'•■■*'.
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 <p, with the
pouer ov f (the Italianz and Spaniardz reitirj^ ; but in Ers and
Welsh it deuoats a uaitiv meutaishon ov p, aulso with the pouer
ov/.
QUH — woz formerli euzd in Loaland Skotish for astrogger aspirai-
ted w than our wh, az quha, quhan (tvho, when), and stil surveivz,
tho meutli, in proper naimz.
RH — iu moast European larjgwaijez reprezents f> 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 <p, 6, and x, ni filosofo,
fisico, teatro, teologia, coro, cronico, for the Latin philusophus,
physicus, theatrum, theologia, chorus, chronica*, — spelirj, in fakt,
just az thai pronouns, and wud pronouns, houever thai speld. So
39
with retorico for rhetoricus, or analitico for anahjticus. And heer we
mai poiut tu similar fonetik chainjez ov orfografi which the Italianz
and Spauiardz often maik in Latin roots ov thair laijgwaijez — thus
chi, signor, figlia, giudicare in Italian (for Latin qui, senior, Jilia,
judicare), or cuatro, ejercito, monarquia in Spanish (for Latin quat-
tuor, exercitus, monorchia) — the si in pel objtkt be'irj tu ekspre3
sound moar sertenli than bei former simbolizaishon. We kanot, in
Italian and Spanish, paralel the Fonetik chainj ov soft c to s, bekauz
this c iz not pronounst az s in thoaz laijgwaijez ; but we kiid instans
analogus orlograiik inovaishonz, wheil Fonetik j for soft y iz kon-
versli no moar objekshonabel than the Italian jeueral substiteushon
ov soft g (ov j, tu avoid too ko-ordinait sitnbolz for wun sound. Yet
theez peepelz, wheil proveidirj- everi fasiliti tu enaibel thair oau yool
or forenerz tu lern thair larjgwaijez, hav no dilikulti in the etimoloji-
kal traisirj ov thair wurdz, no moar than the French hav Jroo spelirj
monarque, comique, ets.
Tho raizirj no obstakcl in the wai ov thair oan filolojists, tu foren
wunz thai ofer welkurn asistaus bei spelirj just az thai pronouns.
A sumwhot ekstensiv studi ov larjgwaij haz konviust us that fonetik
orJograh' iz a grait boon tu a filolqjist, hoo wonts tu noa az rcdili az
posibel whot iz the real and prezeut speech ov a peepel. If he kairz
tu trais its development from an ainsheut soars, he kan doo so throo
oald biiks ; but in the bilks ov the dai he wishez tu feiud the larjgwaij
ov the dai, not abortiv atempts tu giv the histori ov wurdz. The
skolarli aud etimolojikal objekshonz tu fonetik spelirj ar, in fakt, nou
adeust oauli bei indifereut skolarz and smatererz in etimoloji. Aul
the prinsipal livirj filolojists, leik Profesorz Maks Meuler aud Sais
(Sayce) and Dr lion's in Irjgland, or Profesorz Whitni (Whitney),
March, and Haldeman, in Amerika, ar strorjli iu faivor ov fonetik
spelirj. Etimolojikal and historikal argeuments ageust fonetik spelirj
hav, indeed, been so often aud so 3uroli eksploaded that it iz not
wuri wheil tu deel with them heer at lerjL The moast solid objek-
shou hithertu haz been the praktikal wun ageust the konsiderabel
number ov neu teips rekweird in fouotipi ; and if we hav shoau the
praktikabiliti ov tolerabel fonetik spelirj without eui nen karakterz,
and ov reniooving meinor blemishez simpli bei the adishon ov *, 6,
aud y tu the alfabet, we shal hav dun much toardz advausirj the re-
form. The need ov reform woz abuudantli shoau in the ferst
part ov this litel treetis, and its praktikabiliti haz nou been deinon-
straited. It oanli remaiuz, thairfor, for thoaz hoo ar adheerents ov the
kauz tu agree upon such a komon skeem ov spelirj az iz heer laid
doun (which iz no person'z pekeuliar hobi or properti), aud tu doo
thair utmoast tu multiplei proseleils, fei - st ten, aud then a huudred-
-foald, in order tu maik the Speliij lleform au akouiplisht fakt.
40
A GLANS AT OTHER PROPOAZD SKEEMZ.
Volsntari and self-impoazd az our task mai apeer, we doo not wsrk
in this mater ov spelirj reform without a sens ov responsibiliti. We
feel, that, if our laibor iz tu bair eni froot at aul, it wil be not for
the pasirj moament oanli, bot for jeneraishonz yet tu ksm. Mr Eizak
Pitman and ssm ov the moar sangwin ov hiz ko'adjutorz and disei-
pelz mai and doo luk opon eni skeem ov fonetik spelirj short ov peur
Fouotipi az a meerli temporari ekspeedient for ekzibitirj npioksimaitli
the prinsipelz ov Fonotipi in the neuzpaiperz ov the dai. But, fermli az
we beleev in the seuperior verteuz ov the Fonetik Alfabet, we kanot
shot our eiz tu the serten prospekt, that, if that alfabet wer at wons
tu reseev kolateral establishment and endoument from the Govern-
ment az an ekspedishos and efektiv enjiu for teeehirj children in
preimari skoolz tu pronouns and intelijeutli reed thair naitiv hvngwaij,
it wud stil be meni yeerz befoar Fonotipi bekaim jeneral in Grait
Briten and her koloniz, az vvel az in Amerika; wheil ther iz not mock-
probabiliti ov our fonoteips ever beirj kept in ordinari Kontinental
printirj-ofiscz, eni moar than the Greek or the Rsshian teips nou ar.
Ther most thairfor be, not oanli a temporari, bst a permanent stan-
dard ov reformd spelirj in Roaman karakterz, and we doo not Jink it
a smaul mater whether that shal be a wel-konsiderd workabel orfog-
rafi or not. The plan ov our propoazd skeem haz nou been laid
befoar the reeder, boaJ ov reitin soalli with oald karakterz and ov
introdeusin a feu ov the moast nesesari fonoteips when thai ar pro-
keurabel ; and we nou koufidentli put the kwestion tu the filolojist,
the ordinari Irjstlish skolar, or the priuter, whether we hav kept in
veu the konsideraishonz which it seemz tu os ant tu be obzervd in
re-modelirj the oiiografi ov a larjgwaij which nou haz a far graiter
ksrensi than eni other, and which, tu aul apeerans, noi irj bot its
anomalss orlografi kan prevent from obtainirj a wsrld-weid serkeu-
laishon. Theez konsideraishonz ar : —
1. Konsistensi in the eus ov the Roaman karakterz, not oanli within
the Jnglish larjgwaij itself, bst, az far az praktikabel, between
that and the sther moar ksrent lar)2;waijez ov the wsrld ;
2. Redi interchainjabiliti, sein for sein,with Fonotipi ;
3. Eekwali redi interlejibiliti between the oald and the neu spelirj ;
4. The praktikal konveeniens ov printerz with respekt tu the pre-
zent resoarsez ov thair ofisez.
Taikirj theez kondishonz az our geid, we wil venteur tu poiut out
whot we konsider objekshonabel feeteurz in sum other propoazd or-
Sografik skeemz.
Mr Woshinton Moon haz psblisht a so-kauld " improovd alfabet,"
prodeust prinsipali bei emploiin seven deiakritikal marks tu maik feiv
Touel-seinz intu twelv, and wsn moar tu distinguish the deigraf oo
41
intu short and log, and he taiks forhiz geidirj prinsipel (?) that which
aul sther advokaits ov reform praktikali moar or les reprobait, the
perpeteuaishon and jeneral ekstenshon ov the kouekshon between the
konvenshonal short and log souudz ov the vouel-seinz. Jn the kon-
sonants he perversli puts a graiv aksent tu distinguish the akeut
from the graiv sound ov th, and euzez ng aulwaiz for y befoar g (az iu
lingger, longyer), tho he dsz not Jirjk it wsrf- wheil tu reit the dei-
graf analogssli befoar c ( =k). Bst ther i2 no need tu go iutu the
detailz ov the skeem, when for the praktikal purposez ov priutirj we
meit az wel hav neu karakterz at wsns az neumerss and konstantli-
-oksrirj senperimpoazd seinz absoleutli nesesari for the intelijibiliti ov
an ortfografi, which seinz wud not be found on meni keindz ov teip,
nor wud thai be aplikabel even on ordiuari Roaman kapitalz in the
kloas print ov neuzpaiperz or popeular WTrrks. Nai, if we ar tu seek
the teipfounder'z aid, let it be tu fsrnish ss with Mr Pitman'z kon-
sistent aud defiuit seinz, far moar redili riten and red than thoaz iu
Mr Moon'z skeem, which pozesez the wsn praktikal disndvautaij ov
Fonotipi iu an intensifeid degree, with disadvantaijez pekeuliar tu it-
self. When French reiterz komonli treet the feu deiakritikal marks
ov thair langwaij az Jinz oauli dezervin the konsideraishon ov priuterz
and skoolboiz, fansi hou preposterss it wud be tu depend spou a free-
-born Britou, hoo disdainz the slaivish dotirj ov i'z or krosirj ov fz,
tu euz in hiz korespondens a notaishon leik that ov Greek with ak-
sents, or Arabik with points, and thsstu telyoo whether he izrezeind
tu hiz fat or tu hiz fat (fait) ; whether he fd/z (failz) or falz (faulz)
tu wsrk with zest ; whether he wishez yoo tu sel (seel) yoor nots
(noats) or sel yoor nots moar kairfuli ; whether he wonts slops (sloaps)
flld (feild) intu a tub (teub), or slops fild intu a tab ! After this ek-
zemplitikaishon, we mai refer with konlidens heerafter tu the praktikal
advantaij ov deigrafs az kompaird with deiakritikal marks.
Mr Bui (Bull) haz propoazd an odogralik skeem ov which we
msst speck with respekt az evinsirj in meni partikeularz seientifik
apreeshiaishou ov fonetik prinsipelz ; bst hiz Italian-leik spelirj ov uol,
buot, for aul, baut, hiz Welsh-lukirj formz ov wwd, endiwr, for wud,
endeur, and hiz entfirj-bst-Irjglish or ekzaktli fonetik simbolizaishou
ov awtlainz for outleinz, and sther pekculiaritiz iu the voilel-notai-
shon, not tu menshon hiz injeeniss bst ekseutrik aplikaishon ov x
j, z, y, c, and q for sh, zh, 6, th, s, and y, msst put him kweit out
ov the feeld ov praktikal reform. Konsistensi ov a serten keiud ther
sndoutedli iz in Mr Bul'z oriograli, bst it sterli failz tu fulfil the
kondishonz ov konsistensi with the jeneral Kontinental aplikaishon ov
Roaman leterz, ov interchainjabiliti with Fonotipi, ov iuterlejibiliti
with the oald spelirj, or ov praktikal konveeniens tu priuterz, Our
oan sistem ov spelin, larjli emploid, wud rekweir ekstra sspleiz ov
k'z and z'z in hjglish printin-ofisez, tho not in ssm Kontiueutal wsnz ;
bst enivvhair ther msst aulso be adishonal x'z, y'z, aud u'z, for setir)
^p teip in Mr Bul'z oriografi.
42
Tn this konekshon we mai wel devoat a feu w^rdz tu a skeem pro-
poazd bei Mr Fipsou (Phipson), an Amerikan, in a leter tu Mats
Mruler, psblisht in the Fonetik Jsrnal for 1 8"f August last. Ther iz an
assmshon ov seieutifik seupeerioriti about the reiter which iz hardli
boarn out bei hiz praktikal propoazalz. He apeerz tu adopt oanli tod
neu vouel-seinz, 3 and o, and tu euz a, e, i, o, u not oanli for the
Eoundz thai vepiezent in Fonotipi, bst aulso for thoaz ov «, e, £, s, vi
(aa, ai, ee, oa, oo), ssmteimz markig the seinz {a, e, ets.) for the log
soundz, bst often omitig tn doo so, spon no apairent prinsipel. Heer
we hav tu depend ^pon deiakritikal marks, az in Mr Moon'z orJografi,
tn distiggwish wsrdz ov veri diferent meenin, and wan meit sspoaz
that a korespondent oferd az an ekskeus for hiz kakografi a bad pen
in hiz hand, when he rcali intended tu reit pen (fain), or that he ad-
veizcz yoo tuliv larjli spon korn milz, which bei an oaverseit woz
riten for nillz fmeeh). Ther iz neerli az m^sch praktikal objekshon
tu ssch notaishon az tu Mr Moou'z, tho in this kais the short and the
lor) vouelz ar aiainjd in fonetik pairz. The reprezentaishon ov el and
on bei ai and an iz az msch tu be reprobaited heer az in Mr Bul'z
skeem, sins, without obtainig the fonetik akeurasi which ineit hav been
found in di and 3U, too veri eusful and wsrkabel Igglish deigrafs ar
apropriaited in foroli sn-Inglish 9ensez. The suakountabel rejekshon
ov y and w az semi-vouelz and the apropriaishon ov c, j, tc, dj for
our sh, zh, ch,j renderz Mr Fipson'z skeem praktikali aulmoast az
objekshonabel az Mr Bul'z. Aultngether, without areivig at enifig
leik the seientifikali fouetik presizhon ov Mr Pitman'z sisteni, this
propoazd oriografi wud rekweir aulmoast az meni neu leterz az Fonotipi
itself, for a, e, I, o, u, wud be az msch neu leterz az ar the fonoteips
a, f, i, v, m in moast printirj-ofisez or keindz ov teip, and the teip-
-founder'z aid wud hav jenerali tu be saut for them. For aul praktikal
psrposez neu leterz wud be preferabel tu deiakritikal marks or diskarded
oald leterz re-introdeust with novel pouerz. Az reivalz tu the Fonetik
Alfabet, ssch skeemz az thoaz ov Mr Fipson and Mr Bui hav no chans
ov akseptans, or reit tu it; wheil thai doo not fulfil eui ov the kon-
dishonz nesesari in a kolateral ssbsidiari orlografi.
The sistem ov spelig which we ar nou ekzemplifeiig haz too meni
feetenrz in komon with Mr Elis'ez " Glosik " for ss tu depreeshiait
the later ; b-st in the vouel-notaishon adopted bei this eminent fone-
tishan the oanli orijinal seiu, uo for u in put, iz an eksentrik deigraf
that haz been reseevd, eeven at the rekomendaishon ov a grait leeder
in the spelig reform moovment, with sseh jeneral disfaivor az tu shoa
the feutiliti ov propoazig ssch neu-fangeld formz. "With Mr Elis, we
shud ieoietikali prefer dh for th in then, and the emploiment ov th
for 6, if this neu deigraf had proovd moar akseptabel than uo ; bst,
rekogneizig the foar9 ov the lojik ov fakts, we ar kontent, when we
hav not Fonotipik 6 at hand, tu distiggwish the simbol in thin thss
(%hin), or eeven tu leev thedistigkshon uumarkt (az wemeitleev that
between u and v) without feer ov praktikal konfeuzhon. We hav log
43
ago rekogneizd (he sudouted fonetik fakt ov the frcekwent dsbel souiid
ov r between too vouelz (az the Greek pp), bst we hardli Jiijk the dis-
tirjkshon iz wsrJ markirj, az Mr Elis dsz. Bst our grait diferens
with this Fonetik veteran iz on too points— (1) hizeksesiv eus ov the
vouel-deigrafs in snaksented silabelz, or in aksented silabelz whair the
elorjgaishon ov a vouel-sound iz dependent on sskseediij konsonants ;
and (2) in the kontrari tendensi ov minsirj serten komon snaksented
silabelz. The folo'irj spelirjz wil ilsstrait our meenirj : — proavinshel,
proavoak ; proaminsiaishen , proaveid, paart, faurm, rifaurm, wizdem,
feinel, regculer, (kom-pair provins, provokaishon, providers, re-
formaishon, feinaliti, regeutariti) ; for ssch spelirjz ar kontrari tu
whot we konsider the sound piiusipelz laid doun in the roolz ov our
oriografik skeem.
Mr Joanz (Jones) haz no dont msch tu sai for hiz retenshon ov c
and k az ko-ordinait seinz, and ov y and to in the feiual forraz ov dif-
tlorjz and deigrafs. He dsz therbei preserv moar ov the meer form
ov the oald spelirj. Bst this jeutelman, if we mistaik not, avouz hiz
deoretikal preferens for the peur Fonetik Alfabet. Yet in the points
we hav meushond, az wel az in hiz eus ov m (for u), he sakrifeizez
korespondens with Fonoti|)i, which tuour meind izov moar ini])ortans
than akord with the oald sistem. Mr Joanz haz diskreetli diskarded
hiz impraktikabel deigrafs ie and oe, or we shud hav tu print beer msch
that we hav riten about them ; bst hiz prezent eus ov i, 6, u for ei,
oa, eu (j, v, u), aultho it dsz not konflikt with Fonotipi, iz oapen tu aul
the objekshouz we hav urjd agenst deiakritikal marks in treetirj ov
Mr Moon'z orfografi and Mr Fipson'z. Verteuali, the karakterz, m, i,
d, u, and a ar feiv neuleterz, without reprezentativz amsrj thekapitalz
or " fansi " founts ov teip, and t hair adopter depeudz on kazeual marks,
which mai eezili be omited, tu tel whether a man deid in a Jit or a fit
(feit), whether the oald rod or rod (road) iz the best help tu lernirj.
Mr Bsterlil haz too formz for aul hiz vouel-deigrafs and difforjz,
and, adoptirj the dsbel simbolizaishou c aud /•, eeven konseedz tu
prejeudis bei retainirj q az a derd ko-ordinait sein. In aul theez
points hebraiks awai from Fonotipi, and, in hiz vouel-notaishon, from
that and freekwentli from the oald spelirj. 'Whot he sau in the sliperi
diflorj ea (heat, sweat, great, heart, real, create), tu giv it preferens
oaver ee for inishal and meedial eus, we kanot konseev ; nor can we
imajiu whei ie wud not doo for a feiual az wel az ee and oe, without
introdeusirj the preposterssaud snfonetik iy. But a moar snhapi dei-
graf than ie kud not hav been selekted tu ekspres the sound ov our ei.
In the oald spelirj it iz never thus found in the bodi ov a wsrd, eksept
in a feu monosilabelz leik die, lie, and tie, in which i + e iz verteuali
i + nil. Inishali we never meet ie in that ordografi; and when it
oks'rz az a meedial sein, it haz moast often the pouer in lief, tier, ets.
Bst it freekwentli anlso reprezents the sound ov too vouelz, az in sa-
pient, holier, or quiet, diet; so that when we ksm tu spel with this
deigraf the oald life, line, tire, pint, lyre, quite, diyht, aul the formz
44
jsst meashond protest, and too meJodz ov divizhon ar rekweird in
sapi-ent and di'et ; the sirjgel i in the later kais b'eirj left tu doo deuti
az a difJorj. It fairz no beter with iy, in which the feinal leteriz dis-
karded on apendirj an afiks, so that we hav for the oald high, higher,
highest the formz hiy, hi'cr, hi est. Bst the kapital defekt ov the too
deigrafs iz that thai ar snfonetikal, and doo not in eni sens ekspre3
the kompozishon ov the difton ei. Bei euzir) the later we avoid aul
konfeuzhon in the formz absv seited, reitirj leef, leen, teer, sapient,
holier, kweiet, deiet.
In konkleudirj our remarks on this snbjekt, we wud beg our brother
fonetishans tu taik our kritisizmz in gud part, and tukonsider seerissli
whether thai wil not best advaus the reform we aul hav at hart bei
givirj sp personal krochets and akseptirj a praktikal, wsrkabel skeera,
insted ov streivirj after whot thai fansi tu be a Jeoretikali perfekt wsn.
The spelirj reformerz ov the Euueited Kiijdom ar a stron bodi if aktig
with wsn singel objekt and wil, bst diveided, thair enerjiz wil oanli
be friterd awai in atakin the grait eevilz ov the oald spelirj. It iz
litel children hoo wont tu be taut tu reed bei eni praktikal reformd
sistem, and in prezens ov this wont ther shud be no kontest ov dok-
trinairz, bst a harti ko-operaishou tu forward the kauz and a sinkirj
ov personal predilekshonz. Let ss hav a standard sistem ov reformd
ortografi, not ov wsn nian'z maikirj or austher'z, bst konstrskted
rashonali out ov the best availabel mateerial ; and when we aul rali
round it, we shal soon begin tu see the seinz ov viktori ateud our
eforts.
ADENDUM.
In konkleudirj this litel wsrk, we wud beg the reeder hoo mai nou
for the ferst teim hav beksm akwaioted with Fonetik spelin, not tu
sspoaz that this iz ssm haistili kouserted and il-dijested skeem. It
iz not the wsrk ov wyn meind, bst ov meni. The foargo - ir) remarks
spon whot we konsider defekts in sther propoazd orlografiz ar oanli
a spesimen ov the freedom with which spelirj reformerz hav kritiseizd
eech sther'z propozishonz, and ar stil dooir) so. In moastpaitikeularz
we ar aul agreed ; bst the konsert which nou raliz neerli aul reformerz
round the Fonetik Alfabet waz not areivd at without msch disksshon,
experimeutii), and konseshon on this seid or that. We beleev that in
this kais the proverb haz been fulfild, and that ther haz been wizdom
in the msltiteud ov kounselerz. It is interestirj tu kompair the ferst
krood and snseitli fonetik alfabet ov 1 843 with the perfekt and beuti-
ful alfabet ov the prezent dai. The ferst eidea woz tu print fonetikali,
no mater at whot sakrifeis ov konvenshonalitiz, and in the ardor ov
that eidea it woz sspoazd that peepel wud be wilirj tu foargo kapital
or smaul leterz, az the kais meit be, and tu banish Italiks and " fansi "
45
keinds ov teip from printirj ofisez. The ferst fonetik printirj alfabet
in kouckshon with Fonografi, or fonetik short'hand, psblisht in the
Fonotipik (nou the Fonetik) Journal, woz kompoazd euteirli ov kap-
ital letcrz ; bst a yeer laiter, iu 1844, Maijor Beniovski, propoazd an
alfabet ov amaul leters oanli, which, leik that just menslioud wud
" wsrk " oanli in Roaman teip. He proveided aul the neu karakterz
he wonted bei tsrnirj oald leterz spseid doun. This kud hav been
dsn nrsch beter in the Fouetik smaul-kapital alfabet, bekauz the
stnaul Roaman leterz wil not rainj iu lein when thai ar tsrud, and the
serifs or fein leinz at the botom ov smaul leterz ar fuler than thoaz
at the top, which often kauzez an snseitli apeerans in a " tsrnd " leter.
It wud not be seeriusli propoazd at this teim ov dai, when formz hav
been invented for the Fonetik Alfabet in aul keindz ov teip, tu revert
tu theez krood ekspeedients. The lskseuriz ov printir) kanot be given
sp, and no wsu iz askt tu giv them sp iu akseptiij fouetik spelirj.
Bxt it mai be interestirj tu revert tu a feu skeemz ov fonetik printir)
that hav been invented, iu order tu kompair them with the prezent
teipograh" ov the Fonetik Jsrnal, and with its maik-shift reprezentai-
shou iu Semifonotipi. If the autforov theez paijez veuteurz tu put in
too skeemz ov hiz oati, it iz, in the ferst plais, tu shoa the reeder that
he haz tfaut spon this ssbjekt for meni yeerz ; and, in the sekond, be-
kauz he ^irjks that the plan ov a singel-teip alfabet mai stil be eusful
tu mislionariz hoo mai hav tu redeus suriten langwaijez tu reitirj cheeQi
for the saik ov difeuzirj the Skripteurz. Ther mai doutles be an ad-
vantaij in havin tu teech simpel savaijez wsn alfabet, insted ov too,
and from a teipografikal point ov veu smaul-kapital leterz jenerali
" tsrn " msch beter than " loaer-kais " or ordinari smaul wxnz ; bst
the reeder wil see I his for himself in the folo'irj ekzampelz, in which
" M. B." signifeiz Maijor Beniovski, " F." the Fonetik Alfabet with
neu leterz, " S. F." Semifouotipi, and " E." the naim ov the prezent
reiter.
SKEEMZ OV FONETIK PRINTIR.
Vouelz.
M.B. — a ^eai"B oo ij a u
(1814)
F- — A A E E I I 09 TJD UW
(1843)
E. 1 — a riEaiA oa t h xrw
E. 2 — a ah. e eh i ie (ih) o au (aw) ce oh u u
S. F. — a aa e ai i ee o au u oa u oo
F. —a r
1877)
e s
i j
o o
s e-
u ui
46
Difdogz.
M.B.— y iu oi £
(1811)
F. — A ID o X
(1S43)
E. 1 — ei in oi otr
E. 2 — ei (ey) eu (ew) oi (oy) oeu (oew) ai (ay)* ou (ow)*
S. P. — ei eu oi ou [ai] [oa]
F. — j ii ci ou [e] [er]
(1877)
* Theez to6 soundz wer treeted az diftongal when not okfrin befoarr.
Konsonants,
M.B.— p
b
t d
ch
j
k
g
f
V
th th
(1844)
F. — p
B
T D
e
J
K
G
F
V
A
(1843)
E. 1— p
B
T D
c
j
K
G
F
V
n a
E. 2— p
b
t d
tj dj
c=k g
f
V
th dh
S. F.-p
b
t d
cb
j
k
g
f
V
?h th
F. -p
b
t d
<3
j
k
g
f
V
3 a
(1877)
M.B.— s
z
sh I
m
u
n g
1
r
w
(i) h
(1844)
F. — s
z
Z 2
M
N
li
L
R
vr
Y H
(1843)
E, 1— s
z
£
51
X
o
L
E
w
Y H
E. 2— s
z
S J Z J
m
n
DS
1
r
w
y h
S. F.— s
z
sh zli
m
n
»g
1
r
w
y h
F. — s
z
J 3
Ul
n
9
1
r
w
y li
(1877)
47
We meit hav instanst vairiss modifikaishonz ov the Fonetik Alfabet
which hav been maid from teim tu teim ; bst the absv wil shoa whot
advansez hav been efekted in Fonetik printig iu a jeueraishon, espeshali
when it iz konsiderd that the ferst tree alt'abets kud be printed in oauli
wsn keind ov teip, wheil the last tree kau be printed iu eni. Prak-
tikali, the Fonetik Alfabet woz kompleet with regard tu kapitalz and
smaul leterz in 1845 ; bst it haz sins sndergon vairiss moditikaishouz,
and uou it apeelz tu the wsrld, not az an eksperiment, bst az a proovd
and treid meenz for the efektiv reprezentaishou ov spoaken soundz.
Bst a short spesimen priuted iu eech alfabet giveu absv wil best shoa
the progres that haz been maid.
Maijor Beniovski. *
the imperfekshonz ov ol AlfAbets (the hebru by na menz eksepted)
sem tu Argiu them, not tu hAv btm the produkt ov divyn skil, bi|t the
rezuk ov s'{ch a koukureus ov aksident And grAdiuAl impruvwcnt az
ol hiumAn Arts, And whot we kol invenshouz a thar berth tu : for ser-
teuli the AlfAbets in ius barnaiiiArks ovthe regiulAriti ov natiur : the
mar wu kousider the Uter, the mar rezon we sb tu Adrnyr thar biuti,
jqst praparshouz, And konsekweut fitnes tu Anser thar respektiv eudz ;
wharAz the mar we ekzamin the former, the mardefekts, siuperfiuitiz,
And imperfekshonz ov ol kyndz, du we diskqyer in them. — Dr Prustli.
Fonetik, konstuskted 1843 ; jnsblisht in the "Fonetik
Jsrnal," Janeuari, 1844.
AE IMPERFEKEONZ OV OL ALFABETS, (AE HIBRH BA
ND MINZ EKSEPTED,) SIM TU ARGOT AEM, NOT TU HAV
BIN AE PRODUKT OV DIVAN SKIL, BUT AE REZULT OV SUS
A KONKURENS OV AKSIDENT AND GRADOTAL IMPRHV-
MEN'T, AZ OL HOTMAN ARTS, AND WHOT WI KOL INVEN-
ZONZ, D AER BER0 TH : FOR SERTENLI, AE ALFABETS IN
IUS BER ND MARKS OV AE REGUJLARITI OV AE WURKS OV
NETUJR: AE MDR WI KONS1DER AE LATER AE MDR RIZON
WI SI TH ADMAR AER BUJTI, JUST PRDPDREONZ, AND
KONSEKWENT FITNES TH ANSER AER RESPEKTIV ENDZ :
WHERAZ, AE MDR WI EKZAMIN AE FORMER, AE MDR DE-
FEKTS, SOTPERFLOTITIZ AND IMPERFEKXONZ OV OL KANDZ,
DH WI DISKUVER IN AEM.
* W T e put this spesimen ferst az ekzibitin the kroodest oHografik ekspee-
dients, and we ar responsibel for euziij the Maijor'z alfabet in akordans with
our oan noashonz ov speliij .
48
EVANZ, 1.
dE 1MPERFEK0ONZ OV CIL ALFABETS, (dE HABRW BEI Nt> 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 <pi\6<ro(pos ? If we reit / in
fansi, hwei not in phantom ? if in frenzy and frantic,
hwei not in phrenology ? A laijgwej hwich tolerates
vial for phial, need not shiver at filosofer. Everi
ediukated speaker noz that s^rch wsrdz az honour,
ardour, colour, odour, labour, vigour, error, emperor,
hav past from Latin tn French, and from French
tu Iijglish. Wud he no it les if all wer speld aleik,
sych az onor (onor able) ardor, vigor (vigorous), labor
(laborious), or even " omsr, ardyr, vigsr?' The
old spelirj ov emperor, doctor, governor, and error, woz
emperour, doctour, governour, and errour. If theze
kud be chanjed, hwei not the rest ? Spenser haz
neibor for neighbour, and it iz difikslt tu say hwot woz
gaind bei chanjirj -bor intu -hour in s>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.<akhya, Das alteste Lehrbuch der Vedischen Pho-
netik Sanskrit Text unit Ubersetzung und Anmerkungen, berausgegeben,"
Ton F. Max Miiller, Leipzig, 1869.
39
The deialektikal sbrdi ov Femetiks haz larjer ob-
jekts. It wishez tu ekzost ol posibcl sounclz hwich
kan bj prodiiist bei the vokal organz, litel konsernd
az tu hwether thjz soundz okyr in eni rjal larjgwej
or not. It iz partikiularli ynsful for the p^rpos ov
pentirj, with the utmost akiurasi, the aktiual pronyn-
sieshon ov individiualz, and ov fiksirj the fentest shedz
ov deialektik vareieti. The most marvelys achjvment
in this branch ov apleid fonetiks rue bj sjn in Mr Bell's
" Vizibel Spjch."
Thjz tq branchez ov fonetik seiens, houever, shud
bj kept kerfuli disthjkt. Az the foundeshon ov a
praktikal alfabet, leikweiz az the onli sef foundeshon
for the Seiens ov Larjgwcj, wj wont filolojikal or ;tjo-
retik Fonetiks. Wj wont an snderstandiij ov thoz
jeneral prinsipelz and thoz brod kategoriz ov sound
hwich ar trjted in the Pratisakhyas ; wj du, not wont
eni ov the miniut deialektik distiijkshonz hwich kav
no gramatikal pxrpos, and ar therfor outseid the pel
ov gramatikal seiens. Tu. miniut distiijkshon pro-
diusez konfiu3on, and hwer it kan bj avoided, without
a sakrifeiz ov akiurasi, it ©t tu bj avoided. Hwer
vegnes ekzists in rjaliti, and hwer netiur alouz a brod
mar] in on either seid, it wud bj rorj tu ignor that
latitiud. Akiurasi itself wud hjr belom inakiurasi.
B>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 <p\eya>, 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. <Ie veri
leif ov larjgwej konsists in a konstant frikjon betwjn
de sentripetal fors ov kastom and de sentrifiugal fors
ov individiual frjdom. Agenst diit difikalti dtrfor der
iz no remedi. <3nli hjr agen de Arqbijop sjmz tu hav
overlukt de fakt dat de difikalti beloijz tu de prezent
sistem ov spelirj njrli az ma~c, az tu de fonetik sistem.
cler iz bat wan rekogneizd we ov speliij, bat everibodi
pronoiinsez akordiij tu hiz on idiosinkrasiz. It wud
bj de sem wid fonetik spelirj. Wan pronansiejon, de
best rekogneizd, wud hav tu bj adopted az a standard
46
in fernetik reitin, ljvirj tu everi Inglijman hiz frjdom
tu pronouns az sjme^ gud tu him. Wj Jud lqz ns^irj
ov hwot wj nou pozes, and ol de advantejez ov fonetik
reitin wud remen snimperd. 3e rjal stet ov de kes
iz, derfor, dis — Now?>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<f.
Key to ditto, 6d.
Phonographic Copy Book, 3d.
Phonographic Reader, 6d.
Manual of Phonography, Is. 6d. ;
cloth 2*. ; roan, gilt, 2s. 6<f.
Printed in Phonography, in the Corresponding
Style, unless otherwise expressed.
^Esop's Fables. Learner's Style, 6d.
Extracts from the Best Authors,
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6<Z. each
Selections from the Best Authors, in
the Reporting Style, Nos. 1, 2, 3,
6rf. each.
The Psalms, 1*. ; cloth, 2s.
New Testament, roan, gilt, 4s. 6rf.
Self-Culture, by Prof. Blaekie ; 2». ;
cloth, 2s. 6<f.
Phonetic Journal, published weekly,
Id. ; monthly, in wrapper, od. Each
number contains six columns of
shorthand, in the Learners', Cor-
responding, and Reporting Styles,
Intelligence of the progress of the
Phonetic Reform printed in the
usual spelling, and articles of gene-
ral interest printed phonetically.
Phonetic Printing.
Phonetic Alphabet, containing the
Shorthand, Longhand, and Print-
ing Letters, Id. per dozen.
Chart of the Phonetic Alphabet, con-
Soots of the value of Is. and upwards are sent post free: on books under
Is., postage is charged at the rate of Id. for \lb.
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 Publicatione.
London: Fred. Pitman, 20 Paternoster row, E.C.
Bath : Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute,
taining the Shorthand and Printing
Letters, 20 inches by 30, id.
Tablets, or the letters of the phonetic
Alphabet, printed on card-board;
Small, 3d., Large ls.fid.
Sheet Lessons, (16,) for classes, Is.
First Book in Phonetic Reading, Id.
Second Book, 2d. Third Book, 3d.
Edward's Dream, or Good for Evil,l<2
Parables, from the Testament, Id.
Miracles, ditto, Id. Discourses, Id.
Conversations on the Parables ; for
the use of children. By Edward,
EarlofDerhy. Cloth, Is.
The Other Life, 8d., cloth 1«.
Our Children in Heaven, by Dr
Holcombe, cloth, Is. id.
A Lecture on the Reading and Wri-
ting Reform, by James Hogg ; Id.
The Art of Writing, by C. F.
Pearson, Id.
History of Phonography — how it
came about, Id.
In the Common Spelling, price \d. each
\Gpp.,; id. per dozen; 3s. per gross.
A Persuasive to the Study and Prac-
tice of Phonography.
A Recommendation of Phonetic
Shorthand, by the Rev. D. D.
Whedon.
A Glance at Phonotypy, or Phonetic
Printing.
Etymology in Earnest ; or, Greek and
Latin derived from English, by
Dean Swift.
y
English Spelling
A SURVEY OF THE EVILS OF OUR
PRESENT MODE OF SPELLING, & A CRITICISM
OF TFIE OBJECTIONS TO REFORM.
EY
GEO. G. CH1SH0LM, M.A.
. the "-Phonetic Journal" 4th, llth & l$t/i June, 1881.
BATH:
ISAAC PITMAN, PHONETIC INSTITUTE.
LONDON :
F. PITMAN, 20 PATERNOSTER ROW.
Price One Halfpenny, a,d. per Dozen.
1881.
ENGLISH SPELLING.
More than a generation has now passed since Mr Pitman de-
vised his first phonetic alphabet containing a letter for every
sound in the English language, and since Mr A. J. Ellis in his
" Plea for Phonetic Spelling" exhaustively stated the whole case
of the reformers, giving a complete answer to all the objections
that might be urged against the movement, and yet the ques-
tion is still far from having excited the interest it deserves.
Much has certainly been done in the meantime to root out pre-
judices against the general aim of the reformers, and much is
being done at the present moment in the way of preparing some
scheme by which a reformed system of spelling may be practi-
cally introduced. It is still necessary, however, to try every
means to gain the ear of the public for what has been said again
and again on behalf of the reform movement, and what will still
have to be repeated with unwearied patience time after time,
before all the obstacles to the adoption of a reformed system can
be got out of the way. The most serious of these obstacles, per-
haps, consists in the indifference with which the whole subject is
regarded even by those who take an interest in cognate ques-
tions, but who, from never having paid any attention to the
matter, are disposed to think that the evils of our present system
have been very much exaggerated, that the outcry against it is
due only to a few crotchet-mongers, and that it is better to let well
alone than to " destroy the continuity" of our language by alter-
ing our whole system of spelling in order to remove some
anomalies. Few people, I believe, have anything like an ade-
quate notion of the absolute lawlessness that characterizes a
great portion of our present system, and of the evils that that
lawlessness entails. From the wearisome iteration with which
the " plough," " cough," " though," etc. series turns up in illus-
tration of the vices of English spelling, many a one, I dare say,
is apt to imagine that, with the exception of these cases and a
few other strange peculiarities, like " colonel" and " lieutenant,"
the anomalies of our language are not very formidable. Many
a one would even be surprised to learn that it is not our conso-
nant sounds at all that constitute the worst irregularities in our
spelling and the greatest hindrance to education, and that, on
the other hand, the irregularity that characterizes our use of the
vowels is so great that it can be abundantly illustrated in con-
nection with almost any word in the language that we choose.
It is to this class that I would chiefly address myself in the
present article, namely to those who have hitherto paid little
4
attention to the subject, and accordingly may be credited -with
no rooted hostility to any proposals of reform, but only with a
natural attachment to what they are accustomed to, and a corre-
sponding aversion to unnecessary innovation. For in their case
it should not be difficult to show at least that the evil is a crying
one, and that some change is urgently called for, provided only
that the objections to any change that can be made are not
greater than those against keeping things as they are. To this
second part of the subject I shall come in good time. In the
meantime I would begin by inviting the reader who has not yet
bestowed much thought upon the subject to exercise himself
with a few trials of the kind I have above suggested, in order
that he may bring home to his own mind some conception of
the state of things that actually exists in our present spelling.
Let him choose any simple word in the language, and consider
whether the vowel-sound in that word is always pronounced in
:he same way, or even always pronounced in one way when the
same or a similar combination of letters occurs. This is an
experiment the materials for which are always ready, and for
making which every person who knows how to speak and spell
has the requisite knowledge ; and I venture to say that anyone
who has not previously paid some attention to the matter will be
both amused and surprised at the results he will find.
To begin with, let him take the Word "word." W-o-r-d spells
word, but s-w-o-r-d sword, 1-o-r-d lord, h-o-r-d-e horde, w-h-o-r-1
iihorl; and confining ourselves to monosyllables ending in a
consonant we have all the variety of pronunciation exemplified
by such words as " north, forth ; short, sport ; torn, born ; worn,
shorn ; bolt, front ; boss, gross ; ghost, cost ; worst, wot ; moth,
loth, doth ; roll, loll, ; stroll, doll ; lost, most, dost ; whom,
comb, bomb, tomb." Take now some examples of words of one
sylllable with the same radical vowel but ending w r ith an e : —
C-o-n-e t spells cone; g-o-n-e, gone; d-o-n-e, done; o-n-e, one;
then we have " dove, rove ; prove, hove ; love, move ; strove,
shove ; grove, glove ; lose, rose ; whose, hose ; some, dome ;
come, home." In dissyllables we have " clover, plover ; mover,
lover ; prover, over ; other, bother ; sloven, woven ; shovel,
hovel ; forage, storage ; onion, poniard." Now try the word
" full." We have " bull, dull ; full, gull ; hull, bush ; lull,
fush; but. put, bud," etc., in monosyllables; and in longer
words, "cultivate, pulpit ; rumor, pupil ; busy, bury, sure ; op-
pugn, measure, minute (noun), minute (adjective), lettuce.'
Take now an example of a digraph or combination of two letters ;
— ou, foi example. Under this head we have " flour, four ; hour,
mourn ; bout, bought ; foul, soul, should ; fourth, youth ; wound
tnoun), wound (verb); soup, gout; mount, court; lounge,
Touge ; pouch, course ; ounce, route ; hough, young ; cough,
icugh ; poultice, couplet ; south, southern ; county, country," etc.
In scanning these examples of irregular sp?lling the reader
will not fail to observe that, as he was forewarned, the irregu-
larity not only obtains in the case of the same letter or digraph
in different combinations, but is again and again exemplified
even in combinations precisely similar. He will observe too
that incidentally our consonantal irregularities have been par-
tially illustrated, but it was only the vowel-sounds to which 1
wished to direct particular attention,
I will now leave the reader to make for himself what further
experiments of this sort he pleases ; and I think, it is not to
much to assume that after a very moderate amount of this kind
of exercise he will be prepared to learn with less astonishment
some facts of a more general nature regarding our mode of spel-
ling. He will perhaps learn without surprise that there are in
English no less than twenty different ways of representing the
sound of ee in the word mcet.Q) He will probably feel no sur-
prise in being told that, according to Mr Evans, author of the
" Plea for Spelling Reform," there'are, as the English alphabet
is used in spelling the English language, 6 single vowel-signs
with 26 uses, and 22 digraphs with 54 uses, in all 28 signs with
80 uses, and that this statement does not take into account those
uses which are found only in isolated cases such as "gaol, gauge,
heifer," etc., nor those in which the digraph is used not to repre-
sent a single sound (or diphthong), but the sounds of two
separate vowels, as in " seest, reiterate, diet," etc. He can then
hardly be startled at being told that, taking these into account,
Mr A. J. Ellis has drawn up a list of 97 signs and combinations
used in the English language to express the vowel-sounds, and
that these have in all 319 meanings, or a little more than three
meanings on an average to each sign or combination ; further,
that the consonant signs, including digraphs, number 34, and that
these 34 signs have 79 uses ; and to sum up that, according v>
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</and ripa, a river bank. First, then,
adripare becomes arripare, which it seems is already found in a
text of the ninth century. The Latin termination are becomes
er in French uniformly, and finally / becomes changed into v.
But this last change (which is exemplified also in L. capillus, F.
cheveu ; L. sapere, F. savoir ; L. nepotem, F. neveu, and numerous
other words) does not take place at a single step. The p before
being changed into v, had become a 6, in proof of which there
are found in Merovingian texts between the Latin forms crepare,
9. Science of Language, II. 345.
16
saporem, saponem, rapa, and the French forms crever, saveur,
savon, ra\e, the intermediate forms crebare, saborem, sabonem,
raba. When we thus learn from ancient spellings that there
have been two steps in the transition from p to v, the first of
these steps at once calls to mind the confusion which many
Germans make between p and b, and of which Goethe had to
complain in many of the actors that came under his direction at
the Weimar theatre ; and the second step similarly calls to mind
the confusion between the sounds of b and v on Spanish lips,
which is such that according to some authorities b between two
vowels is pronounced v. Again, we learn from Brachet under
adjuger, that while adjudicare gives us adjuger and serica serge
with a g sounded like z in azure representing a c, draconem gives
dragon and icmflare gonfler, with a hard g (as in get) to represent
the Latin c. Now, is it not obvious from these examples that
what is of interest to the philologist is exactly what a phonetic
spelling reveals, and what an unphonetic spelling conceals ?
Two sounds are confounded together in the French^, and what
a philologist would like to know from documents is how and
when the one passed into the other, as he has learned from docu-
ments how afl has passed into a v. So far then from proving a
hindrance to philology, a phonetic alphabet, rigorously adhered
to, if that were possible (and it is more possible now than ever
it was), from generation to generation, would be beyond all
question and beyond all comparison the greatest boon that that
science could have conferred upon it.
But I don't wish to pretend blindness to the fact that this is
not the whole of the etymological argument. It is not philo-
logical science that spelling conservatives are most anxious to
defend, but the interests of those amateur etymologists who like
to have their curiosity gratified by seeing the etymology of
a word written on the face of it. While they may admit that
philology as a science would be benefited by phonetic spelling,
they contend that our English words would thereby become dis-
guised in such a manner that none but a professed philologist
would be able to recognise their connections in the instantaneous
way in which a person of fairly good education can do at present.
Now, it is manifest at the outset that one very serious deduction
would have to be made from the weight of this argument, even
if the contention on which it is based were true, namely, that it
sets the interests of a few against the interests of all. Those to
whom it is of advantage (in the way chiefly of gratifying curio-
sity) to have the history of a word recapitulated in its spelling
must necessarily always be a small minority ; those who suffer
from the evils of an anomalous spelling are the whole commu-
nity. But waiving all that, let us try to estimate how much
truth there is in the alleged fact itself, and with a view to this
let us give some examination to the four main elements of our
17
language, the Anglo-Saxon, French (including Franco-Latin),
Latin, and Greek, in order to see what effect the adoption of a
phonetic system of spelling would have in concealing the ety-
mology of words which in our present spelling have that ety-
mology made patent to the most careless observer. For it is fair
to premise one thing, that the injury done in this way by a pho-
netic spelling would be real only in so far as it disguised our
words more than they are disguised already. In making this
investigation, since I am not at present discussing the different
schemes of phonetic spelling that have been proposed, I will
assume that the change to be made will be the worst possible
from an amateur etymologist's point of view, namely, the adop-
tion of a phonetic alphabet with a letter for every sound and
only one meaning for every letter.
To begin, then, with words of Anglo-Saxon origin, having
made a careful examination of some hundreds of these words
chosen at random and hence such as may reasonably be taken
to represent the whole class, what I have found is, that the
spelling of these words does not as a rule serve as a guide to ety-
mology except in so far as the sound does so too ; that in the
great majority of instances Anglo-Saxon consonants are retained
to the eye only when they are retained also to the ear ; and that
the Anglo-Saxon vowels and vowel combinations have suffered
the most various change ; that the same vowels and vowel com-
binations of Anglo-Saxon are represented in English spelling by
different vowels and vowel combinations (the frequent Anglo-
Saxon combination eo, for example, is represented in English in no
less than 13 different ways) ; and that different vowels and vowel
combinations in Anglo-Saxon are represented in English by the
same letter or letters ; that, in fact, Anglo-Saxon words are as a
rule phonetically spelled so far as the defects and irregularities
of the English alphabet admit of it, and that being so spelled
what they do illustrate is the interesting etymological fact that
sounds change according to law ; that, for instance, if the An-
glo-Saxon jreddan gives us ^ed, so does .rcendan give us j/zend,
ttyttan, shut ; j-ceotan,j^oot; jcreadjan s/ired ; and .rcrincan shrink ;
and that if bldvan gives us blow, so does mdvan give mow, iru-
van throw, sdvan sow, and cndvan know. The solitary purely
etymological relics that I have been able to find are a w before
r to represent a former v sound (as in wrong, write, wreath, etc.),
a k before n to represent a former k sound (as in foow, /Sneel),
which k sound, however, was represented by c, an occasional /,
which has become silent before a consonant (as in ta/k, and a
few other words derived from all the chief sources of our lan-
guage), and the well-known gh, reminding us of an extinct
guttural. But if it is so important for us to preserve these
etymological relics l why have we been so negligent as to allow
the h to drop before many words of Anglo-Saxon origin begin-
18
ning with r and /? If it is of so much consequence that we
should spell wrong, wreath, wreak, etc., it must surely be desira-
ble to begin without delay to spell loaf /fcloaf, lady /Glady, leap
//leap, ring //ring, rend //rend, rag ^rag. But let us have done
with this. It is well known that it is not words of Anglo-Saxon
origin that amateur etymologists are chiefly concerned about,
and one need have no hesitation in admitting that it is not these
words that should occasion them the most concern ; for, although
Anglo-Saxon is indeed the basis of our language, the words that
we possess from that source-are mostly so simple in sense that a
knowledge of their etymology could add nothing to the preci-
sion with which they are used.
Let us turn now to the next stratum of words, those of French
and Franco-Latin origin. Proceeding in the same manner as
before, and taking at random a few hundred representatives of
this class, what we find here again is, that in these words also
there is for the most part an obvious attempt at phonetic spel-
ling, an attempt defeated only or mainly by the deficiencies of
the English alphabet and the want of uniformity in the use of
its combinations. It is not necessary to give hundreds of exam-
ples to illustrate this. The following list, in which I have
italicised those in which there is a manifest departure from the
French form of the word in order to adapt it to English pronun-
ciation, may serve our purpose. Where the French is not given
it is the same as the English. Mason (French mapon), felon,
champion, surgeon (old Fr. surgien), mutton (Fr. mouton) , pigeon,
saloon (Fr. salon), reason (Fr. raison), lesson, (Fr. legon), treason
(Fr. trahison), fashion (Fr.fafon), ransom (Fr. rangon), defeat,
(Fr. defaitej, peril, genteel, (Fr. genhl) humble, subtle (Fr. subtil),
stable, bowel '(Old Fr. boel), bushel (O. Fr. boisel), vessel (O. Fr.
veissel), parcel (Fr. parcelle), castle (O. Fr. castel), vowel (Fr.
voyelle), jewel (O. Fr. Joel), journal, kennel (Fr. chenil), calendar
(Fr. calendrier), author (Fr. auteur), leisure (Fr. loisir), treasure
(Fr. tresor), pleasure (Fr. plaisir), realm, (O. Fr. royalme), sure
(Fr. sur), crime, volume.
To lengthen this list would not be to change its character, and
hence it follows that, as far as words of French origin are con-
cerned, the change involved by the adoption of a perfect phonetic
alphabet would not be one from an etymological to a non-ety-
mological spelling, but from a spelling based on an inadequate
to one based on an adequate phonetic scheme, and this change
would in most cases leave the French origin just as plain to the
eye as the discarded spelling. I don't deny that some difficul-
ties would be created ; but as these would be common to all the
classes of words in our language I reserve them for considera-
tion in connection with the next class, which is by much the
most important with reference to the etymological argument.
In words of French, as in those of Anglo-Saxon origin, a know-
19
ledge of the etymology is little more than the gratification of a
laudable and often well-rewarded curiosity ; for, though they are
often more complex in signification than the latter class of words;
they are generally words of old standing and in extensive popu-
lar use, words accordingly whose meaning has long ago been
fixed by custom and is no longer under the control of ety-
mological sense.
With some words of Latin origin, on the other hand, it is
different. In their case it may be granted that a knowledge of
the derivation may often be of use in maintaining the precision
and vigor of the language, and accordingly to that extent is
the interest of all and not merely of the few. Recognizing this
fact, then, let us try to see whether the introduction of a pho-
netic spelling would result in disguising to any considerable
extent the etymology of English words of Latin origin, among
which I include all those which, though they may have come to
us through the French, have yet preserved their Latin form with
little modification. In general it may be remarked with regard
to this class of words that they are in the main of comparatively
recent introduction, and that they are mostly words of such a
kind as to be used only by the educated. It follows from this
that the pronunciation of words belonging to this class has not
undergone so much corruption as words belonging to other sec-
tions of our language, and that it still accords in a great measure
with the spelling, although the spelling accords in even a greater
measure with the etymology. The consequence is that with
reference to this class of words a phonetic spelling would leave
things to a large extent as they are. I don't mean that the form
of the words would remain unaltered, but that, in all but a small
minority of instances, the alteration would not be sufficient to
conceal the derivation even for a moment. If any reader has
any doubt about this let him run his eye over the words in a dic-
tionary beginning with the Latin negative prefix in, among which
he will find a very fair representation of words of Latin origin ;
or, better still, let him read a few pages of anything printed in
phonetic spelling on any system, and let him observe, in the first
place, how slight comparatively the changes are in words belong-
ing to the class of which we are speaking, and then let him ask
himself carefully whether there is among these one word in a
hundred which is so altered as not to be as instantaneously re-
cognisable in its component parts under its new form as it is in
its present spelling. For it must be borne in mind that those
to whom the suggestion of etymologies is of any service are
necessarily acquainted both with the language to which the
derivative belongs and that from which it comes, and that when
the root is known independently, very little is required to bring
it to mind. To one who is acquainted with Italian, is the word
rivo/uzione one whit more difficult to be identified with the Latin
20
revolutio than the English revolution, or even the Latin actio more
difficult of recognition under the form azione than under that in
which it appears in English ? Not a jot ; not one tittle. _ Now
the changes made on words of Latin origin would be mainly of
the kind for which such Italian words as rivoluzione, propagazione,
fomentazione, saziare (Lat. satiare), propiziare (Lat. propitiare),
may serve as examples, and would, from the nature of the case,
seldom present examples of such difficulty as the Italian esempw
(Lat. exemplum), scolpare, (exculpare), sciame (examen), scialare
(exlialare), specchio {speculum)), with none of which, nevertheless,
any person having a competent acquaintance with Latin and
Italian would find any difficulty whatever.
Even as it is, it must be remembered, the English words are
not identical with their Latin originals. We have some things
to learn in order to recognize the one in the other. We have to
learn, for example, that in verbs the termination e in English
represents sometimes the o of the first person singular present
indicative of the Latin verb, as in divide, confide, reduce, etc.,
sometimes the termination um of the supine, as in educate, reverse,
convulse, etc. ; that in nouns -ence or -ency stands for -entia, -ance
or ancy for -antta ; -y for -ius, -ia, -turn ; in adjectives -ble ^ for
bills, etc. All these, it will be said, are perfectly simple, obvious
at the first glance, and in no respect a hindrance to the identifi-
cation of the Latin root. Precisely so ; and in all but a few
instances all the impediment that a phonetic spelling would
throw in the way of recognizing Latin roots would consist in
adding a few more to the list of almost self-explanatory corre-
spondences just exemplified. We should have new forms to
learn for the lerminations -ous, -tial, -tious, -cient, -tion, -sion, -ce,
which new forms would be quite as easy to learn as the old ones ;
and we should, under a strictly phonetic scheme which gave us a
letter for every sound, have to learn that each of the vowels a, e,
i,o, is most commonly represented in English by one or other of
two letters (as in nation, national ; cede, cession ; precise, precision ;
cb-eval, congruous) ; that the vowel u commonly corresponds to
one or other of three letters (as in tube, rural, supplicate), that the
Latin diphthong au corresponds to a single letter ; that each of
the consonants c and g is usually represented by one or other of
two letters ( as in congruous, cite ; a^^re^ate, indulge) ; and that
sc is in many cases represented by the same letter as one of the
sounds of c, in some others by a letter representing the sound of
s/i in shine ; that* is represented sometimes by ks, sometimes by
kz, occasionally by k followed by the sh letter ; and that q has
given place to k and the u following it to w. Such is about the
amount of what a boy will have to learn in order to be able to
recognize the Latin originals in the majority of words directly
derived from the Latin, and the same knowledge would guide
him in the recognition of words that we have received from the
21
French, frequently also in the tracing of words of other origin.
To acquire this amount of learning I presume it would be an
enormous exaggeration to suppose that it would be necessary to
spend one-tenth part of the tithe of the time he would save from
learning to spell ; and when he had acquired it, along with the
requisite knowledge of the language to which the originals
belong, I think it is not too much to say that he would mostly
recognize these originals with the same instantaneous readiness
with which he might do so at present. And in addition to that
he would have the advantage of having presented to his eye in
many cases illustrations of the interesting etymological fact to
which reference has been made already, that sounds change ac-
cording to law. For just as in Italian the word contenzione,
while not disguising the Latin contentio, presents to the eye a
law of phonetic change exemplified also in propagazione, propor-
zione, saziare, propiziare, so also would the English kontenshon
(contention) present to the eye a law of phonetic change exem-
plified also m propagashon, proporshon, s«shiate,/;-o//shiate.
It may be objected that in many cases the phonetic respelling
would confound Latin forms originally different but now iden-
tified in sound ; that, for example, the form kontenshon, though
not concealing the root of the word, might leave one in doubt
as to whether the Latin form were conten/io or contensio. But
this is a matter that in no respects belongs to a knowledge of
English, with which alone we are bound to concern ourselves.
If a boy is in doubt as to which of these two forms is the correct
one, let him learn his Latin.
Another objection may be that the phonetic respelling will
often lead to the same letter in Latin being replaced by different
ones in words of the same root ; as in ;Wius, and redzkshon,
fragment, and frajil, (fragile). But to this it is enough to reply
that it is as easy to trace the same root in red/its, and rednk-
slwn, fragment and frajil, as it is in convince and conviction ;
infringe and infraction.
I have been careful to make a reservation regarding a minority
of words of Latin origin, the difficulty in recognising which
could not be got over by an acquaintance with the correspon-
dences above indicated. There is a difficulty created with some
words by the fact that certain letters heard in Latin are silent in
English, and indeed in some cases unpronounceable in the form
to which these words, as they appear-in English, are reduced.
G, for example, has the habit of disappearing before n, as in
impugn, s\ga, condign, and n of dropping away at the end of
words after m, as in condemw, solemw. Even this, however,
would present no great difficulty, especially since it occurs in
only a few words ; and though there is the further disadvantage
that these silent letters make themselves audible in derivatives
(as repugnant, signal, indignity, condemnable, solemnity), if, as Mr
22
Evans has well pointed out, the Romans could put up with the
want of g in nosco, while it reappeared in ignosco (and the Italians,
it may be added, can tolerate conosco and cognizione), we may he
content to get along as best we can with impiun and repugnant,
and the whole list of them.
The last stratum of English that falls to be examined consists
of words of Greek origin ; and to these similar remarks apply to
those which have been made regarding the class of words last
considered. In addition to which it may be observed with re-
ference to words of Greek origin that they are already repre-
sented in a different alphabet from that in which they are written
in the original. We write Greek words in a language which has
no single letter for the Greek 0, and only one for the Greek e and
7;, and for the Greek o and w ; and where it is quite unnecessary
we insist on representing the Greek k in the great majority of
cases by c, even going the length of violating what is otherwise
a general rule of English pronunciation in order to spell ireptic
and pronounce Peptic. We have nevertheless taken the trouble
to preserve certain indexes of a Greek origin. We represent
almost invariably the Greek <p by ph, which we pronounce/^ and
the Greek v by_y'; and, among other silent letters (the usual /
before consonants as in psa/m, a/ before s, t, and n, as in^salm,
ptisan, pneumatics, a ph before th as in ///thisis, and in some
words a g before m, as in paradigm) the discarded h of Anglo-
Saxon is punctiliously retained by us after r in Greek words.
To show, too, the great value we set upon etymological spelling,
we spell rime in the sense of " agreement of sound " with both
the h and theji', rhyme, although it is no more Greek than rime
in the sense of " hoar-frost." To some, these signs of a Greek
origin may seem of great importance ; but to most, I think, it
will appear no more difficult to recognise the Greek original in
the Italian filosofia, sistema, ipocrita and retorica, than in the
English philosophy, system, hypocrite, and rhetoric.
The general result, then, of our examination of the four
principal strata of words composing our language with reference
to the effect that a phonetic spelling would have in disguising
their etymology is that, though it may be conceded that there
would be some effect of this nature, that effect would be altogether
insignificant. Our examination, to be sure, has not been an
exhaustive one, but it has been sufficiently thorough to leave
no doubt in my mind thaf if it were made exhaustive the result
would be exactly the same.
Let us now turn our attention to some other objections that
have been urged against the cause I am advocating. Mr F. W.
Newman, who is not an out-and-out antagonist of reform, but
has himself on more than one occasion proposed a scheme for
respelling our language, of which thus much at least may be
said, that it would be an immense improvement on our present
23
mode of spelling, yet argues against a thorough reform on this
ground among others, that it would impair the stability of our
written language. Advocates of phonetic spelling, he says,
" seem blind ... to the fact, that the written medium of
thought is at once more distinctive and far more copious than
the spoken tongue ; and they are proposing to degrade the
nobler instrument into the weakness of the less noble."( 10 ) This
argument, I confess, surprised me not a little, inasmuch as it
appears to me that the effect that may reasonably be expected
from a phonetic spelling is precisely the reverse. Has even the
written language, the outward form of English, which has not
a phonetic spelling, shown as much stability as that of Italian,
which has long had one at least approximately phonetic ? Besides,
the distinction here drawn between a spoken and a written
language is an unreal one. There is no word in the language
but has a pronunciation, and no word but is heard sometimes
from the pulpit, the professor's chair, or the platform. The
only true distinction is between the language of the educa-
ted and that of the uneducated, and the amount of stability in
the former may be expected to be exactly in proportion to the
efficacy of the means taken to ensure its uniformity. But after
what 1 have said already on the tendency of our present system
to promote the disruption of our language into different dialects,
it is needless to dwell further on this subject here.
Another objection that has been brought against spelling
reform has an intimate connection with that just examined.
It is thought by some a serious objection to phonetic spelling
that it would destroy the' uniformity by which our present mode
of spelling is characterised. "It is a mere assumption," says
Archbishop Trench, " that all men pronounce all words alike ;
or that whenever they come to spell a word they will exactly
agree as to what the outline of its sound is ;"( n ) and even Prof.
Max Miiller acknowledges that there is some force in this argu-
ment, and the only reply he has to offer is as follows : — " The
Archbishop seems to have overlooked the fact that the difficulty
belongs to the present system of spelling nearly as much as to
the phonetic system. There is but one recognised way of
spelling, but everybody pronounces according to his own
idiosyncrasies. It would be the same with phonetic spelling.
One pronunciation, the' best recognised, would have to be
adopted as a standard in phonetic writing, leaving to every
Englishman his freedom to pronounce as seemeth good to him."
Now, it may certainly be taken for granted that, if a phonetic
spelling were actually introduced, a fixed standard, the best that
could be easily got, would be adopted by compositors as a guide ;
but I fail to see the advisability of having this standard rigorously
io. Contemporary, March, 1878. 11. English Past and Present,
p. 203, quoted by Prof. Max Miiller in his article " On Spelling."
24
adhered to. On the contrary, it seems to me, that it would be
a great advantage if cultivated men, who happen also to be
authors, would not allow the compositor's spelling to be imposed
on them, but would insist on spelling the words as they them-
selves were in the habit of pronouncing them. It is true that
we should thereby get in the first instance a considerable amount
of diversity in the spelling of our language ; but, when the
Germans can tolerate a considerable amount of diversity of
spelling to indicate the same pronunciation, why should we find
a diversity of spelling to indicate a diversity of pronunciation
anything so very intole r able ? And then it may reasonably be
presumed that this diversity both of pronunciation and spelling
would go on steadily diminishing. One great cause of the
differences in pronunciation is that educated and cultivated men
do not know each other's pronunciation. Men of science, for
example, though they may be ready to tell you their own pro-
nunciation of certain words (such as chlorine, etc., in chemistry)
belonging to their own department, will not always undertake
to say w T hat is the general pronunciation, if indeed there is a
general pronunciation. But a phonetic spelling would furnish
the means of making this known, and the prevailing mode of
pronunciation would probably become universal among people
of culture, and would without doubt be diligently copied by all
those who wished to pass for being well educated.
One further remark requires to be made while we are engaged
with this part of the subject. It is a matter of surprise to me
that spelling reformers so generally omit to notice the desirability
of having accent indicated by our spelling as well as the other
features of pronunciation. Mr F. W. Newman draws attention to
this as affecting the teaching of English to our Indian fellow-
-subjects. " It would be a great assistance," he writes, " to have
the right accent printed on all the English pieces set before
them, at least on polysyllables." To all foreigners this would be
a great assistance, but it would not be without advantage to
ourselves also. Among educated people differences of pronun-
ciation consist very frequently, if not most frequently, in
differences of accentuation, and in this respect too uniformity
can be looked for only when our whole literature shows on its
very face what is considered the proper mode of pronunciation.
The attending to these matters, would, it is true, entail a good
deal of labor upon authors in revising their proofs ; but upon
whom could the task more properly fall of preserving our lan-
guage in its nobler form ? It is surely worth while to take so much
pains in order to hand down to posterity in the English language
as stable a structure as anything of human origin could well be.( 12 )
12. The case stands thus : — To print by accent rules embracing- the whole
language, implies that the compositor (or writer) knows the accentuation
of every word. No one would assume this responsibility. The accent
To pass now to another objection to phonetic spelling, it has
frequently been urged that it would confound many words that
are now distinguished to the eye, although alike to the ear. T
this the only reply that can be given is that it is unfortunate
that there should be such words in our language, but, at the
wjrst, their being made alike to the ear would cause no more
ambiguity and inconvenience in writing than their agreement in
sound does in speaking. There would be this partial compen-
sation also, that, while phonetic spelling would identify in fori
a number of words that agree in sound, though now different ii.
form, it would distinguish others (such as bow v. (don), and bow
n. (<5») ; sow v. (sv), and sow, n. (sou), which are now alike in
form though different in sound. " We are traitors," says M;
Newman, " if we surrender any point of superiority which our
higher organ [the written language] possesses ;" — but not, I should
suppose, if this sacrifice is made in the interest of the highe:
organ itself.
In discussing this class of words Mr Newman draws attention
to what he considers a special advantage presented by having
words of the same sound spelled differently according to. the sense
Suppose, he says, that we wrote the word " box " in four different
ways — "I. Bocs ; 2. Boks ; 3. Box; 4. Bokhs, sounding all alike.
the pupil would at once be warned of four different senses [1. a
cut shrub, or tree ; 2. a coffer made of boxwood, and hence, any
wooden coffer ; 3. a blow on the cheek ; 4. a bukh-s/iies/i, or
small gift at Christmas], and would the better remember them by
reason of the different writing, which acts as a memoria tec/mica."
Well, it may be granted that the four spellings would serve this
purpose so far as to help the pupil to remember that there are
four senses of "box," and perhaps what these senses are, but it
would not aid him in remembering which is which. The advan-
tage would thus be fully balanced if not overbalanced by the
disadvantage.
Once more, it is often emphatically urged as an argument
against the introduction of a system of phonetic spelling, that,
if it were once introduced, it would have to undergo constant
change to adapt it to the never-ceasing variations in pronuncia-
tion. " If letters were to be invented to-day," says Mr R. Grant
White, ; ' we should have a sign for every sound, we should
limit each sign to the expression of one sound, and we should
should be marked when known, if the reader would be liable to misplace it.
In our phonotypic articles we print the accent whenever it is required by the
ordinary English reader, as in absent, kon trakt (verbs), as being essential^
different words from a bsent (adj. ) > 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 <TKt\vr\. Even " seen " does not represent the sound which
in modern speech is coincident with the written form. It spelled
in the old times sehn, or something very like the modern pronun-
ciation of the word " sane," and it spells it still, and will always
spell it as long as m-e-n spells " men," and two short e's, with the
intervening consonant elided make "ever, never" into "e'er,
ne'er." We may start afresh, and systematically appropriate
certain digraphs, like certain simple vowel-signs, to new sounds
that have arisen since the orthography of the language was
generally fixed ; and we may then talk of such letters or digraphs
spelling words, or representing words, or denoting the sounds in
words. But so long as our alphabetic writing remains fixed as it
was before the greater part of our present vowel-sounds came into
vogue, it cannot in any sense be said to represent these. Most
of the consonants, and to some extent all the vowels, represent
still their old sounds ; and therefore we may consider such writ-
ten forms as " last, pant, bed, best, pit, most, put, push," to be
representative of sound. But the majority of our written word-
forms are not so representative, although the fact of their being
alphabetically written leads people to suppose that they are, and
thus often leads them quite astray ; while the presumption that
we indicate by letters our own present sounds continually
misleads people in reference to spellings which have nothing to
do with present pronunciation, and often never were phonetically
representative. The existence of this double evil, through which
time, labor, and money are needlessly and often fruitlessly
expended in teaching the letter instead of the spirit of books,
renders Spelling Reform a necessity of this age of popular
education.
2. — What the Reform should be. — It is not enough for people
to become convinced of the great evils entailed by the present |
state of our written language, and to join in an agitation for
reform in the abstract. It is the duty of every man who recog-
nises such evils, not only to expose and denounce them whenever
opportunity offers, but to consider carefully and conscientiously
the nature of the remedy required. If each individual reformer
allows his own taste, fancy, or caprice to be his only guide in his
view of the subject, the whole body of reformers will simply
neutralize each other's influence, and the movement will come to
naught. The one serious consideration should be, What is
necessary ? and this should be limited only by the consideration,
What is practicable ? There will be quite sufficient diversity of
view, for the present, until discussion has produced a better
general understanding of the question, if attention is rigorously
confined to these two considerations, without complicating the
matter by importing into it aesthetical, sentimental, or capricious
likings or dislikings. This work of spelling reform should be
14
regarded not as for the personal interest or satisfaction of those
who promote it, but as for the benefit of successive ages of poster-
ity. What we adults of this generation may like or dislike in
literal or verbal forms will matter little to future generations ;
but anything necessary that we now omit to recognise, or anything
practicable that we fail to achieve, will be of lasting detriment
to our successors.
Dealing with the subject only as determined by necessity on
one side, and practicability on the other, we shall find the possible
range of what may be comprised within the question of Spelling
Reform quite wide enough for our consideration. Some spelling
reformers have large conceptions of what is necessary ; others
small conceptions of what is practicable. We are told by some
enthusiasts that we must have an entirely new alphabet before
we can adequately represent our speech on paper — not a merely
enlarged alphabet, like that of the Phonetic Journal, incorporating
all the useful letters of the Roman alphabet ; but a collection of
new literal forms, analogous in similarity or diversity to the
sounds of speech, while also more convenient to write and print
than our present letters. Mr Melville Bell's "Visible Speech"'
alphabet was an attempt to supply this alleged desideratum, not
only for the English language, but for universal human speech ;
but wonderfully elaborate and beautifully systematic as is this
production of a genius in his line of research and exposition, it
does not completely satisfy those who are capable of appreciating
it, and the comparatively limited number of students which it
has obtained during the considerable period of its existence,
seems to indicate its unsuitability for popular use. Mr Isaac
Pitman's Phonography was an earlier and much less ambitious
effort to construct, specially for the English language, a new
alphabet on systematic phonetic principles, which, in different
developments of its application, should be applicable to the
needs of both the stenographic reporter and the ordinary writer.
For such purposes, Phonography has attained at least a larger
currency than any ancient national system of writing could have
enjoyed in its day ; and there can be no doubt that its wide
diffusion has been the chief influence in cultivating opinion, both
in the British Empire and in the United States, in favor of
spelling reform. But Mr Pitman himself practically admits, by
the use of Romanic Phonotypy in his Journal and other publi-
cations, that his admirable stenographic alphabet will not meet
all the requirements of Spelling Reform. Besides these two al-
phabets, none have yet been produced which have obtained any
status as complete or partial substitutes for the Roman alphabet ;
and the efforts of so large a proportion of phonologists have been
directed to adapting or extending the latter, that the considera-
tion of practicability seems to confine us to this conception 'A
Spelling Reform.
15
We have, then, to consider what is necessary to render prac-
tically effective a system of speech-representation based upon the
Roman alphabet, within the limits of the utmost present prac-
ticability. And as soon as we thus exclude one extreme section
of reformers, who want an entirely new alphabet, we encounter
another extreme section, who do not want even a reconstructed
orthography. They would prune off excrescences from the old
spelling here, or patch it up there, but substantially they would
retain what they consider our present SYSTEM of representing
sounds. With such persons a real phonetic reformer can have
only restricted sympathy. They are not animated by the same
spirit that moves him. Without offence, it may be said that some
of them are simply better-informed pedants than their predecessors
who ignorantly put the j in " island" or the h in " rhyme," and
that they would be content with such small reform as restoring
forms like " iland, ryme." Others would go somewhat further,
and consent to repair the pedantic folly of interpolating silent
" etymological " letters, as in " de^t, ule ;" while a third section
of such emendators would extend this principle by excising g
(but not K) from " eight, plough," etc. ; and a fourth class would go
so far as to omit all absolutely useless letters, when no further
change of spelling was thus necessitated, as the^in "deign," but
not that in " sign ;" or the /in " baulk," but not that in " chalk."
Most of such timid reformers would also acquiesce in the revival,
for the supposed better representation of our present English
sounds, of any spellings used to represent other sounds in past
ages, as " pluver, stumach ;" thus avoiding possible confusion in
one direction, only to produce certain and greater confusion in
another, with forms like " pluvial, stupid."
On some such principles have been founded the " partial
corrections of English spelling " recommended by the Philological
Society. To many, perhaps to most of the proposed corrections,
no exception can on principle be taken, as, for instance, to the
omission of the useless and misleading a in a considerable class
of words like " breath, deaf, dreamt ; " but it would have been
better for our philologists to have restricted themselves to a few
such simple recommendations, unless they were prepared to go
much further than they have gone. The defect in their method
of procedure has arisen from their having had no definite scheme
of ultimate representation before them as a guide, and from their
having, in the absence of this, ventured on alterations which
would only introduce new anomalies instead of old ones. The
form " hih " was doubtless a fairly effective representation in
Anglo-Saxon, when a simple vowel-sound and a final aspirate
were pronounced in the word ; but it seems very doubtful improve-
ment to strike the g out of " high, higher, highest " in modern
English writing. The anomalous gk is too unsightly and un-
trustworthy not to be a warning to the reader wherever it occurs ;
16
but " hiher, hihest," in an orthography that has also " cohere,
behest," seem likely to act as dangerous traps to the learner.
Or to take a special case of partial correction, we are invited to
right " whoze " for " whose." Now the latter form was a tolerable
spelling when people pronounced the -wh as in " what," and the
terminal ose as in "those;" but what is " whoze " intended to
represent now ? It is like the portrait of a remote ancestor, with
one characteristic family feature re-touched, to make it do duty
as the likeness of an otherwise dissimilar descendant.
But it is not worth while to go into much detailed criticism of
these proposed partial corrections of our orthography. The in-
fluence of the Philological Society may bring some of them into
vogue, if its members will only set the example of using them in
their own writing and printing ; but, in the aggregate, they are
not likely to be adopted by many persons who know how to spell
in the old fashion. The perplexity of having sometimes to apply
three or four different rules to one word, and then having to keep
in mind a list of exceptions, would be too great an embarrassment
for the ordinary writer. An exceptional word is given above, but
its rhyme-fellow " lose " is affected by three rules. Under one
rule, the single o is changed to oo, giving us " loose " (already
the spelling of a different word) ; by a second rule, the radical
flat s is replaced by z, producing the form " looze ;" and finally,
by a third rule, the mute terminal e is omitted, — the result being
" looz." By the operation of the second and third rule, "bruise"
will become " bruiz ;" and by that of the second only, " cruse "
will be altered to " cruze." So we shall have " whoze, looz,
bruiz, cruze," four rhyming words, all with new spellings, but just
as discordant as the old ones, while " crews, accrues," and
"shoos" (= shoes), with identical terminal sound, will be differ-
ently represented as before — only rather more differently. Why
should adult writers trouble themselves thus to exchange one set
of arbitrary forms for another ? And of what use can such
" correction " of spelling be to children in schools ? Pupils who
had these new spellings in their reading books would be very
little assisted in the matter of pronunciation, and would require
the guidance of the teacher's voice as formerly ; and when they
left school, they would only have to learn another set of arbi-
trary forms in order to read existing books, and possibly for
practical use in life. Every pocket dictionary, too, would be
cumbered with duplicate spellings where these corrections had been
made, besides a triplicate one to give the actual pronunciation of
the word ; thus, perhaps — " Bruiz (BRUISE), brooz, a contusion."
Another class of reformers would advance further than, in the
aggregate, the members of the Philological Society could agree
to do, and would systematically revise the whole of the orthogra-
phy of the language, to such an extent that, by attributing
modern values to old symbols, by learning certain rules of posi.
17
tion, and by memorizing a number of phonetically defective or
anomalous spellings, the sound of a word might possibly be de-
duced from its written representation. Thus they would not alter
the spelling of the three words " cent, sent, scent," but consider
them sufficiently provided for by the rule that " c has the sound
of s before e, i, and_y." So they would let " coercion, aspersion,
insertion " remain untouched, applying to them the rule that ci, si
and ti in such a position indicate the sound s/i. Such reformers
would also keep numerous equivalent vowel spellings, as "mete,
meet, meat — mien, mean — vane, vain, vein — ore, oar— groan,
grown — brood, crude — my, die — new, due," etc. Their object is
simply, in fact, to make the language " phonetic for reading pur-
poses," as they phrase it — to cure one of the two evils of the
present established orthography, by making the written form of
a word more or less clearly indicative of its sound ; but to leave
substantially undiminished the other evil, of pronunciation being
no trustworthy guide to spelling. " Let us attempt the cure of
one evil at a time," say these reformers, " and commence with
that which can most easily be treated ; for we may perhaps in-
duce many persons to accept the partial who would reject the
complete remedy."
Now, it cannot be doubted that, as a matter of theoretical
revision, it would not be impracticable, without very conspic-
uously altering the appearance of the printed page, to put our
spelling on something like the same footing as that of the French
language ; so that, having learned a code of rules with their ex-
ceptions, and memorized a number of anomalous words, a 1 earner
would be able to deduce the correct sound from any new written
form he might meet with. Nor would this condition of things
be without great and obvious advantage, as will be recognised by
anyone who knows French, and is therefore able to read with ease
and certainty in that language Greek or Latin derivatives, at
the pronunciation of whose English forms he could only make
random guesses. If we could suddenly bring such a partially
regularized orthography into use, — if we could introduce it into
all existing books, and infuse it into the minds of all existing
readers, — if we could have only this orthography printed and
written for the future, and exclusively taught in our schools ; —
in short, if we could suddenly abrogate the old and establish the
new, then there would be very appreciable advantage in even so
moderate a measure of amendment. But, from the earliest ex-
istence of spelling reform as a public movement, it has been rec-
ognised that the change from the current to a reformed orthog-
raphy cannot be sudden, and that it must occupy a genera-
tion or two to bring it into full effect. Few people who have
sufficiently learned the old orthography to receive and commu-
nicate ideas through it with facility, and who by habit have come
to identify numerous commonly-used written forms with as many
3
18
spoken words, will care to acquire a new spelling involving the
learning of many rules, regulated exceptions, and special anoma-
lies. Many persons might be ready to acknowledge that the new
spelling would be more indicative of sound and easier to learn
than the old, and to wish that it had existed in their youth ; but
having been quite sufficiently bothered with learning one arbi-
trary orthography, they would decide to leave the new, more sim-
ple as it might be, to the rising generation.
But it may be said, that, if we could not expect the present
generation of adults to learn a regulated revision of the old spel-
ling, we might at least teach it to our youth, and so give them
the means of acquiring a proper pronunciation of the literary
language. Yet if the revised spelling cannot be brought into
general use until the whole or the greater part of the population
have learned it at school, then i^s introduction must be delayed
for a good many years, and during that time our school children
must be taught to read and write in two orthographies, one only
more arbitrary and anomalous than the other ; while it would be
exceedingly difficult to keep them distinct in practice, because of
both possessing so many similar features. For instance, in regu-
lating the use of the vowel digraphs and of the mute prolonging
e, the symbol ea must be used for its old sound in " great," or
for the new sound with which it has become associated in " meat."
In either case it must be superseded in a class of words. Let us
suppose, as the digraph is coincident with the " meat " sound in
a majority of words, that it would be appropriated to that sound,
and that ai superseded it for the " great " sound. We should
then have, as in the "Victorian" spelling, the three arbitrary
forms " meat, meet, mete" indicating the same sound ; and also
the two arbitrary forms " grait, grate." Five spellings, as at
present, to be learned in the revised orthography for two spoken
words ; and yet, though only one of them actually differed from the
forms in the old orthography, they would all have to be re-learned
or verified in passing to this, before the pupil could be sure
whether any and which of them would be different, seeing that
anomalous deviation might anywhere be expected as possible
until its absence was proved by observation. Thus for a genera-
tion, — the generation to which most of us look with fond expec-
tancy as that in which we ourselves may witness the first fruits
of spelling reform, — pupils would have to learn two arbitrary or-
thographies, instead of one ; and afterwards the spelling difficulty
would be left nearly as great for posterity to encounter as it is
now. Therefore, if common-sense observation leads to the con-
clusion, that not one in a hundred of present readers and writers
will learn a revised arbitrary spelling, and if it would in schools
give more trouble and less benefit, now and in the future, than a
completely-reformed orthography, why should the former be more
feasible than the latter ?
19
Recognising the insufficiency of the merely " phonetic for
reading " systems, some reformers propose more extensive reform,
that would at least greatly diminish the spelling difficulty,
without, however, introducing a thoroughly consistent system
of spelling. These reformers may be designated as of the
" near-enough " school. Some of them only want to make all
the long words easy for the big children to learn, but would
leave the anomalous short words for the infants to begin with.
Thus, one of my own critical correspondents says he has never
seen any necessity for altering such words as " to, do," for though
the spelling is not perfectly consistent, yet they never puzzle
children in their efforts to learn reading. This gentleman writes
in his own phonetic or reformed spelling "as, is, was, what," etc.,
(beside " this, thus, that "), as well as forms like " notis, ofer,
oposd, won (one), to (two); " and he says that he objects to the
introduction of z for inflectional s or for radical s between two
vowels, while at the same time he substitutes s for soft c ; so
that he writes " hens" for both hence and hens, " sins" for since
and sins, " peers" for pierce and peers, etc. ; (') also " notis" by
the side of " difficultis," with " present " and " critiseis " as com-
panions to " preseis " (precise). Yet this correspondent of mine,
who is not an unknown reformer, fancies that such spelling would
serve the purposes of the Reform better than Mr Pitman's or
Mr Ellis's more consistent use of new or old letters respectively.
He writes " won or to," as an introduction to the established " one
or two," leaving it for some third notation in a pronouncing
dictionary to inform the inquiring Englishman or foreigner how
the words should be actually pronounced. The new spelling
here would be more offensive to most readers than Mr Pitman's
new-letter torn or t%, his old-letter wnn or tic, Mr Ellis's Europic
ween or tuu, or his Dimidian wun or too ; yet the spelling " won
or to " would not indicate pronunciation, while any one of the
others would.
It is worth while remarking here that mere " simplification of
spelling," as it is termed, by omitting, without the guidance of a
definite and consistent plan, what may be considered " useless
letters " in a word, does not necessarily constitute improvement.
The American Association's rule for dropping the second of dou-
bled final consonants gives us " hardines " (hardiness) by the
side of " sardines," and makes the revised spelling of " needles(s)"
This list might be almost indefinitely extended
els = else, ells
pens=pence, pens
duns = dunce, duns
w<ms=once, ones
dens = dense, dens
tens = tense, tens
lauls := false, falls
1*
spars = sparse, spars
scairs = scarce, scares
foars= force, fours
I course |
coars = i > 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
ape<rans
radher
tieps
eutierly
by
chois
maid
imply
ecsecuetiv
dhay
may
reewier
ilustraishon ilustraishon ilustrai'shen iloestreishon ilcestreeshcen itastrcshon
asosiaishon asoasiashon asoasiai shon asousieislion asobsieeBhcen asofiejon
dheez tbeaz dheez dhiiz dhiiz djz
skeemz skeamz skeemz skiimz skiimz skjmz
2. Butterfil
3. Ellis
(Glossic)
4. Union
5. Ellis
(luropik)
6. Pitman
Heer
Heer
Hiir
Hiir
? ir
thair
dbair
dtser
dheer
der
few
feu
flw
fin
fin
may
mai
mey
mee
me
be
bi (bee)
bi
bi
b i ,
found
found
faund
faund
found
euzeual
euzheuel
yiuzhual
iuzhiual
yujual
leav
leev
liiv
liiv
Ijv
no
noa
no
noh
no-
room
room
ruum
ruum
mm
dout
dout
daut
daut
dout
thair
dhair
dheir
dheer
der
pronunsiai-
proanun-
proncensiei-
pror.censiee-
pronunsic-
shon
siai'shen
shou
sheen
jon
queit
kweit
kwait
kwait
kweit
we
wee
wi
wi
w i
shoor
shoor
shuur
ehuur
lur
our
our
aur
aur
our
now
nou
naw
nan
nou
propoazd
proapoa'zd
propouzd
propohzd
properzd
moast
moast
tuoust
jnohst
most
seutabel
seutabl
siutabl
siutabl
siutabel
employ
emploi -
employ
emploi
emploi
staitment
staitment
steitment
steetment
stctment
sho
shoa
show
shoh
K
nateur
naiteur
neitiur
neetiur
netrur
vairius
vairrius
varices
veerices
veri?s
propoazalz
proapoa"zel
zpropouzalz
propohzalz
properzalz
aulredy
aulred'i
aolredy
oolr^di
olredi
maid
maid
meid
meed
mtd
conveani-
konvee'n-
konviini-
konviin-
kouvjnientlt
ently
yentli
ently
yentli
each
eech
iieh
iieh
K
ortho'epy
aurthoa'epi
orthonepy
orthohipi
orthoepi
author
auther
aothor
oother
othor
so
soa
so
soh
8<T
oanly
oanli
ounly
ohnly
onli
cheaf
cheef
cluif
chiit'
chjf
points
mclooded
points
points
points
points
inkloo'ded
inkluuded
inklunded
inklu,ded
law
lau
lao
loo
lo
clear
kleer
kliir
kliir
kiir
ey
ei
ay
ai
ei
aibel
aibl
eibl
eebl
£bel
apearans
apeerrens
apiirans
apiirans
a pi vans
rather
raadher
raadher
raadher
ri.'ter
teips
teips
taips
taips
teips
enteirly
enteirly
en t airly
entairli
enteirli
bey
bei
bai
bai
bei
chois
chois
chois
cbois
chois
maid
maid
meid
meed
med
impley
iinplei
implay
implai
imple
ecsekeutiv
ei;zek'eutiv ekzekiutiv
egzekiutiv
ekzekiutiv
thay
dhai
dhey
dhee
de
may
mai
mey
mee
me
requeir
rikweir
rekwair
rikwair
rekweir
30
There are 58 words cited in this table containing 60 undis-
puted long or diphthongal sounds. Scheme I retains the pre-
sent spelling in 20 cases out of the 60, but at the expense of
using two or three different symbols for each sound, and of
allowing several of the symbols to represent diverse sounds,
often in an arbitrary way, which would entail the memorizing of
spelling and pronunciation. Scheme 2 preserves 21 out of
the 60 spellings, but also at the expense of employing duplicate
and triplicate representations, the use of the triplicates at least
being arbitrary (as in " na'teur, aibel "), and involving the
learning of spellings. Scheme 3 is the only existing rigidly
consistent notation founded on an "English" basis, and it
retains 7 out of the 60 spellings. Scheme 4 which Mr Sweet
considers as effecting " a return to the original Roman values "
keeps 8 symbols of the old orthography unaltered, chiefly by the
help of regulated final duplicates. Scheme 5 which has no
duplicate representation, keeps only 2 old symbols ; but Scheme
6, also using only one sign for each sound, retains 5 symbols of
the common spelling. If we leave out of account the signs oi
and on (the former used alike in all the schemes, and the latter
not peculiar to " English " values), we find, that while the
strict systems (Nos. 5 and 6) founded on general values retain
no old symbol fur the other two dipthongs or the six long vowels,
a rather less rigid scheme of the same character preserves 6,
and a thoroughly consistent scheme based on " English " values
only 2. We find also that schemes 1 and 2, the former of which
often fails, to indicate sound with certainty, while both would
require numerous spellings to be memorized, only preserve
respectively 15 and 16 of the existing spellings out of 55.
We may further deduct the sounds in " pa/m," and " show,"
which must be represented by some a and osign respectively in ei-
ther " English " or " Continental " schemes, and likewise the sound
in "law," which is peculiarly English, and therefore does not
come into the controversy. If we restrict our attention to the
five sounds in "may, he, room, types, few" which are the essen-
tial ones, and especially the first two, in this inquiry, we shall
find that of the " Continental" schemes, Nos. 5 and 6 retain no
old spellings for these sounds, and No 4 only 2 (" dhey, dheir"),
while of the "English" schemes, No. 3 preserves I ("room");
No. 2 keeps 10 (" few, may, be, leav, room, we, each, clear, ey,
may"); and No. 1 retains 8 (" few, may, be, room, we, by, imply,
may "). We must consider, however, that two arbitrary forms
("be, we," instead of " bee, wee,") reduces No. 2 to 8 genuine
retentions of old symbols, and five such forms (" few, be, we, by,
imply," for " fue, bee, wee, bie, implie") bring No. 1 down to
3 legitimate retentions. This, then, is the result of the analysis,
that out of 40 recurrences of the five sounds now in question,
the old symbols may be retained from 3 to 8 times by basing a
31
reformed representation on "English" values, while they may
be retained in 2 instances by a scheme founded on " Continental "
values, by similarly using final duplicate signs. Therefore, as
regards the preservation of the "familiar appearance of the
printed page," a spelling founded on the ascription of phonetic
values to the ancient signs which have become coincident with
sounds of modern development, would have very little ad-
vantage over a spelling based on original values ; for the reader
should here be reminded that the long sounds occur only in one
syllable out of five. We have in the table 60 syllables containii g
long sounds, and there are in the paragraph from which the
examples are taken 297 syllables, which numbers confirm the
estimate already made on other data. It follows, that by using
duplicate and triplicate representation, by adopting arbitrary
spellings, and by sacrificing phonetic certainty, we may effect
retention of symbols in 20 syllables out of 300 ; whereas, if we
spell consistently with " English " digraphs, the effect may be
to retain only 7 actual spellings out of 300.*
The reason for this state of things is readily explained. By
far the most frequent symbols coincident, in the common spelling,
with the vowel-sounds in the initial syllables of " fovor, fever,
f/nal, focus, fidure," are the letters a, e, 7, 0,11, themselves, either
with or without a final mute e following. The digraf at, as
coincident with the first sound is of much rarer occurrence than
its final variety ay, and is only one of several symbols (as e-e,
ea, ei, eigh, ey) now coincident with the same sound but repre-
senting different original ones. The digraph ee, though nearly
always equivalent to ancient and modern long e, is restricted to
certain positions, and is even considerably less used than ea in
connection with the same sound. There is no real digraph
commonly used as equivalent to long i. The digraph oa is
confined to close syllables in a few dozens of words. The digraph
eu is almost restricted to Greek derivatives, and its companion
* Since the above was published in the Phonetic Journal, it has been
conceded to me by Mr Ellis that the use of such symbols as the < .loss!.:
digraphs would imt retain existing actual spellings to any considerable
extent ; but still he insists that ai, ee, oa, 00, etc., would be the most
"suggestive" representations for new spellings. No doubt, they would
be often TOO SUGGESTIVE. In the minds of present readers, such digraphs
are generally more intimately connected with significance than with
sound ; and the leveling-down of all our monosyllabic homonyms by
means of any old digraphs would suggest associations of ideas which would
be either bewildering or ludicrous, and sometimes both. It appears to me
that such would be the effect, in newspaper columns, or on placards, shop
tickets, notice boards, bills of fare, &c, of lines like the following : —
" Short See Root too dhe Continent ; Redeust Fairs ; Extensiv Sail ov
American Meet ; Grait Pedestrian Feet ; Hoam Brood Ail ; Pay heer for
aul Peerz ; Entrans for Mail Paishents ; Jugd Hair; Pail Ail on Draft ;
Eny Seiz Maid too Order; Smoodh Boar Reiflz ; Drauing Room Sweet
for Sail; Ingglish Groan Pairz;" and so on, to an extent that would
hardly be imagined by any one who had not been in the habit of mentally
turning such announcements into various styles of phonetic spelling.
32
eiv-to a score or two of Saxon words. As for ie, oe, and ue, they
are not digraphs at all, but only fortuitous combinations, caused
by the succession to a radical long i, o, or u, of a terminational e
that has in many cases become silent. (Compare dies,dieth, diest,
goes, goeth, goest, etc.) It therefore very naturally happens, that,
in the test paragraph of the Spelling Reform Association,
neither Mr. Ellis's (Glossic) ai, ee, ei, oa, eu, nor Mr. Jones's ai,
ee, ie, oe, ue (which are his alphabet symbols), occur once in the
old spelling of the paragraph, in transliterating which the former
are used 48, and the latter 31 times. Indeed, of the ten Glossic
vowel-digraphs supposed by many persons to be characteristically
English symbols, only oi and on can be considered as special
representatives of sounds in the current-spelling (and 011 is often
equivocal, as in " foul, soul, youth, young ") ; ai, ee, an, oa, 00,
are not written in that spelling, on the average, once out of ten
times that their ascribed sounds occur in the language (each of
these four literal combinations being also coincident with other
sounds) ; while aa, ei, eu are acknowledged by Mr. Ellis, in his
" Dimidian " pamphlet, to be virtually new signs in English.
As for Mr. Jones's ie, oe, ue, these juxtaposed' letters are every-
where disyllabic in the established spelling, except where the e
has become mute in the terminations e, es, and ed, and except also
medial ie as in "piece, field"; they would suggest disyllabic
sound in a new spelling (as " spiest, goest, induest," for spiced,
ghost, induced) ; and they would have to be used still in hundreds
of cases for disyllabic as well as for monosyllabic sound.*
It is evident, therefore, that there are no specially appropriate,
thoroughly available, obviously suggestive, and generally ac-
ceptable symbols for the English long and diphthongal vowel-
sounds ; nor should this appear suprising when it is considered
that these sounds have mostly been developed since the
orthography was fixed, in substitution for distinctly different
sounds which the orthographic symbols were intended to
represent. Now, I have no hesitation in saying, for my own
part, that if every Old English A-sound (as in "hart, half, hat")
had given place to an E-sound (as in " hare, hate, any"), and if
every Old English E-sound (as in break, tlwe, b<?d") had been
superseded by an I-sound (as in " wt-ak, h<fre, pretty "), or even
if the great majority of the sounds had severally been so changed,
I should think it a question well worthy of consideration
whether we ought not to recognise and establish a and e as the
English representatives of the general E and I typical sounds.
I have found, however, not as taking a prejudiced partisan view
of this matter, but in fairly and patiently trying by ample
experiment to work out the problem of spelling reform from a
thoroughly English point of view — that four times out of five
the letters a, e, i, 0, u, are still required for their old typical values
* See pamphlet "English Digraphs:" — F. Pitman, London.
33
in representing short sounds ; that we have no generally-
prevalent, available, appropriate, and acceptable symbols on the
a, g, o bases that we can substitute for the signs in " th«re, great,
fete, pear — piece, pzque, capn'ce, manne — r«de, trae, pradent,
crew"; that even if we were prepared to tolerate "thair, grait,
fait, pair— pees, peek, caprees, rriareen — rood, troo, proodent,
croo," with in each case a supersession of a typically right by a
typically wrong symbol, we should still have the problem
before us of re-spelling, on this perverse principle, geographical
names, and hundreds of frequently-occurring foreign words ; and
that we should be perpetuating and regularizing incongruity in
the representation of related sounds, to the detriment of all
posterity that might submit to use such a patched-up orthography.
Without wishing to force upon any one convictions which in
my own mind are the result of anxious consideration and
practical experience, I would ask those reformers who may have
accompanied me so far in my disquisitions, to follow out in their
own minds, and as far as practicable by actual experiment in
writing and printing, any style of reform short of the whole
change that is necessary, limited only by what is practicable ;
and to examine candidly for themselves whether any plan of
reform not thorough in its extent and character would be worth
the trouble of change, would stand any chance of success, or
would indeed deserve to succeed. We complain of our ancestors
for not altering their spelling as they changed their pronun-
ciation, so as to use letters and represent sounds appropriately
and intelligibly in the written language. They have left us a
great heritage of incongruity, either to endure for our time and
pass it on, or to rectify for the benefit of posterity. The tangle
of our spelling is not yet beyond the practicability of unravelment
by careful and patient endeavour ; but if we now limit ourselves
to partial and make-shift endeavours at supposed improvements,
we shall leave behind us a worse legacy of difficulty than we
have received, and one less capable of future remedial treatment.
3. — How the Reform may be obtained. — Supposing the difficulty
to be overcome of settling the general character and the essential
details of a phonetically re-constructed orthography for our
language — as it may be overcome by careful and candid inves-
tigation and consideration — the difficulty will still remain of
procuring the public adoption of the new spelling. It is of no
use for us to ignore or underrate this difficulty. Some persons
appear to assume, that a great nation, like ours, with an enormous
literature, a wide-spread and ever-active Press, a multitude of
legislative or legal documents, and a vast amount of business or
general correspondence, might be willing and able to cast off its
effete orthography and adopt a renovated one as readily as a
person doffs an old coat and puts on a new one. But the cases
are widely different, even if we apply the comparison only to a.
34
single individual. It is part of the general routine of life for a
person to discard worn-out garments, and supply their places by
fresh ones ; but to most men or women a change in their cus-
tomary mode of expressing ideas by the pen would be as difficult
as overcoming some ingrained mental habit or personal manner-
ism. Artificial and irrational as is our mode of expressing, or
pretending to express, our speech on paper, yet reading and
writing after the current fashion become gradually a part of our
second nature. When the most incongruous written words
become familiar by the practice of. reading and writing, the
ordinary mind comes to accept them as integers, and no more
analyses and criticises the literal forms of which they are made
up, than it does the several strokes which enter into the compo-
sition of a letter.
We should not therefore be surprised that many people are
impervious to all arguments or representations respecting the
inconsistent fashion of representing our language in writing.
There are persons whose whole mental capacity in regard to this
subject has been exhausted in learning to read and write the
current orthography in an indifferently tolerable manner, and
who, with respect to any further study or examination of the
nature and use of letters, remind one of the man who " didn't
know, and didn't want to know, but liked to be nice and ignorant."
What makes Englishmen appear to be specially obtuse in this
matter, is, that the more they have learned of the supposed
properties of letters exclusively in their own language and in the
established orthography, the more they have to unlearn before
they can appreciate the use of letters in another language, or in
an improved notation of their own. Even the study of Latin or
Greek, with the corrupt Anglican pronunciation, has comparatively
little effect in cultivating an appreciation of the original and
legitimate nature of alphabetical writing. But still there are
two influences which have done a good deal in recent times to
render considerable classes of our population sensible of the
incongruity of the established English orthography — namely,
the increased attention given to the acquisition of modern lan-
guages, and the wide diffusion of Phonography as a means of
business and private correspondence, and even of literary com-
munication. There are also persons of a naturally analytical
turn of mind who, even without knowing anything of any other
fashion of alphabetical writing, are capable of discerning the
incoherence of their own. Teachers in primary schools, if they
have any logical faculty, are especially likely to perceive the
irrational character of the modern written representation of our
language.
Since, however, there are only a minority, even of readers and
writers, thoroughly capable of appreciating the orthographic
incubus which impedes education and literary culture in this
35
country, we can hardly expect the whole nation suddenly to
submit to inconvenience and expense in changing the current
style of writing and printing. What we may indeed anticipate
in regard to present readers and writers, is a pretty considerable,
if in the aggregate comparatively restricted, employment of are-
formed spelling in correspondence and in printing which is under
the special control of authors or associations. If such a limited
use were made for a few years of one common and consistent
style of reformed spelling, varying only as to new or old letter re-
presentations, — and if a number of learned and eminent men set
the example of thus using an improved orthography, the result
would doubtless be, to cause a considerable increase of interest
in the subject of spelling reform, to induce reflection upon it,
and to remove unreasoning prejudices. But, do what we will in
this way, it is to be feared that the bulk of our present adult
population will not be conciliated to the reform further than to
acknowledge that it would be well if an improved spelling could
be introduced for the benefit of posterity. Most persons possess-
ing the means of receiving and communicating ideas already
in the old spelling, which has cost them so much to learn, would
shrink from the idea of familiarizing themselves with another
means, without any individual necessity for doing so.
It is therefore to the young that we should principally direct
our attention and energies for the introduction of spelling
reform. Little children, just entering upon school life, have nc
prejudices in regard to the shapes of letters or the appearance of
written or printed word-forms. What it is essential for us to
keep in view with regard to any system of orthographic repre-
sentation intended for them, is that it should be intrinsically at
least equally sightly and distinctive in appearance to the old
spelling. It is not difficult to fulfil the former condition, seeing
how many ugly word-forms are unnecessarily employed in our
books, as "through, brightly, symphony, physiology," which
appear perfectly barbarous to most foreigners on a first intro-
duction to them ; and as for the latter condition, if we provide
a few additional literal forms to be discriminated by children,
we may at least relieve them on their first acquaintance with
letters from the embarrassment produced by outlines so liable to
confusion as "ce, pq." In fact, the task has been achieved of
providing an enlarged alphabet as sightly and as distinctive in
its letter-forms as the old Roman alphabet, and producing
intrinsically as neat and clear notation as that in common use.
The new letters of which some persons complain as unsightly,
indistinctive, and dazzling to the eyes, will to children be no
more nor less so than the letters of the common alphabet, which
are all new to beginners in learning, and doubtless often appear
as unsightly to them as they are found to be indistinctive and
dazzling. It is simply want of familiarity with new letters
36
which makes them look as uncouth to many Englishmen as our
"k, w, y" do to Italians.
I shall not attempt here to set forth the evidence that phonetic
spelling can be effectively and economically used in teaching
children to read the old orthography, while imparting to them a
correctness of pronunciation and a distinctness of articulation
which, without such a means of instruction, can only be ensured
by the laborious efforts of a competent teacher. If we recognise
that it is a part of the work of primary education, and an
important part of it too, to train children in the received
pronunciation of the language, it is expedient that we should
employ a phonetic system of spelling for this special purpose
during the earlier years of schooling. Many persons, who have
no idea of establishing a phonetic form of spelling for common
national use, and who would even regard such a reform as Utopian
and impracticable, are in favour of giving children (and even
their instructors) a guide to pronunciation in the form of an
interlinear notation phonetically expressing the words signified
by the common orthography. This would, in effect, be no more
than transferring to the reading-book, word by word, the ex-
planatory notation of a pronouncing dictionary, and thus making
the latter more available and effective than when only used for
occasional reference, chiefly after the primary stages of instruction,
when vicious habits of pronunciation have been formed. But
a child cannot profit by such a pronouncing-key unless he has
been familiarized with its nature and use. To impose on him
the study of two notations from the first would be merely to
confuse his mind ; and the natural process would certainly be, to
commence with the simpler and more consistent spelling to be
used in interpreting the other.
It might seem advisable to point to analogous means of
training generally used in teaching other mental or physical
arts, especially when they are difficult or intricate. But the fact
is, that there is scarcely any subject of instruction strictly an-
alogous to that of teaching to read and write the English
language in its common spelling. In music, it is certainly the
practice to teach the scale and simple combinations of notes
before putting the pupil to sing a tune ; in drawing, straight
lines and curves are taught before the student is introduced to
more complicated forms ; in arithmetic, whole numbers are dealt
with by the learner before he proceeds to vulgar and decimal
fractions. But it may be said that the same sort of process is
already followed out in teaching to read, as the detached letters
of the alphabet are first taught, and then simple combinations of
them, the pupil being gradually led on to more difficult forms.
But such is not the case in reality. A child that has scarcely
learned to distinguish the letters at all readily is immediately
put to spell " n-o, no" («a), "t-o, to" (/z<), "o-n, on" (#«;,
37
"s-o-n, son" (ssn), and so on, with ever-varying and perplexing
changes in the sounds with which the written symbols are
coincident, because he is learning, not the notation of the
language he speaks, but that of an older pronunciation of the
language, where such notation ever had a phonetically represen-
tative character. Now, the employment of phonetic spelling as
a stepping-stone to the current spelling simply means the
teaching of a child the use of letters in the simple and consistent
notation of present spoken language, before introducing him to
their incongruous employment in a notation that has become
altogether arbitrary and complicated. The art of reading
alphabetic notation is in itself easily and speedily taught, when
not complicated by artificial difficulties; and it has "been proved
by varied experiments that it is more expeditious to teach the
simple art first ; and when a pupil has become used to recognizing
readily groups of letter-forms as constituting words, to transfer
him to the arbitrary notation, so long as there is any need for
this to be learned at school.
It is obvious that a general resemblance or correspondence
between the introductory consistent orthography and the arbitrary
one subsequently to be learned will facilitate the process of
transition ; but much reflection on the subject has led me to the
conclusion that diversity is often better for the pupil than partial
and misleading similarity. As an instance, I do not think it
would be profitable to the learner to become thoroughly familiar-
ized with the form " c " only as coincident with the sound in " cat,"
and then to be transferred to a notation in which it is also very
frequently coincident with the sounds in "city, vicious." So, it
would probably only tend to mislead the pupil if he were taught
for a considerable period to read c/i, au, as in "arch, laud,"
because he would be apt to import the same sounds into
"architect, vaunt," in the old spelling. For this reason I think the
new letters g, o preferable for elementary instruction with a view
to transition to the current spelling. For school purposes, at all
events, there would be no difficulty whatever in employing an
extended alphabet, while the advantages afforded by it have
been sufficiently demonstrated. There are plenty of instruction-
books already in existence to make a fair beginning in this
manner of using phonetic spelling. But if a modified orthography
or differently-constructed lesson-books were deemed necessary,
writers, publishers, and printers would soon supply a demand for
school-books when it once arose. Editions of such books run
often to hundreds of thousands, and the cost of type or
typographic composition would be a trifling item spread over
such numbers. No such consideration as typographical difficulty
or expense prevents now the production of books on the phonic
system, with numerous special types for marking sound within
the old spelling. We only want to use such appliances apart
38
from that spelling, and in connection with a simpler one, intended
in the first instance for its interpreter.
The one thing needed is to obtain the introduction of a
phonetic orthography for school use. When even one generation
of children have been brought up in the appreciation of truthfully
representative spelling, we shall have many thousands of reformers
added to our ranks. And how long will it take to commence an
indefinite multiplication of spelling reformers, to train readers
who will demand phonetically-printed books by preference ?
Well, from the moment of starting with the youngest pupils just
put to school, until these should come out into the world as
readers and buyers of books and periodicals, there would only be
a period of some eight years to wait. And following continually
upon the children who commenced at any particular time in this
course, there would every day be new recruits obtained by the
schools, and by-and-by new phonetic readers turned out into the
working world in constant succession, until they amounted to
such a proportion of the people as to be able to obtain the
establishment of phonetic spelling as a national institution, by
the simple process of demand and supply with regard to books
and periodicals. The process of teaching the old spelling in
schools would go on just so long as it was necessary, and no
longer ; for when parents, who themselves had been trained in
simple, truthful, and consistent alphabetic representation, con-
sidered that there was a sufficiency of books printed in such
representation to supply all their children's needs, they would
require those children to be taught something more profitable
than an antiquated, effete, and incongruous orthography.
To some ardent reformers this mode of practically introducing
phonetic spelling may appear slow and dilatory. They would
perhaps prefer to advocate a sudden, general, and complete
revolution in the national representation of the language. But
such persons have probably never set themselves seriously and
deliberately to consider the enormous difficulties — indeed, the
impossibility — of such a course. It could not be attempted
without converting a large majority of the public to its adoption ;
which means, the inducing of millions of people, who now, for
the most part, know little and care less about phonetic spelling,
to take it up for their own use ; not for any practical benefit
they themselves could derive from it, but for the advantage of
posterity. How far we are now from having a majority of adults
thus able and willing to sacrifice their own convenience in behalf
of future generation's, need not be pointed out. But we may
well set ourselves to consider whether it would not take longer
to make this majority outside of the school than within it. For
a full generation now, spelling reformers have been endeavoring
to disseminate their principles among the adult population
outside of our schools. If they had been at work for the same
39
time teaching in schools the appropriate use of letters and the
truthful representation of speech, they would now have been able
to count their disciples by the million.
Of course, we cannot even get phonetic spelling introduced
into school instruction until we have convinced a majority of
the intelligent public of the advantages to be derived from this
course, or at least of the harmlessness of the experiment. But
this is a very different task from persuading a majority of the
community, including its unintelligent as well as its intelligent
portion, to take up phonetic spelling for their own use. Person-
ally, I have often been able to test the difference of feeling with
regard to these two ways of introducing the reform. Persons of
education and culture have protested to me their individual
incapacity to appreciate or accept a phonetic spelling for them-
selves ; and I particularly remember, at this moment, the earnest
deprecation of a lady versed in several modern languages and
otherwise highly accomplished : " Oh, Mr Evans, you surely do
not mean to send us all to school again, to learn this dreadful
new spelling !" Yet, in all such cases, when I have explained
that my own idea was only to have such spelling taught in
schools, as a ready means of teaching children correct pronuncia-
tion and aptness in the natural use of letters, before transferring
them to the acquisition of the common orthography, and that I
would leave the general national transition to the new spelling
until a generation had grown up able to accept it with facility,
then I have found opposition give place to neutrality, if not to
approbation.
It must not be supposed, however, that I would discourage the
present employment of phonetic writing and printing among
those who appreciate it. It is necessary that we should have
before us the definite ideal at which we are aiming, and we
cannot too soon commence the production of a phonetic literature
for those who will leave school prepared to read it by preference.
And there are many thousands of young people, beyond school
age and school instruction, who would yet be capable of accepting
and appreciating reformed spelling. Among this latter class we
may still find converts to the cause of spelling reform, as they
always have been found among them. And here and there
persons of mature or even advanced age will espouse the improved
mode of representing speech, when they become acquainted with
it. But the bulk of the present generation of adults cannot be
expected to do more than tolerate the introduction of phonetic
teaching into schools. Nor should we want them to do more.
If we could force reformed spelling on unwilling and incapable
recipients of it, we should only succeed in bringing discredit on
the movement, and might cause a reaction which would defeat
our own object. The spelling reformers of this day should
regard themselves as men planting trees for the benefit of pos-
40
terity. They may have the satisfaction of seeing the saplings live,
and thrive, and grow in their own lifetime ; but the actual enjoy-
ment of the timber, the fruit, or the pleasant shade, they must
be content to leave to their successors in the land. The planting
of phonetic spelling in the genial soil of the school will be one
more exemplification of men repaying to posterity their indebt-
edness for improvements handed down from a continued line of
ancestors — one more exertion of the laudable endeavor to leave
the world better than they found it.
In the following two passages, extracted from the new edition of
Professor Max Midler's essay " On Spelling," which has lately been
issued in graduated Phonotypy (London, F. Pitman), the eminent
author defines from opposite sides what is at once requisite and prac-
ticable in popular spelling reform. This specimen of Phonotypy con-
tains all the new letters (13) that are required for a complete reform
of our spelling.
It meit bj sed, dat Mr Pitman'z sistem, bjirj enteirli femetik, iz tq
radikal a reform, and dat meni and de wsrst irregiularitiz in IijgliJ
spelirj kud bj remqvd widout gem) kweit so- far. 3e prinsipel, dat hef a
lerf iz beter dan no bred, iz not widout asm trqct, and in meni kesez wj
nw dat a polisi ov kompromeiz haz bjn prodsktiv ov veri gud rezslts.
Bst, on de sder hand, dis hef-harted polisi haz often retarded a rjal
and koinpljt reform ov ekzistirj abiusez ; and in de kes ov a reform in
speliij, ei almost dout hweder de difiksltiz inhjrent in hef mejurz
ar not az gret az de difiksltiz ov kariiij a kompljt reform. If de wsrld
iz not redi for reform, let ss wet. It sjmz far beter, and at all events
far merr onest, tu wet til it iz redi, dan tu kari de relsktant wsrld wid
yq a litel we, and den tu feind dat de impslsiv ferrs iz spent, and de
greter part ov de abiusez establijt on fermer ground dan ever.
Hwot ei leik in Mr Pitman'z sistem ov spelirj iz ekzaktli hwot ei
ne haz bin found folt wid bei sderz — nemli, dat hj dsz not atempt tu
refein tq msc,, and tu ekspres in reitirj doz endles Jedz ov pronsnsie-
Jon, hwic, me bj ov de gretest interest tu de stiudent ov akoustiks, or
ov fenetiks, az apleid tu de stsdi ov liviq deialekts, bst hwiq for prak-
tikal az wel az for seientifik filolojikal psrposez, msst bj enteirli
igncrrd. Reitirj woz never intended tu fotograf sperken laggwejez : it
woz ment tu indiket, not tu pent, soundz. If Voltaire sez, "L'ecri-
ture e'est la peinture de la voix," hj iz reit; bst hwen hj gerz on tu
se, " Plus elle est ressemblante, meilleure elle est," ei am not serten
dat, az in a piktiur ov a landskep, prj-Refeleit miniiitnes meit not
destroi de veri objekt ov de piktiur. Larjgwej djlz in brod kslorz,
and reitirj ot tu fole- de ekzampel ov larjgwej, hwiq, der it alouz an
endles vareieti ov pronsnsiejon, restrikts itself for its em pxrpos, for
de psrpos ov ekspresirj clot in ol its modifikejonz tu a veri limited
nsmber ov tipikal vouelz and konsonants. — On Spelit), pp. 19 and 37.
Printed by Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Bath.
[Price U. [2d. per dozen.
DR J. H. MURRAY
ON
SPELLING KEFOBM
From the Annual Address (1880) of the President of the
Philological Society.
While traditional scholarship clings to traditional absurdity,
science says if we would understand the structure and history of
any language, we must first rind out what that language (" tongue-
action ") actually was, what were the living utterances of which
the symbols cado cecidi, 'Itjo-oD Iesu were merely the pictures ?
And satisfied with nothing short of this, science has a favorable
regard for every improvement by which the symbols can be made
with greater clearness and certainty to convey the living facts.
Moreover, the discovery of the value of popular and unwritten
dialects — specimens of language in its natural living form in
revealing the processes of speech- formation and growth, in
operation around us, and the impossibility of recording or con-
veying to any one these dialect facts and phenomena without a
minute analysis of sounds, and an accurate notation as its instru-
ment, have made phonetic, that is to say truthful, notation abso-
lutely necessary to every student of language. And so philo-
logists who once, according to their lights, 1 looked askance at
proposals to alter the spellings of words which in their
"picturesque irregularities" spoke to them of the dilapidations of
centuries, have come to see that it is only truthful representation
which can hand down true history, and to sympathise with all
attempts (the difficulties of which they certainly know better than
any one else) to extend this truthful representation to existing
languages.
i. Seethe "light" of five-and-twenty years ago, in the tone in which
phonetic spelling is depreciated by our own colleague, Archbishop French
in his " English Past and Present," Lecture viii., a chapter which, in the
interests of science as well as of education, we hope to see cancelled if
not reversed, by the author in a new edition.
How this has been already done in Dutch and Spanish is well
known. "Within the last year also some practical steps have
been taken with regard to German. As every one knows,
German is exceedingly well represented in writing, almost every
symbol or combination of symbols having a fixed value, so that
there is hardly any difficulty in reading the written language.
But there are several cases in which the same sound has several
signs, so that spelling is by no means so certain ; and this is the
imperfection for the removal of which German scholars are now
exerting themselves.
In the United States the question has been practically raised
in connection with the large number of illiterate persons revealed
by the Census, and the realisation of the exorbitant proportion
of the learning time of youth that is spent in the mere mastery
of the clumsy tool of the current spelling. Our American cousins
are above all practical ; moreover, they wish to have their whole
people educated as highly as possible : they have no dread of
" over-educating the masses," and making them " unfit for their
position ;" and the question of how to do this with the greatest
economy of time has become an intensely practical one ; on all
hands the cry is that the radical evil is in the writing itself, which
ought to be made regular and phonetic. The philologists have
concurred in this feeling, and an Association has been formed to
devise a satisfactory spelling with an extended alphabet, as well
as to suggest such partial changes in the right direction as may be
immediately put in practice. Several of the State Legislatures
have taken the matter up, and it does not require much prescience
to see that, whether England does so or not, the Americans will
ere long adopt an amended spelling. And as the United States
will possess before the end of this century a population of one
hundred millions, and be the centre of gravity of the English-
speaking world, it is clear that their action in this matter is big
with issues for the English of the future.
But England is stirring, in a slow, lumberly, and timorous
fashion. Here also the matter has become a practical one in
connection with education, and the waste of national resources
incurred in the attempt to make child after child commit to
memory the 20,000 contradictory facts of our present spelling.
You are aware of the memorial presented to the Education
Department by 130 School Boards praying for a Royal Com-
mission in the matter, of the action of the Social Science
Association in passing resolutions in favor of reformation, and
in especial of the use of an alternative spelling for the purposes of
instruction, and of the formation of a Spelling Reform Associa-
tion to advance the movement. The Association has recently
made a collection of proposed schemes of Spelling Reform, as a
first step, it may be presumed, towards uniting suffrages, if
possible, in favour of that which seems most practicable.
My own opinion is that, at present and for a long time to
come, until indeed the general principles of phonography are under-
stood by men of education, no complete or systematic scheme of
Spelling Reform has the least chance of being adopted in this
country, and I do not think that the promulgation or advocacy of
such bears any practical fruit. I wish it were otherwise, but we
must look at facts and existing conditions, and at the lessons of
experience. And r 'the latter seem to me to afford abundant proof
that partial and progressive reforms in accordance with well-
established existing analogies can be introduced and carried
through. The whole history of written language is the record of
such gradual and partial reformation. We know for instance
what was done about 1500 by the systematic application of ea and
ee to distinguish two sounds formerly both expressed by long e,
and the analogous adoption of oa and oo for the two sounds of
long o. And the slightest glance at the orthography of Shakspere,
Bunyan, or a Bible of the seventeenth century, will show even
the most ignorant 2 what an immense amount of spelling reform
has been done since then. Thus, to take at random a single instance,
Ps. 106, (48 verses) as printed in 1611, differs in 116 spellings from
that printed in 1879, and the first chapter of Genesis as now printed
differs in 135 spellings from the sameversion as printed in 1611. One
hundred and thirty-five differences in 3 1 verses ! though the same
version word for word. Yet there are people — some certainly fools
only, but some I fear knaves— who, when spelling reform is men-
tioned, shriek, " You are going to alter our language ! Keep your
uncircumcised hands off the language of Milton, and Shakspere,
and our English Bible! " the fools not knowing, and the knaves
pretending not to know, that the spelling in which they read these
works is already a greatly re-formed spelling, though in more
points than one "improved very much the wrong way." Indeed,
one of the most important spelling-reforms accomplished in
English, which practically resulted in the addition of another
letter to the alphabet 3 was made about L630 ; I refer to the
2. Even the leader-writers in the daily papers, some of whom have lately
been playing the blind leader of the blind to perfection on this point.
Witness the reckless plunges of a writer in the Daily News of ioth Sep-
tember, 1880, and his horror of " being cut adrift from Shakspere, and
.Milton, and Dryden, and Swift, and Burke, under penalty of seeing the
words of these authors transmuted into jargon." As a regular reader of
the Daily News, who was ashamed of the paper that day, I should con-
tribute to a fund to present the editorial staff with a facsimile of the first
folio, or even of Mr Furnivall's quartos, so as to keep them within hailing
distance of Shakspere's own "jargon" (if that be the penny-a-linish for
" different spelling" from which they are already so adrift without know
ing it.
3. For v and u were up to that date only forms of the same letter having
a position-rank, like long/ and short j.
reform in the use of « and v, whereby, in opposition to the usage
of all past ages, u was made a vowel, and v a consonant, so that
" Beuiue vs, saue vs from euil, leaue vs not vnto our selues " was
changed to " Eevive us, save us from evil, leave us not unto our-
selves." It is to be regretted that in thus making v a consonant,
the silent and thenceforth useless 4 e which followed the old u in
leaue, haue, Hue, etc., was not dropped ; and still more that in the
subsequent simplification of the form of /, s, one of the forms
should have been entirely rejected, instead of being economised,
as in u, v, for one of the sounds of s, or used as a character for sh.
But all these instances show that partial reform, even such as
largely alters the familiar appearance of a word, as "salver" for
"faluer," has been, and may again be, accomplished ; and I am
convinced that if a well-considered series of such partial reforms
were prepared and recommended in successive stages to the
public, a great deal might be done, not merely to remove the
most glaring anomalies in the spelling at present current, but to
prepare the public mind ultimately for the consistent application
of phonetic principles.
It seems to me, therefore, that the Philological Society, repre-
senting the English scholarship of the country, might very
properly respond to the numerous appeals made to it from Britain
and America, to make some declaration on the subject, by pre-
paring and issuing a list of amended spellings recommended for
use instead of those at present employed. Mr. Sweet is now
engaged on a work which gives him special facilities of comparing
whole classes of symphonic words with each other and their
earlier forms ; and I think the Society might usefully ask him to
prepare and submit to us a list of the words, the spelling of
which might, with advantage, be altered. In any such first list I
would confine the alterations almost entirely to the omission of
such letters as are both unphonetic and unhistoric, and for which
no so-called etymological plea can be submitted ; including also
a few words of which an older form, familiar to all students of
English literature, might well be substituted for the baser one at
present current.
For example, let us recommend the uniform dropping of final
or inflexional silent c, where it does not serve the now recognised
function of lengthening a vowel, writing, heav, heavs, heavd, hav,
selvs (cf. the pair self, selvs, with tvife, wives, and the consequent
simplification of grammar rules), liv, livs, livd (thus distinguished
from live, lives), heros, potatos (like zeros, tomatos), clcard (like
clears), eatn (like torn), fastn (so distinct from hasten), showd
4. Up to that time it had a meaning, giving the spelling-rule, " u final
is a vowel, but u before a vowel is a consonant ;" when the consonant was
written v , the following e was no longer needed to distinguish it.
pairing with shown, praid, plaid, as already in laid, lain. Along
with these let us recommend the restoration of the historical -t
after breath consonants, which printers during the past century-
have industriously perverted to -cd, writing fetcld, blusht, pickt,
drest, winkt, like Shakspere, and Herbert, and Milton, and
Addison, and as we actually do in lost, past, left, felt, meant,
burnt, blest, taught. Laughed, for laught, is not a whit less
monstrous than taitghed, soughed, would be for taught, sought ;
nor is worked for workt less odious than wroughcd would be for
wrought. The use of double consonants ought to be regulated,
and such bad spellings as traveller, and reveller, which seem to
rhyme with propeller, corrected to Shakspere's traveler, reveler.
With final e, ue also ought to be discarded in demagog, catalog,
where it is equally false to etymology and phonology ; and of course
the final -e in words like doctrin (cf. Latin), favorit (cf. merit),
facil (cf. civil). The termination of the agent -our should be
uniformly levelled to -or (which is Old French), as already done
in so many words like author, doctor, senator, orator (all of
which are adoptions from French, not from Latin). Where this
termination has an English verb to support it, there would
indeed be good reason to write it -er, as in sailer, vender, acter.
The combination ea, when it has the sound of e short, might
always be written e, as in welth, helth, red (pa. t. like led, sped),
sted, ded, dremt (cf. feel, felt, dream, dremt), for though some of
these accidentally answer to O.E. ea, they were all e in Middle
English, and ea which they have now is a relic of the spelling
reform of the beginning of the sixteenth century, when M.E. e
was split up into ea and ce. Now that so many have gone back to
a sound which then as now would have been written with e, simple
e ought to be restored. In the same way friend would become
frend ; and indeed all the long icz might take the ee of the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuries, as feeld, peece, cheef, beleev, and
the same with ei in conceev, receev ; in none of these is the i
original as regards English. The M.E. o, a mere temporary pis-
oiler for historical u before u ( = v) m, n, ( 3 ) is an expedient no
longer needed, so that sum, cum, tung, luv, abuv, wun, wunder,
wunt, could be restored to their native English form (0 .E, sum
cum, tunge, lufe, abufe, wunnen, ivundor, wunod), before Norman
cacographers spelled them with o. Where o has passed into the
sound of oo, it was so written in 1611, and ought to be so again
in moov, proov (like proof), behoov, (behoof) ; we already write
groove. Add to these, which are some of the obvious points to be
5. The similarity in MS. of 11 and n, and of uu to un, nu, mi, im, etc.,
gave rise to the writing rule, " Never use 11 before u ( = v), n, m, but make a
shift with the next nearest vowel o." Hence when O.E. diifa became M.E.
ditve (dune), the rule necessitated its being written dime, but sounded duve.
The genuine modern form is dnv. In coney iox cuni, andsometimes in zcont
(wunt), behove (behuvej, this has corrupted the pronunciation and changed
the word.
corrected at once, a more extended use of a in the body of words,
as chozen, like frozen, praize, raize, like blaze, glaze, graze, (cf. glass,
glaze, grass, graze,) without at present touching on the inflexional
-s, leavs, ways, grows, which does not present a serious practical
difficulty, and the correction of some of the worst individual
monstrosities, as foreign, sovereign, scent, island, scythe, rhyme,
scissors, ache, debt, doubt, people, parliament, court, would, sceptic
(foren, sovren, sent, iland, sythe, rime, cisors or sisors (etymol.
cisos, Fr. ciseaux), ake, det, dout, peple, parlament, cort, woud,
skeptic (cf. skeleton), and we should have a fair beginning which
science could support, and only prejudice— yet, alas ! how great
that only — could oppose.
I think that if a list of corrections following these principles
generally were prepared and offered to the public on the authority
of the Philological Society, it would soon commend itself in
whole or part to the common sense of Englishmen ; its adoption
would cure a number of the worst of our present deformities, and,
what is far more important, it would recall men to a consideration
of the natural function of spelling, breaking down the prevalent
delusion that the current fashion of symbolising a word is the
word itself, whose identity is to be preserved at any cost, how-
ever the " pronunciation," as the real word is amusingly called,
may change ; recalling people to the fact that the spelling of any
word is not a dogmatic, but a practical question, and encouraging
them to discuss it practically, so as to arrive at the best solution
and so secure greater improvements in the future. Such a list
would probably also secure the adhesion of the philologists of
America, who have already recommended for immediate adoption
some of the points which I have mentioned, and thus preserve
unity among the ranks of those who aim at a perfectly written
English of the future.
I need hardly add that my Dictionary experience has already
shown me that the ordinary appeals to Etymology against spel-
ling reform utterly break down upon examination. The ety-
mological information supposed to be enshrined in the current
spelling is sapped at its very foundation by the fact that it is, in
sober fact, oftener wrong than right, that it is oftener the fancies
of pedants or sciolists of the Renascence, or monkish etymologers
of still earlier times, that are thus preserved, than the truth which
alone is irvfioAoyia. From the fourteenth century onwards, a
fashion swept over French and English of refashioning the
spelling of words over the Latin ones, with which rightly or
wrongly they were supposed to be connected ; and to such an
extent has this gone that it is, in nine cases out of ten, now im-
possible, without actual investigation, to form any correct opinion
upon the history of these words— the very thing which the
current spelling is supposed to tell us. The real history is
recovered only by marshalling the phonetic spellings of earlier
days, as the Philological Society's Dictionary will enable every-
one to do, piercing through the mendacious spellings of later
time3 to the phonetic facts which they conceal or falsify, and thus
reaching a genuine irv/j.o\oyla. The traditional and pseudo-
-etymological spellings of the last few centuries are the direst foes
with which genuine etymology has to contend ; they are the very
curse of the etymologist's labor, the thorns and thistles which
everywhere choke the golden grain of truth, and afford satisfaction
only to the braying asses which think them as good as wheat.
Who could tell from Almoner, that the word was an adoption of
the O.Fr. aumonier, that on English soil it developed as aumoner,
aumener, aumucr, anther ; that this regular form of the six-
teenth century was laid hold of by the pedants, and refurbished
as ahnner, almener, to its present form, and that during the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, it was " etymologically spelled"
as almosner, atdmosiner, aumosner, almoiner, almoigner, almoygner,
and in ten other wonderful ways ? What true history is con-
tained in a series like armarium, armarie, almarie (by differentia-
tion from following r, like peregrinum, pelegrino, pilgrim),
almerie, aulmerie, aumerie (like falta, faulte, fautej, aumry,
aumbry (like slumere, slumber), ambry, (like chaunt, chant), and
how much would be lost had it been constantly written armary
or almery, as we actually sometimes see it ! If anyone would see
how " etymological " spelling has attacked a devoted word, let
him look at the spellings of the word Ambassador, introduced in
the fifteenth century as Embassadour, and becoming with retrac-
tion of accent in sixteenth century embassador, embassader, but
which appears also with the artificial spellings after Er., It., Sp.,
and med. Lat., as ambassiatour, ambassatour, ambassadour,
ambassador, ambassiadour, ambaxatour, embassatour, embassitour,
embasitour, cmbassetour, enbassitour, enbassytour, enbasetore,
enbassatour, inbassetour, embasiatour, embasseatoure, embassytor,
embassitour (e), imbassitor, imbassotor, imbassator, imbasodor ; of
which ambaxatour is the most etymological (coming nearest to
mid. Lat. ambactiator, ambaxiator, and embassader the most trulv
English. The inconsistency of the current ambassador side by
side with embassy, and embassage, is obvious.
Ever since men began to copy and to translate, there has been
a tendency to imitation of the spelling of earlier times or of
earlier languages ; the principle that " the spelling shows the
word" cannot, since 1400 at least, be practically affirmed of any
one spelling : rather is it true that the word can be deduced from
the many spellings which since that period have been used at th9
same time for almost every word. Spelling has regularly lagged
behind pronunciation, for the obvious reason that as the latter
changed, it took time for each change to be recognised as legiti-
mate and respectable, and men went on writing the old form of
the word, while they heard around them, and perhaps themselves
used, even while repudiating, the new. 6 With the very best
spelling it seems to me that this would happen still ; and a con-
sideration of it as one of the practical conditions of all writing
helps us to define in some measure the extent to which phonetics
ought to be practically applied. Spelling will always lag a
certain way behind actual speech, especially the careless, law-
less speech of familiar conversation. In my opinion, therefore,
it is futile to aim at representing this in practical spelling ; let us
aim at providing a means of spelling what men mean to say, aim
at saying, and in measured or formal speech or song do say, not
at the shortcomings which, though inseparable from speech, are
none the less unintentional, and to be discouraged. Every
system of writing, except one on a purely physiological basis,
like Mr. Melville Bell's Visible Speech, must be not merely con-
ventional, but even to some extent inconsistently conventional ;
we shall do well if we can arrive at the stage of writing English
in a way that shall practically represent the ideal of speech to
which all educated Englishmen approximate, though none may
reach it, and which is as far removed from the slurred or
imperfect utterance of the average Londoner (which seems to be
the cynosure that attracts some authors of proposed systems),
as it is from the archaic or even semi-foreign pronunciation of
distant provinces. This bears I think upon such matters as the
representation of the obscure and unaccented vowels ; in this
especially I would refer with approbation to the early phonetic
work of Mr Ellis, and to the principle still maintained by Mr
Pitman (though I differ from him in several of its applications) of
writing the sounds which educated men aim at producing, not at
those which men in a hurry actually succeed in producing. If
the reader aim at the former, he may be trusted always to reach
the latter ; if he aim only at the latter, he will soon fall short
even of them, and want a still newer spelling for his still more
defective utterances. But I have said enough to commend the
question of spelling reform to the careful consideration of the
Society, as well as to indicate my own opinion of its useful
extent, and of the best means of introducing it.
6. The great variety of spelling which one finds in every century has
somewhat altered my opinions on some of the minutiae of English pho-
nology. I should not talk so certainly as once I might have done, on what
was the real M.E. form of any word ; nor would place so much weight as
my friend Mr Sweet for instance might do on the dialectal value of ce in-
stead of e in a word, or on the importance of any isolated spelling. Of
course men tried to write phonetically, but we need not suppose that their
ts were very much more successful than those of ordinary' men trying
to do the same now ; and at all times it is apparent that men thought of
the sense first and the sound after; and that they had no scruple to sacri-
fice exact phonetism, if they could thereby express their sense more dis-
tinctly.
Printed by Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Bath.
y
Price \d.~\ [4^. per dozen.
ENGLISH SPELLING
AND
SPELLING REFORM.
From "Scribner's (United States) Monthly," September, 1879.
It rekweirz no veri klose obzervation ov the seinz ov the teiniz, tii
be aware that reform ov Tnglish orthografi iz rapidli ksinirj tu the
front, az wsn ov the most important ov the meinor kwestionz ov the
day. It iz perfektli korekt tu asert that onli a feu yearz ago, the ssb-
jekt skarseli ekseited eni partikeular interest outseid ov a veri limited
serkel ov skolarz. Ssjestionz ov chanje, ov whotever nateur, wer rareli
even referd tu, save az ilsstrationz ov the harmles lunasi ov krak-
-braind deorists. If they wer spoken ov serissli, it woz nearli alwayz
for the psrpos ov protestig agenst the audasiti and impeieti ov that
fanatisizm which, for the sake ov an eideal perfektion in snimportant
detailz, wud be wilig tu snsetel the veri foundationz ov the langwaje,
and impair, if not enteirli destroi, a sakred legasi from the past,
bound sp for ever whether for gud or evil, with the literateur ov the
rase.
All this iz nou olterd. Within the past feiv yearz, the disksssion ;
ov the kwestion haz aseumd an enteirli diferent karakter. The de- :
mand for reform iz no longer konfeiud tu a feu skaterd skolarz without
iniluens, and euzuali without even so mxch az notoreieti. On the
kontrari it haz ekstended in ssni kasez tu hole klascz. Filolojikal
soseietiz apoint komitiz tu ekzamin and report whot iz best tu be
dsn. Skool boardz petition government tu establish a komission tu
investigate the whole ssbjekt. Nor iz partisipation in the kontro-
versi that haz sprsrj xp limited tu thoze alone who hav a direkt in-
terest in the edeukational aspekts ov the kwestion. Either on wsn
seid or the sther, men ov leterz ov everi grade, and skolarz in everi
department, ar entering for a tilt in the orthografikal tsrnament that
iz nou going on. All this, tu be sure, iz striktli far more true ov
Ingland than ov this ksntri (Amerika), but tu a serten ektent it iz
true ov this.
Whot haz brought about this ssden chanje it iz not so eazi tu
determin. Doutles ther haz been for a log teim a weid dissatisfaktion
with the ekzistig state ov dirjz, although it haz found litel audibel
ekspression. Tu this dissatisfaktion a pouerful impels haz been given
bei the stsdi ov ouv speech in its erlier formz, a stsdi which haz made
its most rapid progres deuring the feu yearz jsst past. The prinsipal
objektionz which prejudis opozez tu chanje hav their forse almost
wholli destroid, when the fakts ov laijgwajo ar brought direktli home
tu the atention. Shreinz spon which ignorans konferd sanktiti, and tu
which stupiditi boud with jnkwestioning adoration hav been sterli
and instantanissli demolisht bei the remorseles eikonoklazm ov Erli
Inglish skolarship. Moreover, the karakter ov the advokates ov
reform iz ssmding that ov itself makes an impresion. Tu the opinionz
eksprest bei them, their abilitiz and atainments may not be ssficient
tu komand asent ; bst they ar ssficient tu impoze respekt. Ther iz
an sneazi konscissnes in the meindz ov thoze most opozed tu chanje
that it iz no longer kweit safe tu indslj in that kontempteuss treat-
ment ov the ssbjekt which a short teim ago woz the onli argeument.
A reform which nsinberz amsng its advokates everi living lingwistik
skolar ov eni eminens whotever, which in adition inkludez everiwsn
who haz made the seientifik stsdi ov Inglish a specialti, may be in-
ekspedient, may be impraktikabel, may be even harmful ; bst it kanot
wel be demoliishtbei brief editorials, nor seupersilissli drsstaseid with
an air ov jaunti seuperioriti. If the kwestion iz tu be argeud at all,
it msst nou be argeud on its merits. In ssch a disksssion it wil be
found that the favorerz ov chanje, whether snreazonabel in their
ekspektationz or not, know preseisli whot they ar talking about ; and
this iz a charj that kan rareli be brought agenst their oponents.
All this sentenli marks a deseided advans. Bst it wud be a most
danjerss eror tu sspoze that after all, a veri great deal, komparativli
speaking, haz been gaind ; it wud be a fatal wsn tu fansi, az ssm seem—
inkleind tu do, that the goal iz nou wel-nei at hand, that we ar on the
eve ov entering an orthografikal paradeis from which the devil ov bad J.
speling wil be for ever shst out. It iz at this point, indeed, that eks-
travagant antisipationz ar more than perilss ; they ar ruinss. Hei-
-rought and snreazonabel ekspektation ov speedi sskses iz sure tu be
folowd bei az snreazonabel a despondensi which iz ov itself ssficient
tu paraleiz the eficiensi ov that patient stedi endevor bei which reform
ov eni keind iz akomplisht, if akornplisht at all. It beksmz, therefor,
a mater ov the ferst importans tu akweir at the outset a klear kon-
seption ov the konditionz ov the whole problem, and ov the meanz and
ajensiz nesesari tu its solution. That we ar moving iz kauze for kon-
grateulation ; bst for ss at the prezent teim, the pertinent inkweiri
iz, Hou far hav we got on ?
There ar dree fazez d rough which ordografik reform msst pas before
it haz eni fair prospekt ov sskses ; or, perhaps, it wud be beter tu say
there ar dree distinkt periodz in the progres ov the movement which
aimz tu bring about the adoption ov eni far-reaching chanje. The
ferst period wil hav been finisht when jeneral eunanimiti ov opinion shal
hav been sekeurd amsng lingwistik skolarz — amsng thoze who in
referens tu this ssbjekt may be kalld eksperts — that ssch a reform
wud be dezeirabel if praktikabel. This iz csentiuli the iniliatori step.
The point tu be gaind in the sekond period iz the establishment ov
the konviktion in the meindz ov the great bodi ov intelijent men who
hav no special nolej ov langwaje that sseh a reform iz dezeirabel.
Bst when bod theze rezslts shal hav been reacht, konseding that it
iz posibel for thein tu be reacht ; when the need ov Bsm reform iz
admited bei all, the kwestion then arizez whot shal be its nateur and
ekstent. It iz eazi tu see that theze ar all esentiali disiinkt stajez in
the progres ov the movement. Bst wheil they ar and msst be ssk-
sesiv az regardz the end tu be akoraplisht, they ar far from being
nesesarili so az regardz thoze streiving tu bring it about. In all
movements ov this keind, sstn men wil hav konsiderd and wxrkt out
whole skemez ov reform before there iz the sleitest prospekt ov the
adoption ov eni reform whotever; nay more, before eni heumari
beingz beseidz themselvz hav ever herd that the ssbjekt woz a mater
ov disksssion. It iz not onli nateural that this shud be so ; it iz
eminentli dezeirabel. If the ford kwestion ever beksmz a praktikal
wsn, it wil prezent diliksltiz ov its own ssticient tu task tu the
utmost for their removal the intelekteual resoursez ov skorez ov skolarz
who hav had it under konsideration for long periodz ov teim, and
lukt at it from everi point ov veu.
It iz plain that theferst staje in the movement haz past. Theferst
point haz been gaind. Ther iz amxng skolarz no real diferens ov
opinion az tu the dezeirabiliti ov reform, though they may vari weidli
in their veuz az tu its prospekts ov sskses, and stil more weidli az tu
whot shal be its karakter. Bst on the kwestion ov its dezeirabiliti,
the reprezentativz ov lingwistik sko-ilz furthest apart ar fuli agreed.
In partikeular, everi wvn ov the leaderz in the stsdi ov our erli speech
haz not mereli given in hiz adhesion tu the movement, he haz eks-
prest himself az ardentli in favor ov it. Wsu dezervedli popeular
reiter, who haz dsn msch in the past tu awaken interest in our lan-
gwaje, haz, indeed, plast himself in opozition. We refer tu Archbishop
Trench. Bst he wud be the last tu klaiin for himself that he woz
enteiteld tu speak on this ssbjekt with the airforiti ov thoze whoze
viewz ar autagonistik tu hiz own; and, moreover, it iz tu be remem-
berd that hiz opinionz wer sterd several yearz ago, long before the
disksssion had aseutnd its prezent karakter. Yet az he secz klearli
whot stherz see dimli, az he states the komon objektionz tu chanje
far more forsibli than iz dsn bei the vast niajoriti ov the defenderz
ov the prezent orfografi, — most ov whom ar, in fakt, so ful ov zeal
that no room haz been left for nolej, — ther wil be frekwent okasion
tu refer tu hiz statements in the kourse ov our disksssion.
All this iz enksrajing, and jxstli enksrajing. Bst wheil so mseh
az this haz klearli been sekeurd. ther iz no reazon whei we shud shst
our eiz tu the fakt that sp tu this teim it iz onli the eaziest portion
ov the way that haz been traverst. The sekond staje spon which the
reform iz entering iz the ditikslt wsn; and the dilikslti kanot nou be
reali apreciated, bekauze the movement, though konstantli gaining
hedway, haz not yet beksm important ensf or formidabel ensf tu
awaken the ful mesure ov hostiliti which it iz destind tu enkounter.
A long and painful road msst be traveld before the end ov the jsrni
iz reacht. The same stori msst be told over and over agen, the same
familiar argeuinents msst be repeated, tu euz Skakspere'z wsrdz,
with " damnabel iteration." The same steupid objektionz msst be
konstantli met, and their steupiditi ekspozed. In this point ov veu
the pozition taken bei Maks Meuler at the begining ov biz own most
konvinsing artikel on the nesesiti ov reform seemz hardli the true
wsn, and forteunateli indeed iz not borne out bei the karakter ov the
artikel itself. " The whole mater," sez he, " iz no longer a mater ov
argeument; and the older ei grow the more ei feel konvinst that
nsiing veksez peopel so msch and hardenz them in their snbelief and
in their doged rezistans tu reformz az sndeneiabel fakts and snanser-
abel argeuments." This iz snkwestionabli true. Bst no real reform
woz ever karid irough save bei reazoning, — reazoning which, wheil it
feinali wsn over the meni, onli hardend the harts ov the hostil feu.
He who ekspekts that indiferens and ignorans and prejeudis wil be
overksm bei the ajitation ov a day, or wil be laid aseid at the diktsm
ov a feu skolarz. no mater whot their pozition or ahiliti, showz bei
that veri belief that he haz no real konseption ov the meiti ajensiz
that ar needed, and weizli needed, tu chanje eniting long establisht
bei ksstom and sanktiond bei aidoriti.
3.e batel haz, akordingli, onli jsst begsn ; stil it iz a great step in
advans that we ar tu hav a batel at all. Moreover, on wsn point
ther iz a jeneral agreement. Nowsn who haz stsdid the ssbjekt at
all serissli douts that the prezent speling ov the langwaje iz sterli
lawles and snsisteinatik. The fakt iz not deneid bei eni, whether
freudli or hostil tu reform ; there ar thoze tu whom it seemz apa-
rentli wsn ov the chief gloriz ov the Inglish tsng. They apear tu
luk spon theze snkotd formz az having been bestowd bei ssm divein
ajensi, and nateurali veu eni atempt tu improve their konditionz az a
direkt fleiing in the fase ov Providens. We kanotekspekt this feeling
tu pas away sntil a proper snderstanding haz been gaind ov the
kauzez which brought about the ekzisting state ov ttingz. The veri
fer8t kwestion, therefor, that snavoidabli ksmz sp, iz in referens tu
the serksmstansez tu which Inglish orJografi owez its prezent lawles
and snsistematik karakter. For a komprehension ov theze, it wil be
nesesari tu make beforehand wsn or two jeneral statements.
All speling iz orijiuali, in intention at least if not in perfekt realiza-
tion, fonetik ; that iz tu say, it aiinz tu reprezent invariabli the same
sound bei the same leter, or bei the same kombination ov leterz.
This eidea leiz at the root ov the alfabet ; stherweiz, indeed, the alfa-
bet wud hav had no reazon forits ekzistens. Tu pikteur tutheei the
sound which had fallen spon the ear. so that it shud never be mistaken
for ending els, woz the problem that prezented itself tu the man or
men who ferst deveizd that greatest ov heuman inventionz. Tu
reprezent a partikeular sound bei wsn karakter in wsn plase. and bei
ansther in ansther plase, wud hav seemd tu them not mereli az ab-
ssrd, bst az fatal, az it svud seem, for instans, tu a painter nou tu hav
the figeur ov a bors stand fur a hors in wsn pikteur, and in ansther
for a diferent animal. This komparison msst ov kourse not be karid
too far ; the siinbol being in wsn kase a real wsn, in the sther, so far
az we know, an arbitrari wsn. It iz perfektli proper, houever, tu
draw from whot haz been sed two konklusionz. So faraz the orijinal
invention ov the alfabet faild tu sekeurthe individeual reprezentation
flv everi sound then euzd, the invention woz itself inkomplete and
imperfekt. So, far agen, az the karakterz ov the alfabet hav been
diverted from their orijinal dezein ov reprezenting soundz, it iz not
an aplikation ov the invention, bzt a perversion ov it tu inferior pxr-
posez, and tu psrposez for which it iz not wel adapted.
If we go bak tu the erliest form ov Inglish, komonli kalled Anglo-
-Sakson, it wil be found that oriografi haz remaind esentiali true tu
its legitimate objekt ov konveying tu the eithe sound herd beithe ear.
The variationz ov speling, which form so markt a karakter ov this
and the folowing periodz, ar deu almost entcirli tu the endevor tu
represent, often rudeli ensf without dout, the variationz ov the pro-
nsnsiation. Tu this kardinal prinsipel our langwaje may be sed tu
hav adhered with more or les ov fideliti Jroughout the ferst senteuriz
ov its ekzistens az a riten txng. Ther kan hardli be a dout that with
the stedi grow;} ov a national literateur, deialektik diversiti, both in
speling and pronsnsiation, wild in proses ov teim hav disapeard from
the speech ov the ksltivated klasez. A konsistent oriografi wud hav
been establisht in which the Teutonik aksenteuation, the Teutonik
soundz ov leterz, and the Teutonik reprezeatation ov soundz wud hav
prevaild iroughout. Bst at an erli period the langwaje woz ssbjekted
tu influensez ov an enteirli diferent nateur. A neu' and disturbing
element woz aded bei the introdsktiou intu Great Briten ov the
Norman-French. This txng ekzibited almost az msch variation in
speling az the Anglo-Sakson. Bst it woz not tu this fakt that th«
konfeusion that sprang sp woz deu. The Norman-French introdeust,
or at least made komon, neu leterz ; it gave tu old leterz neu soundz :
it had diferent kombinationz tu reprezent the same sound. The eunion
between it and the Anglo-Sakson, so far az it tuk plase, woz, from
the fonetik point ov veu, an il-asorted wsn. Bst even all the sn-
sertenti and disorder which aroze in konsekwens meithav been in the
long r-sn met and overkim, had not an ajensi more pouerful than eni
yet known ssdenli apeard on the scene. This woz the invention ov
printing. The importans ov its influens in this respekt kanot wel be
over-estimated. Eni konfeusion which meit before hav ekzisted in
speling bekame from this time wsrs konfounded. "5pon the introdsk-
tion ov printing, indeed, Inglish ordografi enterd intu that relm ov
Kaos and old Neit in which it haz ever sins been floundering; it then
began tu put on the shape it at prezent bearz, " if shape it may be
kalld which shape haz nsn."
For the speciali bad influens which this art ekzerted spon the spel-
ing ov our tsngz, it iz not eazi tu akount. Stil the fakt iz evidcnr.
houever obskeur may be the kauzez. Ov several reazonz given, wm
iz that nearli all our erli printerz kame from the Kontinent. Az
forenerz they had lite! or no nolcj ov the proper speling ov our tyng,
and in the jeneral leisens that then prevaild, they kud venteur tu dis-
regard where they did not kare tu understand. 'The statement iz also
frekwentli made, that az the mekanikal ekspedients for spasing wer
then ekstremeli defektiv, leterz wer frekwentli inserted intu, and
dropt from, wsrdz az the nesesitiz ov the lein rekweird. Bst this iz
sxmiing hard tu prove; and az the speling ov the poetri, where ssch
deveisez wer euzuali snnesesari, woz jsst az lawles az that ov the
proze, the asertion iz more than doutful. It iz almost serten, indeed
6
that not msch weight kan be atacht tu either ov theze eksplanationz.
Far more importaus msst be askreibd tu the esentiali dif'erent kon-
ditionz snder which the arts ov reiting and ov printing wer karid on:
tu the fakt that when the later with ss displased the former, it had
tu fase at wsns the difikslti that there woz ever amsng edeukated
men weid diversiti ov pronsnsiation ; and that larjli owing tu the
long kontineuans ov foren and domestik worz, no establisht literari
standard had grown sp eniwhere tu which all felt obleijd tu konform.
With the problemz prezented bei the ekzistens ov disorder and kon-
feusion, which in meni kasez had their orijin az far bak az the ksming
tugether ov two konflikting fonetik sistemz, the erli printerz wer
kalld spon tu deal ; and for the solution ov them they wer holli
snfited, not so msch bei the aksident ov bertf, az bei the veri nateur
ov dingz.
The kopiists ov maneuskripts, kompared with the teip-seterz who
sskseeded them, wer men ov edeukation. Ssm degree ov ksltivation
woz esential tu a wsrk which demanded, az the ferst kondition ov its
ssksesful akomplishment, a klear konseption ov the audor'z meaning.
In akordans with the praktis euniversali prevailing, they wud giv tu
the wsrd the speling which tu them reprezented the pronsnsiation :
az edeukated men, this wud be dsn in the majoriti ov kasez with a
reazonabel degree ov akeurasi. Stil that they wer a long way from
reaching eni hei eideal ov ekselens, we know from inkontestabel evi-
dens. The korsption ov the tekst, kauzd bei the wilfulnes or kareles-
nes ov kopiists, woz wsn ov the feu thingz that seem tu hav vekst the
jenial soul ov the ferst great singer ov our literateur. Chauser, in
adresin hiz skreib, kornplainz ov the great trsbel in reveizing hiz
wsrks tu which he iz put bei the neglijens ov the later, and ferventli
prayz that he may hav a skalld hed, if he dsz not hereafter adhere
tu the orijinal reiting more kloseli. And toard the end ov hiz
" Troylus and Cryseyde," ther iz, az Mr Elis remarks, ssmding almost
paletik in hiz adres tu hiz " litel boke " : —
And, for ther is so grete dyversite
In Englissb, and in writynge of our tonge,
So preye I God, that non myswrite the,
Ke the mys-raetere, for defaut of tonge ! "
All this woz chekt and feinali reverst after the introdsktion ov
printing. Az haz been intimated alredi, far heier rekweirments wer
needed in the wsrk ov the kopiist than in the mere mekanikal labor
ov the teip-seter. The former had tu understand hiz audor tu repre-
zent korektli whot he sed. Bst ther iz no sseh nesesiti in the kase ov
the kotnpozitor. Whotever intelekt he may hav he wil not be kalld
spoil tu euz it tueni great ekstent in hiz special lein ov aktiviti. Hiz
deuti iz dsn if he faithfuli folowz kopi ; and he kan perform hiz wsrk
wel in a langwaje ov which he dsz not komprehend a wsrd. Hiz la-
bor iz, and msst alwayz be, mostli mekanikal ; and the veri fakt that
he iz not responsibel for rezslts wil alwayz hav a tendensi tu make
him kareles in detailz. The blsnderz in speling, and in greater mat-
erz stil, made in modern printing ofisez where the most skrupeulss
kare iz ekzerted tu atain korektnes, ar familiar tu all. Theze evilz
wud be imensli inkreast at a period when no ssch ekstensiv prekau-
tionz agenst eror wer taken in eni kase, and when in ssm kasez it wud
seem az if no prekautionz wer taken at all. The el'ekts ov the karc-
lesnes and indiferens that frekwentli prevaild wud not be, and wer
not, konfeind tu the wsrk in which they wer immediateli mani-
fested. The ordografi ov printed mater nesesarili reakts spon the
ordografi ov the men who ar familiar w r ith it. Theze, when they
ksrn tu reit, wil be apt tu repeat the erorz they hav lernd from
the buks they read, and, with that pekeuliar abiliti in blundering
shown bei all kareles spelerz, wil kontribeut nsmberlss variationz ov
their own. Theze, in tsrn, wil be folowd more or les bei the teip-seter,
and thss neu formz wil be konstantli aded tu the prevailing disorder.
In this maner a komplete serkel iz formd in which audor and printer
korspt each sther, and both tugether korspt the psblik.
Ssch woz, in great mesure, the siteuation ov thingz in the siks-
teend and seventeen^ senteuriz. Bst nesesarili it woz a siteuation
that kud not kontineu. Tu a printing-ofis, euniformiti ov speling, if
not absoluteli esential, iz, tu say the least, beili dezeirabel; and tow-
ard euniformiti the printing-ofisez stedili bent their aim, sins nobodi
and nsthing els wud. The movement in this direktion woz poucrfuli
helpt forward bei the feeling which began tu show itself after the re-
veival ov klasikal lerning, that the ofis, or at least wsn ofis, ov ordog-
rafi woz tu reprezent derivation. Belief in this involvd in its veri
nateur the eidea ov fiksednes ov speling ; and it gave the sanktion ov
a kwasi-skolarship tu the demand for an snvariing standard which
kame from a mekanik art. The dispozition tu establish euniformiti
wherever praktikabel iz wsn that wil probabli alwayz manifest itself
wherever the development ov a langwaje reachez ssch a point that
the wsrdz, the vehikel ov the dought, beksm objektsov konsideration,
independent ov the doughts they konvey. Jyst az ther iz a tendensi
toward fikst gramatikal formz, toward llkst sintaktikal kombinationz
in eni speech that haz reacht a hei degree ov ksltivation, so ther wil
be a tendensi toward fikst speling, which wil ov itself hav a restrain-
ing influens on pronsnsiation, if ther iz between them eni real relation.
Changez wil, ov kourse, take plase, bst they wil take plase slowli.
This iz true whether the art ov printing iz known or not ; bst owing
tu that invention, it haz in modern tsngz aseumd animportans which
it never before held. In eni disksssion ov reform, the dezeir for a
fikst standard, and perhaps it iz reit tu say the absolute nesesiti ov its
ekzistens, with serten limitationz, iz ssmding that kan neither be
overlukt nor treated az ov sleit konsekwens. In the kase ov our own
langwaje, the movement toward euniformiti, snder the presingneedz
ov the printing-ofis, made rapid progres deuring the seventeend sen-
teuri and the ferst half ov the eighteend. Bst ^nforteunatcli for xs,
the establishment ov the ordografi went out ov the handz ov edeukated
men, who meit, perhaps, in teim hav establish^ it spon stabel prinsi-
pelz ; it kame intu the handz ov men who neu nsding about it, and
kared stil les. In their selektionz from the variationz ov speling that
then ekzisted, which in most ka^ez doutles reprezented akteual difer-
ensez ov pronsnsiation, it woz the merest aksident or the bleindest
kaprice that diktated the chois ov the form tu be regarded az the
standard. Az a rezslt, we hav euniformiti indeed, or at least an
aproach tu it ssfieient for all praktikal psrposez. Bst it msst not be
forgoten that this euniformiti iz the wsrk ov printerz and not ov
8
skolarz ; that, az meit be ekspekted in konsekwens, it iz a mere mekani-
kal euniformiti, and in no sens ov the wsrd a seientifik wsn ; that in
efekting it, propreieti woz disregarded, etimoloji perverted, and everi
prinsipel ov orjoepi defeid ; and that men ov ksiteur bleindli folowd
in the wake ov a movement which they had not the pouer, and proba-
bli not the nolej, tu direkt. Tu the orJografi thss maneufakteurd
Jonson'z Diktionari, which kame out in 1755, gave auforiti, gave
ksrensi, gave in fakt euniversaliti. Bst it kud not giv konsistensi
nor reazon, for in it they wer not tu be found.
In the meanteim, wheil the riten speech woz tending toward petri-
faktion so far as regardz the forinz ov its wsrdz, and aseuming more
and more in this respekt the karakter ov a ded langwaje, the spoken
tsng remaind ful ov vigor and leif, and az a nesesari konsekwens woz
konstantli sndergoing modifikation. Wheil the speling stud stil,
chanjez in pronsnsiation wer neumerss and rapid. Whether they
wer for the beter or the wsrs iz not pertinent tu this inkweiri. Bst
the nesesari konsekwens haz been tu weiden stedili the gslf that long
ago began tu diskloze itself az ekzisting between the spoken and the
riten wsrd. The rezslt we kan see for ourselvz. Everi Inglish
speaker euzez, tu a larj ekstent, two langwajez ; wsn when he readz
and reits, another when he talks. Out ov this konstantli inkreasing
diverjens between orJografi and orioepi haz sprsng the modern pro-
nouncing diktionari, in which a great number ov wsrdz hav two
spelingz — wsn the standard form found in buks, and folowing imme-
diateli spon it in brakets the form az it soundz tu the ear. The
pronounsing diktionari iz kalld bei Archbishop Trench "the abssrd-
est ov all buks." Bst on whot ground it kan be spoken ov az abssrd
bei an advokate ov the prezent oriografi it iz hard tu snderstand.
It iz simpli a nesesiti ov the siteuation. It iz, tu be sure, a rude and
klsmzi ssbstiteut for fonetik speling, bst it iz not for him who protests
agenst ssch speling tu denouns the aidz tu korekt speaking, imper-
fekt az they may be, which ar renderd absoluteli esential bei the
ieneral prevalens ov the opinionz he aksepts.
^"nforteunateli this iz not the wsrst. Out ov this diverjens between
ordografi and orioepi, the fonetik sens ov the Inglish-speaking rase
erli bekame, and haz sins kontineud, impaird, if indeed it be not too
msch tu say that it haz been wel-nei destroid. No partikeular valeu
having ever been atacht tu a karakter, ther iz nsiHug tu determin whot
its ekzakt valeu iz when it apearz in a wsrd tu which we arnot akss-
tomd. The pouer ov apreeiating distinktionz haz, in konsekwens, been
sensibli redeust. Take bei way ov ilsstration the two soundz klsmzili
reprezented in modern Inglish bei th. The ordiuari man rekogneizez in
praktis the diferens between the th ov thin and the th ov then, bekauze
he haz painfull lernd the pronsnsiation ov everi wsrd in which this
kombination iz found ; bst in nein kasez out ov ten, it wil never hav
oksrd tu him that ther aktouali ekzists a diferens in the pronsnsiation.
aud it wil rekweir a pozitiv efort tu apreciate it even after hiz aten-
tion haz been kalld tu it. If in so markt a diverjens the perseption
haz been weakend, whot msst be the kondition ov thingz when ther
iz an atempt tu diskriminate delikate shadez ov soundz ssch az ar
denoted bei the vouelz ? The fonetik sens haz, in fakt, beksm so
weakend that it iz no longer abel tu respond tu eni snekspekted de-
9
mand made spoil it. For a heili edeukated man it iz difikslt — for an
snedeukated man it iz praktikali imposibel — tu ges at the form best
seuted tu reprezent the sound. Hens a nsmber ov personz who set
out tu spel a wsrd which nsn ov them hav ever seen, ar leikh tu spel
it in az meni (liferent wayz. It iz, perhaps, nsding stranje that this
fonetik inabiliti, born ov senteuriz ov fonetik diseus, iz nou srjd az a
prinsipal reazon for not reforming orthografi at all. We ar pointed
tu the weild wsrk which men make when they atempt tu reit az they
pronouns ; we hav held sp before ss the sndeneiabel fakt ov their
weid diverjens in speling, not onli from wsn ansther bst from them-
selvz, even though ther may be no apreciabel diferens in pronsnsia-
tion. Yet this inabiliti tu represent akeurateli tu the ei the sound
konveyd tu the ear iz mainli the rezslt ov the long-kontineud ekzist-
ens ov the prezent anarki. It iz a maksim ov law that nowsn shal
be aloud tu take advantage ov hiz own wrong; yet the evil efekts
kauzd bei the lawlesnes ov the prezent sistem, or rather wont ov
sisrem, iz wxn ov the strongest argeuments advanst for fasening its
abominationz spon xs for ever.
It haz been pointed out that the oriografi in the movement toward
fiksednes ov form woz never wsns ssbjekted tu the operation ov in-
telijent prinsipel. Whot the printing-ofisez wonted woz euniformiti;
tu sekeur it they stud redi tu sakrifeiz eniiiij and everidiij els; or
perhaps it wud be beter tu say they did not kare for eniding els. The
pekeuliar speling feinali adopted in the kase ovan individeual wsrd az
the standard, frekwentli owed its form tu the merest chans, tu kaprice,
or tu karelesnes. lustration in this point ov veu iz more konvinsing
than eni statement, houever strong; and it may be wel akordingli tu
deskreib with ssm detail, az a spesimen ov the rest, wsn ov the neu-
merss rnedodz bei which anarki haz been introdeust intu our prezent
ordografi.
The distingwishing trait ov the ancient speling woz that it made an
efort tu reprezent the ancient pron>nsiation, 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
<!
t>
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 <u
■° P,
. <a ■
<u
>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 . . .
</<
women...
i
prorogue
V
ui-e .
. guide ...
i
creator...
e
tongue . . .
8
suite ...
v:i
s6V
V
010 .
. . know ...
no
. quoth ...
wa
oa
.. broad ...
O
knowledge
liquor ...
coal
V
bellows...
X
quororn
wx>
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. 6<f.
New Testament, roan, gilt, 4s. 6<2.
Self-Culture, by Prof. Blackie; 2s.;
cloth, 2s. ed.
Phonetic Journal, published weekly,
Id. ; monthly, in wrapper, bd. Each
number contains six columns of
shorthand, in the Learners', Cor-
responding, and Reporting Styles,
Intelligence of the progress of the
Phonetic Reform printed in the
usual spelling, and articles of gene-
ral interest printed phonetically.
tainingthe Shorthand and Printing
Letters, 20 inches by 30, id.
Tablets, or the letters of the phoneti«
Alphabet, printed on card-board;
Small, 3d., Large ls.Gd.
Sheet Lessons, (16,) for classes, Is.
First Book in Phonetic Reading, Id.
Second Book, 2d. Third Book, 3d.
Edward's Dream, or Good for Evil.ld
Parables, from the Testament, Id.
Miracles, ditto, Id. Discourses, Id.
Conversations on the Parables ; for
the use of children. By Edward,
Earl of Derby. Cloth, Is.
The Wonderful Pocket and Other
Stories, by the Rev. Chauncey
Giles, 6d., cloth, Is.
Our Children in Heaven, by Dr
Holcombe, cloth, Is. id.
A Lecture on the Reading and Wri-
ting Reform, by James Hogg ; id.
The Art of Writing, by C. P.
Pearson, \d.
History of Phonography — how it
came about, Id.
In the Common Spelling, price \d. each
\§pp.,; id. per dozei '.; 3s. per grout.
A Persuasive to the Study and Prac-
tice of Phonography.
A Recommendation of Phonelio
Shorthand, by the Rev. D. D.
Whedon.
A Glance at Phonotypy, or Phonetic
Printing.
Etymology in Earnest ; or, Greek and
Latin derived from English, by
Dean Swift.
Phonetic Printing.
Phonetic Alphabet, containing the
Shorthand, Longhand, and Print-
ing Letters, Id. per dozen.
Chart of the Phonetic Alphabet, con-
Book* of the value of Is. and upwards are sent post free: on books under
1*., postage is charged at the rate of Id. for $lb.
The books recommended to the student on commencing the study of Phonetit
Shorthand, are the Phonographic Teacher and Copy Book.
See Pitman's Complete Catalogue of Phonetio Publications.
London: Fred. Pitman, 20 Paternoster row, B.C.
Bath : Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute.
If
[Price \d. [4>d. 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<nqity (O. Eng. emtig), we shall keep it in glimpse and tempt, though it
has no warrant in etymology We may be unable to drop the intrusive d and t
in words like thunder, hind, gender, tyrant, ancient, and others: but in many
cases we shall only gain by harmonizing sound and spelling. The omission
of silent </ in foreign and sovereign, by false analogy from reign (Lat. regnus)
brings us back to the etymological O. Eng. forain and soverain, from Lat.
foraneus and supe.ranus. In delight the gh seems to indicate direct descent
from Lat. dtlectare; but as the 0. Eng. form is delite, from O. Fr. deliter,
we drop the g, and group the word with delicate and delicious, its nearest
kin. At present our deign and disdain which come to us from O. Fr. det-
daigner, Lat. disdignare, are unlawfully divided. By right both are entitled
to the g: but as disdain has managed thus far without, deign might possibly
fare equally well. It is true that we do often lose a plain guide to etymology
in dropping a silent letter. But the loss is more apparent than real. Here
are, for instance, three forms of spelling, reign, rain, and rein, which would
then have the same letters, as they now have the same sound. As it is we
know at a glance that reign must be connected with Lat. rego. But we do
not so easily identify rain and O. Eng. regen, and still less apparent is the
connection of rein and Lat. re-teneo, to hold back. We have therefore lost
only the one etymology, since the others are left much as they were before. And
we shall find that, on the whole, more words are made clear than are disfig-
ured by the new spelling : for example, bear and bare, in their double signi-
fications are all from O. Eng. bwrian, to carry or bear. The past participle
bare, borne, leads to the meaning of bare, naked, as a well-worn path : u-orn>
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<i ; cloth, 2s. ; roan gilt, 2s. 6rf.
The Phonetic JOURNAL ; published every Saturday, price Id. ;
post paid, 1 hi. Monthly, in a wrapper, 5d. Each number contains
eight columns of shorthand, in the Learner's, Corresponding, and Re-
porting Styles, Intelligence of the progress of the Phonetic Reform
printed in the usual spelling, and articles of general interest printed
phonetically.
FIRST BOOK in Phonetic Reading, Id. SECOND BOOR, 2d.
THIRD BOOK, 3d.
Sve Pitman's complete Catalogue of Phonographic Jf Phonetic Publications.
London : Fred. Pitman, 20 Paternoster row, E.C.
Bath : Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Kingston buildings.
Printed by Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Bath.
\VJf
[Price ^d. ~4d per dozen.
FIRST ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
ENGLISH SPELLING EEFOEM ASSOCIATION.
The first annual meeting of this Association was held on
Monday, June 2lst, at the rooms of the Royal Asiatic Society,
Albemarle Street, Dr. "W. "W. Hunter, CLE., in the chair.
Tne Secretary read the annual report of the Society, as
follows :—
REPORT OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE.
The General Committee have much pleasure in reporting to
the members of the Association that since the report of the Com-
mittee in January of this year, the work of tabulating and
classifying schemes of spelling reform has greatly advanced. The
Committee have received 46 schemes, which have been tabulated
and classified, and arrangements are in progress for printing short
specimens of them. The Committee have therefore now before
them all the material for the elaboration of a scheme or schemes
which may eventually be submitted for the consideration of the
members of the Association. In this work the Committee will
be greatly assisted by the results already obtained from the
classification. There is an almost unanimous agreement among
proposers of schemes as to the sounds to be represented. Many
schemes are so nearly alike in principle as to admit of being
grouped and dealt with together. Similarly the number of
expedients available for indicating sounds not hitherto expressed
is very small, and is divisible into three groups : —
1. New shapes.
2. Modifying marks.
3. A mixture of both.
After the selection of one of these guiding principles, the
choice of a system either upon the old or the modern values of
the vowel signs will not present any great difficulty.
II. Progress has also been made in the other branches of the
Association's woik. During the past winter session numerous
lectures have been delivered by members of the Association in
advocacy of its principles; and among them may be specially
mentioned lectures before the College of Preceptors and the
Education Society. Two other lectures before the London
Institution by Prof. Sayce and Mr. E. B. Nicholson, although not
delivered under the auspices of the Association, deserve record as
having incidentally assisted in drawing public attention to the
subject. Meetings have also been held at the offices of the
Association, when papers have been read on subjects connected
with Spelling Reform. These meetings will be continued during
the winter months, and a list of the dates will be duly forwarded
to the members.
The Committee hope during the ensuing session, to propagate
the principles of the Association with still greater activity.
Arrangements are now in progress for lectures to several
Educational Associations, and other lectures will no doubt follow.
Members of the Association can greatly assist the Committee by
bringing the lectures under the notice of Secretaries of Local
Institutes, and by themselves taking part in the work whenever
opportunity offers.
III. With reference to the adoption of Phonetic Spelling as a
means of teaching children to read books printed in the ordinary
spelling, the Committee are unable to report that any new
experiments have been instituted. The annual requirements of
Her Majesty's Inspectors with respect to spelling in the current
way, present an obstacle to the institution of experiments, and
the arrangement of the reading books is not altogether perfect.
With respect to " phonic" systems, or those in which the spelling
is not altered, but the powers of the letters are indicated by
accents, or slight variations of forms, the Committee find that Dr.
Leigh's method, which is extensively used and highly valued in
the United States, is being tried with a class of infants at the
Mansfield Place Board School, Kentish Town. Robinson's
Phonic Method has been used at Leeds and Wakefield for many
years, and is now adopted in schools at Sheffield, Leicester, Derby,
Darlington and Liverpool. It has been used for more than two
years at an infant school in Bermondsey, under the British and
Foreign School Society. In this branch of the work the
Committee ask the aid of the members in influencing masters and
mistresses who are free from Government inspection to try
phonetic methods of teaching reading in their schools.
IV. The Committee are happy to be able to report that on the
1st July the members will be in possession of the first number of
the organ of the Association, which will supply that moans of
inter-communication, the want of which has been so greatly felt.*
V. The Committee have also much pleasure in announcing
that Professor Sayce has consented to be President of the
Association for the ensuing year. Professor Sayce's great
interest in Spelling Reform is well known, and the Committee
congratulate the members upon having obtained as first President
of the Association a scholar of such eminent reputation.
VI. The Committee have also drawn up a set of Rules and
By-laws which they recommend for approval and adoption.
VII. The Balance Sheet of the Association shows that up to
April 30th £220 19s. od. was received in subscriptions and
donations, of which £217 14s. Id. has been expended, leaving a
balance in the Treasurers hands of £3 5s. 4d.
The Committee need hardly point out to the members that to
carry on energetically and successfully the various branches of
the Reform much larger funds than these are needed. Up to the
present moment the liberality of various members has greatly
assisted the Association, but the Committee urge upon the whole
body of members the necessity of using every means of increasing
the income of the Association, both by prompt payment of
subscriptions and by procuring new subscribers and donors to the
Association's funds.
By order,
J. Fentox, Secretary.
Statement of Receipts and Expenditure up to 2>§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, </,■ In this style the
consonant digraphs, th, sh, ch, are employed for the sounds heard
in " then, she, cfteap ;" 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, old or yon, me bj_
tot tu rjd bod in fonetik and in ordinari buks, in drj
monds, ai, often in twenti ourz' instrokshon,— a task which
iz rerli akomplisht in drj, yjrz ov toil bei the old alfabet.
Whot father or tjcher wil not. hel this gret bqn tu edeu-
keshon ?— this pouerful niashjn for the difeugon ov nolej !
16
4. Full Phonotypy with an alphabet of thirty-six letters, adding
to the former ten new letters the following three, d (then), j (she),
(5 (cfceap) : script $ / p.
Bei de Femetik Alfabet eni person, eld or jsr\, me bj
tot tu rjd berf in fanetik and in ordinari buks, in Jq
ra^nls, — ai, often in twenti ourz' instrskjon, — a task whig
iz rerli akompliJ"t in drj yjrz ov toil bei de erld alfabet.
Whot ffider or tjqer wil not hel dis gret bi^n tu edeuke-
Jon ? — dis pouerful mafjn for de difeugon ov nolej !
PHONOGRAPHIC PUBLICATIONS.
The Phonographic TEACHER; containing a series of progressive
Lessons to be read, and written out by the student ; price 6d.
The Phonographic COPY BOOK, made of ruled paper, price 3d.
Large size, 6d.
The Phonographic READER ; a course of Reading Exercises, 6d.
A MANUAL of Phonography, containing a complete Exposition
of the System ; Is. Qd. ; cloth, 2s. ; roan gilt, 2s. 6d.
The Phonetic JOURNAL; published every Saturday, price Id. ;
post paid, lid. Monthly, in a wrapper, bd. Each number contains
tight columns of shorthand, in the Learner's, Corresponding, and Re-
porting Styles, Intelligence of the progress of the Phonetic Reform
printed in the usual spelling, and articles of general interest printed
phonetically.
The Reporter's COMPANION, an Adaptation of Phonography to
Verbatim Reporting, 2s. Qd. ; cloth, 3s.
LIST of the Phonetic Society for the current year, Id.
EIRST BOOK in Phonetic Reading, Id. SECOND BOOK, 2d.
THIRD BOOK, Sd.
See Pitman's complete Catalogue of Phonographic JSf Phonetic Publications.
London : Fred. Pitman, 20 Paternoster row, JS.C.
Bath : Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Kingston buildings.
Printed by Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Bath.
j(|- _ 25.] [Price 2d. per dozen.
SPELLING REFORM.
Address by Mr ISAAC PITMAN to the Young Men's Christian
Association, St James's Square, Bristol, 8 November, 1880.
This Tract is printed in the reformed spelling to this extent— every short
vowel-sound, diphthong, and consonant, is represented, uniformly and con-
sistently, by the same letter every time it occurs, except that th represents
the two sounds heard in thin and then, and n sometimes represents the ng
sound when it occurs before k or g. The long vowel-sounds are spelled in
the ordinary way, except a few irregularities. To represent them phonetically
would require new letters.
Wun ov the weizest sayingz ei hav met with iz that ov a filosofer*
himself famus for invenshonz, who sed, he shud leik sunithing niu even
day. This degree ov hapines it iz not given tu mortalz tu enjoi.
We may, perhaps, hope for it in the fiutiur leif. Ei no ov nuthing
hwich more heitenz the joi ov leif than diskuveriz and invenshonz—
sumthing niu and true and useful, and espeshali hwen we hav a hand
in it ourselvz. Almost everithing haz been made aniu within the
memori ov the prezent jenerashon, and the hapines ov the thouzandz
ov inventerz and ov the milionz ov uzerz ov the invenshonz haz been
inkreast therebei. The eg ov this niu aje, or this niu order ov thingz.
woz laid in the midel ov the last sentiuri. In about seventi yearz it
woz hacht, the yung eagel kame forth, and from about 1820 tu the
prezent day, thoze ov us who wer born in the ferst twenti yearz ov
this sentiuri hav been wunderingat wun niu faze ov leif after another;
and saying, Hwot nekst ? Ei bring before you this evening two niu
thingz — brief reiting and true speling, or a niu a, b, c, adapted tu re-
porting, ordinari reiting, and printing. And ei wil not waste a mo-
ment in ansering such objekterz az say it iz imposibel tu introdius an
enlarjd alfabet and a niu mode ov speling. Shorthand haz been non
and praktist in Ingland for nearli 300 yearz. The art iz, indeed ,
pekiuliarli the produkt ov Inglish soil and ov the Inglish meind.
Ei mereli bring before you a gud, and ei kan nou ad a popiular, sis-
tem, based on the prinsipelz ov fonetik seiens, and harmoneizing with
the latest dedukshonz ov filoloji ; and az tu the amendment ov our
most absurd and monstriis speling, this haz been the hope and the
efortovthe weizest Inglishmen for 350 yearz. On the roll ov speling
reformerz ar the ilustrius namez ov Sir Thomas Smith, Sekretari ov
State in the reign ov Edward VI, Sir John Cheke in the reign ov Eliza-
beth, Bishop Wilkins in the dayz ov the Komonwelth, Benjamin
Franklin in the teim ov our own grandfatherz, and a hundred men ov
leser fame. Hwei shud it be thought inkredibel that hwot the three
ps-eseding sentiuriz hav hoped and labord for, the neinteenth sentiuri
sliud akomplish ? Hav we degenerated from the wizdom and the en-
erji ov our ansestorz ? Ar we les stiudius and inventiv than they ?
Let the diskiiveriz and invenshonz ov the last fifti yearz, and espeshali
o v the last three yearz, anser. If ei shud boast ov the prezent suport-
erz ov the Speling Reform, you wil say that ei hav reazon for it. Ther
ar two parent Soseietiz, and a larj number ov afiliated wunz, that
hav undertaken the wurk ov reforming our speling. Ferst in point
ov teim and numberz kumz the Fonetik Soseieti, establisht in 1843.
Its ferst prezident woz the late Mr George Dawson ov Birmingham ;
and that eminent filanthropist and soshal reformer Sir Walter Tre-
velyan, who deid last year, okiupeid the post for the last twenti yearz
ov hiz leif. Its prezent prezident iz Profesor Max Miiller. This
Soseieti reseivez an akseshon ov niu memberz everi day in the year,
and the roll ov membership for the prezent year, that iz, the list ov
wurkerz who reniud their membership bei subskripshon last winter, iz
1720. This Soseieti haz dim much in a kweiet way. It haz three
objekts : — 1. To ekstend the art ov Fonografi, or Fonetik Shorthand,
bei rekomending it on everi siutabel okazhon az asiibstitiut for the or-
dinari longhand reiting, (eksept in legal and iither important docu-
ments,) bei the formashon ov klasez for teaching the art, either freeli
or for payment, and bei gratiuitiis teaching through the post ; also tu
promote the intelektiual improovment ov the memberz ov the Soseieti
bei korespondeus, and bei the establishment ov Everserkiulating Fo-
nografik Magazinez. 2. Tu introdiiis an improovd method ov teaching
tu read the prezent buks, bei ferst uzing fonetik buks. 3. Tu reform
the orthografi ov the Inglish langwej, bei the use, in reiting and
printing, ov an Alfabet that kontainz a leter for each distinkt sound
in the langwej. And the memberz ov the Soseieti engaje tu Icorekt the
ekserseisez ov Stiudents, through the post, gratiuitusli. The sekond
parent Soseieti haz been establisht three yearz. It iz kalld the In-
glish Speling Reform Asoshiashon. Its Prezident iz the Rev. A. H.
Sayce, Depiuti Profesor ov Komparativ Filoloji in the Universiti ov
Oxford; and its list ov Veis-Prezidents iz: — Rev. E. A. Abbott, D.D.,
lied Master ov the Siti ov London Skool; Dr Angus; Dr Bain,
Aberdeen ; Miss Beale, Prinsipal ov the Kolej for Ladiz, Cheltenham ;
Miss Frances M. Buss, Prinsipal ov the North London Kolejiate Skool
for Gerlz ; E. Chadwick, C.B. ; L. H. Courtney, M.P. ; Charles Dar-
win; Alexander J. Ellis; The Bishop ov Exeter; Dr Gladstone,
Member ov the Skool Board for London ; Dr Hunter, Direkter Jeneral
ov Statistiks tu the Government ov India ; Sir John Lubbock ; Prof.
•T. P. Mahaffy ; Dr Morris; The Right Hon. A. J. Mundella; Dr Mur-
ray; Isaac Pitman; Sir Charles Reed, M.P. ; Henry Richard, M.P. ;
Dr Scott, Hed Master ov "Westminster Skool ; The Right Hon. Vis-
count Sherbrooke; Rev. W. W. Skeat, Prot'esor ov Anglo-Sakson in
the Uuiversiti ov Cambridge ; James Spedding ; Henry Sweet; Alfred
Tennyson ; Edward B. Tylor ; and Monier Williams. This list in-
kludez the Prezident ov the Filolojikal Soseieti and three eks-Prezi-
dents. In the list ov the Komiti, numbering 90 memberz, (out ov
which an Ekzekiutiv Komiti ov 27 iz forme!, tho the wurk iz mainli
dun bei half-a-diizen ov theze who rezeid in London, and meet weekli
at the ofis ov the Asoshiashon, 20 John street, Adelphi,) okur the
namez ov Mr Buxton, member ov the London Skool Board ; Professor
Candy, Rev. A. J. D. D'Orsey ; T. W. Dunn, Prinsipal ov the Bath
Kolej ; Prof. Everett, Belfast ; Danby P. Fry ; A. G. Vernon Har-
oourt; Rowland Hamilton ; Miss R. Davenport Hill ; Mrs Jellicoe;
Stanley Kemp-Welsh; Norman Kerr ; Rev. Brooke Lambert ; Prof.
Meiklejohn; Dr Moffatt ; G. Washington Moon; Dr Rigg; T. B.
Sprague ; John Westlake, Q.C. ; Mrs Westlake, and your own Mark
Whitwell, our wurthi chairman. Tho eiahud be utering wurdz with-
out profit bei repleiing tuobjekterz who kan onli artikiulate the kukoo
krei " Imposibel," it wil not be amis tu show the nesesiti that ekzists
for the two niu thingz which ei hav the plezhur ov bringing tu your
notis. Perhaps the greatest marvel ov this niu aje iz the inkreast
fasilitiz which ar nou enjoid in traveling, and in our admirabel postal
servis for the deliveri ov leterz and buk parselz all over the wurld.
A Bristolian may be doing biznes in London in three ourz after leav-
ing home, having made the jurni for the small outlay ov ten shilingz ;
and from almost eni part ov this eiland a person may travel tu eni
uther part, from Penzance tu the north ov Scotland, in a kumfortabel
karej, in twenti-four ourz, alouing siks ourz for stopejez and refresh-
ment. If sum Sibyl had told Caesar the posibilitiz ov transit in this
eiland in 1900 yearz, he wud — not hav disbeleevd her, but wud hav
wislit tu liv agen that he meit see it. Through the post-ofis we may
kouvers with a friend in eni part ov Europe, Canada, or the United
States, for Id. ; and send him two ounsez ov printed mater, even tu
California and Tahiti, for ^d. Then the rapiditi with hwich leterz
and buk parselz ar konveyd bei the railwayz, haz aded greatli tu the
hapines and konveniens ov modern leif. Ei korespond, from Bath,
with fonograferz in Aberdeen, post mei leterz at siks o'klok in the
evening, wait wiin day, and get their repleiz bei eight o'klok thenekst
morning ; and with Fonografi az a meanz ov komiunikashon, ei reit
with the rapiditi. and with more than the eaze, ov speech. Ei menshon
theze glorius fakts ov our postal servis bekauz ei think they ar not non
tu everiwun. But enuf ov introdukshon ; ei wil nou kiini tu the biz-
nes ov the evening. Mei kontenshon iz with the slow meanz ov
komiunikashon bei the ordinari steil ov reiting; and with the kliimzi,
imreazonabel, kontradiktori, imposibel-tu-be-lernd steil ov speling.
All the filolojikal talent ov thekuntri haz uterd a protest agenst our or-
thografi, in everi form ov kondemnashon short ov dounreit kursing ;
and nou, az ei hav shown, everi Prot'esor ov filoloji and langwej in
Oxford and Cambridge, and uther Profesorz from the Skoeh and Eir-
ish Universitiz, tugether with the foremost men in literatiur and soshial
reform, hay rizen az wiin man, and demand a reform. Ei shud make
your earz tingel and your cheeks blush for shame at the hidius kon-
dishon ov our orthografi if ei wer tu read hwot Max Muller, the
Premier, Bishop Thirlwall, Sir Charles Trevelyan, Professors Sayee.
Skeat, and Meiklejohn, and utherz hav sed on this subjekt. Sum
peepel seem tu think that the notorius kombinasbon o, u, g, h, iz
about the sum total ov our orthografik absiirditiz. The truth iz that
this litel literari pekadilo, kompared with the hole langwej az nou
riten with 26 leterz, iz az small az a flei kompared with an elefant.
We hav a defektiv alfabet tu start with. It rekweirz 13 adishonal
leterz in order tu ekspres the Inglish langwej ; that iz, we speak 13
soundz that hav no reprezentativz in the alfabet, az t iz the reprezen-
tativ ov the sound t, and o ov the sound o. Three ov theze 26 leterz,
c, q, and x, ar useles, and we habitiuali misemploi everiwun ov the
remaining 23, reiting wim leter for the sound ov anuther, puting two
leterz tugether tu reprezent a sound which iz diferent from both, or
reiting them hwen they ar not sounded at all. It iz remarkabel that
" Q in the korner," wim ov " the rejekted three," iz the onli leter in
the old alfabet that, leik Abdiel, iz " faithful found amiing the faith-
les, faithful onli it." This konfiuzhon iz most notorius with the feiv
vouelz. Everiwun ov them iz uzed tu ekspres uther soundz than its
own, from two tu feiv ; and on the uther hand everi vouel-sound iz
reprezented in a great number ov wayz, from four tu therti. Thus
ther ar a duzen diferent wayz ov reprezenting the difthong i, in " eye,
I, my, mine, high, height, Me, guide, buy, dye, scathe, aisle;" fourteen
wayz ov ekspresing the sound ov u, in " beaut y,feod, eulogy, new, deuce,
ewe, adieu, view, duty, due, tune, suit, queue, fugue," and so on.
The perfekshon ov alfabetik reiting iz, obediens tu the law ov a sein
for a sound, and no sound tu be eksprest bei eni sein but its own. If
you wil nou folow mei ekspozishon ov the soundz ov our langwej, and
mei eksibishon ov the seinz that reprezent them, you wil see hou it iz
tu be dun, that iz, hou this Reading, Reiting, and Spelling Reform
kan be akomplisht. But ei think ei ought ferst tu bring before you
just win ov the anomaliz ov Inglish orthografi. Hwot iz a cheild tu
do with the frekwent kombinasbon ea hwen lerning tu read ? He
meets with the wurdz "bead, dead; beast, breast; sheath, death;
beard, heard; sheaf, deaf; lead (tu kondukt), read (past tens) ; plead,
lead (a metal) ; read (prezent tens), head; fear, bear," ets. You wil
notis that ei mereli chanje the inishal leter, and the sound ov ea iz
olterd ; az it iz also bei chanjing the feinal konsonant or ading a leter
tu the end, az in " steam, steak ; team, tear (tu rend) ; bean, bear ; peach,
pear ; ear, earl ; pear, pearl ; lean, learn ; mean, meant." This combina-
shon, ea, okurz m 160 monosilabelz, and in a great number ov uther
wurdz, and a cheild lerning tu read haz tu komit tu memori the proniin-
siashon ov all ov theze wiirdz, with no klue tu geid him in the speling.
Mr Pitman then explained his system of Phonetic Shorthand, and
the four stages of the Spelling Reform, the report of his remarks here
given (copied from the Bristol Western Daily Press of 9th Novem-
ber, where they were given in this reformed spelling,) being an illus-
tration of the first stage, in which six-sevenths of the language are
spelled phonetically.
Printed by Isaac Pitman, Phonetic Institute, Bath.
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388
Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed.
3 1158 00668 9110
UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FAC LITY
linn iii
AA 000 574 837 1
1W»«:
««««
.wwwww: . ;.*.'-
1
JL ,