrbd the harts ov a larj number ov wsrthi memberz ov soseieti. The remote Latin orijinal iz honor. Whot iz the objektion tu speling it in that way ? The anser iz not, that this form wud reprezent with no more ekzaktnes the pronsnsiation ; it iz that bei this meiod the imme- diate derivation wud be hid. The French wsrd from which it kame iz, we ar told, honneur, and that kontainz an m— not tu speak ov wsn or two sther lcterz which it haz never been found konvenient tu take intu konsideration. The onli proper kourse therefor iz tu reit it honour, for stherweiz we shud all ov ss forget about the French hon- neur, and iink onli ov the Latin honor; and tu eskape from ssch a kalamiti mesures too enerjetik kan kardli be taken. "Snforteunateli it woz not. from honneur that the Inglish honour woz dereivd, az indeed the diferens in ordografi meit at wsns ssjest. The Latin honor kame intu Old French with a larj number ov spel- ingz. Burguy, in hiz glosari ov that tsng deuring the twelfr and SerteenJ senteuriz, givz iifteen diferent wayz in which this wsrd woz riten, preferens being given bei him tu the ancient form honor. Keu- rissli ensf amsng theze fifteen wayz, honour iz not found ; the near- est aproach tu it iz hounour. Bst ssch an orfografi msst hav been komon in the Jerteen* senteuri, at which period the wsrd woz adopted intu Inglish, for then it eusuali, in fakt almost invariabli, apearz az honour. That form doutles reprezented the pronsnsiation then prevalent ; for in thoze dayz ov darknes it woz the intention and aim tu spel fonetikali. So it kontineud tu be riten for two hsndred and fifti yearz. Bst after the reveival ov klasikal lerning, a chanje tuk plase in the doughts and feelingz ov men on almost everi konseevabel ssbjekt; and amsng sther dingz their opinionz on the proper ofis ov speling snderwent more or les modifikation. The siksteen} senteuri had its etimolojikal ordograferz az wel az the neinteend. In boi periodz ther iz litel diferens az tu the karakter or amount ov nolej displayd bei the spholderz ov this doktrin ; bst az they lukt at the mater from enteirli diferent points ov veu, they wer nateurali led tu folow enteirli diferent leinz ov aktion. In the siksteeni senteuri the tendensi made itself strongli manifest tu disregard the immediate orijinal in the kase ov wsrdz ksming from the Old French, and go direktli bak tu the form found in the Latin. Two rnelodz ov speling the same term wer in konsekwens tu be found seid bei seid. The in- evitabel rezslt ov ssch a state ov ftngz woz tu ad a neu element oy disorder tu the ekzisting kaos, when wsn form kame tu be arbitrarih selekted az the standard ; when, for ilsstration, men wer taught tu reit in wsn kase actor and torpor, after the Latin, in ansther kase governour and labour, alter the Old French. So in the siksteend and seventeen^ senteuriz, the wsrd which had been riten honour kame frekwentli and perhaps jenerali tu be riten without the u. Thss in the Shakspere folio ov 1623, where it oksrz several hsndred teimz, it apearz in the great majoriti ov instansez az honor, bst okasionali leikweiz az honour. The modern advokates ov etimolojikal ordografi may klaim that the argeument in this kase reali makes for their own seid; and that it iz our deuti tu rektifei the erorz ov our fatherz. Bst they kanot stop at this point. Whot iz tu be dsn with that larj bodi ov wsrdz whoze immediate orijin haz been disgeizd bei the pervers ierning ov the ancient advokates ov etimolojikal ordografi ? Take the two familiar ilsstrationz ov debt and doubt. In theze nobodi, snles ssm " raker or oriografi," az Shakspere ekspresez it, ever atempted tu pronouns the b. In the Old French from which the wsrdz wer taken, they apear jenerali az dete, dette, and dote, doute. At enirate it woz from dette and doute that they kame intu our tsng ; for theze ar the formz in which they ar found in the reitingz ov Chauser and hiz ssksesorz. Bst in the siksteeni senteuri men had lernd that the remote Latin primitivz ov thoze wsrdz wer debitum and dubitare, and konsekwentli a b woz inserted. There it haz sins kontineud tu re- main. The seilent leter, indeed, in theze two instansez iz elokwentli eulojeizd bei Archbishop Trench, although its adition haz had pre- eeisli the same efekt az the droping ov the u in honor, the obskeuring ov the immediate French orijiual. Even he who rejoisez in its eusles- nes az regardz pronsnsiation meit jsstli bewail the way in which the prezent speling darkenz derivation. Yet in this mater so mseh ar we snder the kontrol ov sentiment and not ov reazon, that leif wud be made mizerabel for ineni ov ss wer the b ov debt and doubt tu be dropt. In fakt, the speling ov our langwaje iz in too meni kasez a melan- koli rezslt ov ignorant efort tu make the oriografi fulfil the illejitimata fsnktion ov denoting derivation, insted ov its lejitimate wsn ovrepre- zenting pronsnsiation. For this, that midel klas so heili lauded bei Archbishop Trench az " neither akomplisht skolarz on the wsn seid, nor yet wholli without the nolej ov all langwajez save their own, on the sther," ar mainli responsibel. Etimoloji iz a seiens rekweiring for its masteri yearz ov special stsdi: it in vol vz in meni instansez drsjeri ov the dreiest sort ; yet ther iz no wsn ssbjekt ov heuman in- vestigation spon which men who hav dabeld a litel in langwaje pro- nouns opinionz more pozitivli ; and the pozitivnes iz eusuali in priti ekzakt proportion tu the ignorans. It iz tu their zeal without nolej that we owe the introdsktion ov most ov thoze monstrss formz, which, az the poet sez ov Veis, We ferat endeur, then piti, then embrase. The half-lerning which so vigorssli feits reform ov Inglish ordografi nou haz been ekwali aktiv in the past in foisting spon the langwaje barbarss speling founded spon abssrd derivation. In this point ov veu the stori that kan be told ov two komon wsrda Lz ssjestiv. Theze ar whole and hot. In the kase ov the former, no- bodi from the ferst moment ov rekorded teim ever pronounst the to, and ther iz not the sleitest probabiliti that enibodi ever wil. Wsrs, even, than this, it iz a leter that not onli dsz not aid the speling, bst 8 akteuali heidz the derivation. The Anglo-Sakson orijinal woz hdl, from which we stil hav the ajektiv hale* For a long period this wsrd, which noubeginz with w, woz speld hole or hoi. Bst in the siksteend eenteuri the aplikation ov krazi etimoloji tu ordografi began. Ssch wsrdz az who and whoop hav alwayz had a w belonging tu them, though no longer pronounst, and bei a fols analoji with theze the leter woz ssmteimz prefikst tu hot, which had for its primitiv the form hat. For an ilsstmtion ov the later fakt, out ov skorez ov instansez which meit be kwoted, take the folowing from the sekond buk ov the " Faery Queene :" He sooiie approached, panting, breathless?, ickot. Kanto 4, 37. From their whot work they did themselves withdraw. Kanto 7, 37. Upon a mightie fornace, burning ichott. Kanto 9, 29. Ekskluding meinor variationz, whole deuring the siksteend senteuri woz ssmteimz speld whole, and ssmteimz hole; hot woz ssmteimz epeld hot and ssmteimz whot. Az lsk wud hav it, — for it woz drough- out a mere mater ov chans, — the intruding leter treismft in the wsn kase and woz defeated in the sther: and akordingli we reit hot with- out the w, and whole with it. In the instans ov the later, a return tu a form at wsns fonetikali and etimolojikali korekt wud be kweit im- posibel in the prezent state ov psblik sentiment ; bst tu sspoze that in retaining this abssrd blsnder ov our fatherz we ar gsvernd bei reazon and not bei feeling iz a delusion which the histori ov the wsrd at wsns disipates. Nor msst it be imajind that prosesez leik thoze which hav given a ui tu whole, an s tu island, an h tu rhyme, a g tu sovei^eign &n&foreign, a gh tu delight, ar no longer in operation, though it msst be granted that their pouer ov prodeusing harm iz konstantli growing weaker. Stil the men who get their etimoloji bei inspiration ar leik the poor, in that we hav them alwayz with ss. Wsn ilsstration wil ssfeiz. A konflikt between a true and a fols speling iz nou seilentli going on in the kase ov the wsrd controller, more eusuali riten comptroller. This later ordografi iz in ster defeians ov the derivation, the orijinal meaning ov the term, and its prezent pronsnsiation. Its histori makes this at wsns klear. Controller iz in Norman-French countre-rouler, in law Latin contrarotvlator ; and theze agen wer taken from the Latin contra, agenst, and the dimineutiv rotulus, rotula, a litel wheel, which, in the midel ajez, akweird the meaning ov "roll." The kon- troller, in konsekwens, woz the wsn who kept the kounter-roll or rejister, bei which the entriz on ssm sther roll wer tested. Hou nateurali the pozession ov ssch an ofis wud be apt tu giv him holding it " kontrol " over serten stherz, in the modern sens ov the wsrd, it needz bst a glans tu see plainli. Bst az erli az the siksteend senteuri, ssm memberz ov thdt klas, " neither akomplisht skolarz, on the wsn seid, nor yet wholli without the nolej ov all langwajez save their own, on the sther," got the notion intu their hedz that the wsrd kamu from the French compter, tu kount, the orijinal ov which woz the Latin comjoutare. From this abssrd derivation sprang the abssrder speling comptroller, and the two formz hav ekzisted seid bei seid tu the prezent teim ; bst the later, in speit ov its defeians ov etimoloji and pronsnsiation, iz ksming tu be the wsn jenerali preferd. Ssch a lein ov argeument az the absv iz the merest komonplase tu skolarz ; and meni ov them ar dispozed in konsekwens tu rezent eni disksssion at all ov this falasi ov derivation. Az wel, say they, moit astronomerz waste teim and labor in sndermeining the founda- tionz spon which the Tolemaik sistem woz bilt. It kan sertenli be kon- seded that thoze who dink most ov etimoloji in materz ov oriograii ar the wsnz who know least ov it. Yet no kareful obzerver ov the kon- troversi on the kwestion ov speling reform kan fail tu see that this falasi iz the wsn which haz the strongest and deepest hold spon the feelingz ov the edeukated klas. It iz konstantli aclvanst bei men, who, though not at all proficient in lingwistik stsdiz, hav ataind dezervedli hei distinktion in literateur ; and the auforiti which they if irrationali, hav lejitimateli wsn in sther fieldz iz nateurali, even ekstended tu ssbjekts about which their opinionz ar wsrcf abso- luteli nsding. The weid akseptans ov ssch a veu akordingli raizez a barier which msst be sterli broken doun before ther kan be a reazonabel prospekt ov the adoption ov eni reform whotever. The strengi ov it, moreover, iz larjli re-inforsed bei the prevalens ov an- other jenerali reseevd falasi, konekted indirektli with this kwestion, that a nolej ov the derivation ov wsrdz iz a dezeirabel, if not an esen- tial, rekwizit tu their proper eus, and that in konsekwens the speling shud be made tu konform tu the etimoloji for that partikeular reazon. The ekzistens ov great audorz in everi literateur, who had either no nolej or inkorekt nolej ov the soursez ov the speech which they wielded at wil, iz an argeument agenst this abssrd assmption which may be, and ordinarili iz, ignored, bst kan never be skwareli met. It iz not from their orijinalz nor from their past meaningz that men lern the valeu ov the termz they emploi ; it iz from akteual eksperi- ens or obzervation or from the prezent euzaje ov the best speakerz and reiterz. Iz the meaning ov "nausea" eni plainer after we hav lernd that it iz a Greek wsrd which ksmz from nous, a " ship," and in konsekwens striktli denotes sea-siknes ? Wsn our'z eksperions ov the feeling wil giv eni person a keener apreciation and a preseiser nolej ov the signilikation than a whole year'z stsdi ov the derivation. Wil " stirrup " be emploid with greater klearnes after wsn haz lernd that in the erliest Inglish it woz stige-rdp, and that it konsekwentli ment orijinali the "rope" bei which wsn "stiez" or mounts the hors ? The information thss gaind haz an independent valeu ov ita own ; it may leikweiz be ov interest ; it may satisfei an intelijent keuriositi ; it may show that the ferst stersps wer probabli made ov ropes ; bst it impleiz a mistaken and konfeuzd konseption ov the benefit tu be gaind bei etimolojikal stsdi tu fansi that wsn rezslt ov it wil be tu enabel a man tu euz the langwaje he speaks with more markt presision and ekspresivnes. It iz onli in ekseptional kasez, when a wsrd iz begining tu wonder away from its primitiv sens, that a nolej ov the derivation imparts akeurasi. Bst even here ther iz a difikslti ekzisting in the fakt that this transition ov meaning iz either a nateural development which ought not tu be held in chek, or it U 10 a jeneral perversion which the etimolojikal training ov the feu iz in most instansez sterli snabel tu arest. Hou pouerles the later influens iz kan be seen klearli in the chanje nou going on before our eiz in the eus ov the term " avokation." It iz at prezent, in this ksntri at least, frekwentli emploid tu denote its ekzakt opozit, " vocation ;" for, az the derivation at wsns makes plain, a man'z avokationz hav litel or nsding tu do with hiz regeular kalling; they ar the dingz, whether deutiz or plesurez, which take him away or divert him from hiz kall- ing. Bst wheil ther iz an obligation resting spon everiwsn tu feit agenst ssch perversionz wheil they ar taking plase, ther iz no need ov lamenting their ekzistens after they hav wsns beksm establisht. The histori ov langwaje iz the histori ov blsnderz, which wsn aje perpetrates ignorantli, and the folowing aje klingz tu loiali. Nowsn kan ever diskss intelijentli the fenomena ov speeoh az manifested in the eus ov wsrdz sntil he haz lernd the preimari prinsipel that a tsng never growz debased or korspt til the men who emploi it hav them- selvz beksm debased and korspt; that the former wil be veri serten litli tu reprezent the elevation ov Noughts and feeling ov the later ; and that if the later wil take kare ov themselvz, the former may be safeli left tu take kare ov itself. Kloseli aleid tu this falasi ov derivation iz whot iz may be kalld the falasi ov histori. So kloseli aleid iz it, indeed, that when the wsn iz spoken ov, it iz the sther that iz eusuali ment. The oponent ov chanje in the ekzisting ordografi iz apt kondesendingli tu assure the advokates ov it, that in their eforts after reform they forget that wsrdz hav a histori ov their own ; and after he haz made this far from novel remark, he eusuali goez on tu make klear bei ilsstration that he himself haz no konseption ov whot it meanz. " Shal we," asks a resent reiter, after reseitirj this wel-worn formeula, — " shal we mask the Roman orijin ov ' Cirencester ' and ' Towcester ' bei speling them ' Sisister ' and ' Touster,' " az they ar pronounst ? It iz evident in this kase from the konektion, that this dekreier ov chanje intenda tu say that bei oltering the ordografi ov theze proper namez, their histori wud be obskeurd ; whot he akteuali sez iz that their derivation, that iz, a singel point in their histori, wud be shst out from seit. For the leading eidea at the botom ov ssch an argeument, if it haz eni eidea at all, msst nesesarili be that the partikeular form which the wsrd haz aseumd at the ferst period ov its ekzistens iz the form that ought alwayz tu be prezervd. Nou if ordografi iz tu reprezent eti- rnoloji, ther iz inedod in this madnes, at least if we ar abel tu bod obtain and retain the erliest speling. Bst the former we kanot do, Bave in veri feu kasez ; the later we hav skarseli dsn in eni kase at all. On the sther hand, the maintenans ov wsn form drough all periodz not onli kontribeuts nsding tu the histori ov a wsrd, it akteuali dsz all that it kan tu prevent its histori being known. This iz a point plain ensf tu him who dinks on theze materz ; bst, az in the disksssionz ov this ssbjekt the feelingz ar eusuali brought intu play and not the reazon, it iz no wsnder that it eskapes the notis ov most. Bst a litel reflektion wil make manifest at wsns, that az a mater ov fakt, it iz the spoken wsrd onli that kan hav a histori ; it iz in tha chanjez which the riten wsrd haz sndergon that this histori iz re- 11 korded and prezervd. If the later remainz in a petrifeid kondition, all nolej ov the ssksesiv stajez trough which the former haz past, or may pas, at wsns disapearz, snles it kan be gaind from outseid soursez. The moment the wsrd ksmz tu hav a fikst, snckanjeabel eksterior form, no mater whot olterationz may take plase in its inte- rior leif, that iz tu say in its sound, that moment its histori, indepen- dent ov the meaning it konveyz, beksmz doutful and obskeur. Two termz designating komon diseazez wil serv az ilsstrationz ov the opozit kondition ov clingz here indikated. They ar " quinsy " and " phthisic." The wsn kan be trased trough the ssksesiv formz ov " squincy," " squinacy " and " squinancy " tu its immediate Romans orijinal, and from that stil fsrther bak tu the Greek. In this kase a histori iz snrokl before ss. Bst the wsrd " phthisic," az it iz nou jcnerali riten, givz no ssch information. At ferst, tu be sure, it woz ordinarili speld az it woz pronounst. In Milton it kan be found with the oriografi " tizzic ;" and ssch a form makes evident at wsns hou it woz then sounded, jsst az do the koresponding tisico in Italian and tisica in Spanish. Bst whot posibel kontribeution tu its histori kan be fsrnisht bei going bak tu the Greek orijinal, and impozing for all teim spon the wsrd a kombination ov leterz which we wud not Eronouns if we kud, and kud not if we wud ? Archbishop Trench az pointed out the transition bei which "emmet" haz past intu " ant " trough the intermediate spelingz ov " emet " and " amt," which msst ov kourse hav reprezented this chanje ov sound. Bei this meanz a histori haz been prezervd tu ss. Bst he sertenli haz no reit tu felisitate himself on ssch a rezslt. If hiz deoriz ar true, wheil we pronouns the wsrd "ant" we ought tu reit it "emmet;" be- kauzc, tu euz hiz own argeument, leterz seilent tu the ear wud stil be most elokwent tu the ei, and in this partikeular kase ssm ov ss wud be made hapi bei being remeinded ov the Anglo-Sakson orijinal amet. Even euzing histori in the narow and imperfekt sens in which thoze who talk about it konstantli emploi it, we ar no beter of. Nearli everi old wsrd in the Inglish langwaje haz had diferent formz at diferent periodz ov its ekzistens. Which wsn ov theze iz tu be taken az the standard? When dsz this so-kalld histori begin? Shal we reit "head" bekauze it iz the ksstom tu do so nou? or shal we go bak tu the Anglo-Sakson orijinal, hedfod ? or shal we adopt eni wsn ov the neumerss later formz ssch, for instans, az " heved " or " heed " or " hed P " We do not, in fakt, kling tu the prezent speling ov the wsrd bekauze it givz ss a nolej ov its histori, for it dsz not do this at all ; nor bekauze it givz ss a nolej ov its derivation, for this it dsz veri litel ; nor bekauze it konformz tu pronsnsiation, for this it dsz stil les ; we kling tu it simpli bekauze we ar eust tu it. Even in the kase ov Cirencester and Towcester, absv mentiond, the same statement iz true, though striktli they wud not enter intu the disksssion ov this kwestion. Proper namez, being individeual m their nateur, ar more or les snder the kontrol ov tbe individeualz who own them, and who kan and do ekserseiz the reit ov chanjing them at wil. Bst for the sake ov the argeument let ss aseum that it wud be a gross outraje tu spel the namez ov theze two plasez az they ar pronounst ; let ss admit that all nolej ov their Roman orijin wud be lost bei ssch a chanje tu thoze who did not kare ensf about it tu 12 make it a ssbjekt ov special stsdi. It iz, akordingli, a lejitimate infer* ens that, in the designation ov tounz, the main ofis ov the ordografi iz tu point out their orijin. Bst this prinsipel, if wsrd eniding, ought tu be karid through konsistentli. Whot shal be dsn then in ssch a kase az that ov " Ekseter ? " The ancient name woz " Exancester," which ssbsekwentli bekame "Exscester," stil later, "Excester," and az erli at least az the reign ov Kween Elizabed, eusuali " Exeter." If it be the objekt ov speling tu impart this interesting information about the orijin ov plasez, ought we not tu retsrn at eni rate tu the form ' Excester," tu show that the Romanz wsns had a permanent militari 'station on the banks ov the Exe ? The valeu ov all ssch nolej iz invari- abli ssmding aseumd, not estimated. The few who need it kan alwayz eazili akweir it without the nesesiti ov perverting ordografi from ita lejitimate fsnktionz tu the biznes ov imparting it. Hou meni ov the inhabitants ov Boston in Linkonshire and ov Boston in Masachuseta lead hapi, onord and eusful leivz, and go doun tu their gravez in blis- ful snkonscissnes ov the fakt that the name of their siti haz been shortend from Botolf's toun ! Hou meni ov them ar aware, indeed, that ssch a saint az Botolf ever ekzisted at all ? In everi kase our prejudisez ar in favor ov the akteual speling nou emploid, whether it reprezent pronsnsiation or derivation, and thoze prejudisez ar deu simpli tu the fakt that we ar eust tu it, and tu nsding els whotever. It iz sentiment that rulez ss, not seiens. This may or may not be wel ; bst it iz not wel for eni man tu deseev himself or stherz bei alouing the former tu maskerade in the garments ov the later. Ther iz no midel ground in this kwestion. The kauze ov the prezent or- dografi may be spheld bei an apeal tu the feelingz : it kan never be helpt bei rezort tu reazoning. He who sets out tu jsstifei the ekzist- ing sistem bei argeuuients adrest tu the intelekt feindz himself at wsns involvd in a maze ov kontradiktionz and abssrditiz, and wearia himself in frui ties eforts tu eksplain the sneksplainabel, and tu de- fend the indefensibel. Ther iz stil another falasi, founded peurli spon ignorans, which woa wsns the most potent and prevalent ov all ; bst whicb, with the ever-inkreasing nolej ov the histori ov our speech, iz nou rareli herd. This iz the opinion that the ksrent ordografi haz been in ekzistena from ssm veri remote period, and haz therefor about it that sanktiti which, when everiding els praizewsrthi iz laking, we ar apt tu akord tu antikwiti. The fakts in regard tu this hav alredi been stated in- direktli, and it iz in konsekwens not nesesari tu do eniding more than rekapiteulate them here. The prezent speling woz reacht aproksi- mateli in the later part ov the seventeen} senteuri ; that iz tu say, the majoriti ov wsrdz had then aseumd the form which they nou hav. Ther woz stil, houever, weid variation in euzaje, az a komparison ov. diferent buks psblisht at that period klearli showz. Yet wheil a ten- densi toward a mekanikal euniformiti, snder the influens ov the printing ofis, went stedili on from that teim, it woz not sntil the apearans ov Jonson'z diktionari in 1755, that the ordografi kan be eed tu hav beksm fikst. Even from that establisht bei this leksikog- rafer, ther haz been ssm litel chanje. The feinal k, which he insisted on retaining in wsrdz that denoted the same sound bei c, az " pub- lick " (Latin, public-us) and " back " (Anglo-Sakson, bdc), in the 13 larjest nsmber ov kasez haz nou been diskarded ; bst not without protest from meni who saw in this inovation a blow delt at the foun- dationz ov the langwaje. It msst not be sspozed that this woz a reform intelijentli pland and konsistentli karid out. Had ssch been the fakt ther meit hav been okasionz for fear that lsrking ssmwhere in sekret, a rational prinsipel woz at wsrk in the efort tu bring har- tnoni and order out ov the kaos in which Inglish orfografi iz plsnjd. Tu avoid even ssch a ssspicion, everiding woz left tu chans ; and az a rezslt ov it we reit " hammock," for ilsstration, with a k, and " havoc " without wsn. Bst in the main the formz which Jonson adopted hav been prezervd snchanjed from hiz day tu our own ; and wheil variationz stil ekzist, it may fairlibe klaimd that, rsfli speaking, we hav ataind euniformiti. It iz akordingli jsst tu say that the prezent speling haz all the sakrednes which springz from being wsn hsndred tu wsn hsndred and lifti yearz old. The fakt haz ksm tu be so jenerali known, that it rekweirz nou more than ordinari profi- ciensi in ignorans tu advans the argeument ov antikwiti, which wsns did the most efektiv servis. The deklein and fall ov this belief iz bst wsn ov the neumerss ilsstrationz ov the mizerabel realitiz intu which the magnifisent pretensionz ov modern ordografi sink, when ssbjekted tu the skrutini ov histori. Ther iz stil an objektion tu chanje, which iz graveli brought for- ward bei Archbishop Trench, and seemz tu be regarded bei ssm az so seriss that it rekweirz a pasing notis. This iz tu the ef'ekt that great konfeusion wudbe kauzed bei reiting aleik wsrdz which hav the same sound tu the ear bst ar nou distingwisht bei the speling tu the ei, ssch, for instans, az son and sun, rain and reign and rein. This iz wsn ov thoze difiksltiz which ar veri formidabel on paper, and no- where els. Ther iz skarseli a komon wsrd in the Inglish langwaje that dsz not hav a weid vareieti ov meaningz, ssmteimz pozesing aparentli litel konektion with wsn ansther. Dsz this diferens ov Bens prodeus real praktikal inkonveniens ? Dsz eniwsn eksperiens trsbel, on hearing a sentens kontaining the ajektiv thick, in deter- mining whether the wsrd iz an ajektiv or a noun, or whether it denotes " dens " or " tsrbid," or " absndant," or a mesure ov di- mension ? Given the konektion in which it iz emploid, dsz eniwsn ever mistake "rain" for "reign" or "rein?" The negativ anser, which msst be made tu ssch kwestionz az theze, disposez at wsns ov a difikslti that haz no ekzistens outseid ov the imajination. For if no trsbel iz eksperienst in determining the meaning ov wsrdz sounded aleik, in the hsri ov konversation, when the hearer haz bst a moment tu kompare the konektion and komprehond the dought, it iz sertenli borowing a great deal ov snnesesari ankzeieti tu fansi that eni em- barasment kud be kauzd in reading, where ther iz ampel oporteuniti tu stop and konsider the kontekst and reflekt spon the sens which the pasaje msst hav. The akteual ekzistens ov ssch a difikslti wud im- plei a wont ov kapasiti in heuman nateur, which wer it ever jsstifeid tu the meind ov him who aserts it bei hiz individeual konscissnes, it wud be manifestli snfair tu atribeut tu the hole rase. Theze ar the objektionz tu eni olteration ov Inglish ordografi that ar most komonli srid. Ther ar stherz, bst they ar direkted not agenst reform in itself, bst rather agenst propozed rnedodz ov reform. 14 The objekt ov theze artikelz haz been tu show the ekzistens and na- teur ov a diseaze, not tu diskss nieiodz ov keur. For the difikslti in this mater iz that having beksm akleimated in cheildhud we hav for- goten in whot an ynhelcJi ordografikal kleimate we ar living, or hav beksm indiferent tu it. Yet it iz not so msch that the psblik iz opozed tu remediing whot it deemz evil ; it siinpli dsz not see that ther iz an evil. Tu remove the hold that the prezent speling haz spon the feelingz ov most personz iz wsn ov the ferst steps that msst be taken before reform 07 eni keind kan hope tu reseev series kon- sideration ; and bekauze its hold iz spon the feelingz and not the intelekt, it iz nesesarili a wsrk that kanot be akomplisht in a day. The ignorant and almost peueril prejudisez that ar displayd in refer - ens tu this ssbjekt ar leikli tu end for nearli all who ar nou swayd bei them onli with their leivz ; bst it iz posibel tu prevent their per- peteuation and spred. We kanot ekspekt eni reform tu be fairli ekzamind so long az in the eiz ov edeukated men the speling ov a partikeular wsrd in a parfikeular wayiz a partikeular evidens ov total depraviti. Ther iz no objektion ynder our prezent sistem tu eni per- son reiting " metre " with re, and its kompound " deiameter " with er. It iz onli when he insists that where everiding iz irrational, hiz partikeular irrationaliti shal be lukt spon az a kontribeution tu the peuriti ov the Inglish txng, that hiz ignorans makes ov him aneusans. It iz ful teim for ss tu abandon a groveling seuperstition, which in the meindz ov meni haz konfouuded the wsrship ov the leter with the wsrship ov leterz. If we kanot free ourselvz from the tramelz ov our prezent orcfografl, we kan sertenli free ourselvz from the abssrd no- tion that ther iz eni ding about it either respektabel or reazonabel ; and thoze who ksm after ss may be at liberti tu konsider and remedi ssm, if not all, ov the evilz snder which we ar nou ssfering. If in the feuteur, tu skemez ov reform kan be given that kareful and kan- did ekzamination which hithertu everi singel wsn ov them haz been prevented from reseeving bei steupid prejudisez, and steupider fansiz which their ownerz hav dignifeid with the name ov eideaz ; if this kan be given, we may hope that after nsrnberles faileurz, sskses wil at lengtf be ataind ; that the langwaje we speak wil not be for ever disgrased bei an ordografi, tu the viciss variationz ov which, when we set out tu lern it, we kan see no end, and in which, after having lernd it, we kan feind no sens. T. E. LOUKSBUEY. PHONOGRAPHY. In many respects our language is imperfect. Man is a progres- sive being in language as well as in everything else. A few hundred years will see the mode of speaking incalculably improved. The mode of writing English is more imperfect than the mode of speaking it. Thus a has one sound in fate, another in fat, an- other still in fall, and still another in father. Cand k, s and z, often exchange places, and the great majority of our words are spelled in a way at variance with the true sounds of the letters used. Nor can this be remedied till every sound has its own let- 15 ter, and every letter its own sound. What are letters good for but to represent sounds ? Then every sound should be represented by its own letter, and always by the same letter. This done, when a child had learned these letters, it would have learned to read and spell, so that learning to read and spell would require but a few days or weeks. Nothing would be required to enable us to read, write, and spell correctly, but to learn what characters stood for the different sounds. Eeading and spelling would then be simple ; now they are exceedingly complex. They would then be easy ; now they are very difficult. Nothing would be left to the memory but the alphabet ; whereas now scarcely anyone can always remember how a word is spelled. Anyone could then spell words right by spelling them according to the pronunciation, so that all who could speak our language could spell and read it readily and correctly. The dreary years now spent by children in learning to read and spell would dwindle into as many -weeks, and most of the expense of schooling would be saved, and the health of children be preserved. In short, incalculable benefits would spring from placing languages on their true ground— that of representing every primary sound by a specific character. This important end is attempted by Phonography. Phonography consists in attempting to indicate every important sound by a sin- gle character— every sound made by one motion of the vocal organs, by one stroke or motion of the hand. This must strike all as exceedingly desirable. Nothing of equal importance can possibly be accomplished. 1. As we have already observed, it would greatly facilitate learning to read and spell all languages. 2. Perfect legibility is another important end secured by Pho- nography. It can be read as easily as print. 3. It will also amalgamate all languages, so that in learning them nothing will be required but to learn the definitions of their words. Foreign languages could then be learned in one-tenth of the time now required. The eye and ear would then act in con- cert. At present when words are not spelled as pronounced, they act in opposition. 4. Writing the Roman characters requires at least five times more labor and time than is necessary. Thus, in making m, we are obliged to employ seven strokes or motions with the pen, five for «, nine for the, six for to, and thus of nearly all our letters ; whereas onlyone stroke should be used to represent one sound! This would diminish the time and labor of writing three-fourths. To cite the author's own case : his subject matter accumulates in his mind five times faster than he has physical strength to put it on paper. If the time and labor of writing were reduced four-fold — if he could signify as much by one stroke as he does now by five, he could produce five times as much thought, and, supposing his writings to be useful, could do five times as much good. And 16 thus of other writers, and of all who may have more thoughts than time or strength to put them on paper. Thus would mind he developed and thought quickened, to the incalculable augmen- tation of human happiness. 5. This reform would improve the matter and style of what is written. If we had only one stroke of the pen for every vocal sound, we could write and report as rapidly as we talk ; and thus retain that warmth, glow, and rapture on paper which are now confined to speaking. Add to this, that the speaker could subse- quently trim and perfect his productions. The fcun will never shine upon any invention equal to that which shall enable us to put our thoughts on paper as fast as we can utter or conceive them. 6. But the highest recommendation of Phonography is the science it embodies. It consists in applying nature's requisition of representing every specific sound by given characters or signs. Its framework is a sound for every character or letter, and a letter for every sound. This is obviously right, and infinitely prefera- ble to our present system of writing. A secondary recommendation of Phonography is its forming every letter by a single stroke or motion of the pen. This also is scientific, and will allow us to write as fast as we speak. To say then, that I unequivocally approve of Phonography — that I go heart and soul for its universal adoption, is too tame. Nature re- quires its adoption. I regard Phonography as the great commentator and developer of mind, and therefore as the great mental lever of all reform. Temporary inconvenience would attend the change, but infinitude alone can measure the good it would confer. Old as I am — valuable as my time is — I shall learn it and reap its advan- tages, and have my children learn it and write it, and recommend its universal adoption, especially by the young. — 0. S. Fowler's " Memory and Intellectual Improvement, applied to Self- Education and Juvenile Instrtiction." PHONETIC PUBLICATIONS. Phonetic Shorthand. The Phonographic TEACHER; containing a series of progres- sive Lessons, to be read, and written out by the student ; 686th thousand, 6d. A COMPEND of PHONOGRAPHY, containing the Alphabet, Grammalogues, and principal Rules for Writing. Price Id. A MANUAL of Phonography, containing a complete exposition of the System, with numerous shorthand examples interspersed with the text, and exercises in reading, 328th thousand, Is. 6d. ; cloth, 2s. ; roan gilt, 2s. 6d. Phonetic Reading. FIRST BOOK in Phonetic Reading, with " Directions to Teachers " how to use it, Id. SECOND BOOK in Phonetic Reading, 2d. THIRD BOOK, 3d. Printed by Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Bath. Price \d.~] [3d. per dozen. APPLIED PHONETICS. From the " Bath Chronicle "for 2"'th Feb. and 6th March., 1879. At the fortnightly meeting of the Literary and Philosophical Association, held at the Royal Literary and Scientific Institution on Friday evening, 21st February, Mr. Isaac Pitman read a paper on "Applied Phonetics." Mr. F. Shum took the chair. Sus- pended behind the lecturer, and in view of the audience, were three charts, printed in a very bold and clear type entitled respec- tively, " Phonetic Alphabet," " Old letter Phonetic Alphabet," and " Specimen." The last named chart contained a sentence printed in the two styles resulting from the employment of the two alphabets given below. The title of my paper, " Applied Phonetics," is short, but the subject is long. It carries us back to the first page of history, and forward through all the ages that are to come; for whatever pro- gress the human race may make, the alphabet and the ten digits will be the chief instrument of that progress. Letters and figures are the two pillars that support the vast structure of modern civilisation. In treating this subject I shall omit all reference to the various kinds of writing — alphabetic, syllabic, symbolic, hieroglyphic, &c, and shall not even touch on that interesting topic the history of the alphabet. The evening would not be long enough to discuss these questions and also do justice to the direct subject of the lec- ture, namely, the orthography of the present day and that of the good time coming. I shall, therefore, confine myself to the proper use, and the present misuse, of letters, as applied to the writing of our own language. I may, however, say that an exhaustive " History of the Alphabet " is in the press, written by the Kev. Isaac Taylor, Rector of Settrington, near York, (a branch of the celebrated Ongar family,) and will be published this year by Macmillan. We hold intercourse with the world of mind, and with all who are not within speaking distance, by means of books and writing, aad in our present high state of civilisation the communion of mind with mind in this way very much exceeds in point of quan- tity that which arises from personal intercourse. It is then of the first importance that the instrument of communication, the alpha- bet, — the organon of all this interchange of thought, should be true, and absolutely incapable of leading astray. It is a remarkable fact that while every other science has been either originated or entirely transformed by the discoveries and improvements made during the last 100 years, the science of alpha- betics remains as it was in the days of William the Conqueror. We spell some words better than we did then, and some worse ; but no improvement has taken place in the alphabet. It has even lost two letters which it then possessed ; not that the sounds which they represent have slipped out of the language, but the letters have been carelessly thrown away in modern times to the great detriment of the language. I refer to the Anglo-Saxon '"S" (thin) and "p" (then). These letters were used in manu- script until the introduction of printing, when " th " was substi- tuted for both sounds. Letters, the lecturer remarked, are signs of sounds, as figures are signs of numbers. It would be no more absurd, in arithme- tic, to say that the numeral "5" shall represent five on Monday, six on Tuesday, seven on Wednesday, eight on Thursday, nine on Friday, and ten on Saturday, than it i3, in letters, to say that " a" shall represent the sound by which we call it, as a letter, in paper and hundreds of other words, that it shall represent short " a" in^iapand thousands of other words ; the long "aa" in father, Rama, and a hundred others; the long "an " in the long list of words like call, pall, talk ; the short "au" in waiit, wander, &c. ; and short " e" in any, many. The absurdity is acknowledged in the case of numerals not having a fixed value at all times, and in all cases, but it is not seen in letters. Or rather, it is now beginning to be seen, and the evil consequences that result, in an ignorant lower class, are rightly traced to it. It may be thought that calculation by figures would be impossible under such con- ditions as I have supposed. This I do not admit. The human mind, with its faculties though not infinite in themselves, capable of infinite applications, would be soon equal to the task of making the whole nine digits represent different numbers on different days or in different combinations. I think it would not be more diffi- cult to make each figure represent from two to five values than it was for Caesar to work a multiplication sum with five of our figures for a multiplier, or for Xenophon to do it with the Greek notation ; and I suppose that such feats were not unknown to the Greeks and Romans. The most marvellous thing I can conceive as to the power of memory is, a person equal to the spelling of the English language. Our spelling bees, in their brief day of existence, proved, to the satisfaction even of pedagogues, that there is no such thing as a standard orthography, and that no one is capable of memorizing all its vagaries. Unsatisfactory as they were soon found to be, they had one good effect, that of breaking the backbone of English orthography as a " just and proper method of spelling words." To take another illustration, — "o" represents its name sound in no, so, go ; it represents the short sound of " au " in not, top, gone, and this is its most general sound ; it represents a different short sound in done, come, wonder, and hundreds more ; and it represents a long " oo " in move, reprove, and a short " oo " in wolf, woman. You will notice that the vowels are more subject to these changes of sound than the consonants. Our five vowels, supplemented by an occasional use of "y" as a vowel, represent twenty-three sounds ; ami as there are only fourteen vowel sounds in tbe language (six long vowels, six short ones, and two diphthongs,) L ls ,.® vlden t that the same sound is in several cases represented by different letters ; thus the " e " of me, pique, by " e " and " i " and the short " au " in pot, was, by "o" and "a," and so on. 1 he following is the " Old-Letter Alphabet," displayed on one or trie .charts It gives the key to the sounds placed under the words in the Table that follows. OLD-LETTER PHONETIC ALPHABET. VOWELS. DIPHTHONGS. a e i o u V u . am ell ill on up full ei eu fine tune aa ai ee au oa OO by due alms ale eel all ope food bind few CONSONANTS. Explodents : p b t d ch i k 2 rope robe fate fade larch large leek league Continuants : f v 111 til S Z sh zli safe save thin then hiss his ship vision Nasals : m n ng Liquids : 1 r seem seen song fall more Coalescents : w y Aspirate : h wet yet bay We will now examine our written language in order to discover the number of letters in it, understanding by the word " letter " every representative of a single sound. It is evident that " ea " in meat represents the sound of "e " just as this single letter does in me. It is therefore another form of " e." In the absence of a sign for long " e," we are obliged to resort to the expedient of writing two letters, as " ee " meet, " ea," meat, " ie " fiend, or some other combination ; and our language is so rich in these trouble- some expedients that we have twenty-one ways of expressing this sound. We cannot write the simple " e," because this letter, followed by a consonant, represents another sound, as m-e-t met. Every combination of letters, therefore, that represents only one sound is virtually a letter, and must be so considered in learning to read English. _ The number of letters in the English alphabet, reckoned thus, if we take anomalous words as well as classes of words, is above 200. Beckoning classes of words only, our Alphabet contains ninety letters, which I will now enumerate' giving first the single letter or combination of two or three letters, then a word in which it occurs, and lastly the sound which it represents, all arranged under the five typical vowels, " a, e, i, o, u ;" and then the consonants in their ordinary sequence. A, taper, ai, E, me, ee, I, a a, Isaac, a, aw, law, au, ea, seal, ee, eu, feud, eu, ae, a-e, Raphael, gave, ai, awe, awe, au, ia, ea-e, breathe, ee, ew, dew, eu, ia-e, ai, ay. pay. ai, eau, beau, oa, ey, eye key, eye ee, TOWELS. ai, pain, ai, aye. aye. ai. ao, gaol, ai, au, laud, au, au-e, gauge, ai, ee, been, ee, e-e, mere, ee, ei. ei-e, eo. veil, conceive, Georgia, ai, ee, pint, parliament, carriage, ei, if iou, ai, -ue, ei. ie, relief, ee, Y, ye vicious, intrigue, tidy, u, ee, 1, oa, oa-e, oe, o-e, coal, coarse, shoe, move oa, oa, oo, oo, ou-e, o-ue, ow, house, prorogue, vow, ou, oa, ou, ua, ue, u-e, ui, duty, piquant, blue, use, build, eu, a, eu, eu, i, i-e, restive, i, y- e - scythe, ei. ie-e, grieve, ee, lew, view, eu, o, 10, motion, O, o, no, oa, U, dye, ei, oi, toil, oi, °y- boy. oi. oi-e, noise, oi, 00, brood, 00, oo-e, goose, OO, ou, noun, OU, ui-e, guide, ei, uo, u-ue, liquor, fugue, o, eu, uy- buy. ei. CONSONANTS. Stable.— b, d, f, h, j, k, 1, m, n, p, r, s, t, v, w, y, z. Unstable.— c, g. Useless— c, q, x. Digraphs. — ch, gh, ph, rh, sh, th, ng. In this amazing conglomeration of absurdities called English spelling, it is not enough that we have ninety letters to work with, and to remember their powers, but everyone of these letters, sin- gle, double, and treble, instead of representing a fixed sound, represents several sounds. Each one of these ninety letters is one thing in one word, and another thing in another word. I must ask you to take my word here that I am speaking by book and from actual counting, for I should tire you if I were to quota illustrative words to prove everything that I advance. Eor instance, I shall quote but eleven of these 90 letters, and give but one of the many sounds of each. I repeat that each of these ninety letters represents from two to eight different sounds, and there is no clue as to which of these is to be chosen in any given word. The word must be pronounced by the teacher, or hunted out in a pronouncing dictionary. At the age of sixteen I read Walker's Pronouncing Dictionary through, primarily in order to get at the pronunciation of the whole language. I read it through a second time at the age of twenty-one, to gather up any- thing that I had overlooked or forgotten in the first reading. This minute study of the language made me familiar with the spelling and pronunciation. Would you impose on all future generations the toil of committing to memory the thousands of irregular spel- lings which constitute English orthography, and the labor of remembering the pronunciation of the words, not by means of the spelling, but in spite of it? If we do nothing to remedy this wrongness, and thus abate the evil consequences that flow from it, we become responsible for its continuance ; for, as St. James says, " To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." The national conscience, however, is awakened on th« subject now, and I do not speak in clap-trap when I say that the clock of time has struck the hour of spelling reform. Every philologist in the kingdom whose name is known to me — the Archbishop of Dublin (I refer to Trench "On the Study of Words") is not eminent in this line — every philologist in the king- dom is on the side of phonetic spelling and spelling reform. I may mention the prince of philologists Max Miiller, our own Mr. Sayce, and the Rev. Prebendary Earle, both of Oxford ; Mr. Skeat, Anglo-Saxon Professor at Cambridge University ; Drs. Morris and Murray, Mr. A. J. Ellis and Mr. Sweet, all presi- dents, past or present, of the Philological Society, and Dr. Latham. To this list I may add the names of Sir Charles Peed, President of the London School Board, Dr. Norman Kerr, Rev. Russell Martineau, Dr. J. H. Gladstone, and Mr. Chadwick. In America the reform is supported by Professors Whitney, Haldeman, March, and a host of teachers. What shall we do with proper names, supposing that we could correct the spelling of the common words of the language ? Leave their owners to do with them as they like. They are their property, and we have no right to alter them, except to show, by a phonetic alphabet, how they are pronounced. But it is not to be supposed that people will keep silent letters in their names, and use the other letters ambiguously, when all the other words of the language are spelled correctly. I will now present in a tabular form the various Pounds of a few only of these ninety letters, selecting the five vowels, one vowel digraph, " au," the two harlequin consonants " c, g," the double-faced " th," and the famous termination " -ough." I look upon this " G.H." as an arrant rogue, he is so often lurk- ing in secret places, and I apostrophise him thus : — " Oh you G.H. ! you are a deceiver; you are generally silent in words, and when not silent, you prevaricate ; we will soon give you a short shrift ! " Mr Pitman then repeated the words under the following capital letters, giving the various sounds which each letter or digraph represents, here shown by the letters underneath, interpreted by the Phonetic Alphabet given above. A — hating, father, wall, any, hand, want, ai, aa, au, e, a, o. E — me, olerk, pretty, met. ee, a, i, e. I — bind, bin, bird, machine. ei, O — so, 1, e, ee. do, not, woman, i oa, oo, o, u, TJ — using, but, truly, busy, eu, u, AU— gauging, ai, C — vermicelli, ch, bury, oo, i, e, aunt, maul, hauteur, aa, au, oa, cat, cent, suffice, k, 8, rouge, zh. Callaghan, Bellingham, Greenhalgh. thy, pothouse, th, " t-h, tough, cough, eighth, Bathampton. t-th, ih-h. hiccough, plough, up, ou, laugh, f, through, 00, son. u. pull, persuade. u, w. Archelaus. ai-u. Ticious. sh. G— gem, get, „„ J'- S \ GH— hiccough, Callaghan, Bellingham, hough, ghost, P.. „k, j, k, g, Keighley, th, TH— thyme, thigh, t, th, OUGH— though, oa, uf, of, lough, ought, ok, au. Before I introduce and explain the phonetic alphabet, the only eure for this long-standing and crying evil, it may be expected that I should fortify my position by quoting the opinions of eminent men who have written on this subject. Max Miiller, in an article in the Fortnightly Review for April, 1876, says : — " The whole matter [of a reformed spelling] is no longer a mat- ter 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 baphazard and frequently irrational motives. I do not say, therefore, with Dean Swift, that ' there is a degree of cor- ruption 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. " In every written language the proble m of reforming its antr quated spelling must sooner or later arise ; and we must form some clear notion whether anything can be done to remove or alleviate a complaint inherent in the very life of language. " 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. I bold that language is meant as 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 great event which forms a decisive epoch in the history of spelling is the introduction of printing. With printed books, and particularly with printed Bibles, scattered over the country, the spelling of words became rigid and universally binding. Some languages, such as Italian, were more fortunate than others in having a more rational system of spelling to start with. Some again, like German, were able to make timely concessions, while others, such as Spanish, Dutch, and French, had Academies to help them at critical periods of their history. The most unfortu- nate in all these respects was English. It started with a Latin alphabet, the pronunciation of which was unsettled,_ and which had to be applied to a Teutonic language. After this first pho- netic compromise, it had to pass through a confused system of spelling, half Saxon, half Norman ; half phonetic, half traditional. And even after English reaches the period of printing, the confu- sion is by no means terminated ; on the contrary, for a time it is greater than ever. How this came to pass has been well illus- trated by Mr. Marsh in his excellent ' Lectures on the English Language,' p. 687, seq. What we now call the established system of English orthography may, in the main, be traced back to John- son's Dictionary, and to the still more capricious sway exercised by large printing offices and publishers. It is true that the evil of printing carried to a certain extent its own remedy. If the spelling became unchangeable, the language itself too, was by means of a printed literature, checked considerably in its natural growth and its dialectic variety. Nevertheless English has changed since the invention of printing ; English is changing, though by imperceptible degrees, even now ; and if we compare English as spoken with English as writteD, they seern almost like two different languages ; as different as Latin is from Italian. " This, no doubt, is a national misfortune, but it is inevitable. Little as we perceive it, language is, and always must be, in a state of fermentation ; and whether within hundreds or within thousands of years, all living languages must be prepared to en- counter the difficulty which in England stares us in the face at present. ' What shall we do ? ' ask our friends. ' There is our whole national literature,' they say ; ' our libraries actually bursting with books and newspapers. Are all these to be thrown away ? Are all valuable books ti > be reprinted ? Are we ourselves to unlearn what we have learned with so much trouble, and 8 what we have taught to our children with greater trouble still ? Are we to sacrifice all that is historical iu our language, and sink down to the low level of the Fonetic Nuz ? ' I could go on multiplying these questions till even those men of the world who now have only a shrug of the shoulder for the reformers of spelling, should say, ' We had no idea how strong our position really is.' "But with all that, the problem remains unsolved. What are people to do when language and pronunciation change, while their spelling is declared to be unchangeable ? It is, I believe, hardly necessary that I should prove how corrupt, effete, and utterly irrational the present system of spelling is, for no one seems inclined to deny all that. I shall only quote, therefore, the judgment of one man, the late Bishop Thirlwall, a man who never used exaggerated language. ' I look,' he says, 'upon the estab- lished system, if an accidental custom may be so called, as a mass of anomalies, the growth of ignorance and chance, equally repug- nant to good taste and to common sense. But I am aware that the public cling to these anomalies with a tenacity proportionate to their absurdity, and are jealous of all encroachment on ground consecrated by prescription to the free play of blind caprice.' " Max Miiller then quotes from the Educational Government Reports the very inadequate " results " which Her Majesty's school Inspectors have to record. The sum of the matter is, that in 1873, and it is nearly the same in the Report for 1877-8, ninety per cent, of the children leave the public schools without being able to read a short paragraph from a newspaper, and write the same from dictation ; and for these results the country pays, by taxation or by voluntary contributions, nearly £3,500,000 ! Max Miiller goes on to say : — " After a careful examination of young men and women from thirteen to twenty years of age in the factories of Birmingham, it was proved that only four-and-a-half per cent, were able to read a simple sentence from an ordinary school-book with intelligence and accuracy. " Among the teachers themselves it was found in America that out of one hundred common words, the best speller among the eighty or ninety teachers examined failed in one, some prize-tak- ers failed in four or five, and some others missed over forty. The Deputy State Superintendent declared that on an average the teach- ers of tue State would fail in spelling to the extent of 25 percent. " What, however, is even more serious than all this is, not the great waste of time in learning to read, and the almost complete failure in national education, but the actual mischief done by subjecting young minds to the illogical and tedious drudgery of learning to read English as spelled at present. Everything they have to learn in reading (or pronunciation) and spelling is ir- rational ; one rule contradicts the other, and each statement has to be accepted simply on authority, and with a complete disregard of all those rational instincts which lie dormant in the child, and ought to be awakened by every kind of healthy exercise. " I know there are persons who can defend anything, and who hold that it is due to this very discipline that theEnglish charac- ter is what it is : that it retains respect for authority ; that it does not require a reason for everything ; and that it does not admit that wliat is inconceivable is therefore impossible. Even English orthodoxy has been traced back to that hidden source, because a child accustomed to believe that though is though, and that through is through, would afterwards believe anything. It may be so ; still I doubt whether even such objects would justify such means. Lord Lytton says, ' A more lying, roundabout, puzzle- headed delusion than that by which we confuse the clear instincts of truth in our accursed system of spelling was never concocted by the father of falsehood How can a system of education flourish that begins by so monstrous a falsehood, which the sense of hearing suffices to contradict ? ' "The question, then, that will have to be answered sooner or later is this : — Can this unsystematic system of spelling English be allowed to go on for ever ? Is every English child, as com pared with other children, to be mulcted in two or three years of his life in order to learn it ? Are the lower classes to go through school without learning to read and write their own language intel- ligently? And is the country to pay millions every year for this utter failure of national education ? I do not believe that such a state of things will be allowed to continue for ever, particularly as a remedy is at hand— a remedy that has now been tested for twenty or thirty years, and that has answered extremely well. I mean Mr. Pitman's system of rjhonetic writing, as applied to English. " I give his alphabet, which comprehends the 38 broad typical sounds of the English language, and assigns to each a definite sign. With these 38 signs, English can be written rationally and read easily ; and, what is most important, it has been proved by an experience of many years, by numerous publications, and by prac- tical experiments in teaching both children and adults, that such a system as Mr Pitman's is perfectly practical." The phonetic alphabet and three quarters of a page in phonetic printing are then given in the Fortnightly Review, and the conclu- sion at which Max Miiller arrives is : — " I feel convinced of the truth and reasonableness of the princi- ples on which the Phonetic Reform rests, and as the innate regard for truth and reason, however dormant or timid at times, has always proved irresistible in the end, enabling men to part with all they hold most dear and sacred, whether corn laws, or Stuart dynasties, or papal legates, or heathen idols, I doubt not that the effete and corrupt orthography will follow in their train. Nations have before now changed their numerical figures, their letters, their chronology, their weights and measures ; and though Mr Pitman may not live to see the results of his persevering and disinterested exertions, it requires no prophetic power to perceive that what at present is pooh-poohed by the many, will make its way in the end unless met by arguments stronger than those hitherto levelled at the Fonetic Nuz. One argument which might be supposed to weigh with the student of language, namely, the obscuration of the etymological structure of words, I cannot consider very for- 10 midable. The pronunciation of languages changes according to fixed laws, the spelling is changed in the most arbitrary manner, so that if our spelling followed the pronunciation of words, it would in reality be a greater help to the critical student of language than the present uncertain and unscientific mode of writing. " It might be said, however, that Mr Pitman's system, being entirely phonetic, is too radical a reform, and that many and the worst irregularities in English spelling could be removed without going quite so far. The principle that half a loaf is better than no bread is not without some truth, and in many cases we know that a policy of compromise has been productive of very good re- sults. But, on the other hand, this half-hearted policy has often retarded a real and complete reform of existing abuses ; and in the case of a reform of spelling, I almost doubt whether the difficulties inherent in half measures are not as great as the difficulties of carrying a complete reform. If the world is not ready for reform, let us wait. It seems far better, and at all events far more hon- est, to wait till it is ready than to carry the reluctant world with you a little way, and then to find that all the impulsive force is spent, and the greater part of the abuses established on firmer ground than ever. "There remains, therefore, this one objection only, that what- ever the practical and whatever the theoretical advantages of the phonetic system may be, it would utterly destroy the histori- cal or etymological character of the English language. " Suppose it did ; what then ? The Information is supposed to have destroyed the historical character of the English Church, and that sentimental grievance is still felt by some students of ecclesiastical antiquities. But did England, did all the really progressive nations of Europe allow this sentimental grievance to outweigh the practical and theoretical advantages of Protestant Reform ? Language is not made for scholars and etymologists ; and if the whole race of English etymologists were really to be swept away by the introduction of a Spelling Reform, I hope they would be the first to rejoice in sacrificing themselves in so good a cause. " Thus far I have tried to answer the really important argu- ments which have been brought forward against phonetic spelling. I have done so with special reference to the powerful remonstrances of Archbishop Trench, and his most able pleading in favor of the established system of orthography. As a mere scholar, I fully share his feelings, and I sincerely admire his eloquent advocacy. I differ from him because I do not think, as he does, that the loss entailed by phonetic spelling would be so great as we imagine ; or that it would be all on one side. Besides, unless he can show how a reform of spelling is not only for the present to be avoided, but altogether to be rendered unnecessary, I consider that the sooner it is taken in hand the better. It seems to me that the Archbishop looks on the introduction of phonetic spelling as a mere crotchet of a few scholars, or as an attempt on the part of some half-educated persons, wishing to avoid the trouble of learn- ing how to spell correctly. If that were so, I quite agree with him 11 that public opinion would never assume sufficient force for carry ing their scheme. But there is a motive power behind these pho- netic reformers which the Archbishop has hardly taken into account. I mean the misery endured by millions of children at school, who might learn in one year, and with real advantage to themselves, what they now require four or five years to learn, and seldom succeed in learning after all. If the evidence of such men as Mr Ellis is to be depended on, and I believe they are willing to submit to any test, then surely the loss of some histori- cal and etymological souvenirs would weigh little against the happiness of millions of children, and the stall higher happi- ness of millions of Englishmen and Englishwomen growing up as the heirs to all the wealth and strength of English litera- ture, — or unable to read even their Bible. Here it is where I venture to differ from the Archbishop, not as being sanguine as to any immediate success, but simply as feeling it a duty to help in a cause which at present is most unpopular. The evil day may be put off for along time, particularly if the weight of such men as Archbishop Trench is thrown into the other scale. But unless language ceases to be language, and writing ceases to be writing, the day will surely come when peace will have to be made between the two. " What I like in Mr Pitman's system of spelling is exactly what I know has been found fault with by others, namely, that he does not attempt to refine too much, and to express in writing those endless shades of pronunciation which may be of the great- est interest to the student of acoustics, or of phonetics, as applied to the study of living dialects, but which, for practical as well as for scientific philological purposes, must be entirely ignored. Writing was never intended to photograph spoken languages : it was meant to indicate, not to paint, sounds. Language deals in broad colours, and writing ought to follow the example of language, which, though it allows an endless variety of pronunciation, re- stricts itself for its own purpose — for the purpose of expressing thought in -all its modifications — to a very limited number of typical vowels and consonants. Out of the large number of vowel sounds, for instance, which have been catalogued from the various English dialects, those only can be recognised as constituent ele- ments of the language which in, and by, their difference from each other convey a difference of meauing. Of such pregnant and thought-conveying vowels, English possesses no more than twelve, [and two diphthongs, namely, the long i and the long u]. What- ever the minor shades of vowel sounds in English dialects may be, they do not enrich the language as such, that is, they do not enable the speaker to convey more minute shades of thought than the twelve typical single vowels. " The real state of the case is this — No one defends the present system of spelling ; everyone admits the serious injury which it inflicts on national education. Everybody admits the practical advantages of phonetic spelling but after that, all exclaim that a reform of spelling, whether partial or complete, is impossible. Whether it is impossible or not, I gladly leave to men of the world 12 to decide. As a scholar, as a student of the history of lan- guage, I maintain that in every written language a reform of spelling is, sooner or later, inevitable. No doubt the evil day may be put off. I have little doubt that it will be put off for many generations, and that a real reform will probably not be carried except concurrently with a violent social convulsion. [The lecturer expressed his dissent from this supposition.] Only let the question be argued fairly. Let facts have some weight, and let it not be supposed by men of the world that those who defend the principles of the Fonetic Nuz are only teetotalers and vegetarians, who have never learned how to spell. Mr Pitman's Phonetis Journal has now been published thirty-four [37] years, and if it is known that it is published weekly in 9,250 [now 11,500] copies, each copy representing at least four or five readers, it may not seem so very foolish, after all, if we imagine that there is some yital power in that insignificant germ." It is related that when the poet Heine was a little boy, learning the orthography of the German language, which is order itself compared with the English orthography, his heart was ready to break at the tiresome task set him of memorising the numerous exceptions to the rules for spelling — rules apparently set up for the express purpose of irritating all the words of the language into bristling rebellion ; and he came to the very sensible conclu- sion that the Romans found time to conquer the whole world because they had not to learn their own language ; that is, in the way we modern nations have to learn ours, through a tortuous system of spelling that defies the strongest intellect to memorise it. Mr Pitman then explained the Phonetic Alphabet, of which the following is a copy : — PHONETIC ALPHABET OF 38 LETTERS. VOWELS. DIPHTHONGS a am e ell i o ill on up u full fine tune 6 alms z ale i o eel all ope m food by due bind few Explodent$ : p g CONSONANTS. b t d c, j k rope robe fate fade larch large leek league Continuants : I V 1 & 8 Z ?. safe save thin then hiss his ship vision Nazals : m n I) Liquids : 1 r seem seen song fall more Coaletcenls : w y Aspirate : h wet yet hay 13 [The nekst three pagez ov this lekture ar printed fonetikali az tu the konsonants, (eksept c and g in a, few kasez,) the short vouelz, and the difthongz oi, ou. This style ov speling, which may be called " Semifonotipi," solvz the Speling .Reform problem propounded by Profesor Whitney in theze wsrdz : — " A begining eniwhere, or ov eni kind, iz whot iz most wonted. Break doun the fols sakrednes ov the prezent modez ov speling. Aksstom peopel not tu shiver when they see wsrdz 'misspeld,' and ssni- thing gud wil be the rezslt." Each ov the five vouelz a, e, i, o, u, when reprezenting a short sound, (or uzed in the difthongz oi, ou,) haz its fonetik value, az az in pat, pet, pit, pot, put, and "s" (son, but, toagh, jintmey) iz introduced, for which printerz kan substitute " a " sntil they prokure the new leter " s," or enisther that may be preferd. C iz jenerali replaced by k or s when it iz so pronounst, qu iz repre- zented by kw, and x by ks or kz. The speliug ov the long vouelz iz not olterd. Nxthing iz changed that wud hav tu, be changed agen on the introdsktion ov the 15 new leterz : that iz, in Semifonotipi the fonetik digrafs (p. 3) ar not tu be uzed insted ov the ordiuari orthografi eksept where the komon orthografi iz not known, or tu indikate pronsnsiation. The silent digraf gh iz retaind when it oksrz in a silabel kontaining a long vonel, az bought, fight, bst not in a wsrd with a short vouel, az eough, rough=kof, r*f. An initial silent k orw iz retaind, az in know, who, if its omission wud mislead the reader. The old spel- ing iz not tu be olterd, if the change wud prevent the wsid fiom being rekognized : when the old speling iz not known, emploi the fonetik digrafs that reprezent its sound. Whenever the komou speling iz olterd by this skeme, the new orthografi iz striktli fonetik. Ther ar alio several wsrdz which it iz dezirabel tu olter because their prezent speling departs from the historikal speling : ssch ar : —rhyme, rime ; whole, hole ; delight, delite ; doubt, dout. The folowiug ekzampelz ilsstrate the maner ov uziug the fonetik digrafs in order tu show the prousnsiation ov wsrdz. aa, raather(not rather, like lather) *i, ga'j (gauge) ee, beleev (bel?'«ve),reseev (receive) au, abraud (abroad) oa, foak (folk) oo, proov (prove) «i, leiv-long (live-long) eu, feushia (fuchsia) eh, Marcubauks (Majoribanks) th, Keethli, (Keighley) This digraf may kontinue to rep- resent both soundz ordinarili. When a distinktiou iz rekwireil, " dh" may reprezent the vois-letei'iu then, dhen. ah, schedule, (pronounced thedeul ill Injjland aud sktdeulin Amerika.) zh, vizhon (vision) ng longger, more long; longer, one who longs.J With the alfabet on page 12, lerningtu read and spel iz the eaziejt thing that a child kan undertake. Sstn yearz ago, Mr Pitman sed, he printed, in this alfabet, the Gospelz, Jenesis, the Saatnz, and the buk ov Akts, in the kngwage ov the Mikmak Iudianz ov North Amerika, and the Miasionari who uzed the buks rote tu him, " The Indianz lern the alfabet wsn (one) day, and begin tu read the nekst." Kompare with this the lerning tu read and spel Inglish. In our 14 magniSsent tvng, with its recked orthografi, the ferst long vouel " aa," iz reprezented in five diferent wayz ; the sekond, " ai," in seventeen wayz ; the therd, " ee," haz twenti-w^n diferent spelingz ; the fourth vouel, " au," iz reprezented by nine diferent kombinationa ov leterz ; the fifth vouel, "oa " haz nineteen modez ov reprezenta- tion ; and the siksth vouel, " oo," haz twenti-wsn ; az shown in the folowing tabel, which woz red: — e— rather, alms, ah ! eclat, aunt, a, al, ah, at, au. i;— waking, mate, champagne, dahlia, fain, straight, gaol, a, a-e, ag-e, ah, ai, aigh, ao, gauging, plague, may, great, there, eh ! their, reign, au, a-ue, ay, ea, e-e, eh, ei, eig, weigh, whey, eigh, ey. a— me, meat, leave, league, meet, mete, sleeeve, impregn, e, ea, ea-e, ea-ue, ee, e-e, ee-e, eg, conceit, receive, receipt, people, key, invalid, grief, ei, ei-e, eip, eo, ey, i, ie, magazine, grieve, debris, fatigue, quay, mosquito, i-e, ie-e, is, i-ue, uay, ui. o— fall, talk, haul, Maude, aught, awful, awe, broad, ought, a, al, au, au-e, augh, aw, awe, oa, ough. cv_hauteur, beau, Bordeaux, yeoman, host, boat, Cockburn, au, eau, eaux, eo, o, oa, ock, foe, cone, oglio, oh ! folk, brooch, apropos, mould, oe,' o-e, og, oh, ol, oo, os, ou, vogue, though, know, sword, o-ue, ough, ow, wo. ui— galleon, Eeuben, grew, rheum, rhubarb, do, canoe, oo, eu, ew, heu, hu, o, oe, prove, manoeuvre, too, soup, bouse, through, rendevous, o-e, oeu, oo, ou ou-e, ough, ous, surtout, ruling, true, rule bruise, two, who. out, u, ue, u-e, ui-e, wo, w-o. The folowing wayz ov reprezenting the sound ov sh wer red : — f —associate, machine, ancient, nauseate, schist, nauseous, J C) ch, ci, 8, sch, se, cushion, negotiate, ocean, fuchsia, prescience, shi, ti ee, chs, sc, conscience, ship, tension, passion, action, fluxion, sci, sh, si, sei, ti, xi. 15 Ssm kwotationz wer then given from Amerikan periodikalz, show- ing that a wide-spred feeling in favor ov reform ekzists in the United States. The demand for fonetikali printed buks, in shorthand and in type, the lekturer sed, woz konsiderabel, and woz inkreasing. Ther wer sent out from the Fonetik Institute, at the bak ov the Abi, by rail and by post, half a tsn, or 1,1201b. weight ov fonetik buks everi week, numbering about fourteen thouzand buks and periodikalz. Ot theze the Fonetik Jsrnal formd the prinsipal item in point ov num- ber, while in point ov weight it woz onli ekwal tu the ssply ov buks. Mr Pitman konkluded by reading the folowing "leader" from the Boston (U.S.) Herald, ov 4th Januari : — " The Amerikan or Inglish boi iz ' born tu ' speling ' az the sparks fly spward.' It iz real ksinfort tu all lsverz ov de litel folks tu see that ad a recent Konventionov teacherz in Wuster (Worcester), the ssbjektor reform in the speling ov Inglish woz brought before them by Mr Jozef Allen, ov West Newton. From hiz adres on this okasion, az wel az from several previss wsnz on the same topik, it iz evident that Mr Alen iz a veri klear-hcded and maskulin kind ov Rachel weeping for the children, and determind not tu be ksmforted so long az they ar left sobing and breaking their litel harts at being street over the prezent orthografikal rak. Eefuzing sterli tu admit the fatalistik idea that speling iz a rnaladi jsst az inevitabel tu childhud az meazelz and skarlet fever, he insists that everi simptom ov it kan be eradikated from the konstitution. No Jerman boi haz tu lern tu spel. Even if a veri pervers boi, and determind tu anoi the teacher, he kanot get sp injenuiti ensf tu spel rong, if he triez tu. And this, for the simpel reazon that everi leter standz for wsn onest dounright sound. So might each wsn in Inglish, if men kud onli konsent tu adopt a rational alfabet. Meanwhile, the los of time, patience and spirits, alike tu teacher and pupil, iz ssmthing apaling tu kontemplate. The Amerikan boi iz at a disadvantage ov two hole yearz ov hiz skool life in komparison with the Jerman boi. Oh, the long weari kolsmz ov wsrdz he haz tu memorize, an eksersize repslsiv in itself, imparting no item ov interesting or useful nolej, and giving no sort ov training tu the mind. It takes him two yearz tu master a series ov abssrditia that the Jerman boi never dreamd eni peopel wer idiotik ensf tu be- lieve in. Meanwhile, the ysng Teuton haz had hiz mind at liberti tu store sp two yearz' wsrth ov ssmthing instrsktiv and atraktiv. " It iz related ov Voltaire that when, in hiz painful efort tu lern Inglish, he disksverd that the leterz a-g-u-e speld ague, a wsrd ot two silabelz, bst that, if you inkreast the length by ading two more leterz, and so got p-l-a-g-u-e, the wsrd bekame wsn silabel, and woz pronounst plague (plaig), he threw the buk akros the room, fairli danced in Franko-filolojikal rage, and wisht in hiz own biter way that wsn-half ov the Inglish nation might hav the ague and the sder half the plague (plaigeuj. Ov kourse, Voltaire woz a man ov too highli peperi a temperament tu be snrezervedli komended az a model for litel children. Stil, whot rashonal konkluzhon ought tu be drawn from the spektakel ov him, a grown man and a filosofer, going of intu ssch a furi over the bite ov wsn sporadik moskeeto out ov the kountles swormz that for yearz on yearz ar singing around and inflaming the blsd ov all the litel inosents in the skoolz P 16 [The conclusion of this Lecture is printed in Phonotypy.~\ " Noti dis konfident belif dat de adopjon ov a reformd alfabet wud anjhilet wsn ov do merst fr[tful sksrjez tu whig Amerikan or ItjgH/ qjldhud iz ssbjekted, iz ner m.ir idiosinkrasi ov Mr Alen. ©1 de gret skolarz ov Ireland and Amerika ar fast whilig intu \{n wid him. Tu men ljk Whitni, Haldeman, Gudwin and Marq, de kwestion iz riali asqmir) a pozifon ov najonal importans, az de kontemplet de gret res- -strxgel for ljf, and f.il prcrfoundli dat our ymi msst not bi sent in. handikapt wid de ded wet ov ttu yirz sonk in lernin hou tu spel irn- perfektli; whjl, ov de distingwijt ;Prerfesor at de bed ov de IrjgliJ department at Harvard, de kolej-boiz, rjtli or ronli, naret dat hi ferli ekzxlts when de spel outrejosli, and herps dat, ljk ser meni Hampdenz standin out agenst Jip-msni, de wil kip on duiin de setn til de reform iz instituted. Ad tu dis de fakt dat merr dan 130 Skuil Borrdz in Itjgland hav memerrialjzd dc Najonal Government on de ssbjckt, and dat de sem herldz triu ov meni similar Berrdz in Amerika, and it riali beginz tu luk az der klir striks ov deljt wer spirit). " 3er iz no - gen, houever, in ignerrig de praktikal difikyltiz dat lj in de we ov eni gret reform. Tu nsJirj, xnles tu whiski and tcrbaker, dm men klin so tenejosli az tu der inherited habits ov langwej. A popular orator nid ask ner merr prerpijss qans for elisitig hiutirjz and deri3on from an odieus dan in simpli pointin de finger ov skorn at a Prerfesor Wbitni. hiu prerperzez tu spel cat k-a-t. And perhaps it iz emli natural dat de onhapi biinz. huu hav given ttu ov de best yirz ov der em ljvz tu masteriij an idiotik sistem ov speliy, Jud bi sori tu si an order ov rJiijz ger out dat fsrnijez de foundejon ov de won and emli din de hav tu berst ov. Stil, de paternal instinkt iz stron in hqmaniti, and n.idz emli tu bi rouzd tu de proper pit; tu swoler sp seltij konsidere- Jonz. 3e werz ov de qildren : dis iz de point tu fasen atenjon on. In de mir mater ov demonstretirj de nesesiti and fizibiliti ov de reform, de skolarz hav dsn der part. Nou de kwestion kxmz wheder de psb- lik ar redi tu tek de mater sp demselvz. Emfatikali disiz a kwestion on tvhiq tu enlist de simpaliz ov de wimen ov de land. It iz not an abstruis wxn. It iz won konkrit wid de tirz, wirines and hedeks ov qildren. 3e remedi dat ljz in a reformd alfabet iz won dat everi ui-sder kud grasp dnu a fq ourz' atenjon. Eouzandz and tenz ov douzandz ov wimen ar krjin out dat de hav ner karar. Hir iz a karir wsrdi ov de best ov dem. Let dem get *p an ajitejon in everi boushedd and skmlrium. Let dem rez de krj, ' Kirj Herod and hiz miuionz ar brenin de inosents wid speliij-buks! ' Let dem petijon Ms Stti tu rjt ansder '"JTnkel Tom'z Kabin.' Wid her imajinejon, Ji kud enter intu depis ov palos and trajedi snderljin de dim in a we dat wud ksm herm tu de biuzomz ov de merst kalss. For, siriosli spikiij, it iz an outrej dat dis praktikal land ov Amerika, whiq haz invented merer? and r.iperz tu sev de swet ov de hxzbandman, and wojerz and rirjerz tu sev de msselz ov its wimen, Jud stil ger on kontented tu let its qil- dren ekzust de vjtaliti ov trii ov de best yirz ov ljf over a bruital and barbarik tradijon dat ot tu hav bin abolijt a Sentiqri ago-." Printed by Isaac Pitmau, Phonetic Intitule, Data. 9 THE EUTUKE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AX ARGUMENT FOE A SPELLING REFORM. BY WILLIAM E. A. AXON, M.E.S.L., F.S.S. Reprinted, by permission, from the " Quarterly Journal of Science," for July, 1873. LONDON : F. PITMAN, 20 PATERNOSTER ROW. BATH : ISAAC PITMAN, PHONETIC INSTITUTE, PARSONAGE LANE. AND ALL BOOKSELLERS. Price One Penny, Qd. per dozen. 1874. THE PHONETIC ALPHABET. The phonetic letters in the like the italic letters in the column contains the names CONSONANTS. Mutes. P p rope pi B b robe hi T t fate ti D d fade d.i G g etch . . . . qe J j edge . . . . je K k lee£ ks G- g lea^oie. . . ge Continuants. F f sa/e ef V v sare v.i E. $ wreath . . . ii 3. d wreathe. . di S s hiss es Z z his zi X J vicious . . . ij X g vision. . . .3a Nasals. M m seem. . . . em N n seen en W 9 s % iy Diphthongs : I< j, as heard in hy, first column are pronounced words that follow. TJie last of the letters. Liquids. L 1 Ml el R r rare ar Coalescents. W w wet we Y y yet ye Aspirate. H h Aay eg VOWELS. Guttural. A a am at R £ «lms b E e ell et £ e ale e I i ill it L .i eel i Labial. O o on ot O o all o "5" y Mp 3t CF o ope er U u foil ut IU ui food m U ii, OU oil, 01 oi. new, now, hoy. THE FUTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. 1 A universal language has been the dream of many minds. It has been a subject of frequent aspiration, hope, and despair. That the civilised earth should speak one common dialect is indeed a " con- summation devoutly to be wished." The number of languages in existence at the present moment is unknown, but, as Prof. Miiller has said, they cannot be less than 900. Adelung has estimated the number of known dialects at 3,664, of which 937 belong to Asia, 587 to Europe, 276 to Africa, and 1,621 to America. Balbi has enumerated 860 languages, forming about 5,000 dialects. Of these languages 53 belong to Europe, 153 to Asia, 115 to Africa, 422 to America, and 117 to Oceania. There can be no doubt that this esti- mate very greatly underrates iu every particular the number of existing; methods of speech. If we contemplate the amazing variety of this Babel of sounds, the first sentiment is one of wonder at the sanguine hopefulness of t hose who expect to see the chaos reduced to order and symmetry. Some, dismayed perhaps by the great number of dialects, have thought it impossible that any one language should ever conquer all its oppo- nents, and remain in undisputed possession of the field, and have there- fore sought for a method by which the same symbol should represent one idea and many sounds. That such a scheme is absolutely impos- sible would be too much to say, for a plan of this kind is already applied in the case of numerals. The figure " 1 " is called by the Italian uno, by the Welshman un, by the German ein ; but to all three it conveys the idea of unity. The Frenchman's quatre-vingt-douze is very unlike in sound to the English ninety-two, but the figures " ' represent them both. The construction of an artificial philosphical language, if not beyond the bounds of possibility, is too far from the realms of the practical to need more than passing mentioi . an 1 the chances of its adoption even when created would be of the very smallest. 2 A few centuries ago, the learned were really in possession of a universal language. Learning confined then to a comparatively small number of individuals, was all consigned to the Latin language. In the street the scholar spoke his mother-tongue, but in the study and iu the lecture room Latin alone was heard. lie wooed his sweetheart in English or in German, as the case might be ; but he wooed the 1 A considerable portion of this paper was originally delivered a9 a Presi- dential Address, :ird April, 1873, before the Manchester Eclectic Society. 2 Bishop "H'ilkins's "Real Character" is hardly known now, except from Prof. Midler's masterly analysis of it in his " Science of Language," (vol. 2, p. 47). It was based upon a classification of the attributes of the subjects of knowledge. An idea of Wilkins's, founded on the analogy of the scientific symbols used in the European languages, has been developed into a system of ideographs by De Mas {Ibid., p. Isj . 4 muses in the words which had served Virgil and Cicero. Many cir- cumstances contributed to this result. Latin was the language of the church, and the literary class was for a long period, to a very larsce extent, made up of the priestly caste. It wes not that all priests were literate, the reverse being, unhappily, often the case ; but outside the clerical professions there was no place for the activity and learn- ing of the student. And the most ignorant members of the priesthood would have at least some knowledge of the Latin tongue. Latin was the common universal language of the literati of Europe up to the period of the Renaissance. The Reformation shattered the unity of the western church, and led to the use in various countries of ver- nacular liturgies and translations of the Bible. The successive de- velopment of the rich popular literature of Italy, Spain, France, and our own country still further weakened it. Yet we see that, so late as the time of the English commonwealth, in was necessarv to write in Latin for a European audience. Milton, when pleading for a free press in that republic, used eloquent and earnest English words; but when he had to defend the commonwealth against its foreign assail- ants, he used the Latin tongue. Salmasius attacked the English nation before the literary tribunal of Europe, and both plea and reply are in the language of the courts. A little earlier we have a still more striking instance in the case of Lord Bacon, all of whose most impor- tant writings were written in Latin. Fancy Darwin or Huxley think- ing it necessary to their fame, and to the propagation of their theories, to write in any language but their own. When Newton's grand discoveries were made, they were recorded, not in English, but in Latin. Yet, when Bacon disdained to issue in English his views on the method of philosopy, it bad received the plays of Shakspere and the authorised version of the Scriptures, and in Newton's time it had been ennobled and dignified by the mighty music of Milton's verse. Latin retained its hold upon the physical sciences loug after it had ceased to be used to any great extent in any other field of literature. Even iu this field it has now lost its position. There are very few works of any great, scientific importance which have been issued in Latin during the past century. At present, of the writers on science, each one uses his own language, and leaves the propagation of his views to the mercy of translators, or the linguistic acquirements of his fellow-scholars. At no date were these probably grerter than at present. The knowledge of languages has become a very common ac- complishment ; but, after all, the acquirement of foreign idioms is a difficult thing ; and there must always be in every language a sort of holy of holies, into which the feet of the Gentile can never enter. 3 3 A recent writer gives his own linguistic experiences : — " As a boy, we were taught Greek and Latin, such an amount as enabled us to read a Greek testa- ment with the use occasionally of a lexicon, and to read freely Ovid and Vir- gil. But our future career was selected to be one in which Greek and Latin ft is also obvious that the study necessary to master merely the most important of the living languages must detract considerably from the amount of time which can be applied to the enlarging of the bounds of science. Let us disabuse ourselves of the vulgar notion that the man of science is a sort of lucky guesser, who arrives at conclusions by process of conjuring. Let us remember that he must be first of all an instructed man, well acquainted with what has already been done, ami what is actually being done. De Morgan speaks very em- phatically on this point: — " New knowledge, when to any purpose, must come by contemplation of old knowledge, in every matter which concerns thought; mechanical contrivance sometimes, not very often, escapes this rule. All the men who are now called discoverers, in every matter ruled by thought, have been men versed in the minds of their predecessors, and learned in what had been done before them. I may cite, among those who have wrought strongly upon opinion or practice in science, Aristotle, Plato, Ptolemy, Euclid, Archimedes, Roger Bacon, Copernicus, Francis Paeon, Ramus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Napier, Descartes, Leibnitz, Newton, Locke. I have taken none but names known out of their fields of work, and all were learned as well as sagacious." 4 But at no previous period was there such a general diffusion of scientific investigation. The problems which engage the attention of the savaiits of London and Berlin are also being eagerly scruti- nised by those of Florence, Boston, Melbourne, and Cracow. That men should at the same time be accomplished linguists and profound were not subjects for examination, but French and German ' paid well ;' consequently, four years were devoted to the study of these two languages, — at the end of which time we found ourselves in South Africa, where the only languages of any practical use were Dutch and Caffre. To Dutch and Caffre, consequently, we turned our attention ; and. after rather more than a year's study, we were able to converse imperfectly in both these. But again were we on the point of finding these later labors useless, for there was every prospect of our services being transferred to India ; and we heard from good authority that we were not likely to get <>n there uuless we could speak Hindustani, and perhaps understood Sanscrit or Persian. Here, then, wei - e Greek, Latin, French, German, Dutch, Caffre, Hindustani, Persian, Sanscrit, all to be learned, in order that one's own thoughts and wishes should be made intelligible to another person. In our judgment, this is not only a mistake, but it is a mistake which is remediable, and which is a slur upon the common sense and civilisation of the world." After pointing out that in music there is but one language, lie suggests that "a commit the scientific men of all nations should be formed, which should decide on a language that shall be termed the universal language. Let us suppose that German be fouud to be the most expressive and complete of existing lan- guages, and the one decided upon as the universal tongue. We i our education, not with a superficial knowledge of several languages, but with a thorough knowledge of German only. All other nations adopt the same course and we know that wherever civilisation has spread, wherever missionaries have resided and taught, we who speak this universal Ian shall be at once intelligible, and able to communicate our thoughts readily." — Chambers' is Journal, January, 1872. 4 Budget of Paradoxes, 1872, p. 4. scientists, is more than can be reasonably expected. There can, then, be no doubt that this diversity of languages is an evil for science, since it puts serious difficulties in the way of the highest scientific culture, which consists, to use Dr Matthew Arnold's phrase, in " ac- quainting ourselves with the best that has been known and said in the world" on the particular object of our study. The advantage to commerce of a common language is so obvious it needs only to be named in order to be appreciated. Is there an\ modern language which has any chauce of becoming the general medium of civilised intercourse, both in speech and in writing ? At one time the French language appeared likely to succeed to the heri- tage of the Latin. It was the language of diplomacy and of society ; its affinity to Latin made it easy of acquisition to the Teutonic races who had learned Latin in their schools; and to the people of South Europe it was already three parts known from its analogies with their own vernaculars. 5 That day has passed. If any language ever be- comes dominant, it is very unlikely that it will be French. France ■ coloniser, she is great, but her boundaries are limited. Her home population decreases ; her emigrants, instead of founding new Frances, are absorbed in the new Englands which are dotted over the globe. The German is no more a national coloniser than the Frenchman. He increases much faster, but beyond the boundaries of the Father- land the language makes small progress. The race goes to strengthen the American stock, hut the language has no root in the American soil. The best way to estimate the relative chances of various languages will be to ascertain the number of individuals who speak each of them. The statistics of language have not received a very large amount of attention, but the number of wide-extended languages is not very great. In this case we may safely leave out of consideration the lan- guages which are not of European origin. The oriental tongues are not aggressive nor numerically strong enough to be factors in the problem. The materials for a rigidly accurate census of languages do not exist, but an approximately correct solution can be formed : — Portuguese. In Portugal 3,980,000 „ Brazil 10,000,000 13,980,000 Italian. In Italy 26,796,253 „ France 540.985 „ Switzerland 186,000 27,524,238 5 There was a time when the academy of Berlin published its transactions in French. Italy has a certain commercial currency in the Mediterranean, but has not taken root. French. In France 36,225,000 „ Belgium 2,325,000 „ Switzerland _ 038,000 France has very few colonics. If all their popu-"^ lations spoke French, it would only add > 1,000,000 3,63 1,000 persons. A million is a fair estimate J 40,188,000 Russian. ■ It has been said that there are 24 languages spoken in the Russian Empire, but the prevailing one is the Russ, and the number of those who speak it is reckoned at 51,370,000. Spanish. Spain, including the Canary and Balearic Isles ... 16,301,000 South America. If we give Spanish all the ") South American States except Brazil, > ... 27,408,082 there will be ... ... ... j 43,709,082 German. German Empire 41,058,000 Austria 9,160,000 Belgium 2,747,000 Russia ... .: 985,000 Finland 1,000 Switzerland 1,838,000 55,789,000 De Candolle has estimated the German - speaking peoples at 82,000,000, which appears too high a figure. G English. English is spoken by 40,000,000 in the United States, by 50,00fj in the republic of Liberia, by 31,000,000 British subjects in Europe, by 5,000,000 in America, by 2,000,000 in Australia, and by at least 1,000,000 more scattered over the various British dependencies in Asia and Africa, giving a grand total of 79,050,000. From this it will be evident that English is at present the most widely spread of the languages of civilisation. But there is another point of importance which has been well put by M. de Candolle (J) > 6 These figures are chiefly taken from the" Almanaoh de Gotha" for 1873 the conjectural estimates of the number of foreign-speaking-people in each country being omitted. There may be fifty thousand Germans in Great Brit- ain, and one thousand of them in Greece, but it is a matter of conjecture which does not affect the question we have in view. 7. " Histoired.es Sciences et des Savants depuis deux Siecles, suivie d'autres Etudes," par Alphonse de Cahdolle, Geneve, 1S73. 8 Nations vary greatly as to the relative quickness with which they double themselves. He has worked out the problem, and has calcu- lated the number of persons who will speak these languages in a cen- tury from now. Let us apply his method to figures of population, which sometimes vary from the estimates he has made, and see what will be the probable number of persons speaking the most important of the European languages at the end of the twentieth century. In England the population doubles itself in every 56 years ; in the New World the Anglo-Saxons double in every 25 years. The Dutch double in 106 years; the Turks in 555 years; the Italians in 135 years; the Swedes in 92 years; the Russians in 100 years; the Spaniards in 112 years; their South-American descendants in 27t years. This last was Humboldt's computation, and has been adopted here, although it may be doubted if this rate of increase has not been considerably checked by the chronic anarchy to which they have been subjected. The North German people double in from 50 to 60 years, and the South Germans in 167 years, say 100 years as a mean for the entire race. The French populations take about 140 years in which to double. We may estimate on this basis that in the year 2000 the most im- portant languages will be spoken by the number of persons as under : — Italian ... 53,370,000 French... 72,571,000 Russian 130,479,800 German 157,480,000 Spanish — Europe .. 36,938,338 S. America ... .. 468,347,904 Fno'lUli 505,286,242 -1— J 111 1 1 oil Europe .. 178,846,153 United States and non- * 1 European British de- ' - 1,658,440,000 pendendencies . „ 1 1,837,286,153 From this it is tolerably clear that English is the language of the future. No other European tongue can compete with it, for no other race has the same wide field for extension. The emigrants who crowd to the West, be they Latin, Teutonic, or Scandinavian, become most surely and certainly Americanised. For a time they may endeavor to retain the language of their fatherland, but the attempt is hopeless. " In America," says Sir Charles Dilke, "the peoples of the world are being fused together, but they are run into an English mould ; Alfred's laws and Chaucer's tongue are theirs, whether they would or no." In South America Spanish is the common language, and in Brazil 1 0,000,000 persons use the Portuguese ; but neither of these have any propagandist power, and they will not improbably disappear before 9 the more energetic English speech. The German-speaking peoples have no colonies or dependencies ; those of France are unimportant ; while those of Great Britain are scattered over every part of the silohe. The British Empire covers nearly a third of the earth's surface, and British subjects are nearly a fourth of the population of the world. The uative races of India, numbering 190,000,000 human beings, are governed by a mere handful of Englishmen ; and it would be no new thing in the world's history if these subject races were to learn and adopt the language of their conquerors. That our lauguage and lit- erature are extensively cultivated by the educated natives already we know ; but how long it may take before scholastic agencies reach the great mass of the people it is hard to say. The widespread territorial influence of the British Empire must in- evitably aid in extending the boundaries of the language, and another element of equal importance is the extent of our commercial inter- course with other nations, owing to the restless energy of our people, who are to be found wherever dash and endurance are needed. The adoption of the English language by the immense population of Japan has been seriously considered by the governors of that nation. Such, then, is the position of the English language at the present day. It is spoken by a larger number of persons than any other civi- lised language, and those who speak it have proved themselves to be the most energetic, enterprising, and successful of modem races. The English race "has fuller opportunities for further extension and de- velopment than any other. It is therefore of importance to ascertain if this language which has these external advantages possesses also the internal qualities necessary for the common language of civilisation. The civilisation and scieuce of to-day are due mainly to the Latin and Teutonic races. The Sclavonic nations may have a great part to play in the future, but so far, their influence upon the literature and learning of the world has not been great. That language which is to be domi- nant must, as De Candolle has already said, have sufficient of Latin and German forms and words to show a genuine affinity with both those families of speech. Beyond this, it should be clear, simple, and brief. A glance at the history of our language will show how well it an- swers" the first condition." To the strength of the Teutonic dialects it adds the clearness of the Latin, and a brevity that is all its own. A mixed language, it has combined the best elements of eaeh. It is the lauguage of men of business, to whom time is of importance, and who cannot afford to waste the stuff of which life is made, by round- about phrases and ambiguous sentences. The object of those who have formed the English language might have been to see in how few words an idea could be conveyed. There is a directness of purpose about our most ordinary forms of expression. The question asked is not how can this thought be clothed in the most beautiful and appro- priate diction, but how can it be rapidly and unmistakably expressed ? 10 It goes to the root of the matter, allows of no beating about the bush, but is exact, curt, pointed, and straightforward. English is not so long-winded as either French or German. De Candolle tells us that, in families where they have an equal acquaintance with French and with German, the former is always more used; and where English and French are spoken, the preference is given to English. German fam- ilies, he says, settling in English or French countries quickly cease to use their own language whilst Frenchmen and Englishmen settling in German countries are on the contrary very tenacious of their mother- tongue. It is possible to give another interpretation to these facts ; but it seems not unnatural that those having choice of two roads should select the shortest and directest of them. The English tongue has been the subject of many eulogies. Those which come from foreigners may at least claim sincerity and freedom from that national vanity which might induce an Englishman to over- •cstimate its beauty and importance. Jacob Grimm has said that " the English language possesses a power of expression such as was never, perhaps, attained by any human tongue. Its altogether intel- lectual and singularly happy foundation, and government, and de- velopment, has arisen from a surprising alliance betweeu the two no- blest languages of antiquity — the German and the Romanesque — the relation of which to each other is well known to be such that the former supplies the material foundation, and the latter the abstract notions. Yes, truly, the English language may with good reason call itself a universal language, and seems chosen, like the English people, to rule in future times in a still greater degree in all corners of the earth. In richness, sound reason, and flexibility, no modern tongue can be compared with it, — not even the German, which must shake off many a weakness before it can enter the lists with the English." The great defect of our language is its absurd orthography. This is the stumbling-block which prevents the ready acquisition of the spoken language by foreigners, and hinders the majority of our own people from acquiring an intelligent acquaintance with the riches of our literature. M. de Candolle was surprised to see that intelligent English children learned to read with great difficulty. He found the reason to be that each letter has many sounds, and that each sound is written in many different ways. " They are obliged to learn word by word. It is a matter of memory, almost entirely destitute of rule." The great defect of our language in the eyes of this critic, who is cer- tainly not au adverse one, "is an orthography entirely irregular, so absurd that it requires more thati a year for children to learu to read in it." More than a year! The hindrance which it causes to ele- mentary education is much greater than this. Mr Russell Martineau, in a report to the Philological Society, says, " How spelling can be taught at all in elementary schools is a con- stant wonder to me. There is not a single rule which a teacher can 11 a in ale .. ■ a, ai, ay, ea e „ ee! .. e, ee, ea, ei, ie e „ ell .. . e, ea, ai i „ idle .. i, ie, ei lay down which has not almost as many exceptions as examples. Thus : ' Final e lengthens the preceding vowel, as in make, bite ; but then, what of love, glove, tongue ? ' G before e or i is sounded like,/, as in gentle, gin ;' but gig, gild, gel protest. ' Gh after au and ou is sound- ed like/, as laugh, cough, rough ; bnt what of haughty, plough, lough ? And, worst of all, what cau the teacher make of the double vowels ea in each, bread, great ; ai in hail, against ; au in fault, gauge, laugh; ou in sound, wound, soul; ow in blow, trowel ; ew inyezv, shew ; ei in receive, reign; ie in field, tie, friend.'' Or, approaching the subject from the other side, the following vowel sounds have a plurality of modes of expression, between which the luckless pupil has to choose : — o „ old ... o, oe, ow, ew, oa m ,, cue ... u, ue, ew ou „ pound .. ou, ow au ,, fault ... a, au, aw " I am not speaking too strongly in saying that our want of syste- matic orthography has reduced the advantage of alphabetic writing to a minimum, and makes correct spelling virtually impossible." " It is the universal testimony of teachers," remarks Mr E. Jones, B.A., Head Master of the Hibernian schools, Liverpool, " that the irregularity of our spelling is a serious obstruction to education, The bulk of the children pass through the government schools without having acquired the ability to read with ease and intelligence, or to spell with accuracy, although these subjects, with arithmetic, occupy most of the time in these schools. It takes from six to seven years to learn the arts of reading and spelling with a fair degree of intelli- gence, and to many minds the difficulties of orthography are insur- mountable. The report of the Birmingham Education Aid Society shows that, after a careful examination of a large number of youths of both sexes, bctwen the ages of thirteen and twenty, employed in the factories in that town, only four and a half percent, were able to read a simple sentence from au ordinary school book with intelligence and accuracy. What hopes can be entertained of the improvement of the remaining ninety-five and a half per cent? Education is regarded by statesmen and philanthropists as the lever by which the people are to be elevated, but education, up to the point of reading and writing to any useful purpose, under present circustances, is not attained by the great bulk of the population." Mr J. S. Mill remarks, " It is truly a frightful consideration that the annual number of pupils who pass the highest grade in the schools aided by Government, namely, who leave the schools able to read a newspaper with understanding, is less than the number of teachers, including pupil teachers, employed in the schools! There is no doubt that a simplification of English orthography would facilitate considerably the task of learning to read." LU CD < . X 3 CL m uj o ft z: o i Q_ LU X H- U- O LU M O co Ei CO p o I— I ft i— i So £ .a 01 Short- hand. CO ^5 8 >5 * ^ <0 H) ^ S3 3 ^ % ^ *> CO K| co © O Q Q k> 2> 3 « 3 S 5 « 4 w w >* ¥> *$ ^ & ^ m H €> c3 cq cli to ^ CE| H CO .^ O G (c H3 O G k) •2, ,W >5 bJD / I 7 S V 3> ^ ^ V ~CS m> « (# m \& »j C3> <+* ft ^ Pw PP H Q £> H-s fcd O ^ SA, 3 ^ .« "-C ^8 H «Sj O 3 rii f«! 3 OS t> '""a o <. 18 03 3 > c •<^> * 5^ ft ^ 3 a 3 3 „ -a § a .a o o> -'3 ■ — .a ~ CO C*-i en o J .-* 'I -r a "<3 .ST t*i -73.2 2 § ea St3 S 3 r-, C 3 3 2^ °~ o w >■ Cv ^ G> m a 5 s a a-bS Ego "" 2-a » 2S co-^ O ,j3 ob .a « - d ,2 "3 a" a, •~ ~ © o .2 8 o '§1 c o £ i." . c jac- 1 i a o ~ ~~ o P_| O Q, _ ~ .-a a 3 a r*>. - O •3 S r. S g z o H z en a. o H uj 5 O += a- -3 T3 S d fe •'"I d ^ ^ o d .d s -9 & £ d d B .0 o <] LJ • « o z » is o C3 ^? fh LU O P d cS > o d o CO I ex. d o ^J s? d ^ d « d ° d to ■* cH" 3d CD a. « +j d ^^3 IK rifl pq d ^2 o w ^ c r * ^ -S a ° g d ^ '5 'S 'd CD a 0) SB a a — CD .3 CO 03 q 0$ ■* ^3 ^ ( ) ) V> \ \ No •s ; : ^ W w ^ ^ ? ^^^]^)1 gs^ N •t3 [ ftj C» N W M S r^ r2 ^ P4 ^ ^ r^ ^ C3 ^2 C o 8 & o CO 14 If we advance to a higher social grade the same evil influence mani- fests itself. Out of 1,972 failures in the Civil Service examinations, 1,866 candidates were in spelling ; that is, eighteen out of every nine- teen who failed failed in spelling. Dr Morell, who states this fact, continues, " It is certain that the ear is no guide in the spelling of English, rather the reverse ; and that it is almost necessary to form a personal acquaintance with each individual word." As another example of reading made hard, let us take an American instance : — From the " Twenty-second Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Public Schools of the City of Washington," we learn that in June, 1866, a spelling match was held, at which there were seven pupils selected by the teachers as the best spellers from each of the eleven intermediate schools. A gold medal had been offered by one of the trustees as a prize for the best speller. The words given out are a6 follows, with the number of scholars, out of a total of 77, who spelled them incorrectly : — tambourine complacent millinery . varioloid . caterpillar. physiology leituce . . aloes . . villain . . omelet . . billiards . ghoul . . irresistible . 31 daguerreotype 34 These words were taken from the spelling-books used in the schools. The following are amusing illustrations of the modes of spelling some of the words : — 31 indispensable 40 bilious . . . 46 pamphlet . 3 24 susceptible 14 niche . . . 36 labyrinth . 42 21 vignette 44 cedilla . . . 28 ferrule . . 13 52 inveigh . . pleurisy 6 horologe . . 47 facile . . 46 25 20 exorbitant . 31 medicine . i 16 gauge . . 20 ellipse . . . 20 flageolet ■ 2 8 pallet . . 17 hierarchy . . 20 zephyr . . 9 16 palate . . 17 periphery . . 50 rigid . . 21 27 palette . 48 militia . . . 16 lacquer . . 23 27 scurrilous . 51 dahlia . . . 30 victuals. . . 8 5 aeronaut . 49 separate . . 14 surcingle . 35 39 paroxysm . . 32 miniature . . 29 punctilious . 33 vereloid variloid veryaloid veraloid valeloid veri O Lord fariloid variloyd bareloyd barierioid barryaloid Hiarioloyd errenaut erenote airanaut eranoch aren aught erenolt erroenort eronaut aregnout ereunaut airinought earonaut aren arch aranult erynort arinought arroneut skurrelous squerulous scurulous scournless scirilous scuroleus scurrus skireles scurels skirrellous schourals scurolous schurrulous A second trial was found necessary, when the medal was awarded to Hattie E. Gove, eleven years of age, of the First District. 15 "These facts," says the Report, "are presented to show the im- portance of greater attention being given to this branch of education, so that such a report may never again be presented." What a satire is this on our system of spelling ! The state of the case has been well put in the double statement that no Englishman can tell with certainty how to pronounce any word which is preseuted to him in the ordinary orthography, unless he has heard it uttered by others, and no Eusrlishmau can tell with certainty how to spell a word with which he is not already familiar in its printed form. In both cases he may guess, and his guess will sometimes be right and sometimes be wrong ; but in ueither case can he attain cer- tainty. The anomalies of English are so great and manifold that it is difficult to exhibit them in a brief compass. The object of all alphabetic writing is the representation of spoken souuds. For this purpose it is essential that we should have a symbol for each sound, and that symbol should be used with regularity and consistency. An analysis of the spoken sounds of our language shows that we have thirty-eight distinct sounds, (including the two vowel- diphthongs t, u, aud the two consonantal-diphthongs ch,j,) and for the representation of these we have twenty-six letters, three of them mere duplicates. This has led to the device of using two or more letters to indicate a single sound. Had this beeu done with uniformity all would have been well, but unfortunately no system has been followed. Thus, an examination of 3,000 monosyllables showed 145 different methods of indicating the fourteeen vowel and diphthong vowel sounds existing in the language. Again, every letter in the alphabet except/ is mute in some words. As an illustration of this assertion seethe following words : — Balaam, de^t, science, Wednesday, fat/?, puf/*,yuat, //.onor, business, know, a/ms, Mnemonic, hymn, trouble, psalter, Coljuhoun (Kerlnuu), purr, kiss, ostler, guild, seyennigbt, two, billetdou^- (bih'dtu), say, buzz. Why should we take the useless trouble of writing b in the word lamb, see- ing that the sound b is never heard in it ? If we take the entire range of English vowels, we shall find that there are five simple vowels aud 83 combinations of vowels, and that they have 281 meanings, as shown in the following table, which has been added to this paper since it appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Science, in order to give point to the statement that " for a for- eigner to learn Euglish spelling is all but impossible." The phonetic alphabet on page 2, or the more extended one on pages 12, 13 (showing the forms which both the old and the new letters take in different styles of writing and printing) will enable the reader to interpret the phonetic letters in the following table. They show the pronunciation of the " five simple vowels and 83 combinations of vowels " with which we now represent the twelve simple and four diphthongal souuds of the English language. 16 A .. taper .. e aye ... delayed ... £ geology... io lather . . a gayest . . . Ee eo-e ... George ... tail o Cayenne... ie Creole ... in any e ayo . . Mayo £0 eoi .. burgeois... oi cat a Mayor ... £0 eu . . . Reuben . . . ut wander ... E . . . me i amateur ... X an .. Aaron ... a clerk a feud H, Isaac a pretty . . . i reunite ... H a .. Csesar ... i let e eu-e ... deuce U {esthetic. e ea . . . seal i e-ue ... cheque ... e ae .. Raphael.. £ break £ ew ... sew Michael.. e pageant .. a brew M Israel ae guinea .. i dew U aerie i bread e ewe ... sewed V aerial . si react ia brewed .. til aeronaut.. ee area ia ewe V. a-e . .. gave s ea-e ... breathe ... i sewer . . . He have a create it (also called ai .. pain s eau . .. Beauchanif i shore) said e (Bi jewel me plaid a beau ■o «y ...key i dais ei beauty . . . H they £ ai-e . . . naive ai ea-ue ... league ... i barley ... i ho .. gaol £ ee . .. been i eying ... i Pharaoh.. ■o breeches... i e-y . . Wemyss... i chaos ... so e'e ... e'en (even] £ eye .. keyed ... i Aouian ... so e'er (ever) £ eyed i aou . . caoutchouc oh e-e ... mere i conveyed £ au . gauging .. s there £ ey-e ... eyre £ Taunton.. a college . . . e I ... invalid .. i Paul o (compare even ltd i hauteur .. V and seven) bird e meerschaum v. ei ... conceit ... i bind i Archelaus £8 veil £ ia ... parliament i an -a . . . Vaughan O heifer e martial ... a ■au-e . . . gauge ... £ height ... i mediator is Maude ... O reiterate... ii hiatus ... ie a-ue . . ague t-V ei-e ... couceive... i trivial ... ia plague . . £ weighed . . . £ iambic ... ia harangue a eo .. people ... i ia-e .. carriage... £ Montaguea-y Georgia . . mediate... is aw . . lawful . o yeoman... ie . .. relief ... i awe . .. awe . o galleon ... VI pitied ... i ay . .. say £ jeopardy... e friend ... e says e Macleod ou lie i ay (yes) . . ai feod H earliest... ie 17 scientific ie Stoic ■hi guano... wa i-e . .. bombazine i doing ... mi quack... wa restive ... i oi-e .. . tortoise... i quantity wo pine ... i noise oi squall... ICO ie-e . .. grieve ... i Heloise... oi ue .. blue ... UI sieve ... i heroine... vi guess . . . e conscience e 00 . brooch ... h ague ... >t science... ie brood . . . 111 query... VJl ieu . . . Beaulieu i flood ... a - querulous we (B////, in good ... u cruel ... uie Hants) zoology... vo fuel ... Ve lieu I'l ooe .. . wooed ... ui u-e . .. rule ... ui lew . .. view ... H oo-e .. . goose ... IU minute i io .. motion... 01' .. . ought ... o use V mediocre w bowl ■II a mi p. . . queue ... 1 mediocrity io soup . . . m a i . mosquito i violate... io bough (hok) o fruit ... in iou .. conscious X journal... s build ... i bilious... ix caoutchouc u guiding i i-ue .. intrigue i noun ... on suit U .. fond ... Alcinous m languish wi so ■o ou-e . . bouse ... w, quirk ... we do" ... w house ... Oil fruition... mi woman... u o-ue . . prologue O aguish . . . oasis ... va row ou quondam wo oa-e . .. coarse ... T) owe . . owed ... X) duo IfO (e . . foetus ... i allowed... ou uoy .. . buoy oi foetid ... e lowest ... oe u-ue.. . fugue '( oe .. doe V vowel ... one "!/ ■ • buy I shoe iu oio-e. . Knowles V plaguy ... i does X ».'/ ■ .. boy oi colloquy wi coequal ... 111 OIJC . . . alloyed ... oi Y . .. marry ... i poet w oyer mje myrrh ... e o-e . .. horse ... U .. truly ... ui by ... i force V busy . . . i ije .. dye i move III bury ... e hyena ... U love a but ... X dyer te ce-u . . manoeuvre m bull ... ii y-e . . scythe ... i oi . . connoisseur e uses ... '/ yew . . yew 'I noisy 01 persuade w you .. . you % memoir . . . wo ua .. piquant a yu-e. . yule ... H 18 The above Table has been compiled from Mr Ellis's " Plea for Phonetic Spelling," omitting nearly all such bizarre spellings as busi- ness, one, two, bruise, gunwale, boatswain, answer, lieutenant, vic- tuals, quoit, quay, turquoise, colonel, would, could, should, which are not types of classes of words. Taking the consonants in the same way, there are 119 combinations having 251 meanings. This difficulty is less serious than that of the vowel confusion. We may say of the consonant combinations bb in ebb, bd in bdellium, and bt in doubt, that it is simply an instance of a silent letter, but which letter in the combination ea is silent in meal, break, bread, \\eax\ ? There are thirty-five ways of representing the vowel sound heard in the word eel, thus : — minutup, Caiui (K.iz) College, me, peach, heave, Beaachamp, \eague, meet, e'en, mete, sleeve, impreyn, her///., concept, conceive, seigniory, "Leigh, receipt, Be/voir (B.iver), people, demesne, key, Wemyss, ilarrkoea, invalid, grief, magazine, grieve, signor, fusil (fiizi), debris, intrigue, fetus, <\uay, mosq«ito. There are nineteen ways of writing /■, s, and n ; there are 26 ways of expressing the vowel heard in isle, and there are 37 expedients for showing the vowel iu it. Of the many sounds which are hidden under the same symbol, most of us have had ample experience. The difficulties of know : iug what sounds to attach to the symbols are equally great, As a Frenchman once found, when he tried to explain His complaint, for the spelling so bothered his brain That he said to the doctor, "I've got a bad cow;" 'When the doctor could only reply by a bow. Again he attempted, " I've got a bad coo;" But the doctor was dumb. Seeing that would not do, He bethought him again, " I've got a bad co ;" And he thought that the doctor was terribly slow. But he tried it once more, " I've got a bad cuff;" The doctor lost patience and said in a huff, "If thus you go on I must take myself oil." " That's it," cried the Frenchman, " I have got a bad cough." Now it must be recollected that each of these methods of pronoun- cing the word cough is sanctioned by the usage in other cases. The analogies of Euglish spelling will justify any absurdity. Take this sentence as au example: " Igh bat ai nyou kought frachm mhy taigh- lor too-deig." Igh bat ai = I bought a as in 33 13 nigh, foil, plaid, nyou kought frachm = new coat from 33 33 33 you, th ugh, yacht, mhy taighlor too = my tailor to 33 33 33 rhyme, straight, foot, deig = day 33 reign. 19 Let common sense decide. If it is reasonable to represent the vowel i by the combination igh iu one case, it is reasonable to do so in all. It would only weary to repeat instances of the absurdities of our spel- ling. They meel us at every turn. If candidates for employment in the Civil .Service, who have "in most cases been carefully prepared for the ordeal, fail to learn how to spell, what must be the condition of those to whom hard fortune has denied the chance of any large amount of education? How many iu the working-classes there must be to whom reading in place of being a solace for the hours of relaxation, and a pleasant method of acquiring knowledge aud wisdom, is a thing avoided from the difficulties which beset it. This hindrance to the cause of national education, and to the pro- gress of our language abroad having been dwelt upon at some length, it only remains to point out the remedy. Various schemes have from time to time been put forth, but the only one to which attention need now be directed is that advocated by Mr Isaac Pitman, of Bath. Mr Pitman, as all the world knows, is the inventor of a very beautiful Bystem of shorthand. Unlike all other stenographies. Phonography is based upon a philosophical analysis of the sounds in the English language, and this analysis has been made the basis of a new Phonetic English Alphabet, in which each sound is indicated by one letter, and each letter is attached to one sound only. Iu the construction of this printing alphabet, Mr Isaac Pitman and Mr A. J. Ellis, F.R.S.— a mau ofprofound scholarship — were joint-workers. Since 1844 various modifications have been made in this alphabet, always with the single object in view of making it as perfect as possible. Mr Ellis now proposes a system of digraphs for the use of those spelling reformers who object to fresh letters, for use concurrently with the old system. This system is much more complicated and cumbersome than the phonetic alphabet, though infinitely preferable to the present want of system. Mr Ellis's Glossic is a new concurrent system of spelling, intended to remedy the defects, without interfering with the use, of existing English orthography. Key to English Glossic. Read the large capital letters always in the senses they have in the following words, which arc all iu the usual spelling except the three underlined, meant for fool, then, rouge. bEEt bAIt bAA cAUl cOAl cOOl knIt nEt hEIgiit gnAt nOt nUt fOIl fOUl fEUd fUOt Yet Way WHey Hay Pea Bee Tee Doe CHest Jest Keep Gape Fie Vie THin DHen Seal Zeal kuSH rouZHe eaR R'lNG eaKR'ing Lay May Nay fclJSCi 20 R is vocal when no vowel follows, and modifies the preceding vowel, forming diphthongs, as in pEEr, pAIr, bOAe, bOOr, hERb. Use R for R', and RR for RR', when a vowel follows, except in elementary books, where r' is retained. Separate fh, dh, sh, zh, ng by a hyphen (-) when necessary. Read a stress on the first syllable when not otherwise directed. Mark stress by (') after a long vowel or ei, oi, ou, eu, and after the first consonant following a short vowel. Mark emphasis by (') before a word. Pronounce el, em, en, er, ej, a, obscurely, after the stress syllable. When three or more letters come together, of which the two first may form a digraph, read them as such. Letters retain their usual names, and alphabetical arrangement. Words in customary or NOMIC spelling occurring among GLOS- SIC, and conversely, should be underlined with a wavy line„„ , and printed with s p a i s t 1 e t e r z, or else in a different type. Spesimen of Ingglish Glosik. OBJEKTS. Too fasil'itait Lerning too Reed, Too maik Lerning to Spell unnes'eseri. Too asim'ilait Reeding and Reiting too Heerring and Speeking. Too maik dhi Risee'vd Proanunsiai'shen ov Ingglish akses'ibl too aid Reederz, Proavin'shel and Foren. MEENZ. Leev dhi Oald Speling untucht. Iutroadeu's along" seid ov dhi Oald Spelinsa Neu Authos'rafi, kon- sis'tiugov dhi Oald Leterz euzd iuvai'rriabli in dhair best noan sensez. Emploi" dhi Neu Speling in Skoolz to Teech Reeding in boath Aurthog'rafiz. Alou" eni Reiter too reit in dhi Neu Speling oanli on aul okai'zhenz, widhou't loozing kaast, proavei'ded hee euzez a Risee'vd Proanun- siai'shen ; that is — AknoVej dhi Neu Speling kun-kur' entli widh dhi Oald. Mr Melville Bell's is probably the most philosophical system yet invented for the representation of vocal sounds, but its chances of adoption as the vehicle of Euglish are too remote to need more than passing allusion. Various other schemes, more or less thorough, have been devised for remedying the defects of English orthography, but none of them have attained the same importance as Mr Pitman's proposals. The immense circulation of his shorthand has had the effect of familiaris- ing the public mind with the theory of phonetic analysis and repre- sentation. For a generation he has spread information on the subject, and gathered rouud him a band of devoted adherents and disciples. His system is now the only system of phonetic English which has any chance 21 of success. There is a yearly-increasing literature printed in it, and it rnav be hoped that the present national feelingin favor of education will aid its promoters agninst the present education-hindering system. It may appear a sweeping change to alter the form and aspect of the language, but the change is by no means so violent as it seems. Changes in spelling are constantly taking place, but they are altera- tions which come about by hazard and without system. If other nations have succeeded in reforming their orthography, and we know this to be the case with the Dutch and the Spanish, surely we may hope for success also in the same undertaking. And when that day comes on which we have swept away what Max Miiller has well called " our corrupt and effete orthography," we shall have de- stroyed the last and only barrier which prevents English from being the language of the world. Surely that is a future so great and glorious that we need not hesi- tate at any trouble which will hasten the day. We have already achieved much. The flowers that first grew beside the Avon, now bloom alike on the banks of the sacred Ganges, and by the margin of the broad Mississippi. The lays of merry England are heard alike in the fair Derbyshire dales and on the plains of the Far West. The thoughts of our great thinkers, the songs of our poets are no longer bounded by the narrow seas that hem in our island home. They fly to every (joint of the compass, and find everywhere audiences not few but fit. In tiie Australian sheep-walk, amid the tropical glories of Jamaican sce- nery, in the glowing valleys of the Polynesian islands, east, west, north, or south, we find the restless, energetic Englishman. It is not a tiling to be lightly thought of, this wide extension of our English tongue. Our language is a beautiful casket, shining with gold and glittering with gems, and enclosing still more precious, still more costly jewels. Wherever the Englishman goes he carries with him the energy, the love of order, the purity ol home-life, the independence, the freedom of thought, of speech, of action, which have made England not only great and prosperous, but the" august mother of free nations." The language is the best test of national capacity. It expresses not only the exact extent of the nation's knowledge, but also its spiritual con- dition and rcoral aspirations. Apart, from all national vanity, we may rejoice that ShaksperS's language is going forth to the ends of the earth. It bears with it the science of Newton and the politics of Adam Smith. It bears with all that is purest and best in the teachings of the ancient world. It bears with it countless memories of heroic deeds. It bears with it those aspirations alter Liberty and Right, which are the most precious possession of our race. May it go forward conquering and to conquer, resistless in j|ts power and majesty, until it becomes a new bond of peace and brotherhood amongst all the nations, until earth's fertile valleys shall glow with fruits and flowers, and " the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose." 22 SPECIMEN OF PHONETIC SPELLING. Lulce 6. 20-1-3. 20 Andh.i lifted yp hiz [z on hiz disjpelz, and sed, Blesed bi yi pmr for ur'z iz de kindom or God. 21 Blesed ar y.i dat hynger nou : for yi /al bi fild. Blesed ar y.i dat w.ip nou : for y.i Jal lef. 22 Blesed ar yi, when men Jal bet \\, and when de Jal separet i[ from der kympani, and Jal reprtrq \\, and kast out \\i netn az ivil, for de Syn ov man'z sek. 23 Rejois yi in dat de, and lip for joi : for, behold, x\r reword iz gret in keven : for in de l|k maner did der federz yntu de profets. 24 Bxt wcr yntu q dat ar riq ! for yi hav resivd qr konserlejon. 25 Wer yntu q dat ar ful ! for yi Jal kyijger. Wer yntu u„ dat lcf nou ! for yi Jal merrn and w.ip. 26 We - yntu q, when ol men Jal spik wel ov q ! for ser did der fi;- derz tu de fols profets. 27 Bst J se yntu i\ whiq hir, Lyv ur enemiz, dui gud tu dem whig fret 11, 28 Bles dem dat kyrs u,, and pre for dem whiq despjtfuli \\z \\. 29 And yntu him dat smjted di on de wyn qik ofer olser de yder ; and him dat tekei awe dj klerk forbid not tu tek dj kot olser. 30 Giv tu everi man dat askeJ ov di ; and ov him dat teketf awe dj gudz ask dem not agen. 31 And az y.i wud dat men Jud dui tui|. dm yi olser tu dem ljkwjz. 32 For if yi Lsv dem whiq lyv u,, whot dank hav yi ? for sinerz olsef lyv derz dat lsv dem. 33 And if yi dm gud tu dem whiq dm gud tu q, whot darjkhavyi ? for sinerz olser dm iven de sem. 34 And if yi lend tu dem ov hvum yi herp tu resiv, whot dank hav yi ? for sinerz also lend tu sinerz, tu resiv az rnyq agen. 35 Bst lyv yi ur enemiz, and dm gud, and lend, herpin for nyjin agen ; and qr reword Jal bi gret. and yi Jal bi de qildren ov de Hjest for hi iz kjnd yntu de yndaijkful and tu do ivil. 36 Bi yi derferr mersiful, az \\r ffider olser iz mersiful. 37 J"sj not, and yi Jal not bijsjd: kondem not, and yi Jal not bi kondemd : forgiv, and yi Jal bi forgiven : 38 Giv, and it Jal bi given sntu i\ ; gud mpy.ir, prest doun, and Jeken tugeder, and renin ever, Jal men giv ir.tu qr bmzom. For wiri de sem mejur dat yi mit widol it Jal bi me^urd tu q agen. 39 And hi spek a parabel yntu dem, Kan de bljnd lid de bl[nd ? JaB de not bad fol intu de dig ? 23 40 3!e disjpel iz not absv liiz master : bst everiwsn dat iz perfekt Jal b.i az hiz master. 41 And whj beherldcst dou de met dat iz in A[ brs&er'z j, b^t persivest not de b.im dat iz in djn on j ? 42 Ider hou kanst dou sc tu t\{ bidder, Brsder, let m.i pul out de met dat iz in dj {, when dou djself beheddest not de b.im dat iz in djn em j ? 3ou hipokri 1 , kast out ferst de b.im out ov djn era j, and den /alt dou si kl.irli tu pul out de met dat iz in dj brsder'z j. 43 For a gud tri brined not ford koi-spt fruit ; njder dvi a korspt tri briij ford gud fruit. 41 For everi tri iz nem bj liiz era fruit. For ov cfornz men dm not gader figz, nor ov a brambel liuj gader de greps. 45 A gud man out ov de gud trejur ov hiz hart brined fori dat whig iz gud ; and an ivil man out ov de ivil trejur ov hiz hart brined ferrd dat whig iz ivil; for ov de abxndans ov de hart hiz moud spiked. Postscript. The notion that English is to become the future language of science would seem to be gaining ground. Since the publication of the above paper another striking instance of the growth of this belief has been noted by the English press. Dr Thorell, who is Junior Professor of Zoology in the University of Upsala, has published at that place, and in the English tongue, a monograph on European spiders, extending to more than 600 pages. Nature, in reviewing this work, says: — Dr Thorell's own opinion — expressed in a note on page 583 — and in which most English-writing naturalists will probably acquiesce, is that the English language will one day become the common scientific lan- guage of the world, not only because it is far more widely diffused over every part of the earth than any other culture-language, and that already two of the greatest nations publish in it the results of their scientific labors, but because English on account of its simple gram- mar, and as combining in nearly the same degree Teutonic and Ro- manic elements, is by most Europeans more easily acquired than any other language." Whenever that day comes, the labors of Mr Isaac Pitman and Mr A. J. Ellis will be better appreciated than they arc now ; at least, by some portions of their fellow-country men. I have had much pleasure in responding to the request that this paper should be reprinted in its present form, and I trust that it may aid in some slight degree the reform of our English spelling, to the promotion of which Mr Pitman has devoted himself with so much energy since 1843. 24 The Reading, Writing and Spelling Reform. The Reading and Writing Reform consists in the introduction of a pho- netic alphabet of thirty-eight letters, to represent all the sounds of the English language. This alphabet is adapted to Shorthand and Longhand Writing, and to Printing. Phonetic Shorthand ia as legible as common writing; while it is written in one-fourth of the time, and with half the labour. By means of Phonetic Printing, children and ignorant adults may be taught to read accurately in phonetic books, in from twenty to fifty hours' instruction ; and a few lessons will then render them capable of reading books printed in the common spelling. The education of the poor is thus rendered not only possible, but easy. PHONETIC PUBLICATIONS. Phonetic Shorthand. Phonographic Teacher, or FirstBook of Instruction in Phonetic Short- hand, Gd. Phonographic Copy Book, 3d. Phonographic Reader, Gd. Manual of Phonography, Is. Gd. ; cloth 2s. ; roan, gilt, 2s. Gd. A Compend of Phonography, giving the Alphabet, Grammalogues, and principal Rules for Writing, Id. Exercises in Phonography, Id. Phonographic Reporter, 2s.Gd. ; el, 3s. Reporting Exercises, Gd. Phonographic Phrase Book, contain- ing above three thousand useful phrases, Is., cloth, Is. Gd. List of Phonetic Society for the cur- rent year, 2d. The membe.s of this Society correct the Exercises of phonographic students through the post, gratuitously. Phonetic Alphabet, containing the Shorthand, Longhand, and Print- ing Letters, Is. per gross. In Phonetic Shorthand. John Halifax, Gentleman, 2 vols., 5s. The Reporting Magazine for 1864, with Key ; vol. 2, cloth, Is. The Psalms, 6<7., cloth 9d. History of Shorthand, Is. iEsop's Fables, Gd. Selections from the Best Authors, 4<7. Prize Essay on the Best Method of teaching Phonography, 8d., cl. Is. Books of f he value of Is. and upwards are sent post free : on books under Is., postage is charged at the rate of\d. for 2oz. The books recommended to the student on commencing the study of Phonetic Shorthand, are the Phonographic Teacher and Copy Book. See Pitman's Complete Catalogue of Phonetic Publications. London : Fred. Pitman, 20 Paternoster row, E.C. Bath : Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute. hi Phonetic Printing. Phonetic Journal, published weekly, Id. ; monthly, in wrapper, 5<7. Each number contains four columns of shorthand, in the Learner's, Corre- sponding, and Reporting Styles, Intelligence of the progress of the Phonetic Reform printed in the usual spelling, and articles of gene- ral interest printed phonetically. Chart of the Phonetic Alphabet, con- taining the Shorthand and Printing Letters, 23 inches by 35, 4<7. Tablets, or the letters of the Phonetic Alphabet, printed on card-board ; Small3d., Medium Is. Gd., Large 4s. Sheet Lessons, (16,) for classes, Is. First Book in Phonetic Reading, Id Second Book, 2d. Third Book, 3d. Fourth Book (Transition), 4d. Edward's Dream, or Good for Evil, Id. Parables, from the Testament, Id. Miracles, ditto, Id. Discourses, Id. A Persuasive to the Study and Prac- tice of Phonography, M. ; 4d. per dozen ; 3s. per gross. (In the com- mon spelling.) A Recommendation of Phonetic Shorthand, by the Rev. D. D. Whedon, id. ; 4d. perdoz., 3s. per gross. (In the common spelling.) A Glance at Phonotypy, or Phonetic Printing, |d. ; 4d. per dozen ; 3s. per gross. (In the common spel- ling with a specimen of phonotypy.) History of Phonography —how it came about, Id. Price Id. ; %d. per dozen. 16 THE GORDIAN KNOT CUT ; PHONOTYPY AS AN AID TO ELEMENTARY AND NATIONAL EDUCATION. Its Success illustrated by the results of the Experiments conducted in the National Schools, Portlaw, co. Waterford, Ireland, under the superintendence and direction of JOHN W. MARTIN, M.D. " FAESAN ET HjEC OLIM MIMIN1SSE JUVABIT. " If a child of six years of age, and of average intelligence, receives in an Infant School an eighteen months' course of phonetic instruc- tion before being allowed to attempt the romanic orthography, and then another eighteen months' course of instruction in romanic read- ing and spelling ; at the end of that time the child so taught mil read anything placed in its hands with ease and fluency, and spell trith greater accuracy than the majority of children who now leave school at the age of fifteen, after spending from six to eight years at school. If this plan were adopted, 95 per cent, of the children taught in Government, or Government -aided schools, would leave thoroughly well educated in reading and spelling, besides having a fair knowledge of other subjects." PART I. The following resume, prepared at the request of Mr Isaac Pitman, of the value of Phonotypy as an Aid to Education, and of ■what has been accomplished in the Portlaw National Schools, will be of interest to everyone who has the cause of education at heart. It will consist principally of extracts from articles already published, and which, therefore, will be in the guise of old friends appearing with new faces, or among new surroundings, but now presented in a compact form, valuable to those who may be en- gaged in advocating the extension of the system. I will begin my subject with a few questions, for which I would beg careful consideration, and to which, let those who are able, answer in the affirmative. My remarks are confuted to the children of the working classes. 1. Is the English nation, as a rule, well educated ? (For con- venience* sake I include under the term English, the population of the three kingdoms. Closely related to one another, they ought never to be separated. Their truest strength lies in their unio!:.) My answer is, No. 2. Are ninety per cent, of the children on leaving school ahle to read with fluency any hook placed in their hands ? No. 3. Are forty per cent, of the children leaving school ahle to spell 200 words of average difficulty, without a percentage of ten mistakes ? No. 4. Are twenty per cent, of the children on leaving school able to write a well-written, well-spelled, and well-composed letter, upon any subject which they may select ? No. 5. Are twenty per cent, of those leaving school well educated in reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, algebra, Euclid, and grammar ? I confess I do not think they are ; — that the answer is again, No. About the year 1869, when first attempting to introduce Pho- notypy into use in the schools here, I sent a circular containing the following questions to various teachers in the neighborhood : — 1. What is the average stay of a pupil at school P 2. Of those coming under your care, unable to read, what is your opinion of their progress at the end of the first, second, and third year's pupilage i 3. Are children at the end of three years from the commence- ment of learning their alphabet, in your opinion, able to read and spell well, taking the average pupils that have come under your notice in connection with the National Schools of this country ? 4. "What is the shortest time in which a pupil of average abilities can be taught to read and spell well according to the present system of orthography ? 5. There are 36 distinct sounds, and five diphthongs, in the English language, to represent which we have in the common method of spelling only 23 letters — c, q, and x being rejected aa useless. Do you see any objection to the introduction of 13 new letters, (the required number,) to represent the whole of the ele- mentary sounds of the English language ? 6. Is not orthography the art of representing spoken sounds by written signs ? If so, will not that system of orthography be the most perfect, that has a simple sign for each elementary sound ? 7. Would not a method of orthography such as I have alluded to in Query 6, logical in itself, greatly simplify the difficulties of teaching children to read and spell correctly ? Further, would it not tend to fix and improve their pronunciation, and remove the natural dislike to the present wearisome method, that, as a rule, exists ? 8. Would a method of orthography by which a child might be taught to read in six months, with ease both to teacher and child, be an advantage ? The general tenor of the answers received to these questions may be shortly stated as follows. The average stay of a pupil was from three to eight years, the difference being noticeable aa very short in manufacturing districts, and long in those where an agricultural population was in the preponderance. The shortest time in which a child could be taught to read well (and this was a hopeful view of the case) was three years, the average time 4£ years. That it took six years to make them fair readers of any book or piece of print placed in their hands. That at the end of 3£ years, outside their own National School Board books they were unable to read or spell well. I would earnestly suggest to the members of School Boards, the patrons of schools, and to all interested in the cause of education, that a similar list of questions should be addressed to the teachers in their neighborhood, and the information collected and published, for the benefit of those who desire to base their demand for inno- vation and reformation upon the sure foundation of ascertained facts. That which we cannot get Government to do, can be ac- complished by private energy. "Where lies the difficulty of edu- cation ? Why must it take so long a time as from four to six years to acquire command of what is only the instrument by which knowledge is conveyed ? Reading and spelling are not in them- selves of much use, unless the reader is able to understand what he reads. Why, then, must so much time be spent in their acquirement ? The brief answer to these queries is, The English alphabet is imperfect. We have only twenty-three useful letters to represent thirty-six elementary sounds. The unrepresented sounds are left to the tender mercies of mere fashion in spelling ; they are represented by conventional combinations of letters the most varied, opposite, and absurd, which form the true barrier to the rapid spread of education in the country, and to the acquirement of our language by foreigners. I strongly recommend those who are anxious to become acquainted with the enormous difficulties con- nected with our present orthography, to consult, among other pamphlets which will be readily furnished by Mr Pitman at a very low cost, that of Mr W. E. A. Axon, M.R.S.L., F.S.S., which first appeared as an article in the Quarterly Journal of Science for July, 1873, and by permission, was reprinted by Mr Pitman in pamphlet form, 1874. Many persons who are at present opposed to reform, or to any attempt to do away with some of those difficulties, which every child, and foreigner, who attempts to learn to read the English language as at present spelled, is called upon to face, would with- draw that opposition, if he only had the right-mindedness to inquire into the subject, and to make himself (or herself) acquainted with the incongruous absurdities of the present spelling of the language. Science, logic, and common sense are all combined to show the reasonableness of the attempt to reform our system of orthography, and the possibility of framing a complete and sensible alphabet. Dr Latham laid down the following six excellent rules for the formation of a perfect alphabet and orthography : — 1. That for every single sound, incapable of being represented by a combination of letters, there be a simple sign. 2. That sounds within a determined degree of likeness be re- presented by signs within a determined degree of likeness, while sounds beyond a certain degree of likeness be represented by dis- tinct and different signs, and that uniformly. 3. That no sound have more than one sign to express it. 4. That no sign express more than one sound. 5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words and not their histories. 6. That changes of speech be followed by corresponding changes of spelling. How far our present orthography complies with these rules a moment's consideration will suffice to show. In concluding this, the first part of my paper, I will quote an address delivered at a meeting of the Society of Arts, held in London on the 20th April, 1870, by the Chairman, when the Spelling Reform was the subject under consideration, in its relation to primary education. On that occasion two plans were mooted for consideration, one by Mr A. J. Ellis, the other by Mr E. Jones. The remarks were made at the end of the meeting, summing up what had passed during the discussion : — You have heard well described by the writer of the paper, the difficulties which an apt and distinguished scholar, a person of evidently high abilities, has experienced in learning to spell. From this may we not form some conception of the difficulties, the pain inflicted by the operation upon poor, timid, and feeble- minded children ? The confusion excited in their minds by the representation of the same sounds by different letters, and in different ways, the absence of any apparent reason for those per- plexing difficulties, the presumption that there must in the minds of men be some reason for them or they would never be effected, the despair of finding any, and the discouraging assumption en- gendered in the minds of the scholars that they fail from a hopeless incapacity, are productive of permanent mental injury to many of them. Then this absence of apparent reason for much of our spelling encumbers persons in advanced life with the labor of remembering, and misgivings as to the spelling which is right. The obstruction to learning our language by foreigners, as well as by different races in our own dominions, is very serious. That eminent scholar, the late Premier, Mr Gladstone, has said, — " I am afraid our language bothers the foreigners dreadfully. I often think that if I had to set about learning to pronounce English, I should go mad. I honestly can say that I cannot conceive how it is that a foreigner learns how to pronounce English, when you recollect the total absence of rule, method, system, and all the auxiliaries which people generally get" when they have to acquire something that is difficult of attainment." This being a correct description of the difficulties of the adult foreigner, trained in learning, we may beseech his consideration of our own juvenile foreigners to the Word of Life, and the few auxiliaries they generally get in skilful teaching when they have to acquire some- thing that is difficult of attainment. By the proposed new system of national education, perhaps two or three additional millions of the little foreigners will have to be driven by compulsory measures into the difficulties he describes. Are we not bound, in common humanity, to consider them, and to try and do soon what may be done to mitigate them ? The question has, too, a financial aspect, especially if the principle sanctioned by His Royal Highness, our President, is to prevail, as we trust it may in popular elementary education, that earning and learning shall go on as much as possible harmoniously together, on which principle time saved is money saved for productive service as well as for additional pro- ductive and paying acquirements, because the special object of the Society, elementary art and science instruction, can only be obtained extensively by shortening the time now occupied in the painful attainment of primary instruction. Judging from the Society's own local reports, and other sources, as much as three millions more of money may be needed on the present system, and it certainly will, on the single-chambered parochial school system, be required to achieve a national system of elementary education. On this system a half of a third of the expense, or half a million per annum, may be set down as the money gain from the reform of our system of spelling. Be it more or less, it is a sum worth considering, apart from the mitigation of the miseries of several millions of children, the great new army of little enforced con- scripts to the national schools. PART II. As an answer to the question that may now fairly be put to me, " How do you propose to do away with these difficulties, which render it an impossibility to secure a good primary education to the poorer classes?" I say, at once, Introduce Phonotypy as a stepping-stone to the present orthography. " But how will you assure me that such a plan will be successful ?" The best answer I can give you is, to submit to your consideration the following reports of the success that attended our efforts in the female and infant national schools here. The first report is from the teacher of the female school, and was made in the year 1874. REPORT FROM THE FEMALE SCHOOL. 1. Class commenced in December, 1871. 2. Owing to absence from school, due either to the children having gone upon full time in the factory, or to their departure, only eight children passed through the full course. 3. By the mistress's report, which I append, it will be seen that they have been successfully taught in two years to read romanically. 4. I examined the children myself and found them able to read with a very fair amount of ease and accuracy portions taken from the Fourth Book, National School series. 5. The task of teaching them to read through the Second Book, romanically printed, of the National School series, was successfully accomplished in less than eighteen months. 6. By my directions the mistress who answered the subjoined questions, gave the outside limits, within which there would be no risk of failure, save in cases of the most hopeless stupidity. 7. I can quite corroborate the testimony, as to phonetic spelling not being injurious to the acquirement of romanic spelling subse- quently. In appending the report received from the mistresses of the school I beg to express to them here my satisfaction with the manner in which they carried those experiments out. How many children, who learned the phonetic reading, are now reading romanically ? — Eight. Do these children spell fairly in comparison with those taught by the ordinary method for double the time ? — They do, and very much better than those taught for the same amount of time. What time does it take to teach a child of 9 years of age to read and spell well phonetically ? — Six months, taught for half-an-hour a day, and spending another half-hour at it themselves in their seats. What is the longest time it takes to carry them on into the romanic spelling f — Within twelve months as far as the end of the Second romanic book. Does it seriously injure their powers of spelling romanically ? — It does not injure them at all. How long does it take to teach a child to read the Second Book, National Series, romanically taught ? — Two years. How long does it take to make good spellers of those who are taught romanically ? — Six years. In connection with this report it must be borne in mind that the children spoken of are of a more advanced age than those in the infant school, and therefore possessed of greater intelligence. The next report is that of the infant school for the same year. REPORT OF THE EXPERIMENT IN THE INFANT SCHOOL. 1 . The phonetic method of teaching was introduced into this school 19th May, 1872. 2. Many obstacles presented themselves to a satisfactory trial, the causes being : — (a) Irregular attendance. (b) An outbreak of measels in the autumn of 1872 ; 500 cases having occurred among the children of the town. For five months the attendance was almost nil, seven to eight children being all that were present some days. (c) An outbreak of scarlatina in the autumn of 1S73, several of the most promising pupils having been lost. (d) Some of the most forward pupils left for America. (e) Some were kept at home altogether by their parents. 3. But for the foregoing causes, a much larger and more favor- able result would have been obtained. 4. In spite of all obstacles, there now exists a class of infant children (six in number) who were altogether ignorant of then- alphabet in May 1872, but who are now able to read through the Second Book in the ordinary romanic spelling, with the greatest ease and fluency, and who read with very fair ease and accuracy the Third Book of the National School series after twenty months' instruction, a feat that was never accomplished in the infant school before. 5. They spell with great fluency and accuracy any words given to them out of the School Book. 6. It is expected that they will finish the Third Book in another four months, thus in two years accomplishing what, under former circumstances in the school, has never before been accomplished, that is, carrying an infant class through the Third Book. This task, all the mistresses are agreed, could not have been done under five or six years' instruction, teaching the children romanically. 7. There have been several instances of children who, for one or two years previous to the introduction of the phonetic spelling, could not be taught anything romanically, not even the alphabet thoroughly, and yet on commencing the phonetic system their progress has been rapid, steady, and most satisfactory. One of them, Mary Lacey, was intensely stupid, it having been found impossible, during a twelve months' regular attendance, to get her beyond the romanic alphabet ; and yet she is now one of the best readers and spellers in the class. The teachers are united in thinking that it would have been impossible to teach her by any other method than the phonetic. 8. By the appended form of question and answer, it will be seen that in twenty months we have accomplished what had never before been done in the infant school ; that is, teaching children to read and spell in the ordinary romanic orthography ; the result 8 being entirely due to the use of phonetic spelling as a stepping -stone to the ordinary orthography. 9. By the same form it will be seen that children of six years of age can he taught to read and spell well phonetically. This result was attained with ease to all, neither child nor teacher being wearied by the task. 10. The time devoted to teaching the class that is now reading romanically, was only one hour and three quarters daily. 11. The teachers are earnestly united in their dislike to the thought of going back again to the old method of teaching, as they find that infant children who have received a primary course of instruction in phonetic teaching, can be carried forward with greater ease into the romanic orthography, and show a much greater intelligence in the task. 12. I repeat again, most emphatically, that these experiments were carried out in the face of most disheartening obstacles, in the way of non-attendance of children, due to sickness and other causes, which are inseparable from the attendance of poor children at school, and are therefore of all the greater value. The following is Mrs Parker's report, to whom, and to Mrs Heally, second mistress, and the other teachers, I am much in- debted for faithfully carrying out my instructions with regard to the experiments. MAYFIELD SCHOOLS REPORT. — INFANT DEPARTMENT. How many children who commenced the phonetic alphabet in 1872 are now able to read the Second Book of the National School series through ? — Of the children who commenced the phonetic alphabet 19th May, 1872, six are now able to read the Second National School Book thoroughly, and the Third Book with a fair amount of proficiency. Are these children able to spell with average proficiency ? — Yes. What is the average time it takes to teach a child of six years of age phonetic reading and spelling ? — Six months. Do the children learn the phonetic spelling with less distaste than the romanic ? — They decidedly do. If the phonetic were the ordinary method of spelling, in what time would you be able to turn out good readers and spellers ? — One year. What time has been devoted to teach the children each day to read ? — One hour and three quarters. In connection with the Infant School report, I append the words given, and the answers by each of the children. I think the worst enemy to phonetic spelling will be unable to say that the result is unfavorable to its introduction as a stepping-stone to teach children romanic reading. Words given out to be spelled : — Forsake, offspring, altered, 9 October, female, branches, seldom, overcome, master, composed, disagrees, farmer, spring, country, richest, garden, cottage, lioman, common, garments, implore, playful, wicked, return, serve. X. H., (rather stupid,) spelled 24, missed 1. K. K., (dull,) spelled 23, missed 2. E. C, (smart,) spelled 25, missed 0. B. G., (middling,) spelled 22, missed 3. A. H., (bad attender at school,) spelled 14, missed 11. M. L., (very dull,) spelled 19, missed 6. Infant School. — Class commenced 19th May, 1872. Children did not know their letters. After eighteen months' teaching through phonetics, they are now reading with ease to themselves the Second Book of the National School Board series. The above words were taken at random from their reading book. The third report is that made for the present year (1875), in connection with the infant school. REPORT. Result of the recent examination held by the Government Inspector in the Infant School, Portlaw, Ireland, for payment of the teachers on the system of " results:" — This examination was held in the last week but one of March, 1875, two months earlier than was at first expected. A class of eleven children was presented, — reading and spelling in the Second Book of the National School series. This class had been one year and ten months under instruction, from the time they commenced to learn phonetic reading. One child was eight years of age, the rest under seven. They were only children of fair average in- telligence. They had received merely the most ordinary atten- tion ; in fact, the usual time devoted in all the national schools for the purpose of teaching reading. There had not been the slightest attempt to force them. Every one of these children passed the examination without the slightest difficult)/, reading the portions allotted to them with ease and fluency, and spelling without hesi- tation any words given to them. Such a feat could not be otherwise accomplished under five years hard work, under similar circum- stances where the old system of teaching is pursued ; that is, age, irregular attendance, and the want of home teaching being taken into account. The Inspector expressed his unqualified satisfaction with the result, and freely acknowledged that I had established all that I advanced for the system. He, in a special manner, acknowledged that his former prejudices against the system on account of the supposed injury it would inflict on the spelling powers of the chil- dren was unfounded, and that he now saw, if anything, it strength- ened them and brought them out. It must be remembered that he was strongly, and I might say bitterly, opposed to the whole system 2 10 at first, but now he has expressed himself as entirely in its favor, and urges me to push it forward as much as possible by writing, etc. The mistresses received comparatively large " results " fees, and are highly delighted with the complete success that has re- warded their efforts. It will be remembered that the first year they did not get one penny, not having had time to carry out the system, and were very nearly reported to the Board for inefficiency. They are now reaping a rich reward for their perseverance, for they have not the slightest trouble or annoyance in carrying on the business of the school and getting the results they do. Next year they hope to present at least eighteen children able to read the Second Book, if the attendance is sufficiently regular to qualify for the examination. They have at present twenty-two children learning that book, and if the attendance is regular they will present the whole of that number. The system is firmly established in the school as the ordinary method of teaching, and is a most successful one to all concerned. As for the children, its good effects upon them are evident in the increased interest they take in their school duties, and the absence of all listlessness in the performance of their tasks. The teachers of all the schools are convinced of its benefits, and are entirely in its favor. In connection with the foregoing report I wish again to allude to the change of opinion on the part of the Government Inspector, as I think it is the most valuable and important evidence we can have in favor of the benefits of the proposed system of using Pho- notypy as an aid to learning to read in the present orthography . At the end of the first year, after its introduction into the Infant School, a number of children were presented to him for examination in the Second Book of the National School series, for payment on the system of results. These children did not even know their alphabet when first introduced to Phonotypy. In that year their progress had been so rapid that the mistresses thought they would be able to pass them in the high class to which I allude. They read with a very fair amount of ease and fluency, but were not so far advanced in the knowledge of spelling. It was too much to expect from children of such a tender age, all being under seven years. The Inspector rejected every one of them, and drawing a hasty conclusion from the mistakes the children had made in the spelling, declared that the system was a failure, and that we should injure the school and spoil the prospects of the chil- dren's education if we persisted in it. Perseverance, however, gained a splendid reivard. He has now the greatest admiration for it, and freely acknowledges his mistake, as I have already mentioned. His official position renders him unable to do more than express his unqualified approval ; and the other day he urged me to do all I could, in the way of writing and speaking, to push it forward and bring it under notice. He declared in the most emphatical manner that the phonetic teaching had not in any way injured the 11 children' s spelling powers, and that, if anything, it had strengthened them. Even this slight qualification is, to my knowledge, only the lingering reminiscence of his former prejudice, for to my own certain knowledge it does strengthen them, for the children so taught spell three times as well as any children of similar age, and length of time at school, taught und>r the old sytem. In fact, how can it be otherwise, when children of that age, namely, 8 years and under, are, in the vast majority of instances, not in the Second Book at all, nor nearly so advanced. The plain statement of the case is this : at eight years of age we have infant children reading and spelling in a book (the Second of the National School series) more fluently and correctly than it is possible to make children of a more advanced age do, in the schools for boys and girls, the ages ranging from eleven to thirteen years. I cannot do better than give the result of a visit I made the other day to the school. I found the children who had passed the Inspector at the last examination reading through the Third Book of the National School series. I was accompanied by Mr J. W. Steadman, late Church of Ireland schoolmaster here, an ardent phonographer, but not fully acquainted with the good qualities of Phonotypy. He was most anxious to see it in working order, as he was leaving to take an engagement at Enniskerry, co. Dublin, and thought that he might introduce the system with advantage into the schools of which he was appointed to take charge. We took the little things over to the very end of the book, to lessons ivhich they had not read before, determined to give them a test trial. In each case the child read with fluency the passage given, making very few mistakes, and those only in the case of very long and strange words. It was surprising the attempts they made at the correct pronunciation of words which they had never seen, and could not be expected to know until told by the masters. We then tried them in spelling, and excluding the words which they had never seen and could not have learned, they spelled with ease, accuracy, and the greatest rapidity, each word given, and with an evident feeling of pride in their power of doing so. These chil- dren will not only be through the Third Book, but through the Fourth also in another twelve months, that is, they will have accomplished at the age of nine years, in the way of reading and spelling, what is very rarely accomplished in the case of sixty per cent, of the children leaving school for good at fourteen years of age. They will have accomplished this feat in a three years' course of instruction withoue much effort or difficulty, and will yet have before them a four years' course of instruction in the higher schools, Mr Steadman acknowledged that the results far surpassed what he had supposed, as the measure of success attending the use of Phonotypy as an aid to our present system of teaching to read the common orthography. With such a result as I have stated before us, it seems impossible that Phonotypy should not be immediately 12 and widely adopted. The opposition to innovation is one of the strongest instinct in the human breast, and we must be satisfied to wait and work patiently for future success. I will conclude my allusions to the progress in the schools here by a brief account of how the children are taught. The ages of the children in the Infant School range from 3^ years to 8, in rare instances to 9. For a certain portion of the day they are all put sitting on the gallery and taught the phonetic alphabet. First, they are made to repeat it distinctly and all together in their ordinary voices, then to sing it. The mistress insists upon their makiDg the proper distinction between the short and long vowels, and the breath and voice consonants (/, v, etc.), both when repeating and singing the names of the letters. There does not appear the smallest difficulty in getting the children to do so, and they evince the utmost interest in the work. After having gone through the alphabet, the mistress teaches them to put a vowel and consonant together, and having done so, to say the T series thus : t-it, tah ; t-e, lay; i-i, tee; — tah, tay, tee. T-q, taw ; t-v, toe ; t-m, too ; — tah, tay, tee ; taw, toe, too. The same course is then taken with the P series, and so on through the whole of the consonants. A column of spelling on one of the phonetic cards or Sheet Lessons is then taken, and first spelled through, until the children know it well. Then they sing it, as they did the alphabet, to some simple air. The phonetic letters and their combinations are peculiarly suitable for adaptation to music ; they glide so naturally into one another, followed by the whole word as a conclusion. The children are then divided into three classes, according to their advancement, and the rest of the course of instruction is carried on by the teachers or monitors in the several classes. It requires some little skill on the part of the mistress to arrange pleasant and taking airs, and vigorously to enforce attention among the very young children when necessary ; but these points attended to, success is certain. When the children have passed through the Sheet Lesson they are at once carried through the Second and Third Phonetic Books, and then put into the ordinary First Books of the National Schools. At the end of the first year they pass the Government Inspector in this book, for payment by results. At the end of the second year they are prepared to pass in the Second Books, and if it were possible to leave them another year under the same mistress, they would pass in reading and spelling in the Third or Fourth Books. We do not begin to teach children on the gallery beyond their exercises until they attain the age of six years, as it would press the young children too much, until they are able to take an intel- ligent interest in the more advanced course of instruction. This one bit of experience should be widely known. If the phonetic a/phabet were in general use there would not be one single child of 13 the age of seven or eight years who would not be able to read and spell the English language perfectly. This result would cost nothing to the State, and but little trouble to the parents, for children would learn rapidly and easily at home what is now almost impos- sible to accomplish under seven years' instruction. A8 THE INTRODUCTION OF PHONETIC SPELLING ALTOGETHER WOULD BE A TASK HARD TO ACCOMPLISH, WE MUST CONFINE OUR8ELVE8 FOR THE PRESENT MAINLY TO THE ADVOCACY OF PHONETIC SPELLING AS A MEANS TO ORDINARY EDUCATION. Even here the advocates of a reform have much to make them speak with confidence of the claims of the new system for consideration. I would ask my readers to remember that I speak from practical experience, not mere theory. Under the present system of orthography, take a child of six, send him or her to an infant school ; let the child be only of average ability, and be compelled to learn in a class with six, eight, or twelve others ; let that child not be very regular in attendance at school, and in four years that child will barely be able to read the Second Book of the Irish National School series, the lessons in which are not of a very advanced type ; and as for its spelling it will be very doubtful indeed. Four years is even a short time to mention for such a result. The child is then sent into one of the higher schools, and here its education is continued for a varying length of time, but I may safely say that at the aye of thirteen the chances are all against that child's being a fluent or intelligent reader ; and as for spelling, he or she tvould certainly be far from perfect. Such is the result, then, of seven years' teaching in the vast majority of children under the present system, one that is scarcely worth the cost that has been incurred. Let me now contrast what the result would be where a child was carefully taught through phonetic into romanic spelling. At the age of six a child would, at the very outside, become a fluent reader and speller in the phonetic system at the end of eighteen months. At the end of three years such a child would read fluently up to the Third or Fourth Books of the National School series ; and at the end of seven years I am certain that that child would he possessed of a fair, sound, primary education, one that would be of service in after life. Those who have followed the reports I have made concerning the schools here will notice that I advocate an eighteen months' course of phonetic reading before passing the children into romanic, whereas the class was here passed on at the end of about eight months. I am glad of the opportunity of explaining myself here upon this point. The teachers in the Irish schools are forced to pre- sent their pupils for examination by the Inspector in certain defined courses of instruction, if they wish to obtain some of the money voted for the purpose of payment of teachers by results ; this money having been voted for the purpose of urging teachers 14 to renewed exertions in the cause of education. The teachers in the schools here had, of course, to put the children out of pho- netic spelling much sooner than otherwise would have been done, in order to have them prepared for the examination. They did so with the result I have reported, but I have not the smallest hesitation in saying that could the children have been allowed to continue for eighteen months their progress in the phonetic spel- ling, the results would have been even more strikingly in favor of the proposed change than they were, and that at the end of three years their progress on the whole would have been much greater, and that at the end of the seven years they would have been well educated. I would earnestly impress upon intending advocates of the Reform the danger of over-stating the benefits to be derived from the proposed change. Reformers should be satisfied to place before those whom they wish to influence facts that cannot be contro- verted by those who have any experience in the matter, — facts that will challenge the most determined opposition, and yet defy it. Following such a course, experiment after experiment will have but one result, that of adding fresh evidence to the truth of our assertions. The accumulation of such evidence will force upon public attention the importance of the subject, and those who now do not understand it, and therefore are among its opposers, will in the end become its supporters. The clearest way the question can be put is this. In a manu- facturing district two children go to school ; the one to an ordi- nary school, the other to one in which the phonetic system is used as a stepping-stone to the romanic. At the end of eighteen months the first will be scarcely out of the alphabet, (suppose their ages to be respectively six years,) the other will have learned to read and spell fluently in the phonetic system. At the end of three years, the first will be barely through the First Book, Irish National School series, or struggling through the Second Book. The second child will be through the Second and into or through the Third Book. At the end of seven years, the first will be an indif- ferent reader, and certainly not a good speller, when he leaves school at the age of thirteen to go into work, say in a factory, or to assist his parents in some trade or occupation, and what little he has learned will soon be forgotten in the years that intervene before manhood is reached. The second will have received a sound education that will stick to him through life, and may in after years prove the means of elevating him in the scale of humanity. Such is an unexaggerated statement of what will be found as the result of the greater percentage of children in the manufactu- ring districts, and large towns. With urban districts I do not occupy myself so much, as the children there spend a much longer time at school, and therefore, taken altogether, receive a better education than children in town and manufacturing districts. 15 I think that the advantages I have mentioned are thoroughly satisfactory. At the end of seven years to turn out well educated instead of imperfectly educated children is the aim we have in view, and that phonetic spelling is the only means that will accomplish such a result in the case of children ichose attendance at school can never he very regular, I am thoroughly convinced. I would urge reformers to increased efforts to bring the subject under the con- sideration of members of School Boards and all who have the education of the people at heart. A vast outlay of money and effort is being made to secure the blessings of education for the poor, but that such efforts on the whole will be fruitless of per- manent benefit I have not the slightest doubt, if the phonetic spelling be not used as a stepping-stone to the romanic ; and the outlay of money will be wasted, as far as a return of the expen- diture is concerned. If School Boards take the question up, and institute experiments in their infant schools, determine to give the system a full and fair trial, I can predict with the greatest certainty for them absolute success — a success that will greatly astonish them, when they come to compare the progress of those phonetically taught with those taught romanically. As for the teachers, they will find what is now one of the most wearisome of tasks turned into pleasure. Children take to phonetic spelling from the outset, and finding that day by day they are advancing in knowledge, and that their progress is unattended with any great difficulty, and that all their efforts at putting two and two together are successful in making four, they acquire confidence, and are proud of themselves for being able to do so much, instead of, as at present, being discour- aged at every fresh step they take. SUMMARY. The following may be considered as a summary of the result of my experience of the advantages of phonetic spelling. 1. Were phonetic spelling in universal use, it would, at the very outside limit, only take one year to teach a child of six or seven years of age, and of average ability, to read and spell flu- ently. This task would be accomplished without fatigue or strain to either child or teacher. 2. The foregoing tends to overstate the time, as in my experi- ence 75 to 80 per cent, of the children master the phonetic reading in six months, provided they are regular attendants at school. 3. The pleasure on the part of the children learning phonetically is most marked. 4. The teachers also express the greatest admiration of Phono- typy, and all who have experience in its working are agreed in saying that were it adopted generally, the task of teaching children reading at all would be almost abolished, as few children would 16 then come to school unable to read and spell, having learned to do so at home or in the infant schools. The teachers in the infant school say that teaching children to read would then be simply a task of pleasure. 5. It takes five years to get infants to the end of the Second National School Book, in the case of 80 per cent of the children. 6. Universal testimony points to four and a half years as the average time in which children of ten and twelve years of age are taught to read at present, and that without reaching any degree of perfection as readers. 7. As for spelling, even in the case of those who have been nine or ten years at school, as I have shown by example, they are any- thing but good spellers. 8. If a thousand fairly educated people were taken through a test examination in spelling of, say 200 difficult and strange words, 950 would be found to have failed to answer all. 9. With the present orthography it is simply an impossibility to secure a fairly liberal primary education for the poorer classes, and though the present education of the poor is a step in the right direction, yet there is now a terrible waste of public money to secure a most imperfect result. 10. It will be plain to the most ordinary intellect that if, as is the case at present, it takes from six to ten years to become a good reader and speller, the child being taught our present orthography, and if the same task could be accomplished (as it can with ease) in one year, the money spent upon the five to nine years is a pure waste. 11. As long as poor people, through the difficulty ot keeping a family upon means that are insufficient for their wants, are unable to keep their children regularly at school, for five to seven years, it will be impossible, in spite of School Boards and Educational Jets of Parliament, to secure to the children any education that will be of real service to them in after life. 12. The returns from schools, of boys able to read and spell, in a very large percentage will be fallacious. They are usually exam- ined in those books in which they have learned; and which, from constant repetition, they know almost off by heart ; but if taken in a piece they have not seen before, in most cases, unless they have been over three years at school, they fail to read the passage with ease and fluency. 13. The only real hope of securing a sound, liberal, primary education for the children of the poorer classes, while the romanic orthography is a necessity, is to have children thoroughly grounded for a year or eighteen months in phonetic spelling and reading before they are permitted to enter on the romanic course of instruction. The two courses of instruction should be carried out in distinct and separate schools. Where such a course can be adopted, it may he counted upon as a certainty, that in three years eighty per cent. 17 of the children so taught will be good readers and very fair average spellers. 14. The children so taught will far surpass, as readers and spel- lers, children I aught for the same space of time in the ordinary way. 15. I would insist upon the thorough grounding in phonetic reading, before passing the children on into romanics ; in which case there could not be the slightest fear of their failing to become good readers. 16. The vast majority of children who are taught by the ordinary method, and who only remain at school for three years, are, one might say, for all practical purposes, uneducated. 17. While it requires four to seven years to make tolerably good readers of our present print, we may safely assert that no amount of effort, either Parliamentary, local, or otherwise, will secure a fair primary education to the children of the poor, who cannot afford to leave them so long at school. 18. The only reason that exists against the introduction of phonetic spelling and reading, and the consequent sound liberal education of the Nation is PREJUDICE. 19. The aims of all phonetic reformers should chiefly be turned towards the introduction of Phonotypy into the Infant Schools of the country. In them the greatest success will he attained. If the Commissioners of national education in Ireland had their series of books printed in the phonetic type — say as far as the Fifth Book, at the end of the first eighteen months, in which I have recommended that the children should be taught Phonotypy alone, the children so taught would have read through with in- telligence the whole series and know the subject matter of each lesson, and would be able to pass an examination in them of a test nature. During the next eighteen months, in which transition would be effected, the children would only have to become ac- quainted with the " romanic " dress of the words, as they would already understand what the lessons were about, and at the end of the three years, that is, when the children had reached the age of nine years, they would have gone through, and know thoroughly, the subject-matter of a series of books which, under the present circumstances, a large percentage of children leave school without ever having read through, much less understood. Let the reader imagine the gain effected, — four years more at disposal for higher education. Used as an aid to ordinary education in the manner I have de- scribed, that is, eighteen months' phonetic and eighteen months' common reading, not a child will leave the infant schools unable to read and spell, certainly as well as the children who now leave the more advanced schools at the age of 13 to 15. If they leave the infant school at 9 years of age they have still four years for a higher class of education which may be really of service to them. If Government can be induced to pay teachers in the infant schools 18 result fees for a successful examination of the children in phonetic reading and spelling at the end of eighteen months, before being passed on into the common alphabet and reading, the success of the scheme will be assured, and in eight years not a child will be found unable to read and spell the present orthography at the end of an additional eighteen months, at which date I would fix the second examination for payment by results. Every child would then be handed over to the teachers of the boys' and girls' schools able to read and spell well, and quite competent to take advantage of a higher course of instruction. With the machinery in their hands, Government might set on foot the following useful inquiries : 1. The number of schools, and pupils attending them, in the United Kingdom. 2. The average stay of pupils in such schools, dividing them into three classes, according to whether their stay was for two, four, or, six years. 3. What percentage of pupils at the end of their stay were able to read any English book or paper placed in their hands with ease and fluency ; and also able to write either a dictation exer- cise or a letter, without making any mistakes. 4. The opinion of the masters as to the percentage of those who have left school and have been away from it for one year, who are still able to read with ease and fluency, and with pleasure to them- selves and others. 5. What percentage of pupils are well grounded in etymology, the ignorance of which forms such a great bugbear cry on the part of objectors to the phonetic system ? 6. The results of all experiments made with the phonetic sys- tem, and the opinions of those capable of judging, as to what would be the results obtainable by its adoption. 7. To fiod the opinion of those capable of judging as to whether it would be better or not to have a thousand able to read with ease and fluency, and generally well instructed, than one hundred able to spell well and know the etymology of the language, — the two great objections of opponents of the system. Orthographic Reformers might agree, — 1. To avoid the useless task of proposing an immense variety of imperfect changes in the representation of the language, when there is one already, in full working order, and perfection itself for all practical purposes. 2. To influence Government by every means in their power to take the question up and introduce it into schools under their management. 3. To have large experiments made, and evidence of the re- sults carefully collected, with the view of backing up their argu- ments oq the subject. 4. To speak, argue, write, and never to be weary in their efforts to bring the phonetic system under the notice of all with whom they may come in contact. 19 The elementary education of the poorer classes lies within our grasp if only those interested in the case could be induced, not to waste their strength pulling different ways, but to give one good long, strong, and steady pull in the one direction. There is no need to attempt the impossible task of abolishing our present or- thography ; but by using Phonotypy as an aid, in three years we can accomplish that which it now takes seven to do, and even then the result in eighty per cent, of the children taught is miserably imperfect. When that day comes in which the nation unites to demand, and have, what reason and common sense dictate, — the words I have placed in the mouth of my professor, in the pamphlet entitled "The Spelling Reform; a Vision of the Future," may come to be a substantial reality, and that without waiting for 300 years to see its accomplishment. "Were the various parties into which spelling reformers were divided to rise from their graves and look on the present and then on the past, many of them would bitterly regret having presented such a disunited front to the common enemy, — those who denied the utility of any change, — seeing the immense amount of time wasted by them to no purpose in their quarrels; whereby nothing was gained and much valuable time was lost. They would rather have made use of the means at their disposal to at once carry into effect at least one part of their programme, namely, that of redu- cing the vast and uncalled-for labor of teaching children to read, a task which by the phonetic method ample evidence existed to show could be accomplished in at most ten months in the phonetic style, and at the least two years in the romanic orthography, making the phonetic a stepping-stone. This they might well have done without committing themselves to the assertion that the Phonetic Alpha- bet was the very best that could be introduced. They could have worked at the alphabet and its improvement independently of turning the existing alphabet to educational uses, when such vast benefits were to be derived from it. Three years instead of seven for the purpose of accomplishing the task of teaching to read, and yet our forefathers hesitated about adopting a system by which such a result could be gained ! It seems incredible, but it is nevertheless true. History repeats itself. Were it possible for a prophet to have arisen in or about the years 1870-71, foretelling the vast social and intellectual reformation which has since then taken place, he would have been treated as a visionary enthusiast, and scoffed at for what has since become an established reality. Such has ever been the fate of the few to whom it is first given to see the utility or truth of any new innovation destined to introduce a new era or epoch into the worlds's history. The measures which tbey wish to introduce are, as Stuart Mill in his work on Politcal Economy pointed out, first, scoffed at and de- rided, then considered, and finally adopted. How much better would it be that the consideration should precede the scoffing process, and 20 rejection or adoption would be more to the dignity of all engaged, according as the truth or absurdity of the supposed improvements were established. In the various addresses which we find recorded a3 having been delivered before literary societies, mechanics' in- stitutes, and public audiences in the 19th century, it was a favorite theme of the lecturer to express a wish that their forefathers could arise from their graves and look upon the vast strides in civilization that had taken place since their time ; and pointing to the triumphs of science in adapting steam, electricity, and a knowledge of che- mistry to the requirements of humanity, would loudly praise themselves for their position, and rail against their forefathers for not having seen the utility of these inventions. But alas! poor short-sighted mortals, they were repeating the conduct of their fathers. Could they now arise and view the strides which have since taken place, how little would be left to them to boast of, and how careful ■should we be not to fall into their error, — that of scouting new inno- vations until we have proved them worthless by practical experience. Well may we feel proud, gentlemen, to live at a time when every- thing that tends to raise and develop our intellectual powers receives such calm and impartial consideration, and i3 fostered and protected if its principles are true and sound. " Look around us. On all sides we see education a primary and all-important object, even with parents of the poorest class. Our schools are everywhere well attended, without force or compulsion on the part of the Government, and even children look upon ig- norance as the greatest disgrace that can befall them. No longer is that wearisome drudgery in existence which toe can well believe must have sent many unfortunate teachers to a lunatic asylum, or deadened their interest in their task —the highest of all tasks, that of training the generations of the future, and affixing their stamp, for good or evil, on those who came under their charge — of fostering the appearances of intelligence in the minds of those icho were under their care. Need 1 say what task it was that proved such a drud- gery to all concerned, both teacher and child ? It was the hiero- glyphic romanic spelling, which took five years of hard labor to master in anything like a creditable manner, and that was even a low estimate of the time necessary. Education is with us a primary object, as I have said. No longer are those beautiful and pathetic lines of Gray, in his ' Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard,' applicable to even our poorest population : — But knowledge to their eyes her ample page, Eich with the spoils of Time, did ne'er unrolj r Chill penury repressed their noble rage, And froze the genial current of the soul. It was, and it would be even now, impossible for poor parents to keep their children going to school for five or seven years. We may well be thankful that such a space of time is no longer neces- 21 sary. A sound, liberal education can be secured in four years, and the pupil placed in a position to advance farther, should his tastes lead bim to literary amusements. No longer is the teacher to be found employed in the task of teaching reading at all. That is confined to the infant school, or home instruction. The teacher at once carries his pupils to the higher branches of education, such as the study of history, of classical literature, the writings of the poets, geography, mathematics, etc., giving to the nation that high tone of intellectual development which now characterises it. What would authors of the nineteenth century have thought could they now see the vast demand made for good works when readers are no longer counted by thousands but by millions? Look at our newspaper circulation ; to what an enormous extent has it in- creased when compared with the time at which reform in ortho- graphy was introduced. "What were the newspaper proprietors thinking about when they left out of consideration that 8,000,000 of a population from which they were shut out, and in which they would have found such vast support had education been within their reach ? In every town and village are now to be found in- tellectual societies and associations, with hosts of supporters in place of the weak support given to similar societies in the time I allude to, from the mere want of a sufficiently enlightened popu- lation to take interest in such pursuits." I must draw my task to a conclusion. I have over-stated no- thing. If Phonotypy be adopted as an aid to education in the infant schools of the country, and the children are first well grounded for eighteen months in phonetic reading, and then passed into and taught to read in the present orthography for another eighteen months, I unhesitatingly assert that at the end of the three years so employed, ninety per cent, of the children will read and spell with a fluency not now attained by forty per cent, of the children who leave school at the age of 13 to 15 years, having passed from seven to eight years under instruction. If this state- ment be true, as I know it to be, it will be patent to all that a frightful waste of money is now being made in the attempt (for it is no more) to secure a fairly liberal, primary education to the na- tion at large. Let this statement be put to the most rigorous test by properly carried out experiments ; and then if untrue, let Phonotypy be rejected ; if true, common sense dictates its adoption. POSTSCRIPT. Since these pages were first written, the question of Spelling Reform, in its relation to national education, has decidedly taken a more prominent position in the minds of many able and thoughtful men, and there is every symptom of a growing agitation in favor 22 of considering and discussing its feasibility. Tot homines, tot sententia is an Old World saying, that is as true now as when first written, and though there is a pretty wide consensus of opin- ion as to the necessity of some reform, most unfortunately there is a wide divergence as to the principles upon which that reform is to be based. For my own part, I regret that it must be so. I am convinced that a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull altogether, would, in the present state of public opinion, work wonders. It is a fact that children can, by means of the phonetic system of spelling, be taught to read our present orthography in half the time that it now takes to accomplish the task, and that with the utmost ease to teacher and child ; it is a fact that it does not injure their powers of acquiring the present spelling ; on the contrary, it strengthens them ; it is a fact that the children so taught, are brighter, more intelligent, and take a much livelier interest in learning to read and spell than those taught on the old method ; Surely with such advantages, it ought not to be hard for reform- ers to unite and insist upon extensive experiments being instituted in connection with the Board Schools of the country, to test in the infant schools the method proposed in this pamphlet. The question might be left open to a future discussion as to the best form of alphabet to be permanently adopted, and the best means by which such adoption was to be secured ; but for the present the real struggle might be confined to securing a clearer and better education for the poor children who are compelled to attend the Board Schools of the country, and thus securing a more tangible result for the enormous outlay that is at present incurred, and for results, comparatively speaking, the most meagre. Personally, I confess, I am altogether in favor of adopting the present phonetic alphabet ; I think it would be hard to improve upon it. It has a sign for a sound, and a sound for each sign ; the only exception being the diphthongal representatives of ei, eu, ou, at, and oi, which would be linked thus— ei. Once the eye is accustomed to it, it is pleasant to read ; it would not unsettle the present generation, who have grown up accustomed to orthography, as we have it in its romanic dress, one quarter as much, as a half-and-half measure of using diacritical marks, old letters with new powers, and diphthon- gal letters. The approximation between the old and the new, in these half measures is, in itself, a source of danger, and of diffi- culties, which would readily dishearten any who thought to make themselves master of the new system. Once know the 36 signs of the phonetic alphabet, and the whole thing is known and can readily be brought into use ; not so the new rules, which it would be necessary to learn in connection with Semiphonotypy, or systems into which diacritical marks enter. These, however, are questions which must remain open to debate ; people are not lightly turned from their own particular hobbies, and I daresay 1 myself am as bad in this respect as the rest of the 23 world. Of this we may, however, be assured, that day by day the glaring absurdities of our present method of spelling will make themselves more and more patent to the public at large, and that an ever-increasing consensus of public opinion will, at no distant date, call for a change, which will render the acquirement of reading and spelling much more easy than it is at present to our children and to foreigners. Instead of, as now, requiring a period at the very least of five years to learn to read, children will be able to acquire that power in twelve months, the balance of time being given to acquire the knowledge of what they are reading about — a very different style of education to that of learning to read. Until, however, that good time comes, we ought to urge on, as far as lies in our power, the adoption of phonetic spelling as a stepping-stone, and only as a stepping-stone, to the learning of our present orthography ; by doing so, one half the time at present spent in learning te read will be saved : no light gain. It is a shame that the School Boards of such large towns as Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, etc., do not take the question up warmly, put it to the test of experiment, and then adopt, or reject, as experience dic- tates. By and by, to their shame, it will be said that they were not generous-minded or large-hearted enough to adopt what cer- tainly is the only worthy and common-sense course open to them ; by their apathy they are repeating the old, old story of continual opposition to all things new, that has opposed every innovation that has ever been made, be it power-loom weaving, penny postage, introduction of railways, etc., of which there are such abundant instances in the pages of history. It is a poor position for such large towns to occupy by and by, to have to follow in the ruck instead of leading the van in a move- ment which is certainly of the greatest national importance. We have decided that education is necessary for the people of England, even the poorest ; whatever is calculated to extend and improve that education is worthy of the most respectful and careful con- sideration, and schemes to secure this movement ought not to be lightly passed over with scorn, or disdain, or incredulity based upon ignorance of the principles advanced, the benefits of which have been proved by experiments over and over again repeated successfully. "We who know, however, that our cause is just, may well wait in patience, trusting to the truth of the old saying, " Magna est Veritas et praevalebit," and be encouraged in our struggles by that other passage, " Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit." John W. Martin. 76 Brunswick street, Sheffield, 21th January, 1880. 24 The Reading, "Writing, and Spelling Reform. The Reading and Writing Reform consists in the introduction of a pho- netic alphabet of thirty-six letters to represent all the sounds of the English language. This alphabet is adapted to Shorthand and Longhand Writing, and to Printing. Phonetic Shorthand is as legible as common writing, while it is written in one-fourth of the time, and with half the labour. By means ot Phonetic Printing, children and ignorant adults may be taught to read accurately in phonetic books, in from twenty to fifty hours' instruction ; and a few lessons will then render them capable of reading books printed in the common spelling. The education of the poor is thus rendered not only pos- sible, but easy. PHONETIC PUBLICATIONS. Phonetic Shorthand. Phonographic Teacher, or FirstBook of Instruction in Phonetic Short- hand, 6d. Key to ditto, 6d. Phonographic Copy Book, 3d. Phonographic Reader, 6<2. Manual of Phonography, Is. 6d. ; cloth 2s. ; roan, gilt, 2s. 6d. Printed in Phonography, in the Corresponding Style, unless otherwise expressed. .ffisop's Fables. Learner's Style, 6d. Extracts from the Best Authors, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6d. each Selections from the Best Authors, in the Reporting Style, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6d. each. The Psalms, Is. ; cloth, 2s. The Other Life, cloth, Is. 6d. per dozen. SPELLING REFORM. Reprinted from the Phonetic Journal" of \Uh Feb., 18S0. This paper, at first written for a private Discussion So- ciety, was chosen for reading at a meeting of the London Schoolmistress's Association, 18th February, 1880. It may interest the reader to know that the subject (as being akin to the writer's favorite study, etymology) was undertaken with the expectation of writing against Spelling Reform. It was her inability to answer the arguments that made her a convert. Finding the etymologists all on the Reform side, completed the change. " Phonetic reform is not merely a theory : not a specu- lation of what' may be : it exists : it has taken root downwards, and bears fruit upwards. All that is wanted is additional laborers in the orchard to pluck the ripe fruit and distribute it to the hungry many." To most readers this statement— made in all seriousness, thirty-two years ago, by Mr A. J. Ellis, one of the authori- ties on the question of Spelling Reform— comes with a distinct shock of surprise. To most of us this proposed reform has seemed not merely a speculation, but a specu- lation of the vaguest and most visionary character. Few of us have even realized how great a part phoneuc writing plays in our every-day life, so that the suggestion of phonetic printing has still a startling aspect of novelty about it. We forget, in reading our daily paper, how large a part of its interest is due to the shorthand reporter, who, without his reformed alphabet, could not possibly give in London the speech which last night thrilled an audience in Edinburgh or Dublin. If we asked our busi- ness friends, or those engaged in any large concern, they could tell us how much of their business is done by dicta- tion to clerks or secretaries who have doubled their value by their proficiency in shorthand, so that the head of the firm is able to dictate in one hour letters that take five hours to write out in ordinary spelling. We have heard of books on the subject, but set them down as the crotchets of learned men ; and we smile at the sight of a Social Science Association devoting a day to the discussion of so wild a scheme as this appears to us to be. But when we find the School Boards of most of the leading towns in ihe kingdom uniting in asking for a Eoyal Commission of Inquiry ; when we see a magazine in its 39th vol., with a circulation of 12,000 weekly ; and lastly, when we fiud an Association formed, including some of the best known names in the literary world, and especially the leading: etymologists, we may think it time for more serious con- sideration of the subject, and feel that at least those interested in education are bound to know what can be said in favor of the proposed changes. So much for the fruits. The depth of the roots is shown in the many movements for a reformed Alphabet throughout Europe and America. The Italian and Spanish languages have already been reformed, the spelling being almost entirely phonetic. Doubtless such a reform was more easy in these tongues than it would be in French, where the Teutonic element, in addition to the Latin, introduces less regularity. But it has been done, and done effectually. In German there seems less need of change than with us, but there is an active movement on foot. The Germans in America, whose children have to learn English, and who are thus made practically aware of the orthographic difficulties of our language, are es- pecially eager for change. Considerable improvements have been made in the Dutch language and the work of reform is going steadily on. The question has long been working i n the minds of thoughtful Englishmen and Americans, and no less than twenty-seven new phonetic al- phabets have been invented of which nineteen are English. In the limited space of a paper of this kind it is not possible to enter into the philosophy of the subject. We must accept the fact that all original alphabets are pho- netic ; that is, that their letters are symbols representing certain invariable sounds. Confusion is introduced when these symbols are transferred to other nations, whose habits of speech interfere with a perfect assimilation. Few languages have suffered so much as the English from the introduction of alien elements : consequently we find here the greatest irregularity of spelling and the utmost absence of any fixed standard of sound, so that Mr Ellis is able to say of it: — "The last stage of alphabetical insanity was reached by the English alphabet, an insanity which consists in the monomania that alphabetical writing is so far from being essentially phonetical that any attempt to make it so would — in brief — destroy the language it represented." The latest, and at present best, phonetic alphabet is that of the Phonetic Journal, edited by Mr Isaac Pitman. This magazine is printed in two styles of Phonotypy, one of which is, for the present, used as introductoiy to the ideal type to be evolved in the future. There is a system of phonetic spelling called " Glossic," which uses only the existing letters. Nothing can possibly be more unattractive than the grotesque combinations of letters necessary to indicate the right pronunciation of the words : and much to be pre- ferred is the modification of introducing a few new char- acters for the digraphs eh, th, sh. ng, and the long vowels. Phonetic shorthand type is not available for ordinary pur- poses but there is no difficulty in either of the modifications of phonetic printing by the Koman letters which may not be overcome with a few hours' practice in either writing or reading. The first principle of a phonetic alphabet is its invaria- bleness. Each symbol must always represent the same sound, and no other, and when well mastered, is absolutely certain. As things are at present, a child learns to call the twenfy-six letters of our alphabet by names that often bear no sort of relation to their value ; and the value of any combination of letters forming a word, that is, its pro- nunciation, can never be ascertained from the letters that compose it. ]S T o one would venture to decide the pro- nunciation of any English word from its spelling. But with a phonetic alphabet the letters would infallibly decide the pronunciation. It is obvious that with such an alpha- bet a uniform speech must grow up, and all country dia- lects be gradually brought up to the true standard. Of course, instances of mispronunciation would remain, just as people would still spell incorrectly, if insufficiently trained. But these faults would arise from a defective ear, and would be the fault of the individual, and not, as now, inherent in the system. There would, of course, be an authoritative standard of spelling, as a representative of the pronunciation, to which educated people would con- form. Phonetic spelling means, emphatically, the reign of stricter law: — though, oddly enough, the idea usually first suggested by it is that of unrestricted license. Un- der these conditions, then, the 36 letters of the new alphabet would not involve the same labor now expended on our 26 letters, while the time now spent in learning each word separately would be employed in the acquisition of new ideas ; or, as Mr Pitman puts it, " we shall save many years of labor now expended in merely learning to read and write — the tools wherewith to work out knowledge — and allow those years to be spent more properly in learning the use of these tools." Dr J. H. Gladstone, interested, as a member of the School Board, in the inquiry now agitated, has gone into this question of time so spent, and in a book on " Spelling Beforni from an Educational point of view," gives these results of his researches : — " From these data it is easy to calculate that an average English child, spending eight years in school, and making tha not unusual amount of 400 attendances per annum, wil' have spent, on an average, 2,320 hours in spelling, reading and dictation ; and such a scholar will have probably acquired sufficient knowledge of the subject to pass the moderate requirements of the Government Inspector in ' reading with fluency and ex- pression, and spelling familiar words without error.' It is evident that the money cost of acquiring these necessary accomplishments in the elementary schools considerably exceeds £1,000,000 per annum." Dr Gladstone is inclined to think that the children of educated parents learn more quickly : but, he adds, we may depend upon it spelling comes to no English child by intuition, though we may ourselves have forgotten the processes by which we mas- tered its perplexities. The Civil Service Examinations show how lamentably imperfect is this acquirement, even among those who have received a liberal education. In reference to experiments carried on in different places, Dr Gladstone quotes from Sir Charles Reed's re- port that, " in Boston where the children have not more than four or five years' schooling, the uniform result is a saving of half the time, two years' work being done in one." He then goes on to prove that " an Italian child of about nine years of age will read and spell at least as cor- rectly as most English children when they leave school at thirteen, though the Italian child was two years later in beginning his lessons. . . . The German child seems usually to begin his schooling everywhere at six years of age, and the general testimony is that he learns in two years, if not in a shorter time, to read distinctly and cor- rectly books which are not above his comprehension." In other continental countries similar results are obtained. A Swedish school-inspector reports that " the children in the Swedish Board Schools, as a rule, are able to read fluently and write correctly at the age of nine to ten years." It may safely be assumed, from all considerations, that half the time and money now spent in elementary schools, might be saved, giving opportunity for the teaching of other useful and desirable branches of knowledge. And in schools of the upper class, where the course of study is necessarily so extended, and is ever extending, what an inestimable gain there must be in the additional time left free for higher subjects ! Dr Gladstone adds the following suggestive facts with reference to elementary schools abroad : — " In Italy, though the aggregate term of schooling is shorter, the children learn much about the laws of health, and domes- tic and social economy. In Germany they acquire a con- siderable knowledge of literature and science, and in Holland they take up foreign languages. It is lamentable how small a proportion of our scholars ever advance be- yond the mere rudiments of learning : a circumstance the more to be regretted as they will have to compete with those foreign workmen whose early education was not weighted with an absurd and antiquated orthography." iii a paper read 5th February, 1877, by Mr E. Jones, before the Social Science Congress, it is stated that only 20,000 out of 500,000 children, with 30,000 teachers, reached the very moderate requirements of the sixth stan- dard. Only about 75,000 pass in any subject beyond the " three E.'s," for which a grant of £15,000 was paid last year, being one per cent of the total grant voted by Par- liament for education. A weight of testimony, with names like those of Lord Brougham, Mr Mathew Arnold, Dr Morell, and Dr Byrne, was then adduced to show that " the majority of the chil- dren of the country can never be taught to read correctly on the present system." There is much evidence in favor of the greater accuracy of reading under the new system, while there would still be no insuperable obstacle to the enjoyment of old books, which, as Mr Pitman remarks, " could be read at least as easily as books in the orthography of Chauceror even later." Dr Gladstone also says, " I do not doubt that when the Koman type was first introduced many who were accus- tomed to the old blackdetter could not bear the nasty, thin, plain-looking modern characters : and we have all heard of the student, who, when examined about his know- ledge of Chaucer, replied, " Chaucer was a writer who de- served some merit, but, unfortunately, he could not spell !" There is no doubt that a phonetic alphabet must tend to preserve the pronunciation of our language, which other- wise " threatens to be irrecovei'ably lost." What saving of trouble would be caused if we could now accurately give the value of the Latin characters ! That English needs such aid is shown clearly by spelling reformers in their constant reference to the two facts, first, that no English- man can tell with certainty how to pronounce any word which he has only seen written, and has not heard spo- ken; and, secondly, that no Englishman can tell with cer- tainty how to spell a word which he has only heard spoken and has not seen written. We all know of the, happily successful, struggle for existence which the name of our greatest dramatist has experienced. It appears in no less than thirty-eight different orthographies, to the perplexity of his biographers. It is indeed true that to meet these difficulties we have no less than eleven standard pronouncing dictionaries, to which students may be referred for all uncommon words, having previously made a separate study of all the common ones. But even with this provision, there is still no ab- solute certainty about some words. In these dictionaries we may remark that recourse is necessary to phonetic principles to indicate what the letters otherwise fail en- tirely in conveying. Even here, however, "the doctors differ," and, where Walker devotes forty-six closely printed pages to the principles of English pronunciation, Smart contents himself with twenty pages, and then boldly cuts the knot in the assertion that " some words, however, still remain which no system can embrace, and which therefore can be referred to no general principle." One important argument, dwelt on by Mr Pitman, must not be omitted, in connection with the wide spread of the English language, and its use by the natives of our foreign settlements, superseding native languages, which, in consequence of our absurd alphabet, cannot even be accurately preserved, each traveler or missionary being free to give any representation of them that may most please himself. It is interesting to notice among the mem- bers of the new Association the well-known name of the great African missionary, Dr Moffat. As Mr Pitman says, " Our grammar is one of the easiest in the world * it is only the pronunciation which presents any difficulty, and this is mainly owing to the spelling, which effectually disguises the sounds themselves, and foreigners who have not (like English children) learned to speak before they learned to read, naturally require the sound to be repeated many times oftener than the English child, and yet have fewer opportunities of hearing it." In the future it is probable that English will supersede French as the lan- guage of the civilised world, since already "it maybe considered the language of the world out of Europe, and this idiom, which by a bold mixture of Gothic and Koman elements, and by the fusion of their grammatical forms thus rendered nceessary, has attained an extraordinary de- gree of flowingness, appears destined by Nature, more than any other that exists, to become the world's language." One obstacle, however, stands still in the way,— our spel- ling, — which is thus characterised by a distinguished Ger- man writer : " Did not a whimsical, antiquated orthography stand in the way, the universality of this language would be still more evident, and we other Europeans may esteem ourselves fortunate that the English nation has not yet made this discovery." In an able paper in " Chambers's Encyclopedia " we find this summary of the leading arguments : — " There can be no doubt that phonetic spelling would greatly facilitate the acquisition of the power of reading, and consequently, of the education of children and of illiterate adults ; as well as tend to the reduction of dialects to one common stand- ard, and to further the diffusion of our language ia foreign, countries. To learn to read from perfectly phonetic char- acters would be merely to learn the alphabet; and to spell would be merely to analyse pronunciation. A child at school could be made a fluent reader in a few weeks. AU uncertainty of pronunciation would vanish at the sight of a word, and dictionaries of pronunciation, would be super- fluous." Without advocating extreme measures, the same writer suggests a modified change, observing, "A general pho- netic alphabet, available for the writing of all the sounds of human speech is still a scientific desideratum. Such an alphabet would be of great practical value to travelers, colonists, missionaries, and philologists." . . . But the question remains, Why should the established orthography be unphonetic ? or, at least, Why should not some national measures be adopted to correct the anomalies of our spel- ling ? A similar work was undertaken by the Spanish Academy in the middle of last century, and. carried out so efficiently that in the present day the pronunciation of any word in Spanish is immediately determined with certainty by every reader who merely knows the phonetic value of the alphabetic characters. The writing of the Italian, Dutch, and other languages has also been successfully pho- neticised. A similar result would be attained in English by the introduction of a complete alphabet. New letters should be added to the alphabet for the six unrepresented consonant sounds sh, zh, th, dh, ch, ng ; or, at all events, the writing of these elements should be made distinctive ; and, with a few rules for distinguishing vowel-sounds, or by slight modifications of the existing vowel types, the English language might be written with phonetic accuracy. Possibly one of the first efforts in this direction might be that recently suggested by a correspondent of The Times — the formal abolition of the letter c. Even this, however, will not be done without a struggle, for most of us must at first find the difficulty, say, for instance, of recognising the dignity of Cicero or the grace of Circe under the apella- tions of Kikero and Kirke. But since the Spelling Eeform Association has for its objects plans of this kind, we may expect that with the able workers in its ranks success is merely a question of time. A correspondent in The Times calls attention to an experiment in active operation for the last twenty years in Wakefield, and now tried in Sheffield and Leeds. By Bobinson's " Phonic " method the powers and not the names of the letters of the alphabet are taught, while all silent letters are printed in italics, and totally ig- nored by the student, who thus learns correct pronuncia- tion without ceasing to learn the orthodox spelling. Three- fourths of the time needed for the old plan of learning to read are said to be saved by this system. It is a fatal objection to this plan that it does not contemplate a reform of the existing spelling. The present no-system, a mere mass of incongruities, pronounced by the highest etymolo- gical authority, Max Miiller, to be " efl'ete and corrupt," must, on the Bobinsonian method of teaching reading, be learned by everyone in all time to come who speaks and writes the English language. The most important objections to the proposed changes seem to fall under three headings, namely : 1. The Pecu- niary : 2. The Etymological or Historical : 3. The force of Custom and Prejudice. 1. As to the Pecuniary. What, it is asked, are we to do with all our existing literature ? To this it is answered that we should use existing editions as long as they were necessary or useable ; and then we should simply go on as we are now doing, and issue new editions of all books worth reprinting, in the new type. And, surely, if there is anything that could make a prejudiced mind incline willingly to the change it would be the thought of the immense masses of books and magazines which would not be thus reprinted and which would, therefore, be so much taken from the burden to be imposed on future unhappy generations of readers, whose present prospect seems so appalling. Eeaders of the present generation would keep to their old editions, while the readers of the next would prefer the new ; and thus everybody, including publishers and printers, would be satisfied. And as for collectors of old and rare books, what would there not be of gain in " fresh fields and pastures new " opened in all directions ! One thing at least is certain, on the pecuniary side of the question, that the saving in the cost of printing would be considerable. It is found that 90 phonetic letters will represent 100 letters as now used unphonetically. This gives a saving of 10 per cent. 2. The Etymological or Historical difficulty is that generally supposed to carry most weight. But when we find among the advocates of Spelling Eeform an array of the leading philologists of our day, it may be safe to as- sume that the arguments which content them may suffice for the rest of the world. Most of us may follow conten- tedly the steps of scholars like Professors Max Miiller and Sayce of Oxford ; Skeat, of Cambridge ; Meiklejohn, of St Andrews ; Doctors Latham, Angus, Morris and Mur- ray, of London ; Mr Sweet, President of the Philologi- cal Society ; and Professors Whitney, March and Halde- man, of the United States. The Historical difficulty is not very serious. We are asked, " But if we drop all the silent letters how do we know the past history of a word ? " To this question the answer may be, that one of the most persistent facts in the growth of our language is this loss of original letters, in the adoption of shorter forms. Most of our words have already undergone greater changes than any now proposed. If we object, for instance, to phonetic changes which give us dezi, kergef brr,n,fcr, hsl, Tied, for daisy, kerchief, brain, fair, hail, head, why do we not insist on picking up the letters already dropped, and write, instead of our present forms, dceges-eage, couvre-chef brcegen, ftpger, hagel and heafod ? These were early, but not even the earliest, 10 forms of the same words. Why set any limit to the after- -growth which has already resulted in a change of sound, though not yet of spelling ? It is granted, of course, that the silent letters are an invaluable guide to the past his- tory of a word ; and. if their disuse meant their destruction, no etymologist could possibly advocate phonetic spelling. But such destruction is no longer a possibility. Every word is safely preserved, as surely as any old fossil in its limestone rock. Our dictionaries remain as museums, where the student may find the record of even remotest eras. And when etymology is taught, as it may be when the time is saved from the present useless spelling, it may be thought as illiterate not to know a word's history as it now is not to know to spell it. The worst effects of the proposed reform could be no more than the addition of one more link to the chain by which, link by link, our words are united to their Teutonic or Hellenic representatives. For example, suppose we adopt the forms gen, pen, and per, they are as easily iden- tified with chain, pain, and pair, as these with their French forms chame, peine, and paire, leading to the Lat. catena, poena, and par. A long vowel must usually indicate some loss in the word, and becomes thus suggestive of farther inquiry. And such losses are amongst the most important elements in the history of words, always denoting the operation of fixed laws, now well understood. Practically, the etymological difficulty is also at an end. But it will be well to glance at some of the leading points, especially at one of the most plausible objections to pho- netic spelling, since the answer gives the best argument in its favor. It is urged that the loss of the silent letters would deprive intelligent children of the pleasure they may now find in seeing the relations of English words with those of allied tongues. For instance, a child who noticed the resem- blance between words like our icay, half, and laugh, and the Ger. weg, halb, and lachen, would not forget these words. This is perfectly true. Even the merest smatter- ing of etymology is not only full of interest, but is a means of real mental discipline, which, by the way, is one of the objector's arguments in favor of our present alphabet. It is seriously asked whether something of the undoubted superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race may not be due to these early struggles with the difficulties of the alphabet ? 11 Surely, however, this is only a reason in favor of real teaching of etymology, where the conquered difficulties leave some valuable knowledge ? (') It is urged that the present difference in spelling, even 1 . In many cases phonetic spelling would throw clearer light on words now obscured by letters introduced through accident or by false analogy. There is the well-known instances of could, O. Eng. cuthe or coude, where the I oomes from fabe analogy with should and would. The m in whole also sepa- rates this word from its stock O. Eng. hal, and thus from its first cousin hale, its Ger. relations heil, Heilund (Saviour) a"d from its more distam connections safe, save, and salve. The omission of silent b in thumb gives ns its etymology O. Eng. thumn, though from force of habit we shall probably go on writing slumber, humble, and number, where the intruder has made good its position in sound as well as in spelling. So, too, while we drop the si- lent; m from wear, having the same meaning exactly. Sear, the animal, is only a variation of bairn, the thing borne, or born, as we see in the Lat. fera a wild animal in general; just as "beast, zoon," or "animal," is simply that which is "living." There is here no loss, but gain, in the same spelling. Sere and sear are again from the same root, O. Eng. searian, to dry. Gate and gait are both from gan, to go ; one meaning an opening to go through, the other a way of going. Bass, in music, and base, low, are from Gr. basie, a standing, or that which is lowest. There is no reason why the insect flea should be severed from Jlee, and fleet, or fly. Cat and kitten might as well be re-united in form as they are in fact. Plain and plane are manifestly from Lat. planum. And so on, indefinitely. 12 if of no help in sound in distinguishing words, is of use to the eye, preventing some of the confusion which would arise from having so many words of varying signification expressed by the same letters. To this it is sufficient an- swer to say that practically no confusion does at present arise from this cause. English people readily learn to dis- tinguish the meanings of words of the same sound even in French, where this process of verbal attrition is as much marked as in English. We soon know whether the sound vsr means towards, or a verse, or a worm, or a glass, or fur, without needing to know that versus is Latin for against, or for a verse ; or vermis a worm ; or vitrium, glass J or varius, fur. In English, words of the same sound are usually phoneticized already. Opening the dic- tionary at random we find under the single letter B no less than thirty-two words of which twenty have two dis- tinct etymologies, eight have three, two have four, and two have five ; while words, in addition to these, which have from two to a dozen modifications of meaning, from the same root, are too numerous to count. No confusion comes of this sameness of spelling. We at once know whether the word bound (which is as phonetic as it can be made) means the past participle of to bind; or comes from bua, to prepare ; or from bonder, to spring, being verb or noun ; or from bourne, a limit. We understand the word bay as a color, from Lat. badius ; as a berry-bear- ing tree, from baie, or bacca; as a bend of the sea, from O. Eng. bige ; or as barking, or keeping at watch, from bayer, to gape, or watch, or from abbayer, to bark. One of the examples of a proposed difficulty on spelling in the same letters the now different rite, right, write and wrigkt, is well answered by Mr Ellis in a counter question, " How is it that we now distinguish between the following modifications of one of these words, of different meaning, but with the same spelling: — He sat on my right; I claim it as my right ; you are right ; he will right you ; he hit the nail right on the head ? " For other exam- ples, he mentions, " A light step ; a light room ; a light- house.; a light heart; a light style of architecture; light manners ; to light a light ; to light on a ' heaven-kissing hill ;' to make light of misfortunes." And again, " a bay horse; a bay tree; the bay of hounds; a stag at bay; a bay of the sea ; a bay window." We all know, too, the climax of word-puzzles contained in the nursery catch, " Of all the saws I ever saw saw, I never saw a saw saw 13 as this saw saws." Certainly we may agree that nothing worse than this can come to us in any extremity of pho- netic change. Without accepting Voltaire's position that "Etymology is a science in which the vowels are worth nothing, and the consonants very little," we may still reconcile ourselves to the loss of a few silent letters in allowing Professor Max Miiller to persuade us to lay aside the prejudice that " ety- mology must chiefly depend on similarity of sound and meaning," We can certainly helieve that " sound etymo- logy has nothing to do with sound " when we follow him in his defence of this position, which he takes on four dis- tinct sides, including all difficulties both of spelling and sound, in section 6 of vol. 2 of his " Lectures on Lan- guage," where he shows : — 1. That the same word takes different forms in different languages. 2. That the same word takes different forms in one and the same language. 3. That different words take the same form in different languages. 4. That different words take the same form in one and the same language. When words so apparently different as our tear and the Fr. larme ; as Lat. coquo and Greek pepto ; or Fr. meme and Lat. ipse are shown to be closely related, we need surely not be afraid of any evil result from phonetic spel- ling. If, again, a Sanskrit cou-pen can turn into palace and court in the hands of the professors of this science, we may securely leave the matter to them, and not feel under any necessity to sacrifice the good of the greatest number to the claim of a privileged few. As it is, non-students take etymologies on trust, and they will continue to do so. In any case special students might be content to take a little extra trouble, if by so doing they could serve so great an end as opening the whole range of literature to the many now cut off from its complete enjoyment^ As it is, new characters must be learned in tracing Old English or Greek roots, and the proposed changes could do no more than add a new variety to the many forms assumed by a word in its course from its Keltic, Teutonic, or Helenic source. The change would merely be sudden instead of gradual, — a flying leap instead of the imperceptible pace at which the language is moving on. The English of to-day is not even the English of a hundred years ago ; still less is it the speech of Shakspere, of Chaucer, or of Wiclif. Change is inevitable. It is the law of all growth, and therefore the law of a living language. Only the " dead languages " are 14 unchangeable. Non-literary dialects change in a single generation, and literary languages, though they change more slowly, must change to fit the growing needs of the people who speak them. The proposed reform is no more than the clearing away of hindrances to free growth. By insisting on the pre- servation of the dead forms of our living words, we are in truth trying to hinder free growth. We may as well try to keep last summer's dead leaves on our trees as try to preserve the worn-out forms of spelling which our spoken words have out-grown. It may indeed be urged that this apparently arbitrary interference with the slow growth of our language amounts to a break in the continuity of its history. Why not let the growth go on gradually ? To this we can only answer that the change has to do with extraneous obstructions, and not with growth. If our alphabet had been phonetic we should not now have this mass of dead matter which we wish to remove. The form of the word would have changed with its growth. That there is no loss of con- tinuity by change of form, is clearly shown in all the crises of the history of our language. Csedmon, Bede, Alfred, the Chroniclers, Wiclif, and Chaucer, all made the same sudden change when they bound the spoken English of their day in fetters of verse or prose. They selected cer- tain forms, and. rejecting others, doomed them to destruc- tion. But the life of the language went on wilh gathered power, each change marking a new accession of vigor. There remains now only the objection on the ground of custom and prejudice, and to these there is not much answer, if even we do not quite agree with Professor Max Midler's stern fiat when he says, " 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 clogged resistance to reform as undeniable facts and unanswerable arguments." Something we may surely allow to the force of habit and old associations, for Use arid Wont, gray sisters, loving nothing new, are to some extent the recognised Lares and Penates of the English hearth. By sufficient stretch of imagination we may anticipate the period when our wise men, duly accredited in grave assembly, shall have unanimously past the Spelling Beform, and have made the new alphabet compulsory. But our wise men are not yet all of one mind, 15 either about the new alphabet, or the true standard of pro- nunciation, and we have breathing space in which to pre- pare for that future. When it comes we shall doubtless rejoice in seeing the children growing learned and happy, on every principle of abstract rightness, in Kinder-garten and Board schools ; while we, groaning over our daily papers printed in Phouotypy, as we shall have learned to call the new type, find what solace we may in our own old editions of the Bible and Shakspere. In these days of scientific enlightenment, when we are expected to believe in the " solidarity of the race," no one dare deliberately take the position of the Irishman who objected, " And why should I put myself out for posterity then? Sure, posterity never did anything for me ! " With due time for preparation we shall all bring our- selves, when the time comes, to the point of sacrifice, and learn to read the new type ; and, worse still, learn the new spelling, or even actually write it, though it is said that would be expected only of the next generation. What must come, will come. Then we shall do our part even if at present we may be inclined to stand on the same plat- form with a certain well-known French theorist, who, met by the objection " But, my dear sir, the facts are ail de;.d against you ! " only retorted placidly, " Well, then, so much the worst for the facts ! " Unfortunately, for him and for us, the facts have a xevy troublesome way of getting the best of it in the end! A. E. ElULET. NOTE. The following extracts are from a letter addressed (4 Feb. 1 880) by t lie President of the Philological Society, Dr J. A. II. Murray, to a mem- ber of the English Spelling Reform Association who had written to him in reference to the passages, from Archbishop Trench's books "The Study of Words " and " English, Past and Present," so often quoted against any attempt to return to the rational system of spell which formerly ruled in our language. Dr Murray is engaged in editing a new Dictionary of the English language, the first impulse to which was given by Dr Trench himself, 22 years ago, and for which the Philological Society has been col- lecting materials ever since. The Dictionary will if possible, be completed in ten years, and' it is intended that a first part, of 400 pages, containing the letter A, shall be ready in 1S82. "All that you say about the Etymological question is true— to philologists indeed such truism, long ago settled and done with, that it is with surprised regret that one is recalled to the general ignorance 16 of people on the matter, ignorance all the deeper because hugged with touching simplicity in the belief that it is grounded on knowledge. " It is not only pitiful to see the expressions of Archbishop Trench — uttered just a quarter of a century ago, when English philology was in its pre-scieutific babyhood, and scarcely anything was known of our language in its earlier stages, save the outward forms in which it had come down to us in MS. or print — quoted against the rational recon- struction of our spelling; but it is unfair to Dr Trench himself, who then stood so well in the front of philology, and we may be perfectly sure that, if leisure had been given him to keep pace with the pro- gress of the science, he would now have been second to no one as a spelling reformer. For philology has long since penetrated the mere drapery, and grappled with * the study of words' not as dead marks but as living realities, and for these living realities it first of all de- mands — 'Write them as they are; give us facts and uot fictions to handle.' But, of course, none of us knew this in 1855 ; we were still busy with the drapery, and irate at the sacrilegious phonetists who would dare to ' alter our language.' A little knowledge is a dangerous thing— when it does uot recognise its littleness, nor gain in amount in five-and-twenty years. " But all this I must, with great regret, leave it to others to tell. I cannot spare time to w-rite papers. The more I get into the Dic- tionary, the more I feel that it is a life-work, and takes all my ener- gies. I will try to come to the public meeting ; but I must hasten to get the first part of the Dictionary out, for that, I believe, will supply ammunition to kill the etymological dragon. Men will there see that the 'current spelling' is a passing phase, with no consecration, no title-deeds, one of a dozen fashions which have preceded it, and as open to change as its predecessors. It is necessary at every turn to speak of it as the ' current spelling,' ' the present spelling,' ' the pre- sent fashion of writing the word,' etc., to remind people that words are living and growing realities, and forms of spelling but their pictures — in modern fashion too often their caricatures. "As to practical measures, I strongly approve of gradual steps. If Spelling Reformers will agree on a list of immediate changes, and pledge themselves to use them whenever they can, I will join them in doing so. If some hundreds of men will do this, it cannot be laughed down. I would have a list drawn up of words on which there would be a general agreement, excluding for the present all doubtful words, but including all those like hav, giv, catalog, lung, det, dout, coud, soverein, lovd,prest, deckt, whose superfluous letters are both unphonetic and unhistoric, in order to make a beginning, and in fact to make the matter a practical one, so that people would be forced to say ' Some people spell this word so and so : I think theirs is a better way.' The new must I believe be grafted on the old ; all past changes have so been. The Americans are trying to do this, and I believe that they will succeed." Printed by Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Bath. :- [Price |d. [4d per dozen. CURIOSITIES OF ENGLISH SPELLING. A Lecture delivered before the Southward Teachers' Discussion Society, in the Alexis street Board School, \§th January, 1880, BY TITO PAGLIARDINI. From the "Phonetic Journal," 15th May, 1880. A few years ago one would scarcely Lave ventured to come before an enlightened public to lecture on such a subject as Spel- ling ; for on one side was to be dreaded the formidable opposition of the pretentious half-learned, who, biassed more or less directly by a clever, amusing but shallow book on " English, Past and Present," proclaimed it heresy to tamper with so sacred a thing as etymological and historical spelling, and sacrilege to attempt to enlarge a notoriously incomplete alphabet; — while on the other hand we had to face the chilling indifference of those who having escaped more or less successfully from the tedium of the spelling- -book and the frowns of weary and discouraged teachers, looked down with contempt on the Spelling Reform as a subject quite beneath the notice of sensible, practical people. But since the nation has decreed that every child, boy or girl, shall be educated, and as the time which children can pass at Board or voluntary schools is very limited, the conventional diffi- culties which an absurd, complicated, contradictory, and in every respect unscientific manner, for it cannot be called method, of spelling throws in their way, have become evident to teachers, examiners, inspectors, and ratepayers, and a number of the more enlightened Schoolboards of Great Britain. But the general pub- lic still remained apathetic, until the energetic action of the Lon- don School Board, backed by more than a hundred provincial School Boards, the Social Science Association and the Society of Arts, suddenly drew to the subject the attention of the English- speaking millions all over the globe, and even of those enlightened foreign nations who are only deterred from the study of a language so rich in literature by the very repulsive and incomprehensible orthographic garb in which it is presented to their view. This must be my excuse for occupying half an hour of your time on a subject of apparently so little interest, but which would easily yield materials for a thick volume. It has a comical and grotesque side ; but alas ! it has a serious, a very serious side also — educational, industrial and financial, as I will strive to show — and with the gloomy side I will begin. I am addressing an assembly of that honorable profession which having in their hands the development and direction of the intel- lectual and industrial powers of the rising generation, ought, as society progresses, to hold a higher position in the world's estima- tion than is now granted it. I will therefore just call your attention to the great injustice the intricacies and contradictions of EnglUh spelling occasion both to you and to the children entrusted to your care. Merit is, by the public, generally measured by results. Now, after seven years of pains-taking, laborious work, spent al- most exclusively on spelling, but sufficient to instil the elements of all useful knowledge into children's plastic minds, and give them a thirst for more knowledge, what are the officially-stated results ? — That out of 2,744,300 children on the books of the inspected schools, only 19,349 could read with a certain "fluency and ex- pression," giving less than one successful pupil for each of the 22,000 certificated teachers. Was it then for so unsatisfactory a result that the people of Great Britain met enthusiastically all over the country claiming education as a right for every child in the realm, and consenting to be taxed, that national education should become a living fact ? I think not. Their aim was that their children should be enabled to begin their worldly career with some useful and practical knowledge, which should make them skilled artisans and good citizens, or competent daughters, sisters, wives and mothers, and thus enable their country to hold its own in the lively competition with other countries. But the removable spelling difficulty prevents this, and the blame is often cast, not on the real cause, but most unjustly on the incompetency of the unfortunate hard-working teachers, or on the stupidity or idleness of the children, because their naturally logical minds are staggered and bewildered by the unfathomable contradictions and absurdities they are expected to grasp, such as t-h-o-u-g-h, re- sulting in dv. The intricacies and inconsistences of the grotesque forms in which their beautiful mother-tongue is presented to their eyes, and which their teachers are unable to explain away, are such that all their time and all their youthful energies, thirsting after useful knowledge concerning the world they live in, are frittered away, wasted to no really practical purpose, and with this further baneful consequence — that they look upon the tedious school-room as a temporary prison, and when they have left it, often turn with disgust from the book which has caused them so many heart-burnings. In your own interest then, no less than in that of the children entrusted to your care, and of your country of which they are the future citizens, do your best to prevent the precious years of childhood from being squandered in the vain endeavor to unravel the unscientific and uninteresting riddles of spelling, (and, let me add in parenthesis, the irregularity and incongruities of the so- -called English, but in reality Roman and now discarded old French weights and measures.) But even if desirable, is it possible to remove these impediments to education ? and if possible, what are the best means of obtaining this end ? To the first question I will answer that I believe that whatever is truly desirable is also possible, if we will only conscientiously and energetically set to work, employing those mental and physi- cal powers with which we have been so richly endowed by God, who is ever ready to help those who help themselves, even to the marvelous annihilation of space and time, when we deserve these miracles by our serious study and application of His laws. In the conventional matter of spelling, however, there is really no difficulty at all. Custom and prejudice, — those brilliant soap- bubbles which, empty though they be, dazzle the eye, but vanish on the slightest touch ; those Chinese paper-walls which may in- stil terror at a distance, but which a resolute man can easily walk through, — custom and the prejudice of the eye are the only ob- stacles that stand in our way : and they are already far less for- midable than they appeared barely three years ago. I will answer the second question, as to the means of attaining our end, in the Scotch style, namely, by asking another question — What is the legitimate function of writing ? Some half-learned men who have barely entered the threshold of Philology, and a host of others who, like the sheep of Panurge, blindly follow their lead, answer pompously, " To preserve the etymology of words, and to indicate their history," — a pretension which the present complicated mode of spelling sadly fails to justify, and which such true philologists as Max Muller, Professor Sayce, Mr Ellis, Br Murray, who is entrusted with the compilation of the new great Etymological and Historical Bictionary of the English Language, W. W. Skeat, and numerous others strenuously repudiate. The true function, the only duty, of writing is to give a faithful picture of speech. The writer is to the spoken language what the painter is to his model ; his business is to follow his model in all its peculiarities as far as imitative art can reach. It is no part of his duty to clothe his model in armor to indicate that one of his ancestors fought at the first Crusade ; or to represent a lovely lady with flaxen hair on one side and chestnut locks on the other, with a daub of blue paint on her shoulder as " clear marks " that she was descended or derived from the union of a Saxon or Banish 4 warrior -with, an aboriginal British damsel. If he professes to he a painter, the portrait he produces must be such that not only those who know the model should recognise it at first sight, but also that those who have only seen the portrait should be able to recognise the person portrayed from among a crowd, as I did the Duke of Wellington at a large party the year after my arrival in England. The painter has no right to alter the features or pro- portions according to his notions of what should be, or his real or fancied knowledge of what his living model's ancestors were, — or he must call his work a fancy picture, a beau-idea/, an abstraction, hut certainly not a portrait. Above all, he must not use blue for the complexion, and call it flesh-color, nor green for the eyes, — unless he means to be satirical. The forms and coloring must be, as far as possible, the counterpart of the original. So also must the writer aim at as exact a representation of speech as can possibly be attained. The alphabet is his pallet, from which he must be able to take whatever sounds he may re- quire, so as not to have to write gh and expect his readers to call it /or k, or to give th and leave them to guess whether he intends it for the, th in thin, or t in Thomas. If his pallet is not complete, let him furnish it with what is wanting. This is what the ancient Greeks sensibly did — When they found that the 1 6 letters they had borrowed from other countries were insufficient to represent their spoken sounds, they, without hesitation, added several new letters. And are modern nations who have given wings and yet permanency to literature by the invention of printing, and turned steam and electricity into willing and mighty slaves, to be less bold and less inventive than they in so small a matter as the enlarge- ment of their insufficient alphabet borrowed from the Romans? Shall those who have tamed the lion fear to multiply their gentle unresisting flocks ? The whole problem then consists in giving but one symbol as the representative of one sound, and to confine its use to that one sound only. Now, as the barbarous tribes which had settled in Europe gradually adopted the Roman civilization they also adopted the Roman alphabet as the foundation of theirs. But this beautiful alphabet of 25 letters, sufficient for the representation of Latin, thus became forced to represent, as well as it could, a number of languages containing many sounds unknown to the Romans, and in which many Roman sounds were wanting ; or, in other words, an alphabet of 25 signs, with the addition of one new one made up of two v's, and named a double U (W), was called upon to re- present a total of 50 distinct articulate sounds. Hence arose a chaotic confusion in all languages except modern Latin (that is, Italian, and later on, its other offspring Spanish), which only long, intense and tedious study can overcome. Each letter, which ought to stand for one sound only, is made to do duty for 2, 3, 4? nay, 7 and 8 different sounds, while each sound may be represented by several, sometimes as many as 12 different letters or combina- tions of letters. K and q have alone been respected, and the forms b, d,f, I, m, n, r, s, x, have been somewhat better treated than the rest ; but even these have had duties thrust on them for which they were never destined. And the worst part of the busi- ness was that in the dark ages, when every province, nay, almost every town was at war with its neighbors, each nation made what use it liked of the common property without even giving a thought to what other nations did with it. Then came the revival of learning, and the well-meant but injudicious attempts at etymological spelling. These attempts were fortunately resisted by the Italiaus who had begun to spell fonetikali, and continue to do so till this day. But in France and England matters were only made worse ; for the difference be- tween the original, or spoken word, and what should be its portrait, the written word, was thereby often increased. Thus it happens that in spite of the endeavors of many learned men in both countries from the 16th century upwards to remove these antiquated anomalies, English spelling in the first place, and French in the second, are the greatest sinners against common sense and truth. Every French and English child can bear witness to the terrors of learning to spell ; though you, who have at length attained the art, so that you are quite sure (mind ye ! quite sure) of being able to pronounce correctly a word or name you see for the first time, such as the names made familiar by the wars in Zululand and Afganistan, — and to write correctly a name or word you have never seen, — nay, perchance even to pass unscathed by the sting of a Spelling Bee, — may have forgotten the toil, temper and tears, and the many precious days and years it cost you ; but your avocations must daily and painfully recall them to you. I will now give you a few specimens of the avoidable anomalies of your own language ; and as the anomalies of French, German, and other written languages go on another tack, you will easily understand that anyone having mastered, after years of heavy labor, those of any one language, will have to undergo the still heavier labor of unlearning what he has learned when he under- takes to acquire another. Letters and combinations of letters which he had long toiled to associate with certain sounds will probably in each of the other languages stand for something quite different, the letters k and // being the solitary exceptions. I, who have spent my life in teaching foreign languages, can with truth assert that this monstrously ridiculous use of what might easily be developed into a perfect alphabet, creates, without the remotest counterbalancing advantage, one half of the difficulties met with in their study. But confining my observations this evening, as I have already said, to the caprices and oddities of English spelling, I will begin with the first letter of the alphabet. This poor over-worked letter a, which originally stood for its sound in part, calm, and continues to do so generally on the con- tinent, is made in English to stand for 7 different vowels, as in palm, pat, pale, pall, what, any, Maria ; and yet each of these vowel-sounds can be and is represented in various other capri- cious ways. Thus the sound of a in pale is also rendered by the 6 following combinations : ea, ai, ay, ey, ao, eigh, as witnessed by the words break, pail, pay, they, gaol, weigh. Indeed the English style of spelling holds a wand before which those of the greatest magicians of past and present times are mere ordinary sticks ; for it leaves the object it acts on unchanged to the eye, yet at once alters its nature into something quite different from its former self, and often, though leaving it still visible, completely annihilates it. Let me, as an instance, write down in a column 9 times the tetragraph o-u-g-h, which you may pronounce — if you can. h-ough r-ough c-ough th-ough bor-ough hicc-ough thr-ough pl-ough ough-t Now let the magician, English spelling, stalking proudly on his high stilts, Etymology and History, advance and place an h before his subject. At its magic touch the unpronounceable o-u-g-h assumes a vocal existence, becomes a thing of sound, and is pronounced hock. O-u-g-h, therefore, standing for the sound ock, any intelli- gent child would at once be able to spell the following easy words : /rough (frock J, dough ( clock J, lough flock J, dough (dock), shough (shock), flough (flock), and standing on this strong rough (rock), mough (mock) anyone who should venture to laugh (lawk) — no — But the wizard again approaches, and merely prefixes a I ; at once three of the four letters vanish in sound, leaving only the inter- jection of wonderment, 01 The further introduction of an r changes the wondering ! into an exclamation almost of disgust — oo ! But the grand transformation is yet to come, no longer by an addition, but by the removal of the first two leters th. Who on earth could guess the effect this shortening of the word would have on the remainder ? By what law in the science of Phonetics can the cutting off th from the head of a word make w^grow at its tail ? Corollary drawn by the above-cited intelligent child : — •' The less the number of letters the stronger the sound ! " Is any other metamorphosis possible ? Oh yes ! trust your magician for that. He again approaches, and quietly attaches to our word rough the syllable bo (the one that clever people say to a goose), and all its roughness at once vanishes ; and to show how unlim- ited is the power he wields, the wizard now substitutes for his last additions bor, the letters pi, which makes ough rhyme with cow ; — then instead of pi he prefixes c, which transforms it into auf, and by joining to the c the syllable hie, — Oh, marvelous trick! — he turns kanf into cup ; and to prove that his metamor- phosing power is not confined to the head, he finally attaches a t to its tail, and what do we find ? — awe ! — and no wonder. We might easily find hundreds of other striking specimens of the power of transformation possessed by this wonderful conjurer. We will be content with a few, and indeed ive will be our next specimen. Now, however modest and retiring ice may be, we none of us like to be reduced to enforced silence, like children who are told they must be seen but not heard. I am sure I shall have all the ladies agreeing with me in this. But alas ! we do not know what cruel tricks English spelling may have in store for.us. Well, we will stand a few of us altogether and defy his power. Here we are all as alike to each other as so many peas. we o-we e-we a-we we»d Here comes the conjurer simply armed with an o, an e, an a, and a d. Not much to fear. However, he quietly places the first, and Oh ! we find ourselves completely absorbed by the new comer, so that we are nowhere ! He then substitutes for the obnoxious addition his second magical letter e, and — Oh, wonder of wonders! — we suddenly change our person and become an ewe ! To express the feeling that seizes our hearts when we find how easily we can be transformed to a sheep, the orthographic wizard has only to exchange the e for an a, and behold the result — awe ! But no sooner are we awed than he slily removes the a and we are wed. Thus also by prefixing an e he can change ye into I (eye), and if ye prefer becoming an affirmative he can oblige ye by adding an * to your tail (yes) ; and though you may fancy that what is yours is your own he will, by lopping off your initial, turn it into eurs, — a simple method I would recommend to that respectable but dull-headed gentry who never can understand the distinction between mine and thine. Nor will he always consent to the three letters o-u-r standing for our property. By consecutive additions he will make them pour and vapour. Mark also the unexpected tricks he plays by merely adding or oubtracting a letter or letters, on the following words : — ( s-ound d-amp ) \ w-ound sw-amp ) l f-ood 1-ove i ', g-ood m-ove . ( bl-ood gr-ove ) | have m-arch ) \ be-have mon-arch / 8 And when to the word here he prefixes a t it suddenly changes into there ; so that when we are under the sway of this tyrannical powerful ark- (or arch-) magician, English spelling, we are neither here nor there, nor indeed anywhere. Yet, though generally mis- chievous, this sorcerer's transformations sometimes convey a moral lesson. Here stands England's greatest, deadliest enemy — Gin. He advances, places before it the emblem of industry and thrift — a be, and forthwith the arch-fiend, the " stealer of brains" and happiness vanishes, from the mouth and from the ear — begin. But speaking seriously, you must all see how these troublesome, no less than useless, complications forced upon little children as soon as they enter school must puzzle their little brains, disgust them with study of any sort, as they convey no useful and inter- esting information to their minds, and tend to distort their rea- soning faculties, teaching that 2 and 2 are not always 4, but sometimes 5, or 8, or 12, or nothing. And you must not be sur- prised at the small results obtained even in reading and writing after 7 or 8 years spent continuously on the three It's. For it is of no use disguising the fact — even you whose education is com- plete and who have read a great number of books and news- papers, even you are not sure of your spelling. Don't contradict me, or I will remind you of the defunct Spelling-Bees, where I saw clerks, clergymen, lawyers, authors, M.P.'s, etc., unable to gain one of the five prizes. The fact is that both in France and England the best authors are frequently very bad spellers ; for thought is intellectual freedom — conventional spelling is slavery. Now the time wasted on spelling is lost to the intellect, and as the child's time is now, fortunately for Great Britain, paid for out of the rates, just calculate how much of those rates must be wasted annually in the arduous attempt to teach children how to spell. I would that that money and that time were employed in teaching children, through suitable and neatly illustrated books, something about natural history, applied chemistry, and the simple laws of health ; to which I would add interesting biographies and travels to give them a foretaste of history and geography, that when they grow into active citizens they may know better how to use the influence of their votes for the benefit of their country. " Edu- cate your masters " said Robert Lowe. But spelling and, let me add, the complication of English weights and measures, leave no time for all these useful and in- teresting studies. The mechanism of the instrument is so com- plicated and unreliable that comparatively few learn how to use it, and those who have to pay the piper grumble. Only a few days ago I heard at a public meeting two vestrymen complain that the School Board is attempting to teach the children of poor artizans other subjects than the three B's, I am happy to say, however, that this attempt is in exact obedience to the Act of Parliament. But the spelling and the weights and measures diffi- culties stand in the way of the practical execution of the Act's commands. Where one year would be ample for the celebrated three It's, leaving many years for the purposes of real education, seven or eight are now barely sufficient. Hence the not unjusti- fiable complaints of the Education Department on the one side and of the ratepayers on the other. But, you will ask,— What are we to do ? Our spelling, trou- blesome as it is, and our other difficulties have been handed down to us, — they exist — and we must make the best of them. So did your bad roads at the beginning of this century exist — but Mac- adam improved them, and then trade improved. Yet you were not satisfied until a close net- work of railways connected almost every village with the rest of the country, nay, we may almost say with the whole of Europe. So with the slow and expensive Postal Service; so with the dim, troublesome, train-oil lamp, which made darkness visible ; so with hundreds of other imperfections handed down to you, and which your living fathers or yourselves have helped to remove The spirit of the age is this — When a palpable evil exists, how- ever old it may be, improve it out of existence. Your present style of spelling (not so old and venerable as you are led to think, for it is not that of Chaucer, or Shakspere, or even Milton,) is one of these evils. It stands in the way of Education, that is, of na- tional progress, and it falls a great and useless weight on the ratepayer, since he does not get his full six-pennyworth in the intellectual and industrial improvement of his children, while de- prived of their services at home ; and it creates a life of drudgery for yourselves ; therefore — do away with it. What ! exclaim with parrot-like precision those who having laboriously mastered its intricacies, while knowing nothing of philology and but little of the literature of the past, merely repeat what a few popular but shallow writers may have written, — What ! destroy the etymology and history of our language ? re- move the p from receipt, and the g from feign, and the u from honour, when these letters are the " clear marks " of their Latin origin, or of their introduction into our language through the French ? Well, suppose it were as you say. I would first ask whether it matters to 99 out of every 100 whether a word came from the east or from the west, so long as its exact meaning and use are generally admitted. Language is made by and for the nation at large, from the Sovereign down to the poorest artizan or pedlar, as the instrument of domestic, industrial, scientific, and social communication, — not for the diversion of a few pseudo- -students ; and I will further ask you how far this etymological and historical principle is consistently carried out by its defenders. 10 If the p in receipt is so essential an indication of its Latin descent, why is it not found in conceit, deceit, derived from the same Latin root, cap ? If the g is necessary in feign, why is it absent in disdain, complain, join ? And if the?< must be retained in honour, favour, colour, and 30 others to show that they came into English through the French, why is it omitted in doctor, tutor, professor, emperor, and nearly 400 others which ought to be regulated by exactly the same rule ? And why does the g appear in foreign and in sovereign (for the French souverain), and the u in neighbour from the Teutonic nachbar, and in parlour from the French parloir (not parleur), and is behaviour of French origin ? Then why is the consonant single in apartment, literary, from appartement, litttraire, yet doubled in address (French adresse) ? I could fill a volume as large as a good-sized dictionary with fur- ther specimens of the inconsistencies and contradictions of the so-called etymological and historical spelling ; but I would rather wait for the numerous criticisms and objections with which you will, I hope, overwhelm me, and answer them as best I can. I may, however, j ust call your attention to the fact that so far from a rational reform of spelling being repulsive to the feelings of philologists and great writers, in France such men as Fenelon, Labruyere, Bernardin de Saint Pierre, Voltaire, Rousseau, Charles Xodier, the celebrated editor of the Dictionnaire de l'Academie, Firmin Didot, the Philological Society of Paris, and a host of others were favorable to phonetic spelling for the French lan- guage ; but that the pedants, the prejudiced and the indolent, by 'heir resistance have, perhaps, deprived the French language of the chance it had of becoming more and more the language of polite Europe, as it has long been of diplomacy. The French-speaking nations are, however, once more alive to the necessity of a reform, and France, Belgium, and Switzerland are agitating for an international system of spelling, in which agitation some leading German philosophers and philologists are joining. As to England, which cannot remain in the background, you will be surprised when, at the conclusion of my lecture, I read to you the names of the many eminent men who have consented to be Vice-Presidents of the newly created English Spelling Reform Association. I am myself an old and inveterate spelling reformer, and I am here to try and induce you to help as far as you can in the good cause, which is that of national progress. I, individually, am a spelling reformer not for England alone, hut for France, for Ger- many, nay, even for Italy and Spain ; for although these two na- tions possess an almost perfectly phonetic, that is, rational and easy system of portraying their languages on paper, yet even they bowed to the tyranny of the two letters c and g, thus creating certain complications in the form of digraphs and double uses of 11 the same letter to stain the otherwise simple beauty of their spelling. But supposing you were to admit with me the educational and financial disadvantages of your present style (I cannot say method or system) of spelling, — supposing you felt as I do, that this alone prevents your noble language, so rich in literature of the most varied excellence that none in past or present times can be said to surpass it, from being universally studied and appreciated, you might still ask what is to be done. Well, this question has now for some years been pretty fully discussed in private circles, and more widely in Mr Pitman's Pho- netic Journal, which has most liberally admitted proposals differing vastly, yet all agreeing in a strong desire to simplify the art of writing, and therefore of reading. The solution of this important question might be satisfactorily found if the principal philologists of the principal European states could assemble and agree upon one single invariable symbol for each of the 50 distinct articulate sounds of the human voice, so that in all languages the same sounds should invariably be repre- sented by the same letter. This would be obtaining at once what we must inevitably come to some day. For this we should have to enlarge the present Roman Alphabet by the addition of 24 new letters, of which the English language, containing as it does 3!) distinct sounds, would have to adopt 13 ; the remaining 11 would represent sounds that are not found in English. For this thorough system, which might be adopted gradually by dividing it into 12 stages extending over 12 years, I hold myself alone responsible, though I know several philologists both in England and on the Continent who sympathise with it. But there are many ardent spelling reformers who are not pre- pared to go such lengths, and would be satisfied with, and are de- votedly striving for, less extensive reforms. They may be divided into two classes : 1st. Those who, like Mr Pitman, (whose alphabet, with very few modifications and additions, might be made the ground work of an Universal Alphabet,) think it necessary to fill up the deficiencies of the otherwise beautiful, compact, Roman Alphabet by the addition of 13 new letters, or " upstart interlopers" as Dean Trench eloquently terms them, — but con- fining their reforms to English only, at the risk of making the orthographic divergency still greater between different languages, should the French and Germans go (as most of them have hitherto done) on the same village-steeple principle. 2nd. Of those whom we may denominate the no-new-letter re- formers, at the head of whom we must place the propounder of Glossic, the eminent philologist, Mr Ellis, who together with Mr Pitman initiated the modern spelling reform in England thirty-six 12 years ago. These reformers, not to inflict on printers the very trifling expense of founding a few new types, and on readers the small trouble of making acquaintance with a few new letters, a difficulty they overcome in a few hours when learning Greek or German, make up for the missing letters by digraphs, or the com- bination of two letters to represent a sound which is different from either, or by diacritical marks, such as accents, dots, apos- trophes, etc., which is to all intents and purposes making new letters, entailing the necessity of special types. It must be said in justice to these less-bold reformers that their objection to new letters does not seem to proceed from any deep-rooted prejudice of their own, but chiefly from the fear that they would not prove acceptable to the public. You may help to prove that the public are always open to any new idea that gives good promise of some national advantage provided it be offered in a practical form. Among the most eminent and active of these reformers I may mention Col. Clinton, Messrs E. Jones, J. B. Rundell, Danby P. Frv, Washington Moon, Dr George Harley, H. H. Butterfill, R. P. Bull, W. R. Evans and C. W. Price, etc. The free discussion of these various plans has done good service by awakening the attention of the public, especially now that the enforced education of every boy and girl in the land has brought home to every ratepayer the great and half-barren expense of teaching them the present so-called learned but really barbarous style of spelling. And now that under the neutral flag of " Spel- ling Reform" in the abstract, all reformers of whatever degree have associated in one body, and meet frequently for the purpose of discussing together, there is a good prospect of all rough angles being smoothed down, and of the views of all being enlarged on the one hand and brought down to what is immediately practicable onthe other, until some truly acceptable plan may be offered to printers and editors in whose hands the realization of the reform practically lies. Meanwhile a special committee has been formed by the English Spelling Reform Association to examine and report on all the various schemes proposed, and, as soon as its funds will justify the undertaking, a journal will be published to keep the public of courant of what is being done here and elsewhere to carry out this necessary reform. A great number of school teachers are in favor of the change, and the London and above 100 provincial School Boards have voted in its favor and addressed the Education Department by means of a numerously attended and influential deputation. I will now read to you the preliminary prospectus of the English Spelling Reform Association, and if any of your friends should wish to join they may reckon on a hearty welcome in however small or however high a degree they may advocate the reform. The 13 Association is a parliament in which all shades of opinion have a right to sit. I will only add that by encouraging the spelling reform you will none of you have to go to school again ; you may still continue to the end of your days to write and read as you have hitherto done, though you will at once find hooks printed in a new-fangled style of spelling as easy to read as your old ones, and indeed far easier if they contain words you have never seen or foreign names you have never heard, and from these books you will easily teach the children. All we want for the present is to simplify the school work for our children and teachers. The pre- sent benefit will be chiefly for the ratepayers, who will in the pro- gress of their children get a better article for their money, and for the teachers whose work will be easier and more pleasant. The real permanent benefit will be for the rising and all future generations, for phonetic spelling means — the arts of reading and writiug placed withiu the easy reach of all— correct pronunciation and spelling for all — the newspaper and the book for all — the road to knowledge cleai-ed of all needless encumbrances. You see that the spelling reformers, — so jeered and sneered at by a portion of the Press as unscientific, unphilosophical, un- grammatical, ignorant dreamers — stand in very good and respect- able company ; you need not feel ashamed of joining their ranks. And now, ladies and gentlemen, having for so long had all the talk to myself, I place myself in your hands, that you may take your revenge by cutting up unmercifully all I have ventured to say. We are here for mutual improvement, and fair discussion is one of the most powerful instruments for the elucidation of truth. My aim has been chiefly to awaken discussion, and thus lead yon to look farther into the subject on your own account. I feel con- vinced that this, more than anything I can say, will ultimately make spelling reformers of most of you. ETYMOLOGICAL SPELLING. From the " Phonetic Journal," \5th May, 1880. We are so often told that the common system of spelling pre- serves the etymology of a word, which is true in some cases, that the opposite side of the question has been too much overlooked. It deserves to be stated that a great number of our words have been at various times re- spelled according to their supposed etymology, and that, in many cases, such re-spellings are utterly misleading. I wish to state that I have been for three years and 14 more at work upon English etymology ; and that I have been much struck with the stupid way in which our spelling has been tampered with, in order to suggest, encourage, and make the public swallow, a false derivation. I find that such instances are far more numerous than is generally supposed ; and that, in many cases, a phonetic spelling would actually be found to be correct on etymological grounds ! That is to say, it is open to spelling reformers to meet instances in which phonetic spelling obscures etymology by citing instances in which a return to phonetic spel- ling would at once suggest the true derivation. Few people seem to have thought of this, though it has been timidly urged in the case of a few well-known instances, such as rime, now mis- spelled rhyme j sent, now misspelled scent; and coud, now mis- spelled could. But the case is far stronger than this. I do not feel called upon to give many instances at present, because my Etymological Dictionary will give full materials for such a word-list. But I will just mention a few. We write victuals in order to suggest a derivation from the Latin victualia. The suggestion is false. The word is derived from the Old French vitailks, and the "vulgar-looking" spelling vittles is much nearer the truth. Of course the Old French dlles is derived from the Latin victualia, but so also the Old French rcson is derived from the Latin rationem. Yet we should not dream, on that account, of writing down such a form as ration when we mean to indicate reason. The spelling rcson is more phonetic than reason, and it is also morecorrect ; it is very com- mon in old manuscripts. Again, take salt-cellar. The stupid spelling with c was adopted to connect it with coal-cellar, with which it has nothing to do. It is rightly salt-sellar, with s ; where sellar means a vessel to hold sel, that is, salt. This is capable, of course, of the fullest demon- stration. Cotgrave explains the Old Fr. salicre by " salt-seller ;" and he is quite right. I will add that the c in scythe is utterly wrong ; the etymological spelling is sithe, which is phonetically tolerable. The old word cisura, connected with French eiseaicx, is now misspelled scissors, in order to force on us an etymology which is demonstrably false ; and now all the world (nearly) believes in this false etymology, merely because the word was re-spelled and misspelled by some ignorant pedant. I am perfectly certain that the general public has no idea of the extent to which false etymologies have thus been forced upon us, and are now devoutly believed as articles of faith. Only a few scholars have any notion that our word cinder ought to be sinder, being derived from the Anglo-Saxon sinder, which meant slag or scoria, so that we cannot correctly speak of " the cinders of the dead " even to this day. The general public believes in a deri- vation from the French cendre, which could only have given the 15 form cender, just as gendre gave us gender. And how is the general public to know that the spelling was purposely altered by French scribes to suit their French ideas ? In a word, I will boldly state that a phonetic spelling, in many cases, will be a return to truth and reason ; and these cases may be set off against those in which, forsooth, " the etymology is obscured." This is a favorite argument of beginners, who under- stand only that part of English which they suppose to be derived from Latin and Greek. A study of the phonetic spelling of the fourteenth century and some training in Old French and Anglo- Saxon might work a serious change in their opinions. 2 Salisbury villas, Cambridge. W. W. SEIEAT. REFORMED SPELLING. The English Alphabet is so deficient in letters to represent the sounds of the language, and from this and other causes English spelling is so "corrupt," and hence the present style of spelling differs so greatly from the best and most familiar-looking style ef phonetic spelling, that it is supposed by some to be impossible to bring into use an enlarged alphabet and a correct style of orthogra- phy. To accommodate the Spelling Reform to this state of tbings it is proposed to introduce the reformed spelling in distinctly marked stages or styles, shaping it like a wedge, the thin end of which may, enter anywhere.. All these different styles acknowledge a common alphabet and a uniform method of applying it, and they may all be used at the same time, both now and hereafter, by different persons, without confusion. The following sentence exemplifies these various styles of spelling, and it contains all the letters of the enlarged alpha- bet. There are four styles of reformed spelling : — 1. The one new-letter style, with " u " (cut from " p," and its capital "D" from "D " by a penknife,) for the vowel in son, but. C, q, and x are rejected as unnecessary, and the remaining eighteen consonants, five short vowels, and five digraph diphthongs are em- ployed according to their most customary use in the common spelling. This style may be employed in any printing-office, by cutting a few "p's " into " u's." The script letter is aa- Bei the Fonetik Alfabet eni person, old or yung, may be taught tu read both in fonetik and in ordinari buks, in three months,— ai, often in twenti ourz' instrokshon, — a task which iz rareli akomplisht in three yearz ov toil bei 16 the old alfabet. Whot father or teacher wil not hail this great boon tu edeukashon ? — this pouerful mashine for the difeuzhon ov nolej ! 2. The Jive new-letter style, with $ (thin), rj (sinff), 3 (vision), ts (son, bwt; abetter type than the imperfect "u"), b (father). The script forms are $, n %■, **, <%. Bei the Fonetik Alfabet eni person, old or ysg, may be taught tu read bod in fonetik and in ordinari buks, in dree BQTsnis, — ai, often in twenti ourz' instrskshon, — a task which iz rareli akomplisht in dree yearz ov toil bei the old alfabet. Whot fether or teacher wil not hail this great boon tu edeukashon ? — this pouerful mashine for the difeu- 30n ov nolej ! 3. The ten new-letter style, adding e (aim, there), i (field), o (law), e (no), m (food) ; script letters e, *, a, *>, tu. In this style the consonant digraphs, th, sh, ch, are employed for the sounds heard in " then, she, c7teap ;" and when it is necessary to represent t or s followed by h, a turned point is interposed; thus, " pot-hous, mis-hap," as distinguished from " bother, bishop." Bei the Fonetik Alfabet eni person, e-ld or jstq, me bi tot tu rid bed in fenetik and in ordinari buks, in dri m^nds, ai, often in twenti ourz' instrskshon, — a task which iz rerli akomplisht in dri yirz ov toil bei tlie eld alfabet. Whot ffither or ticher wil not hel this gret bran tu edeu- keshon ? — this pouerful mashin for the difeu3on ov nolej ! 4. Full Phonotypy with an alphabet of thirty-six letters, adding to the former ten new letters the following three, d (then), j (she), <3 (cfteap) : script a, f, (f. Bei de Fenetik Alfabet eni person, erld or ysn, me bi tot tu rid bed in fernetik and in ordinari buks, in dri nrsnds, — ai, often in twenti ourz' instrskjon, — a task whic, iz rerli akomplijt in dri yirz ov toil bei de e-ld alfabet. Whot ffider or tiqer wil not hel dis gret bum tu edeuke- j- on p — dis pouerful majin for de difeu^on ov nolej ! Printed by Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Bath. [Prirc M. per dozen. THE IRREGULARITIES OF ENGLISH SPELLING: WHAT THEY COST AND WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. Reprinted mth additions from the " Spelling Reformer" for April 1981. " English Spelling is a national misfortune." — Max Mvllrr. "The English system of Spelling (I protest against its being called ort'; i- graphy) is a labyrinth, a chaos, an absurdity — a disgrace to our age and nation."— Sir C. E. Trevelyan, K.C.B. Good words, it has been said, cost little and are worth much. Good spelling, so called, or exact adherence to the present fashion of clothing words in letters has been abundantly proved to cost a great deal and to be worth very little. It is a source of comfort to be assured that a thing well and clearly proved is on the high road to belief. Truth has, however, no power of self-propagation. Its power can only be felt when it is backed by truthful and earnest men. Thanks to the labor and the frank utterances of thoughtful students of the science of language, the leading etymologists are now, almost without exception, agreed that the only spelling worthy to be called good is that which clearly reveals the spoken word. To spell correctly in the fashion of the present day is looked upon as one of the essential points of education. In the path towards a worthy education, such as that conceived by the master spirits of old and of our own time, a painful striving after rigid uniformity in a matter of small moment is a real stumbling-block and stone of offence. What a liberal education should be, has been set forth by no living writer more forcibly than by Professor Huxley. For proof of this it is enough to refer to his address on " A Liberal Education, and Where to Find It." (" Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews.") Should we not, Prof. Huxley asks, "if the life and fortune of every one of us would one day or other depend upon winning or losing a game of chess, . . . look with a disapprobation amounting to scorn, upon the father who allowed his son, or the State which allowed its members, to grow up without knowing a pawn from a knight P " " It is a plain and elementary truth," he goes on to say, "that the life, the fortune, and the happiness of every one of us, and, more or less, of those who are connected with us, do depend upon our knowing something of the rules of a game infinitely more difficult and complicated than chess. It is a game that has been played for untold ages, every man and woman of us being one of the two players in a game of his or her own. The chess-board is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature .... "What I mean by education, is learning the rules of this mighty game. In other words, education is the instruction of the intellect in the laws of Nature, under which name I include not merely things and their forces, but men and their ways ; and the fashioning of the affections and of the will into an earnest and loving desire to move in harmony with those laws. For me, education means neither more nor less than this." In such education as the above, as well as in the most ordinary education, the knowledge of reading and writing must play a leading part. The difficulties at present in the way of acquiring this knowledge irresistibly suggest the further questions — "What would be thought if to the difficulties inseparable from the game of chess were added others, such as that in certain circumstances the moves and values of the pieces must sometimes (and only sometimes) be interchanged, and that now and then pieces must be regarded as lost, although still allowed to encumber the board ? What if in musical notation, sharps were sometimes to be read as fiats, and flats as sharps, the judgment of the player or his recollection of the tune, alone serving as guide ? Or what if, in naval signals, the same flags meant now a cask of water and now a barrel of pork, the sender having to guess which was most likely to be wanted ? The above are unvarnished samples of the difficulties which a child encounters in learning to read and spell. The same letters or combinations of letters stand for many different sounds, and the same sound is expressed by many different letters or com- binations of letters. No well-informed person doubts that the letters in words were originally meant to stand each for its own sound. How far they do so in English spelled in its present mot- ley garb may be seen from the following illustrations, and pages might be filled with similar instances : — 1. The same letter or combination of letters standing for dif- ferent sounds. Fat, fated, far, foil, want, many. Post, lost, dost: rose, lose : posed, dosed: Rove, love, move : cover, over, mover, hover. Bone, done, gone, one. Changed, hanged : anger, hanger, danger. Singer, iinger, ginger. Suggest, snuggest. Talloived, swallowed, allowed. Vlague, league, ague. ~P\eas, ideas ; pleased, leased ; least, breast. Great, heat, sweat ; treated, created. Hear, heart, heard, heard. Slumber, plumber. Tomb, comb, bomb. Good, food, blood. Shoes, hoes, does. Rownd, sowp, mowld, toweh. Severe, severed, fevered, revered, reverent. 2. The same sound represented by a different letter or combi- nations of letters. Pain, day, gaol, ale, great, vein, they, reign, eight, straight. Leaf, beef, chief, seize, pique, people, keg, quay. My, nigh, rite, tie, sign, guile, rhyme, guy, rye, eye. Do, tivo, too, shoe, brew, true, soup, through. No, foe, low, boat, soul, sew, fo/k, beau, though. Head, ell, leopard, he*fer, fn'end, any, saj'd, guess, bury. Foot, fwll, woman, would. Your, boar, store, door. Sell, cell, pulse, faree, seent, schism, pass, psalm. In such words as Pontefraet and Cirencester [often pronounce'! by the inhabitants Pom/ret and Sisiter] it has been asserted that the good sense of travelers is prevailing over the custom of the natives, and that the word bids fair to become pronounced as it i3 spelled. This may be taken as a type of the way in which, when a correspondence between sign and sound shall be regarded as indis- pensable, a re-action in favor of a pronunciation other than that now current may often set in. Many painful slovenlinesses of pronunciation, now nearly universal, will thus disappear. The proposal is not unfreouentiy heard that instead of altering 4 spelling, we should, as the easier alternative, change our pronuncia- tion. It is sufficient to recall our old acquaintances, "cough, tough, dough," &c, to see that such a proposal is untenable. With a lively, painstaking, and intelligent teacher, all the difficulties in the way of learning to read can be rapidly sur- mounted by the "Look and Say" method. The assumed necessity of teaching children, at an early age, to spell, has, however, stood hitherto in the way of the general adoption of this time-saving method. Hence children in many elementary schools sing the spelling of %vords aloud, three, four, or even six times over. Hours upon hours are spent in the lower standards in singing their spelling lessons. Such teaching, in the country of Milton and Locke, and in the age of Huxley and Herbert Spencer, is a large part of what is known as popular education ! True education, let us remember, is " the instruction of the intellect in the laws of Nature.. ..things and their forces. ...men and their ways." Meanwhile, arithmetic, the poor man's logic, which properly taught affords at once useful knowledge and valuable mental training, figures in the dread "results" with far less per-centage than its sister R-s Lessons in the laws of life and health, thrift and social well-being, drawing, singing by note — in short, on "things and tbeir forces.. ..men and their ways," are almost vainly struggling for admission into schools where the ogre " Correct Spelling " grins in possession of nearly one-third of the whole available time, and where such songs are heard as ; — ar, eye, ess, ee, rise see, ar, eye, ee, ess, cries. tee, aitch, eye,jee, aitch, ess, thighs ee, wy, ee, ess, eyes pea, ar, eye, zed, ee, prize. It is not meant that differently spelled words of similar sound are thus said or sung in immediate succession. Teacher and child would alike revolt at this, but each variety comes in its due turn. Neither is it meant that school inspectors, Mr. Matthew Arnold and others, are wont to stand by with uncovered heads, in sympathetic resignation, while these hymns to Mumbo Jumbo are intoned. These performances are not for them, nor for visitors. They are solely used to imprint upon the child's memory the letters which, when the annual examination comes, he will have to make in black and white for the satisfaction of the said inspector. If the child, Tom Smith, or Mary Jones, spells so as to please the inspector, he or she earns a few shillings for the school funds, whereof perhaps one goes into the pocket of the teacher, and may be held to represent the butter on his own children's bread. If not, the child is marked down for renewed grinding up before the next examination time comes round. And what, broadly, are the results obtained ? First of all, what should be the ideal standard ? On this point let us note the words of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon and Lord George Hamilton, written in their official capacity as heads of the Educa- tion Department. " By the age of 13, if properly taught, these children [i.e., intelligent children in regular attendance] can pass through the six standards of the Code, and the three stages of one or more subjects of the fourth schedule." (') As a matter of fact the total number of children who pass the sixth standard is only one and a small fraction for each certificated teacher engaged. In many a school the sixth standard is altogether unrepresented. Some ten years ago, Mr Matthew Arnold, in his official report, said.: "it is found possible, by ingenious preparation, to get children through the revised code examination in reading, writing, and ciphering, without their really knowing how to read, write, and cipher." (Education Report, 1869-70, p. 291). It is to be hoped that this, at least, is no longer possible, for if those children who do pass don't know, how great must be the darkness ! And yet under any circumstances it must be felt to be still true, as was once well observed in the Times, that in schools for the poor, " The average school boy is pushed just far enough up the hill of the six standards to roll back with great facility the moment the pressure of school is removed." It has been proved( 2 ) that if English spelling could be made as regular as that of the Italian or the Spanish language, fully one half of the time spent in learning to read and write English would be available for other purposes. The Germans, whose spelling is far less in need of reform than the English, are busily engaged in its further improvement. The English child is heavily 1. Report of the Committee of Council for Education, 1879 — 80, page x. 2 Spelling Reform from an Educational Point of View, by Dr J. H. .dstone, F.R.8. Macmillan & Co. handicapped in the race of life as far as spelling is concerned, as compared with the German child. German hoys are often taught two or three languages while our children are struggling in the time- -honored and religiously-perpetuated tangles of one. That one, however, its antiquated spelling apart, is fitted by its grand literature, its simple grammar and wide vocabulary, to become a world-language, and is believed by many destined to become the universal tongue. However that may be, it is already spoken by more millions than is any other language upon the globe, and the peoples who speak it are those whose numbers are most rapidly increasing. And now arises the question, wherein does the value of these time- wasting, brain-confusing irregularities consist? Either they are of use in perpetuating the history of words and affording clues to their true meaning, or they are valueless. Insufficient to repeat that those who are known, to be the first philologists and etymologists of the age are the most eager for the introduction of phonetic spelling. Can higher authorities than those of Max Muller, Whitney, Sayce, March, Latham, Murray, Ellis, and vSweet be cited ? These are some of the men at the head of the present movement for reform. The sympathies of those to whom spelling difficulties may not have cost much are earnestly besought for others, at least five times as many, (and shall we say less deserving ?) to whom spelling difficulties have been shown to mean a great deal. It is sometimes urged that the eccentricities and anomalies of spelling should be retained, because they afford exercise for a child's powers of application, observation, and memory. The same purpose would be served if the schoolhouse itself were re- moved further off from each child and made more difficult to find. What is desired is merely a change of fashion. This is admittedly no slight thing, but individual effort and example can accomplish it. In this country, government initiative would be powerless to bring it about. The movement must begin with enlightened scholars whose hearts are stirred on behalf of less favored millions of their countrymen. Its beginnings must be countenanced by the universities, and adopted in schools for the higher classes, or they will certainly be repudiated in schools for the people. No low-caste spelling will obtain in England. School inspectors, principals of training colleges, schoolmasters and mistresses, will all alike fail in their duty if they do not make widely known the fact that the present fashion of spelling is a fashion merely, and that a common agreement would inevitably introduce a less harmful fashion. Every teacher having first done his best to make each child spell so as to win his inspector's approval and earn the all-important government grant, should on his leaving the school, say to him in an earnest and friendly manner : " My child, this English spelling which has cost us so much is really worth very little after all. Some competent people, in fact, call it 'a national misfortune,' ( 3 ) ' a labyrinth, a chaos, an absurdity, a disgrace to our age and nation.' "(*) When the millions know that such is the verdict of those best qualified to judge, the work of the English Spelling Reform Association will be as easy as it is now difficult and uphill. Until the desire for change is strongly felt, each and every scheme cannot fail to be unpalatable. — J. B. Rundell, in the " Spelling Reformer" for April. OBJECTIONS TO PHONETIC SPELLING ANSWERED. 1. That phonetic spelling would change the language. Changing the spelling alters the language no more than changing a man's dress alters the man. A flexible and well-fitting garment is better than one that is ill-fitting and rigid. The root-meaning of the word " language " is tongue-action. 2. That it would destroy the history of words. This is the view maintained by Archbishop Trench in his " Study of Words" and " English Past and Present." It is not shared by the leading etymologists of the present day, for the following reasons : (a) persons competent to benefit by the traces of a word's history afforded by its spelling, would still perceive those traces in the phonetic spelling ; (b) the sound of words is at least as important a part of their history as their spelling ; (c) the present spelling is very often etymologically misleading ; (d) the phonetic spelling of many words would be more etymologically correct than their present spelling : e.g., tung, Hand, for en, sovren, rime. The etymology of words, moreover, is often no guide to their present meaning : e.g., knave, villain, pagan. 3 Mai Miillor. 4 Sir C. E. Trevelyaa. 8 3 . That it would render existing books and libraries useless. The difficulty we find in reading old books arises from the use of obsolete words and allusions, and only to a very small degree from difference of spelling : e.g., "■ pittyfull weak hammes, gouty legges," in the first edition of Hamlet ; " suttle theef," in Milton's spelling cause us no difficulty. On the other hand, it has been proved that children learn to read books printed in the present (and older) spelling in less time and with far less trouble when they have first been taught to read in books printed phonetically. The latter can be taught in a few hours. Increase in the number of readers would render existing libraries of more use than at present. 4. That its introduction would create confusion on account of the present differences of pronunciation. "Within certain limits there is a "received " English pronuncia- tion, which is neither " cockney " nor provincial. Most people would adopt this pronunciation if they could. The spelling in books and newspapers might serve as a guide to it. Persons who have provincial or other peculiarities of pronunciation could not record these peculiarities on paper without special teaching. In nearly all cases they would prefer to be taught to write words in the way in which educated people speak them. 5. That it has a strange appearance. It is open to every person who chooses, to take from the force of this objection by joining in promoting the adoption of a better and truer way of spelling by the young of the present and future generations, to whom all modes of spelling are as yet equally strange. PHONOGRAPHIC PUBLICATIONS. The Phonographic TEACHER; containing a series of progressive Lessons to be read, and written out by the student; price 6d. A MANUAL of Phonography, containing a complete Exposition of the System ; Is. 6§th April, 1S80. RECEIPTS. To Subscriptions and Donations . . . . £200 19 5 ,, Life Memberships (two) .. . . 20 £220 19 5 EXPENDITURE. By Printing and Advertisements . . . £3o 17 5 >» Stationery, &c. . 21 9 5 >> Postages and Petty Disbursements . 25 2 8 >i Rent, Gas, and Office Expenses . 47 9 »> Salaries 75 >j 15 7 Balance in Treasurer's hands £217 14 1 3 5 4 £220 19 5 * This organ, entitled " The Spoiling Reformer," is now ready, and is published by F. Pitman, % , Paternoster-row, London, E.C. The Chairman said, — Ladies and Gentlemen, my present duty is to move the adoption of the Report which we have just heard. "While the report makes us feel that we are only on the threshold of our enterprise, I think it also shows that we have made some progress in two important respects. It says, in the first place, that during the past year much has been done to place our objects before the public ; and in the second place that a number of very important schemes have been submitted to and considered by your committee. The objects of the Association have been so well set forth in the papers which have been circulated to the members, that I will not detain you for a moment with them. "We are all agreed— our presence here is evidence of that — as to the necessity of a reform in spelling ; but before we can effect this reform, four very serious tasks lie before us. In the first place we must con- vince the public of the necessity of the reform ; we must make the nation understand not only the unreasonableness of the present system, but its costliness to the state in teaching it, the waste of time which it involves to our children in learning it, and the possi- bility of introducing a perfectly feasible reform. In the second place, we must carefully and impartially consider all the various methods which have been suggested both in this country and in others for effecting such a reform. In the third place we shall have to proceed to the very difficult and delicate task of selecting one or more schemes, and of giving to those schemes the definite approval of our Association. And in the fourth place, having selected our scheme, it will require an earnest propaganda on the part of our members with a view to procuring the adoption of that scheme by the general public. Gentlemen, the task thus marked out for us is a very serious one ; it will tax the individual energies of our members to devise schemes ; it will demand much consulta- tive wisdom and prudence on our part as a corporate body in de- liberating on those schemes. But neither individual energy nor collective wisdom will suffice unless we are determined by our own exertions both as individuals and as a body to enforce those schemes upon the public, and to obtain a public hearing for them. But while careful not to overstate what we have done, and while quite clearly recognizing that we are only at the beginning of a very difficult and a very long piece of work, I think that we may with a good heart contrast our position this evening with what it was a year ago. "We must remember that this is the first annual meeting of our Association. Some honored workers among us have labored for more than thirty years in this field, but this is the first occasion on which we have met together with a view to receiving the annual report of the Association in its corporate capacity. We owe our existence as a corporate association to the failure (because that is the proper word for it) of some of our in- dividual members to obtain a hearing for our cause. In 1878 an influential deputation, representing, I think, 130 School Boards, including that of London, and supported by the authority of some of the most eminent philologers of our day, waited upon the Duke of Richmond, then Lord President of the Council, and upon Lord Sandon, Vice- President of the Committee of the Council on Edu- cation, with a view to obtaining a Royal Commission. Well, it will suffice to say they failed. When they withdrew, they retired to a room in Parliament street, and there and then they passed this resolution, amongst others, — that an Association should be forthwith formed with a view of promoting a reform in English spelling. After some delay — in 1879 — last year — an Association was finally formed to urge again and again, until we succeed, the necessity of such a reform, both upon the Government and upon the public. The deputation of 1878 was able to adduce in its support very valuable testimony. One hundred and ten years have elapsed since Benjamin Franklin in his famous letter to Mis3 Stephenson took up almost precisely the same position as we now occupy. Thirty years have elapsed since in 1848 Mr Ellis put forth his most able " Plea" for phonetic spelling, a plea in which he exhaustively covered the whole ground that we now occupy, and in which he anticipated and answered every objection that I have yet seen suggested against our proposal. Not only have we this basis to go upon, but we have the testimony of most distin- guished philologers like Max Miiller, and of historical men of letters and poets like Walter Savage Landor, and of distin- guished head-masters and teaching bodies, including 130 School Boards. We have also the unhesitating testimony of practical statesmen like Mr Gladstone — the present head of Her Majesty's Government. If you will permit me I will detain you for a mo- ment in reading what Mr Gladstone has said on this subject. Most of you I daresay are familiar with it, but we can bear to have it repeated. "There is much," he says, "that might be done with advantage in the reform of the spelling of the English language, but the main thing is that whatever may be proposed should be proposed with a weight of great authority to back it. The best plan, without such authority will, in my opinion, only tend to promote confusion. I should advise those who are interested, and very justly interested, in this question, to busy themselves not so much with considering what should be done as with con- sidering in what way opinion can be brought to bear upon the matter, and how some organ may be framed to inquire into what should be proposed. It is not in my power to offer to give any time under present circumstances to the undertaking which 1 recom- mend and in which I should gladly have found myself able to join." There is another passage which, with your permission, I will read : — " I cannot conceive," Mr Gladstone says, " how it is that a foreigner learns to pronounce English, when you recollect the total absence of rule, method, system, and all the auxiliaries which people get when they have to acquire something that is 6 difficult of attainment.'" Now, we have taken the advice of Mr Gladstone. We have formed ourselves into an Association with a view to bringing public opinion to bear upon a reform of English spelling, and of considering and weighing well what method should be proposed. "We have also formed ourselves into an Association whose very first rule guards against putting forth any scheme which has not the sound weight of authority to hack it. During the first year very much has been done upon each of the lines thus placed before us. Public opinion has been brought to bear upon our proposals, not merely by pamphlets and printed papers, some of .them of the most able character, distributed amongst our own body and to our friends ; but by public lectures and articles in the press, and by at least one philological work of the greatest permanent value. I may, perhaps, be permitted in speaking of the lectures to refer to those which have been given by Dr Glad- stone, Prof. Sayce, Mr Nicholson, and many others. The articles which have appeared in the press have already sufficed to change the tone of some of the leading journals when they speak of our proposals. One comes across such articles in the most unexpected places. The other day at a railway station, out of curiosity, I saw a new journal announced, the Pen, and I bought it to see what was in it. The very first article that attracted my eye was one entitled " English Spelling," which states in the most lucid and reasonable manner the reforms that we propose. Nothing can be better than that statement of the case. Well, we have not only bad lectures and articles, but there has lately been issued a philological work of the very highest importance, both from a scientific point of view and from a point of view ir. which we are most interested — I refer to Professor Sayce's " Intro- duction to the Science of Language." I should like you to refer to the second volume of the work, and I should especially like all who are interested in the subject, or who are doubtful about the expediency of a spelling reform, to read from page 345 onwards to th? end of the volume. Those pages contain a most able, elo- quent, and at the same time, strictly scientific exposition of our proposals. Professor Sayce has so stated the question of spelling- reform that no philologer will henceforth dare to ignore it. And it has not been without good reason that your Committee has proposed the name of this distinguished philologer as our first President in the coming year. While public opinion has thus been brought to bear upon our objects, your Committee and sub- committee have labored at the consideration of definite schemes of reform. Forty-six schemes have been submitted. The task of tabulating these forty-six schemes and classifying them accord- ing to strictly scientific principles of classification has not been a light one, but the task has yielded some very important re- sults. It has shown that the apparent diversity disclosed by these alternative schemes is in some respects, although only in some respects, not so great as one might at first have supposed. It has disclosed that almost without exception the schemes are unanimous as to the sounds which require to be represented, and it has also been shown that many of these schemes when placed side by side are so analogous, that they are capable of amalgama- tion. Your Committee believes that it will very soon be in a position to submit not only a number of conflicting schemes, but some definite schemes for your approval. But before doing so they have circulated, or will presently have circulated, a piece of English written out by each author of a scheme after his own method, to illustrate his proposals in a practical form. When this is done the Association will have materials before it which will enable it to deliberate— I do not say to decide— upon the adoption of some one scheme or other. Meanwhile your Commit- tee has most carefully guarded against any premature expression of approval or disapproval of any one scheme. The exact stage^ which we have reacbed may therefore be described as follows : of the four pieces of work which as I said are now before us, we have made good progress in two, namely in placing our objects before the public and in the consideration of schemes of reform. The two others still remain untouched, namely, the selection of some definite scheme and the securing for that scheme a general adoption by the public. These two tasks will not be effected without serious exertion, and we must grudge neither time, nor labor, nor sacrifice of our own individual views in order to accom- plish it. Still, something has been effected during our first year. The foundation has been laid for doing a great deal more during our second year. Ten days hence on the first of July, we hope that the first number of our Journal will issue ; we shall then be enabled to reach a much larger section of the public and many more learned Societies than we are now able to reach. And while on this point of the Journal perhaps you will allow me to call your attention for a moment to the concluding part of the report. I think we are strong in all the moral elements of strength, but we must confess that financially we are a little weak. We have gone on this year, as has been stated, chiefly through the liberality of some of our veterans in spelling reform, but with the publication of the Journal, with our efforts to propagate our views on a large scale, will come many new and large demands upon our finances. At present our finances are scarcely in a position to enable us to face this demand " with a light heart." Our object when the Society was formed was not so much to collect sub- scriptions as to enlist the co-operation of all learned men and women who think with us on this subject. But now that we have got to the stage when we must do practical work we need money to do it, and I feel that this fact needs only to be known to many of our members in order that the necessary response should be made. We welcome all, but we ask those among our body who 8 can help us to help us a little more liberally than we have hither- to ventured to suggest. We did not need money at first, we now begin to need money. I think if we are only true to ourselves we may look forward with great hope to the future. The task which we are entering on has already to some extent been accom- plished in other countries. You are all cognizant I fancy of what has been done in America both by the individual exertion of newspapers and other private bodies, or of private persons, and also as I understand in the Senate. Most of us are also cognizant of what is being done in Germany. I am not qualified to speak on that point, but I hope some members present this evening will give us fuller details. I understand that besides private schemes of reform the Prussian government has issued orders for the removal of the few redundancies and anomalies which still exist in the German language, that an authoritative hand-book has been drawn up and circulated, and that the reform is now in process of being effec- tively carried out. I speak under correction because I am not personally cognisant of the facts. And gentlemen, in other coun- tries something has been done. In India the reform has taken a special and local shape. So far, it has not gone beyond proper names. Ten years ago no system was in general adoption for rendering Indian names in the Roman character. A single town was spelled in some cases under nine or ten different disguises, and practically the inconvenience became so great that the Gov- ernment at last determined that any change was better than the existing state of affairs. It may seem a small matter to carry out a uniform system for spelling the proper names of the country, but when we remember that the country is the size of all Europe, less Russia, and that we have only twenty-six letters in the En- glish alphabet with which to represent the forty-eight letters of the Sanscrit alphabet and the Indian vernaculars, and when we remember that this India is ruled over by a dozen different Governments, each of which has very strong views of its own on every matter which can be placed before it, the difficulty of even a partial reform may be realized. In 1869 — eleven years ago — the Viceroy desired me to draw up a scheme, and after it was considered by the Supreme Government of India — that is, by the Viceroy in Council — he sent me round to the ten or twelve local governments with the view of procuring their assent to it. We started from a definite system — a system which may very briefly be described as uniformly adopting the Italian sounds for the vowels, and using as few diacritical marks as possible — that is, using them only when absolutely necessary to distinguish the sound, and not with a view to a philologically accurate transliteration from the Sanscrit or vernacular dialect. That was a very rough-and-ready system, but there is one thing to be said for it — it has succeeded (cheers). When I went round to these twelve Governments, I found a very great diversity of opinion amongst them ; some would have nothing to say to our proposals, but after years of discussion the provincial Governments one and all at last came in, and each drew up a list of the names of places within its Presidency or province. These lists were carefully considered by the provincial governments before they were sent to the Supreme Government of India. When they came to the Supreme Government they were carefully revised by the Viceroy in Council, and then published authoritatively in the official Gazette. They have been adopted with a readiness which no one, and I less than any other person, would have ventured to predict ten years ago. Some of the leading Indian journals heartily accepted the reform at the commencement, and all works on India with any pretensions to a permanent character have now to adopt it. If an Indian book now appears which does not accept the uniform system of spelling Indian proper names, it is set down prima facie as an ignorant work. In India the scheme has suc- ceeded, but I should say quite honestly that the work before us here is of a much larger character ; and even in India the rapidity of the reform has been to some extent brought about by submitting to the incompleteness of the reform. As a matter of fact we had to do this work within six years, because the Government of India was drawing up a statistical survey of all its dominions, and it had to arrange this huge work, which is now in a hundred volumes, and reduce it to about ten volumes in alphabetical form with a view of placing the results conveniently before the British public. But before it was possible to undertake this task it was found that there must be some uniform system of spelling the names, and as we only had a certain very brief period allowed for the work we had to push on the spelling reform rather more quickly than we should otherwise have done. As a matter of fact only six years were allowed to obtain some sort of unanimity ; and the unanimity was obtained in about 1875. But at first it was exceedingly imperfect ; it has gone on gradually becoming more perfect, and the most curious feature of the reform in India is this, that every year the different Governments, and the news- papers, and the literary class become themselves more anxious to make the reform perfect. It was only last month that after ten years of labor I received new editions from the Governments of Madras and Bombay of their spelling lists for their respective Presidencies. These Governments had accepted with more or less frankness the reform at the commencement ; they had made great strides during the first years, and we had accepted what they had done thankfully ; but to my surprise I found that not a year passed without each Government of its own motion desiring more and more to obtain perfection, and to issue a revised edition of the list of proper names within its dominions. That is very gratifying because it shows that there is some sort of life in the thing, that it goes on bettering itself instead of degenerating. We have only 10 to be patient and to take trouble to make the people understand the importance of what we are doing in order to obtain a successful result. We have done something in India and we hope that we shall go on doing more. Well, gentlemen, this is our position. We have on our side common sense and scientific principles', and I think we have got an earnest conviction and a willingness to work. Against us we have routine and laziness, and the common disinclination of mankind to any change which will cause them trouble. I believe that if we will only be patient, the victory in the end will be on the side of earnest conviction and scientific principles, and common sense. Sir Charles Trevelyan, in seconding the motion for the adoption of the report, said he had been attracted to the meeting by the words "Spelling Reform," "Asiatic Society," " Dr Hunter," and he had not been disappointed. It was a maxim of law and morals that there was no evil without a remedy. As to the evil in the present instance there could be no possible mistake, for anything more execrably embarrassing and wasteful of time and iutellect than English Spelling could not be conceived. The Roman letters were applied to the Saxon language at a barbarous period in a sort of hap-hazard, happy-go- lucky way without any attempt at system. They were rather pitch-forked on to the sounds than applied to them, and as time went on, and as Norman- French, Latin and Greek words were largely introduced, confusion became worse confounded, the result being that a most miserable heritage had been imposed upon successive generations of English children. The present system was a mixed phonetic and symbolical one, and it was altogether a chaos. Half-educated people made a complete mess of it; it was a great obstruction to the progress of education, and to foreigners it was a serious obstacle. It was easy to point out the difficulties of correcting the evil. The first was that we had an enormous printed and written literature expressed in our barbarous spelling, and it would be needful to reprint all the books worth reprinting. That could be done without much difficulty, though it would require considerable expense. The real difficulty was in the fixed mental habits of the grown-up generation, which resented any change whatever. The example of India was no doubt very encouraging. The movement commenced therein 1833 in a very singular manner. A humble missionary at Delhi, Mr Thompson, sent to a School book Society at Calcutta an English and Hindustani Dictionary, in which the Hindustani words were expressed in English letters — the common barbarous English system of spelling being adopted. The manuscript was submitted to a Committee of the Society of which he (Sir Charles Trevelyan) was one. Two members of the Committee thought the attempt an absurd one, while the other members, himself included, thought that although 11 Mr Thompson had not hit upon a right mode of expressing the Hindustani words in Roman letters, the principle and the object were excellent. They then, after a sharp controversy, set to work and produced a systematic application of the Roman letters to the languages of India and published a series of vocabularies and printed statements. They endeavoured to induce the Anglo- Indians to spell all the native names in the same way, and they were very much laughed at for their trouble. The movement, however, progressed, and the Government took the matter up with a view of writing all the names of persons and places according to the proposed system, and when some years after Dr Hunter moved in the matter at Calcutta, under the authority of the Central Government, he found matters very much advanced in Madras. He cordially congratulated Dr. Hunter in having been the happy man to accomplish the object so far as it had been accomplished. No doubt the correct transliteration of the names of places and persons into Roman letters was only part of the subject, but it was an important part. There was already a very considerable Indian literature in the Roman letters. German Orientalists had published the Sanscrit classics in that way, and they found that instead of having to spend £500 upon a volume as Max M tiller had to do, they could get it done for £50 or less. To establish a uniform system of notation on the basis of the Roman letters applicable to all the languages and dialects of India would be an enormous facility to the progress of education, literature and religion. The missionaries had taken the lead in the enterprise, and it was quite certain they would impregnate the new literature with their own spirit. Mr A. J. Ellis, in supporting the motion, said that one great difficulty with which the Committee had been occupied was the organizing of the Association, the getting together of persons whose names carried weight, so that spelling reform might not be looked upon as the fads and fancies of eccentric men, but as something important for the etymologist, and still more important for the educationalist. It was not merely a verbal reform, but in the highest sense a social reform, which they wished to carry out. The next thing was to examine proposed schemes, of which 46 had been looked at, none having been taken into consideration which involved departures from the Roman alphabet, varied by slight differences in the forms of the letters or by diacritical points. There were many excellent systems on other bases, but there was no chance of inducing English people to adopt them. It had been his business during the last 13 or 14 years to investigate the whole history of the change of English sounds, and the letters by which they had been expressed, and he thought that Sir Charles Trevelyan had not been quite just with regard to the oldest system. The Latin letters were taken by the monks of Ireland, and then adopted by 12 the monks of Saxon England, and the spelling of King Alfred was in every respect superior to that of the present day. The question had arisen whether it would be advisable to revert to that oldest system of spelling, and to use the signs in the sense in which Alfred used them, or to adapt ourselves to the present very bad system of spelling upon the chance of its being more likely to be adopted by those who could now read and write. There was also the consideration whether it would not be advisable to have a system which when acquired by a person who could not read and write would at once put into his possession the whole literature at present existing, without the necessity of its being transcribed ; and as his own writing could be read by anyone now able to read, it would not be necessary that he should learn the quips and quidities of the present so-called orthography. It had been considered necessary in starting the Association to guard it from being considered the mere organ of persons who like himself had worked at the subject for a long time. The Society had therefore made it a rule that no system should be advocated as a whole which did not carry with it the suffrages of two-thirds of the members. Until the necessary preliminary work had been done it would not be easy for the Association to carry out any plans or even to lay the matter before a Royal Commission. It was perhaps rather a mercy that the Duke of Richmond and Lord Sandon did not at once order a Royal Commission to investigate the matter. "With regard to India the problems to be solved in that country and the problem in England were very different. In India there were a number of different alphabets, each of which was unintelligible to those who used the others. There was one ruling Government — the English— which had itself the most abominable system of spelling. It was necessary for English people to write the names of places, and they wrote them, as Dr. Hunter had shown, sometimes in nine different ways. They had no exact piinciple to guide them, and hence experienced the greatest difficulty in representing the spoken sounds. In India the reform had begun with the names of persons and places, which would be the last thing to be interfered with in England. People would be aghast at the notion of spelling Clapham without an "h" — they had never called it " Claffam" in their lives, although in "Grantham" the sound of the " th" was retained. The great object was so to spell that English children might be able to learn to read easily and quickly, and to pronounce the words accurately. It was supposed that children had not time to learn the extra subjects in the fourth section of the Code. They wanted to give them time, and the time would be given if the Spelling Reform were adopted. He was glad that the Society had at its head so distinguished a philologist as Professor Sayce. It used to be broadly asserted that the Spelling Reform would upset everything in the way of etymology. Dean 13 (now Archbishop) Trench was very trenchant on the subject ; hut he would now have to be put in the background. He was one of the few who had done something in the way of etymology, but who did not understand how it was that phonetic spelling was the sole basis of etymology. Spelling reformers now had on their side the best etymologists, including Prof. Sayce, Prof. Max Miiller, several Presidents of the Philological Society, and amongst them Dr. Murray who was editing the great English Dictionary of that Society* It was recognised that spelling by sound was the only true way of knowing what a word was. If we kept a single word unchanged in spelling while its sound was changed, how should we write the word "Bishop" at the present day ? Should we write it in Greek letters, for instance iirla-Koiro?, and still call it bishop in English, bischqf in German, and eveque in French, still keeping the old letters ? It was at present impossible to tell the pronunciation of a word from the spelling. He had often desired to know the pronunciation of " Chenoweth" which he had seen over a shop door, but had not the slightest idea how to pronounce it. The resolution was then put and unanimously adopted. Dr Gladstone moved the re-election of the members of the governing body, the list of whom was read by the secretary. Dr Gladstone said the Association was to be congratulated on being able to present such a list of eminent names amongst its supporters. Referring to Mr Tennyson, he said that the poet laureate was very desirous that future ages should know how he pronounced the English that he wrote, but with the present spelling no one could know it any more than we know now how Chaucer pro- nounced his poetry. The opponents of the spelling reform were not generally those who were given to thinking, but rather those who followed the authority of others, and perhaps therefore the mass of the people would be more led by the list of names just presented than by any good reasons that could be set forth. The work was one of enormous difficulty, and one that would tax all their patience and strength. A few years ago the question was looked upon as the fancy of a few strange people, but it was now regarded as a serious question worthy of the consideration of thinking men. He supposed that the first spelling reformers were the Irish and English monks who assisted in getting rid of the Kunic characters and adopting the twenty letters of the Eoman Alphabet, retaining the two "th's" and the letter " w." Alfred the Great was also a spelling reformer. After his time difficulties arose through the mixture of Norman with the Anglo-Saxon. Wiclif and Milton were both spelling reformers, and others had arisen down to the time of the great lexicographers who tried to fix the spelling of the language, unfortunately not upon scientific or regular principle, but upon what they thought best at the moment. Special attention had now been drawn to the subject, 14 and considering what was going on in England and on the con- tinent he had no doubt that though their work might be arduous, a satisfactory conclusion would be obtained. Mr R. N. Cust, honorary secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society, in seconding the motion, expressed his hearty sympathy with the spelling reform. He had a great deal to do with transliterating and translating into different languages, and he often felt ashamed of his own language in the way in which words had to be spelled. In dealing with the African, Asiatic, and Polynesian languages that had never before been spelled, they were able to adopt the admirable alphabet of Lepsius ; but in dealing with English, foreigners experienced the greatest difficulty. As there could be no doubt that English was to be the language of the future, it was of the utmost importance that its spelling should be reformed. German philologers had remarked that English was the best vehicle of communication that the world had ever seen, freed as it was from grammatical forms, declensions, genders, and the like, and it was greatly to be regretted that it was shackled by so imperfect a method of expression. The motion was unanimously adopted. On the motion of Mr T. A. Reed, seconded by Mr F. Rudail, the rules of the Society were unanimously adopted. Mr C. B. Arding proposed, Mr D. Pitcairn seconded, and Dr Sherfy supported a vote of thanks to the Asiatic Society for the use of their rooms, which was unanimously adopted. After some remarks from Mr Pagliardini, a vote of thanks to the chairman was moved by Mr J. Ball, seconded by Mr J. B. Rundell, and unanimously adopted. The proceedings then terminated. REFORMED SPELLING. The English Alphabet is so deficient in letters to represent the sounds of the language, and from this and other causes English spelling is so " corrupt," and hence the present style of spelling differs so greatly from the best and most familiar-looking style of phonetic spelling, that it is supposed by some to be impossible to bring into use an enlarged alphabet and a correct style of orthogra- phy. To accommodate the Spelling Reform to this state of things it is proposed to introduce the reformed spelling in distinctly marked stages or styles, shaping it like a wedge, the thin end of which may enter anywhere. All these different styles acknowledge a common alphabet and a uniform method of applying it, and they may all be used at the same time, both now and hereafter, by different persons, without confusion. The following sentence exemplifies these various petting, and it contains all the letters of the enlarged alpha- bet. There are four styles of reformed spelling :— 1. The one new-letter style, with "u" (cut from l -p," italic "v" from a turned " a," and its capital " I) " from ; - 1) " by a penknife,) for the vowel in son, but. C, q. and x are rejected as unnecessary, and the remaining eighteen consonants, five short vowels, and live digraph diphthongs arc employed according to their most customary use in th i common spelling. This style may be employed in any printing-office, by cutting a few "p's" into "u's." The script li tter is u. Bei the Fonetik Alfabet eni person, old or yung. may be taught tu read both in fonetik and in ordinari buks, in three months,— -ai, often in twenti ourz' instrokshon, — a task which is rareli akomplisht in three yearz ov toil bei the old alfabet. Whot father or teacher wil not hail this great boon tu edeukashon? — this pouerful mashine for the difeuzhon ov nolej !' 2. The Jive new-letter style, with $ (thin), rj (sing), g (vision), * (son, b««t; abetter type than the imperfect "u"), b (father). The script forms are fl, n it,, <', «*. Bei the Fonetik Alfabet eni person, old or yog, may be taught tu read boJ in fonetik and in ordinari buks, in dree monds, — ai, often in twenti ourz' instrokshon, — a task which iz rareli akomplisht in dree yearz ov toil bei the old alfabet. "Whot father or teacher wil not hail this great boon tu edeukashon? — this pouerful mashine for the difeu- 3on ov nolej ! 3. The ten new-letter style, adding z (aim, there), { (field), o (law), er (no), ij, (food) ; script letters e, f, ex, o,