J34" mg‘
‘ , a.» ,
WM
‘.v w
‘u ‘by 1 Y:
T
, x . L ‘ .4. . if‘ .fmsﬂwzﬂﬁunmww , . . .7 ‘ . ‘ ‘ } . .. , . , . . . ‘ x» a4
.f 1.961%... ‘ _. . .‘ , . .. . ‘ ‘ . , mmwm
' * a ‘ &M¢, . . ‘
, .‘ mm?
Wi ‘
illi-
. .. ‘
: "E '3?"
.-¢
. .. ‘ ,. 4 3?‘? .. ' {Em . ., . , , .ré. . V . . I .. . ‘ .
> ‘fvéwékwwwmw .. ‘ QMWQA l
. 56V.” ._ . a‘, .‘ ‘ ..
my? _ .v : ‘ ‘ .yrs...?h%i

.11 .1. (£044
:21) 12L. .. \
.4 b’ A .. 1:
E....F.,..._.E_ gag“? .EEEEE/m " .. m Ewﬁwwis=r,
'mﬁ'ﬂm'
... v. _ . a V.
\ Wavy“?
4.1%
muu
‘$- .,.-.--_-Y... --_-1-,- .4-
WM HH'
2‘ .\ _ a v!
. \
,
_\==_=._.@==,_=._===EEEEE
=2.
._H.__._M_‘_‘_‘._,._.v,_,ﬂ,.f..@ ~.. ,, ,m.wvE:=€=§ a:
v... M..._._..._M=_.._q_.._‘_._m_,._._ﬂ.w_z__.__. w i...‘ a; maﬁa.
.. “W ‘. ﬁm. , Y. L _.
»
.l w 1 . _ iv):
1....wa ‘ .1.‘ , A?
..
.. gm? .
a, .q
.. . vwmmwni 1,!
‘r . ‘ 3M 3


ilwkXiMﬁlLER
0N
I'Apr'il, 1876, andfrom “ Chips from a German
Workshop,” 189%.)

‘ , LONDON:
ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, 1 AMEN’ CORNER, E 0..
' V " BATH: PHONETIG INSTITUTE.
NEW YORK: 33 UNION SQUARE.

1894.
Price One Penny.


PELLING.
.Iz'n'ted, by permission, from the “ Fortnight/y Review”
IV.
ON SPELLING.
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 Pitman and.
some of his friends, (particularly Mr. A. J. Ellis, for six
years his most active associate,) had fought the battle
of a reform in English spelling, Mr. Pitman had been
requesting me to state more explicitly than I had done
in my “ Lectures ” my general approval of his life-long
endeavors. He wished more particularly that I should
explain why I, though by profession an etymologist, was
not frightened by the spectre of phonetic spelling, while
such high authorities as Archbishop Trench and Dean
Alford had declared that phonetic spelling would
necessarily destroy the historical and etymological
character of the English language.
If I ask myself why I put off the fulﬁlment of my
promilse from year to year, the principal reason I ﬁnd
181999
4 ON SPELLING.
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 writers
and lecturers, among whom I might mention Mr.
Alexander J .Ellis, Dr. Latham, Professors Haldeman,
Whitney, and Hadley, Mr. Withers, Mr. E. Jones, Dr.
J. H. Gladstone, and many others. The whole matter is
no longer a matter for argument 3 and the older I grow,
the more I feel convinced that nothing vexes people so
much, and hardens them in their unbelief and in their
dogged resistance to reforms, as undeniable facts and
unanswerable arguments. Reforms are carried by
Time, and what generally prevails in the end, are not
logical deductions, but some haphazard and frequently
irrational motives. I do not say, therefore, with Dean
Swift, that “there is a degree of corruption wherein
some nations, as bad as the world is, will proceed to an
amendment; till which time particular men should be
quiet.” _ On the contrary, I feel convinced that practical
reformers, like Mr. Pitman, should never slumber nor
sleep. They should keep their grievances before the
public in season and out of season. They should have
their lamps burning, to be ready whenever the right
time comes. They should repeat the same thing over
and over again, undismayed by indifference, ridicule,
contempt, and all the other weapons which the lazy
world knows so well how to employ against those who
venture to disturb its peace.
I myself, however, am not a practical reformer; least
of all in a matter which concerns Englishmen only—-
namely, the spelling of the English language. I should
much rather, therefore, have left the ﬁght to others, con~
0N SPELLING. 5
tent with being merely a looker-on. But when I was on
the point of leaving England my conscience smote me.
Though I had not actually given a pledge, I remembered
how, again and again, I had said to Mr. Pitman that I
would much rather keep than make a promise ; and
though overwhelmed with other work at the time, I felt
that before my departure I ought, if possible, to satisfy
Mr. Pitman’s demands. The article was written; and
though my own plans have since been changed, and I
remain at Oxford, it may as well be published in dis-
charge of a debt which has been for some time heavy on
my conscience.
What I wish most strongly to impress on my readers
is that I do not write as an advocate. I am not an
agitator for phonetic reform in England. My interest
in the matter is, and always has been, purely theoretical
and scientiﬁc. Spelling and the reform of spelling are
problems which concern every student of the science of
language. It does not matter whether the language be
English, German, or Dutch. In every written language
the problem of reforming its antiquated spelling must
sooner or later arise; and we must form some clear
notion whether 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 Quixotic, that it is a mere
waste of time to try to inﬂuence a whole nation to
surrender its historical orthography and to write
phonetically, I bow to their superior wisdom as men of
the world. But as I am not a man of the World, but
rather an observer of the world, my interest in the
subject, my convictions as to what is right and wrong,
remain just the same. It is the duty of scholars and
6 ON SPELLING.
philosophers not to shrink from holding and expressing
what men of the world call Quixotic opinions; for, if 1
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 our-
selves “rushing in where angels fear to tread,” till after
a time the track becomes beaten, and even angels are
no longer afraid. I hold, and have confessed, much
more Quixotic theories on language than this belief,—
that what has been done before by Spaniards and Dutch-
men—what is at this very moment being done by
Germans, namely, to reform their corrupt spelling—
may be achieved even by Englishmen and Americans.
I have expressed my belief that the time will come
when not only the various alphabets and systems of
spelling, but many of the languages themselves which
are now spoken in Europe, to say nothing of the rest
of the world, will have to be improved away from the
face of the earth and abolished. Knowing that nothing
rouses the ire of a Welshman or a Gael so much as to
assert the expediency, nay, necessity, of suppressing the
teaching of their languages at school, it seems madness
to hint that it would be a blessing to every child born
in Holland, in Portugal, or in Denmark—nay, in Sweden
and even in Russia—if, instead of learning a language
which is for life a barrier between them and the rest of
mankind, they were at once to learn one of the great
historical languages which confer intellectual and social
fellowship with the whole world. If, as a ﬁrst step in
the right direction, four languages only, namely, English,
French, German, Italian, (or possibly Spanish,) were
taught at school, the saving of time—and what is more
precious than time ?-—would be inﬁnitely greater than
0N SPELLISG. 7
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 Japonaz'se. All this may be true, but I
hold that language is meant to be an instrument of com-
munication, 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 51370000
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 Spain in .. 112 years
America, among the South America in 27% ,,
German races, in 25 ,, Germany in 100 ,,
Italy in 135 ,, France in 140
Russia in .. 100 ,,
1 See W. E. A. Axon’s “The Future of the English Language,” the
Almanac]: do Gotha, and De Candolle’s Histoire des Sciences, 1873.
8 ON SPELLING.
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 by spoken in
Europe by .. 178,846,153
United States 8: British
Dependencies, by 1,658,440,000 -—- 1,837,286,153
But I shall say no more on this, for as it is, I know
I shall never hear the end of it, and shall go down to
posterity, if for nothing else, at least for this the most
suicidal folly in a student of languages; a folly com-
parable only to that of Leibnitz, who actually conceived
the possibility of one universal language.
To return, however, to the problem to the solution of
which Mr. Pitman has devoted the whole of his active
life, let me say again that my interest in it is purely
philological; or, if you like, historical. The problem
which has to be solved in England and the United
States of America is not a new one, nor an isolated
one. It occurs again and again in the history of
language ; in fact, it must occur. When languages are
reduced to writing, they are at ﬁrst written phonetically,
though always in a very rough and ready manner. One
dialect, that of the dominant, the literary, or priestly
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
among his converts. He learned their language, at
least one dialect of it, be translated part of the Bible
into it, and adopted, of necessity, a phonetic spelling.
()N SPELLING. 9
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 only
does 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 scribendz' was in the hands
of a few persons, the difficulty of adapting the writing to
the ever-varying pronunciation of a language was com-
paratively small. We see it when we compare the
Latin of early Roman inscriptions with the Latin of
Cicero. We know from Cicero himself that when he
settled among the patricians of Rome, he had on some
small points to change both his pronunciation and his
spelling of Latin. The reform of spelling was a
favorite subject with Roman scholars, and even em“
perors 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 them-
selves as best they could ; and, by timely concessions,
prevented a complete estrangement between the written
and the spoken language.
2
10 ON SPELLING.
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 inter-
course must have been between different parts of France,
Spain, or Italy, it is surprising that on the whole there
should have been so much uniformity in the spelling of
these modern dialects. A certain local and individual
freedom of spelling, however, was retained ; and we can
easily detect in 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 corrects the errors of the
common spelling, and is regulated by the following Three Rules :—
RULE 1.-—Reject “o, q, x” as redundant, use the other 18 consonants for the
sounds usually associated with them, and suppl the deﬁciency of 12 other letters by
the usual di raphs, distinguishing the non-vocal“ th ” in thin, thus—’th.
BULB ....— et “a, e, o, u,” when ending a syllable, except at the end of a word,
as sofa,) represent a Long vowel ; as in “ fa-vor, ﬁe-ver, o-li, tru-li.”
RULE 3.—Let the ﬁve vowels of the present alphabet, “a, e, i, o, u,” in elm
syllables, (and a at the end of a word,) represent the short sounds in “ pat, pet, pit,
pot, put; ” and use “ ti” for the “ u ’ in but."
Concede to custom—-“ I ” instead of “ ei ” for the ﬁrst personal pronoun; “ n”
for “ng” when followed by “k” or “g,” in monosyllables,~and sometimes in
other words; as, “ bank (bangk), anger (ang-ger) ; ” and. “ father ” for “ feather.”
The grait event which formz a deseisiv epok in the
histori ov speling, iz the introdiikshon ov printing.
With printed buks, and partikiularli with printed
Beibelz, skaterd over the kuntri, the speling 0v wurdz
bekaim rijid, and yuniversali beinding. Sum langwejez,
siich az Italian, wer moar fortiunet than utherz in
having a moar rashonal sistem ov speling tu start with.
Sum, agen, leik German, wer abel tu maik teimli kon-
seshonz, wheil utherz, such az Spanish, Dutch, and
French, had Akademiz tu help them at kritikal periodz
ov thair histori. The moast unfortiunet in aul theez
respekts woz English. It started with a Latin a'lfabet,
0N SPELLING. 11
the pronﬁnsiashon ov which woz unseteld, and which
had tu be apleid tu a Teutonic langwej. After this
ferst fonetik kompromeiz it had tu pas ’thru a kon-
ﬁiizd sistem ov speling, haaf Saxon, haaf Norman ; haaf
fonetik, haaf tradishonal. The histori ov the speling,
and even ov the pronunsiashon, ov English, in its pasej
from Anglo-Saxon tu midel and modern English, haz
laitli been stiidid with-grait siikses bei Mr Ellis and
Mr Sweet. I miist refer tu thair buks “ On Early En-
glish Pronunciation,” and “ On the History of English
Sounds,” which kontain a wel’th ov ilﬁstrashon, aul-
moast bewildering. And even after English reechez the
period ov printing, the konﬁuzhon iz bei no meenz ter-
minaited ; on the kontrari, for a teim it iz graiter than
ever. Hou this kaim tu pas haz been wel iliistraited bei
Mr Marsh in hiz ekselent “Lectures on the English
Language,” p- 687. seq(‘). Whot we nou kaul the es-
tablisht sistem ov English or’thograﬁ may, in the main,
be traist bak tu Johnson’s Dictionary, and tn the stil
moar kaprishﬁs sway ekserseizd bei larj printing-oﬁscz
and publisherz. It iz tru that the evil ov printing karid
tu a serten ekstent its oan remedi. If the speling bekaim
iinchainjabel, the langwej itself, too, woz, bei meenz ov
a printed literatiur, chekt konsiderabli in its natiural
groa’th and its deialektik vareieti. Nevertheles English
haz chainjd sins the invenshon ov printing; English iz
chainjing, tho bei imperseptibel degreez, even nou ;
and if we kompair English az spoaken with English ax
' The pronoun it woz speld in ait diferent wayz bei Tyndale, thus, hyt,
hytt, hit, hitt, it, itt, yt, ytt. Aniithtr au’thor speld tongue in the folo'ing
wayz: tang, tong, image, tongs, tmmge. The wﬁrd head woz variﬁsli speld
had, heads, beds, hqfode. The spelingz oba-y, survay, pray, vail, vain, ar
often yigd for obey, survey, prey, veil, vein.
12 ON SPELLING.
riten, thay seem aulmoast leik tii diferent langwejez ;
az diferent az Latin iz from Italian.
This, no dout, iz a nashonal misfortiun, but it iz
inevitabel. Litel az we perseev it, langwej iz, and aul-
wayz must be, in a stait ov fermentashon; and whether
within hfmdredz or within‘ ’thouzandz ov yeerz, aul
living langwejez must be prepaird tu enkounter the
diﬁkiilti which in England stairz us in the fais at
prezent. “Whot shal we du?” ask our frendz. “ Ther
iz our hoal nashonal literatiur,” thay say; “ our leibra-
riz aktiuali bursting with buks and niuzpaperz. Ar
aul theez tu be ’throan away? Ar aul valiuabel buks
tu be reprinted? Ar we ourselvz tu ﬁnlern whot we
hav lernd with so much triibel, and whot we hav taut
_ tu our children with graiter trfibel stil? Ar we tu
sakrifeiz aul that iz historikal in our ~langwej, and sink
doun tn the 10 level 0v the Fonetz'k Nuz .?” I kud
go on multipleiing theez kwestionz til even thoaz men
ov the wiirld hu nou hav oanli a shrug ov the shoalder
for the reformerz ov speling shud say, “We had no
cidea hou strong our pozishon reali iz.”
But with aul that, the problem remainz iinsolvd.
\Vhot ar pepel tu du when langwej and pronunsiashon
chainj, wheil thair speling iz deklaird tu be ﬁnchainja-
bel ? It iz, I. beleev, hardli neseseri that I shud proov
hou korﬁpt, efeet, and uterli irrashonal the prezent
sistem ov speling iz, for nowiin seemz inkleind tu denei
aul that. I shal oanli kwoat, thairfor, the jiijment ov
wiin man, the lait Bishop Thirlwall, a man hu never
yuzd ekzajeraited lanbgwej. ,“I luk,” he sez, “upon
the establisht sistem, if an aksidental kiistom may be
so kauld, az a mas 0v anomaliz, the groa’th ov ignorans
and ehans, ekwali repugnant tu gud taist and tu komon
0N SPELLING. 13
sens. Biit I am awair that the publik kling tu theez
anomaliz with a tenasiti propoarshond tu thair absﬁrditi,
and ar jelus ov aul enkroachment on ground konse-
kraited tn the free play ov bleind kaprees.”
It may be yusful, houever, tu kwoat the testimonialz
'ov a ﬂu praktikal men in order tu sho that this sistem
ov speling haz reali bekﬁm wun ov the graitest nashonal
misfortiun'z, swolo'ing up milionz ov mﬁni everi yeer
and bleiting aul atempts at nashonal ediukashon. Mr
Edward Jones, a skoolmaster ov grait eksperiens, having
then the siuperintendens ov the Hibernian Schools,
Liverpool, roat in the yeer 1868 :
“ The Gﬁvernment haz~ for the last twenti yeerz taiken
ediukashon iinder its kair. Thay diveided the slibjekts
ov instrukshon intu siks graidz. The heiest point that
woz atempted in the Gﬁvernment Skoolz woz, that a
piupil shud be abel tu reed with tolerabel eez and
- ekspreshon a pasej from a niuzpaper, and tu spel the

saim with a tolerabel amount ov akiurasi.”
Let iis luk at the reziilts az thay apeer in the Repoart
ov the Komitee ov Kounsil on Ediukashon for 187 0-71 :
Skoolz or Departments ﬁnder separet hed teecherz in
England and Wales inspekted diuring the yeer
31st August, 1870 l ,287
Sertiﬁkaited, asistant, and piupil teecherz emploid
in theez skoolz 28,033
Skolarz in daili averej atendans ’thruout the yeer 1,168,981
Skolarz prezent on the day 0v inspekshon 1,473,883
Skolarz prezented for ekzaminashon :—
Under ten yeerz ov aij 473,444
Over ten yeerz ov aij 292,144 765,588
Skolarz prezented for Standard V1:—
Under ten yeerz ov aij 227
Over ten yeerz ov aij 32,953 33,180
Skolarz bu past in Standard VI. 2-
1. Reading a short paragraf froni a niuzpaper 30,985
2. Reiting the saim from diktashon 27 ,989
3. Ari’thmetik 22,839
l4 ON SPELLING.
Thairfor, les than wfin skolar for eech teecher, and
les than tii skolarz for eech skool inspekted, reecht
Standard VI.
In 1878 the stait ov ’thingz, akording tu the oﬁshal
retiirnz 0v the Ediukashon Department, woz mﬁch the
saim. Ferst ov aul, ther aut tu hav been at skool
4,600,000 children between the aijez ov ’three and
’therteen. The number ov children on the rejister ov
inspekted skoolz woz 2,218,598. Out ov that number,
about 200,000 leev skool aniuali, thair ediukashon
be'ing siipoazd tu be ﬁnisht. Out ov theez 200,000,
neinti per sent. leev without reeching the 6’th Standard,
aiti per sent. without reeching the 5’th, and siksti per
sent. without reeching the AL’th Standard.
The Itepoart for 187 4-75 shoaz an inkrees ov children
on the buks, bit the propoarshon ov children pasing in
the variﬁs standardz iz siibstanshali the saim. (See
“Popular Education,” bei E. Jones, B.A., an eks-
skoolmaster, 1875.) It iz kalkiulaited that for siich
reziilts az theez the kuntri, whether bei taksashon
or bei volunteri kontribiushonz, payz aniuali neerli
£8,500,000.
Akording tn the saim au’thoriti, Mr E. Jones, it nou
taiks from siks tu seven yeerz tu lern the arts ov
reeding and speling with a fair degree ov intelijens—
that iz, about 2,000 ourz; and tu meni meindz the
diﬁkiiltiz ov or’thograﬁ ar insurmountabel. The biilk
ov the children pas ’thru the Guvernment skoolz
without having akweird the abiliti tu reed with eez
and intelijens.
“ An averej cheild,” sez aniither skoolmaster, “be-
gining skool at seven, aut tu be abel tu reed the New
Testament ﬂiuentli at eleven or twelv yeerz ov aij, and
ON SPELLING. 15
at ’therteen or foarteen aut tu be abel tu reed a gud
leeding artikel with eez and ekspreshon.” That iz,
with seven ourz a week for forti weeks for feiv yeerz,
a cheild rekweirz 1,400 ourz’ wurk tu be abel tu reed
the New Testament. '
After a kairful ekzaminashon ov yiing men and
wimen from ’therteen tu twenti yeerz ov aij in the fak-
toriz 0v Birmingham, it woz proovd that oanli 4% per
sent. wer abel tu reed a simpel sentens from an ordineri
skool-buk with intelijens and akiurasi.
This apleiz tn the loer klasez. But with regard tn
the heier klasez the kais seemz aulmoast wiirs ; for Dr
Morell, in hiz “ Manual of Spelling,” aserts that out
0v 1,972 failiurz in the Sivil Servis Ekzaminashonz,
1,866 kandidaits wer pliikt for speling.
So much for the piupilz. Amiing the teecherz
themselvz it woz found in America that out 0v wﬁn
hundred komon wiirdz, the best speler amfing the aiti
or neinti teecherz ekzamind faild in win, sum preiz-
taikerz faild in foar or feiv, and sum ﬁtherz mist over
forti. The Depiuti Stait Siuperintendent deklaird
that on an averej the teecherz ov the Stait wud fail
in speling tu the ekstent ov 25 per sent.
Whot, houever, iz even moar seriiis than aul this iz,
not the grait waist ov teim in lerning tu reed, and the
aulmoast kompleet failiur in nashonal ediukashon, but
the aktiual mischef dun bei subjekting yﬁng meindz tn
the illojikal and tedius driij eri ov lerning tu reed English
az speld at prezent. Everi’thing thay hav tu lern in
reeding (or proniinsiashon) and speling iz irrashonal;
wiin rool kontradikts the iither, and eech staitment haz
tu be aksepted simpli on au’thoriti, and with a kompleet
disregard 0v aul thoaz rashonal instinkts which lei dor-
16 ON SPELLING.
mant in the cheild, and aut tu be awaikcnd bei everi
keind ov hel’thi ekserseiz. .
I no ther ar personz hu kan defend eni’thing, and
hu hoald that it iz diu tu this veri disiplin that the
English karakter iz whot it iz: that it retainz respekt
for au’thoriti; that it diiz not rekweir a rezon for
everi’thing; and that it dﬁz not admit that whot iz
inkonseevabel iz thairfor imposibel. Even English or-
’thodoksi haz been traist bak tu that hiden soars, bekauz
a cheild akustomd tu beleev that t-h-o-u-g-h iz tho,
and that t-h-r-o-u-g-h iz throo, wud afterwerdz beleev
eni’thing. It may be so; stil I clout whether even
such objekts wud jiistifei siich meenz. Lord Lytton
sez, “A moar leiing, round-about, puzel-heded deliuzhon
than that bei which we konﬁuz the kleer instinkts ov
tru’th in our akiirsed sistem ov speling woz never kon-
kokted bei the father ov fols'hud. [Instans, see-ayJee,
cat] Hou kan a sistem ov ediukashon ﬁfu'ish that
beginz bei so monstriis a fols'hud, which the sens ov
heering siifeizez tu kontradikt ? ”
Tho it may seem a wfirk ov siupererogashon, tu
bring forwerd stil moar fakts in sﬁpoart ov the jeneral
kondemnashon past on English speling, a ﬁn ekstrakts
from a pamﬁet bei Mr Meiklejohn, lait Asistant-Kom-
ishoner ov the Endoud Skoolz Komishon for Scotland,
may heer feind a plais.
“ Ther ar ’therteen diferent wayz ov reprezenting the
sound ov long 0:--N01‘e, boat, toe, yeoman, soul, row,
sew, hautboy, beau, owe, ﬂoor, 0h ! O ./ ”
And agen (p. 16) ,—
Double-you-aitch-eye-sce-ail ch is which
'l‘ea-are-you-tea-aitch ,, truth
llee-o-you-gee-aitch ,, bong/h
0N SPELLING. 17
See-are-eh-bee _ ,, crab
Bee-ee-eh-see-aitch ,, beach
Oh-you-gee-aitch-tee ,, ought
Oh-enn-see-ee ,, once
“ Or, tu sum up the hoal indeitment agenst the
kiilprit: 1. Out 0v the twenti-siks leterz, oanli ait ar tru,
ﬁkst, and permanent kwolitiz—that iz, ar tru boa’th
tu ei and eer. 2. Ther ar ’therti-ait distinkt soundz
in our spoaken langwej ; [34 simpel soundz; 2 kon-
sonant dif’thongz, ch, j ; and 2 vouel dif’thongz,_i, 22 ;]
and ther ar about 400 distinkt simbolz (simpel and
kompound) tu reprezent theez ’therti-ait soundz. In
iither wurdz, ther ar 4.100 servants tu du the wurk
ov ’therti-ait. 3. Ov the twenti-siks leterz, ﬁfteen
hav akweird a habit ov heiding themselvz. Thay
ar riten and printed; bit the eer haz no akount ov
them; siich ar w in wrong, and gh in right. 4.‘. The
vouel soundz ar printed in diferent wayz ; a long 0
for ekzampel haz ’therteen printed simbolz tu repre-
zent it. 5. Foarteen vouel soundz hav 190 printed
simbolz atacht tu thair servis. 6.. The singel vouel e
haz feiv‘ diferent fiinkshonz; it ant oanli tu hav wiin.
7. Ther ar at leest 1,300 wurdz in which the simbol and
the sound ar at varians—in which the wﬁrd iz not
sounded az it iz printed. 8. Ov theez 1,300, 800 ar
monosilabelz—the komonest wurdz, and sﬁpoazd tu be
eezier for children. 9. The hoal langwej ov kuntri
children leiz within theez wurdz ; and meni agrikﬁltiural
laborerz go from the kradel tn the graiv with a stok ov
no moar than 500 wfirdz.”
The kwestion, then, that wil hav tu be anserd sooner
or laiter iz this z—Kan this unsistematik sistem ov
speling English be aloud tu go on for ever? 12 everi
a
18 ON SPELLING .
English cheild, az kompaird with iither children, tu be
mﬁlkted in hi or ’three yeerz ov hiz leif in order tu
lern it? Ar the loer klasez tu go ’thru skool without
lerning tu reed and reit thair oan langwej intelijentli ?
And iz the kuntri tu pay milionz everi yeer for this
titer failiur ov nashonal ediukashon ? I du not
beleev that such a stait 0v ’thingz wil be aloud tu kon-
tiniu for ever, partikiularli az a remedi iz at hand
—a remedi that haz nou [1894] been tested for ﬁfti
yeerz, and that haz anserd ekstreemli wel. I meen Mr
Pitman’z sistem ov fonetik reiting, az apleid tu English.
,I shal not enter heer intu eni miniut diskushon ov
fonetiks, or re-open the kontroversi which haz arizen
between the advokaits ov diferent sistemz ov fonetik
reiting. Ov koars, ther ar diferent degreez ov ekselens
in diferent sistemz ov fonetik speling; but even the
wiirst ov theez sistemz iz inﬁnitli siuperior tu the
tradishonal speling.
I giv Mr Pitman’z alfabet, which komprehendz the
’therti-siks braud tipikal soundz ov the English langwej,
» and aseinz tu eech a deﬁnit sein. With theez ’therti-
siks seinz, English kan be riten rashonali and red eezili ;
and, whot iz moast important, it haz been proovd bei an
eksperiens ov meni yeerz, bei niumerus publikashonz,
and bei praktikal eksperiments in teeching boa’th
children and adults, that such a sistem az Mr Pitman’z
iz perfektli praktikal.
ON SPELLING.
19
Oq'-—.sm {if-#4.!“
THE PHONETIC ALPHABET.

The phonetic letters in the ﬁrst column are pronounced
like the italic letters in the words that follow.
column contains the names of the letters.
CON SON ANTS.
Explodents.
. . .etoh
. ..ea’ge
QWHQU'EUUFU
as Wf‘wo pad-Fred
.....rope.. ..
.“robe...
...fate. . ...faa'e..
.. leek.
. . .league..gay
.pee
.bee
.tee
...dee
...chay
.. ...jay
....kay
Continuants.
....safe..
.... save..
....breath . . .ith
...breathe..thee
....hiss ..
.. . .his. . .
.....vioious...ish
.....vision..zhee
.....ef
....vee
....€SS
IQ'OZee
Nasals.
M m...seem.... em
N n...seen.
W g...sing..
DIPHTHONGS :
I ...I'en
....ing
ei,
as heard in by,
3*
on,
now,
The last
Liquids.
L l....fall ...... ..el
R r....rare .... ..ar
Coalescents.
W w....wet.....way
Y y....yet .... ..yay
Aspirate.
H h...hay...aitch
VOWELS.
Lingual.‘
A a......am,far..at
El s......alms....ah
E e......ell,fern..et
8 e .... ..ale,air..eh
I i .... ..ill ...... ..it
til i .... ..eel,fear..ee
Labial.
O o.....on,or...ot
COG) .... ..all .... ..aw
B’ 8 .... ..up,cur..ut
6 o‘.....ope,ore..oh
U u .... ..full.....oot
U 1],...f00d, poor..66
iu, ai, oi.
new, ay (yes), boy.
__ _ ' J
f\ 1 (— ‘
..<_ l ‘l
r
20 ON SPELLING.
[In the following pages the spelling will be strictly phonetic, with thirteen
new letters, as in the preceding alphabet]
Nou ei ask eni intelijent rider hu da'z not (‘rink dat
everii‘rig niu and strenj iz, z'pso facto, ridikiules and
abssrd, wheéler after a ﬂu dez’ praktis, hi or wud
not rid and reit Inglif, akordir) tu Mr Pitman’z sistem,
wid perfekt iz? Ov kors it teks mer (tan feiv minits tu
master it, and mm dan feiv minits tu form an opinion
ov its merits. Bat admitiig iven dat pipel ov a serten
ej iud feind dis niu- alfabet trsbelse'm, wi mast not
forget (tat no reform kan bi karid out widout a
jenerej'on or ti’i ov marterz; and whot tru. reformerz
hav tu ‘Jitgk ov iz not demselvz, bet de‘z hu, ka'm after
(fem—den, in fakt, hii ar nou groin 8p tu inherit hir-
after, wheder (te leik it or not, (01 de gud and 01 de ivil
whic, wi guz tu liv tu Clem.
ltmeit bi sed, houever, dat Mr Pitman’z sistem, biii)
enteirli fo‘netik, iz tu radikal a reform, and flat meni
and de wsrst irregiularitiz in Igglij' spe'lii) kud bi
remuvd widout go‘ir] kweit so‘ far. He prinsipel flat
hnf a lef iz beter (tan no bred iz not widout sem trujl,
and in meni kesez n6 dat a polisi ov kompromeiz
haz bin prodxktiv 0v veri gud rezelts. Bet, on ﬁle ‘8&6!’
hand, (iis hcf-harted polisi haz often retarded a rial and
komplit reform ov ekzistig abiusez ; and in de kes ov a
reform ov SPBlllJ, ei (almost dout wheder (te diﬁkxltiz
inhirent in hsf megurz ar not az gret az de diﬁke'ltiz ov
kariii) a komplit reform. If de wsrld iz not redi for
reform, let ‘8S wet. It simz far beter, and at 01 events
far mo‘r onest, tu wet til it iz redi Clan tu kari de relb'k-
tant wsrld wid yu, a'litel we, and (ten tu feind (lat 01 de
impslsiv fers iz spent, and tie greter part ov de abiusez
establijt on fermer ground ﬂan ever.
0N SPELLING. - 21
Mr J ones,1 huu reprezents de konsilistori reformerz ov
speliij, wud bi satisfeid wid a moderet skim ov spelii]
reform, in Whig, bei obzervig analoji and foloiij presedent
in olterirj a komparativli smol nsmber ov wxrdz, it wud
bi posibel tu simplifei ordograﬁ tu a konsiderabel eks-
tent widout apleiirj eni niu prinsipel, or introdiusiij niu
leterz, and yet tu redilis de teim and labor in tigir) ridirj
and speliij bei at list wan hef. It meit at 01 events bi
posibel tu setel de spelirj ov doz tii or .‘rri douzand wardz
whig at prezent ar speld diferentli bei diferent odoritiz.
His skim, advoketed bei Mr Jones, iz sertenli veri
klever ; and if it vhad a gans ov sakses, ei meiself j'ud
konsider it a gret step in advans. Mei onli dout iz
wheder, in a kes leik dis, a smol megur ov reform wud
bi karid mo‘r izili (tan a komplit reform. It iz diferent
in J erman, wher de disiz haz not spred so far. Hir de
Komiti apointed bei GKVGI’IIIHGIlt tu konsider de kwes-
tion ov a reform ov spelirj haz deklerd in favor ov ss'm
sag moderet prinsipelz az Mr Jones advokets for Igglif.
In Igglij', houever, de diﬁkslti leiz in genjiij enittiij ; and
if de prinsipel ov eni genj iz wens admited, it wud riali bi
i-zier, ei beliv, tu begin de novo dan tu genj ss'mdiij, and
liv de rest xngsnjd.
Let XS non si hou Mr Pitman’z or eni similar sistem
ov fenetik reitiij haz we'rkt wher it haz bin put to do
test.
Mr William White reits :--“ Ei spik from ekspiriens.
Ei hav tot p111‘ gildren in Glasgo‘ tu rid (‘1e Sermon on
de Mount after a ko'rs ov ekserseizez ekstendiij o‘ver no‘ '
mo‘r dan siks ourz.”'
He foloirj iz an ekstrakt from a leter riten se'm teim
1 Popiular Ediukej'on—A Revigon 0v Igglif Spelig a Naj'onal Nesesili.
Bei E. Jones, BA. Landon, 1875.
22 i ON SPELLING.


ago bei de let Mr William Colbourne, manejer ov ‘y-v Dorset Bagk at Sts'rminster, tu a frend ov hiz, a skf‘v
master. Hi sez :- i Q
“ Mei litel Sidni, hu iz nou a ﬁn mantis mor (tan for‘;
yirz old, wil rid eni fonetik buk widout de s‘leitesh
hezitej'on ; d'e hardest nemz or de longest wsrdz in (it;
61d or Niu Testament form no obstakel tu him. Andi-
hou lor) du yu, dink it tuk mi—for ei am hiz tiger—tn!
impart tu him ttis pouer? Whei somﬁ’rig les dan at ourz Yu, me beliv it or not az' yu leik, bot ei am konﬁdeni.)
dat not mor Clan dat amount ov teim woz spent on lllﬂ‘E";
and (‘lat woz in snagez ov feiv minits at a teim, wheil ii".
woz getir) redi. Ei no yu wil bi inkleind tu sa, ‘ @l as
iz veri wel, bot whot iz tie yqs ov ridir) fonetik buks hi iz stil az far of, and me bi farder, from ridir) romanil.i
buks.’ Bot in dis yu, ar mistaken. Tek anxder ekzaml
pel. Hiz nekst elder brs'der, a boi ov siks yirz, haz has
a fonetik ediukejon so far. Whot iz de konsekwens“
Whei, ridir) in de ferst stej woz so deleitful and izi .-
C’rirJ tu him, (lat hi tot himself tu rid romanikali, and i.
wud bi a diﬁkolt mater tu feind won boi in twenti, 0‘
a korespondir] ej, (lat kud rid hsf so wel az hi kan ii
eni buk. Agen, mei oldest boi haz riten mor fonetii _
forthand and loghand, perhaps, dan eni boi ov hiz »,
(eleven yirz) in de kirJdom; and nowon ei derse he
had les tu du Witt dat abssrditi ov abszirditiz, de spelir;
-buk! Hi iz nou at a ferst-rat skul in Wiltfir, and de hsf yir presidiig Krismas, hi karid of de preiz ft:
ori’rograﬁ in a kontest Witt boiz ss'm 0v dem hiz sinioi
bei yirz ! ” i
Bei de adopj' on ov ﬁle fonetik alfabet, de diﬁks'ltiz d?‘
lei in de we ov forenerz lernirJ Igglij', (also wud bi dzj:
awe wid. He Rev. Newman Hall reits, “ Ei met with.
0N SPELLING. 23
'Denif jentelman de xder dc hu heili preizd de Igglif
,fionotipik Niu Testament. It had bin ov gret yus tu
r "im, and enebeld him tu rid [buks in do komon speliy]
widout an instrakter, remuvig de gretest obstakel in
akweirii] Igglij', de monstra's anomaliz ov pronxnsiejon.”
Ekzampelz leik diz go‘ a log we.
Mr A. J. Ellis, dan hum newe'n haz lebord mor
devotedli for a reform ov spelii), az a ferst step in a
reform ov nafonal ediukef on, and hu, haz himself elabor-
ated several most injinias'sistemz ov fonetik reitirJ, givz
88 de folefii) az de rezalts ov hiz praktikal ekspiriens :—
“Wid de fonetik sistem ov spelig, de Primer iz
masterd widin dri mantis, at most. Elle ,gildren den
prosid tu praktis dis fonetik ridii] for sum teim, til de
kan rid wid ﬂiuensi from de jeneral luk ov de ward,
and not from konsiderig de pouerz 0v its leterz. Eri
me'nds mor, at most, ar rekweird for dis stej.
“ When dis pouer 0v ﬁiuent ridii) in fonetik print iz
akweird, buks in de ordineri print, siuted tu der kapasi-
tiz, ar tu bi put intu de gildren’z handz, and dc ar to‘ld
tu rid dem. To, ward Whig de fel tu ges iz told dem


immidietli ; but it iz found dat gildren ar mo‘stli sbel tu_
rid de ordineri print widout eni fe'rder instre'k f on. He
teim neseseri for komplitii) dis step ms bi taken, at de
longest, az tii, mxnfls, so dat de hol teim ov lernii) tu
rid in de ordineri print, on de Ridig Reform sistem, me
bi rekond az feiv ourz a wik for at mantis. He ho‘l task
haz, in meni kesez, bin akomplij‘t in les teim, iven in
dri mands. ‘On de sder hand, in W811 skul wher it iz
yuzd, eleven me'nds ar okiupeid, az de master feindz it
advantejss in ader respekts tu kip de piupil longer at
fonetik ridii). Bat enli wan our a dc iz rekweird.”
Mr Ellis sxmz up az foloz :
24.. ON SPELLING.
“ Kerful eksperiments in tigii] gildren ov veria's ejez
and ranks, and iven poperz ~ and kriminal adxlts, hav
establift—
“ 1. Elat piupilz me bi tot tu rid buks in fonetik print,
sloli but fiurli, in from ten tu forti ourz, and wil aten
konsiderabel ﬂiuensi after a ﬁn wiks’ praktis. '
“ 2. ﬂat when de piupilz hav atend ﬂiuensi in ridig
from fonetik print, a veri ﬁu ourz ssfeiz tu giv dem de
sem ﬂiuensi in ridiig ordineri print.
“3. EIat de hol teim neseseri for impartig a nolej ov
bod fonetik and ordineri ridirJ da'z not eksid et ma'nds
for gildren ov averej intelijens, betwin for and feiv yirz
ov ej, tot in klas, at skul, not mor dan hsf-an-our tu an
our de ; and dat in dis teim an abiliti to rid iz akweird
siupirior tu dat yiiguali atend in tii or dri teimz de piriod
on de old plan; wheil de pronensiej‘on 0v de piupil iz
meg imprqvd, hiz interest in hiz stadi iz kept aleiv, and
a lojikal trenii] ov endiurii-J valiu iz given tu hiz meind
bei de habitiual analisis and sindesis ov spoken soundz.
‘(4!- EIat doz tot tu rid in dis maner akweir de art or
ordineri spelig mor redili dan doz instre'kted on de old
medod.” i
Tu 01 hi no Mr Alexander J. Ellis, dis evidens wil
bi seﬁj'ent az tu de praktikal yusfulnes ov de Fonetik
sistem ov spelii]. Tu doz hu, wi‘f for mor evidens ei
rekomend a pamﬁet bei Mr G. Withers, “ Ele Igglif
Laggwej Speld az Pronotinst,” 1874: and won bei Dr
J. W. Martin, “ EIe Gordian Not Kat,” 1875, wher de
wil feind de konkerent testimoni ov praktikal tigerz in
Ingland, Skotland, Eirland, and Amerika, ol agriii] dat,
bod az a praktikal and a lojikal trenii], de Fonetik sis-
tem haz pruvd dc gretest SBkSES.
Fl er remenz, derfor, dis wan objekj'on onli, dat whot».
0N SPELLING. 25
ever de praktikal, and whotever de dioretikal advantejez
ov dc fonetik sistem me bi, it wud 81261'11 destroi de his-
torikal or etimolojikal karakter ov de Igglij laggwej.
Sb'poz it did ; whot den ? He Reforms} on iz sopozd
tu hav destroid de historikal karakter ov do Irjglif Oe'rg,
and dat sentimental grivans iz stil felt bei som stiudents
0v ekliziastikal antikwitiz. Bot did Irjgland, did (01 do
riali progresiv n-efonz ov Yurop, alou dis sentimental
grivans tu outwe de praktikal and dioretikal advantejez
ov Protestant Reform ? Laijgwej iz not med for skolarz
and etimolojists : and if de hol res ov Igglif etimolojists
wer riali tu bi swept awe bei de introdskj' on ov a Spelii}
Reform, ei hop (is wud bi de ferst tu rejois in sakrifeiziij
demselvz in so gud a koz.
Bat iz it riali de kes dat de historikal kontiniiiiti 0v
de Irjglif laggwej wud bi broken bei de adopj'on ov fo-
netik speliij, and dat de profef on ov de etimolojist wud
bi gon for ever? Ei se, No, most emfatikali, tu bot}
propozij‘onz. If de seiens ov laijgwej haz priivd enidiij,
it haz prdvd (fat 01 larjgwejez genj akordirj tu lo, and
wid konsiderabel yiiniformiti. If, derfor, de reitirj folod,
part‘ passu, on do genjez in pronansiej'on, whot iz kold
de etimolojikal konj'rssnes ov de spikerz and do riderz—
ei spik, ov kors, ov ediuketed pipel onli—wud not safer
in de list. If wi reten de filiij ov an etimolojikal konekj'on.
betwin gentlemanly and gentlemanh/ce, wi fud fiurli reten
it whetter wi reit gentlemanly or jentelmantz'. If wi fil dat
think and thought, bring and brought, buy and bought,
freight and fraught, belorj tugeder, j'ud wi til it les if wi
rot 6oz‘, brat, beat, frat ? If, in spikirj, doz hu no Latin
retsn do [iliij dat wsrdz endiij in -atz'on korespond tu
Latin wa’rdz in -atz'o, wud tie lqz de tiliij if do so de ssm
wa'rdz speld Witt efon? or iven “ejsn?” Du the not rekog-
26 ON SPE LLING.
neiz Latin -ilia in -ice ; or -illis in -le, az in -able (Latin
abilis)? . If de skolar noz, at wans, dat sag wardz az
barbarous, anan'ous, circus, genius, ar ov Latin orijin,
wud hi hezitet if de last silabel in Q1 ov dem wer yuni-
formli riten “ as ?” Ne, iz not de prezent spelirJ ov
barbarous and anxious enteirli mislidig, bei konfoundir)
wardz endir] in -osus, sag az famous (famosus) wid wardz
en'dig in -us, leik barbarous, ana'ious, ets.? Bekoz de
Italianz reit ﬁlosofo, ar de les awer dan fle Igglij', hu reit
philosopher, and dc Freng, hu, reit philosophe, dat (is hav
befor Clem tle Latin philosophus, de Grik ¢ll\(50'0¢0$‘? If
wi reit f in fancy, whei not in phantom .? if in frenzy
and frantic, whei not in phrenologg .? A larigwej Whig
'tolerets vial for phial, nid not fiver at ﬁlosofer. Everi
xediuketed spiker no‘z dat sag wardz az honour, ara'our,
colour, odour, labour, vigour, error, emperor, hav past
from Latin tu Freng, and from Freng tu Igglif. Wud
hi no it les if cal wer speld aleik, sag az onor (onorabel),
ardor, m'gor (vigorous), labor (laborious), or iven “onar,
ardar, vigar ? ” He old spelii] ov emperor, doctor,
governor, and error, woz emperour, doctour, gooernour,
and errour. If diz kud bi gsnjd, whei not de rest‘?
‘Spenser haz neibor for neighbour, and it iz diﬁkalt tu so
I whot woz gend bei genjir) -bor intu -bour in sag piurli
'Sakson wardz az neighbor, harbor. No dout if wi si
laugh riten wid gh at de end, doz hu, no J erman ar at
wans remeinded ov its etimolojikal konekjon wid de
Jerman lachen; bat fud sun no (‘le sem bei analoji,
if wi found not onli “lsf,” bat “ kof ” for cough (J er.
. .keuchen), “enaf” for enough (Jer. genug), ets. In
“draft,” fonetik spelir) haz nirli saplanted tie so-kold
historikal spelig draught; in “ dwarf” (dwergh, thweorh)
and in “ ruﬁ' ” (rough), oltugeder.
0N SPELLING. 27
Whot pipel kol de etimolojikal konjosnes ov de spiker
iz striktli a mater ov oratorikal sentiment onli, and it
wud remcn nirli az StI'OlJ' az it iz nou, whotever spelii)
bi adopted. Bot iven if it jud safer hir and der, wi 0t
tu bar in meind dat, eksept for oratorikal porposez, dat
konfasnes, kon-feind az it iz tu a veri ﬁu ediuketed pipel,
iz ov veri smol importans, anles it haz ferst bin korekted
bei a strikt etimolojikal disiplin. Widout dat, it often
dejenerets intu Whot iz kold “ popiular etimoloji,” and
aktiuali tendz, in som kesez, tu vij'iet de korekt spelii)
ov wordz.
Ei hav frikwentli dwelt on dis befor, in order tn [6
hou, whot iz nou kold de etirnolojikal or historikal
spelirJ ov wordz iz, in meni kesez, sterli ‘onetimolojikal
and zmhistorikal. Wi spel to delight, and dos indiiis
' meni pipel tu beliv dat dis word iz somhou konekted
wid light (lux), or light (levis) ; whsraz de old spelig
woz to delgt or to delite (Tyndale), reprezentig de old
Freng deleiter. On de e'der hand wi feind for quite and
smite, dc old spelii] guight, smight, Whig me bi old and
historikal, bot iz deseidedli onetimolojikal.
Sovereign and foreign ar speld az if dc wer konekted
wid reign, regnum; de tru, etimoloji ov de former biig
superanus, Old Freng soorain, Old Igglij' sooeraine;
wheil foreign iz de let Latin foraneus ; Old Freng forain 5
Old Igglij forein. And whei duu wi reit to feign .2 Arg-
bij'op Trench (“ Igglij~ Past and Prezent,” p. 238)
dirJks de g in feign iz elokwent tu de ei; but its elokwens
iz mislidii]. Feign iz not taken from Latin ﬁngo, az litel
az honour iz taken from Latin honor. Feign kxmz from
de Old Ereng faindre; it woz in Old Igglij fagnen and
fegnen, and it woz derfor a mir etimolojikal fent tu insert
de g ov de Latin ﬁngo, and de Freng feignant. He Old _
28 ON SPELLING.
Igglij' shammfast (Orm.), formd leik stedefasst (stedfas't)
iz nou speld shamefaced, az if it had sa'mdiiJ tu dd wid a _
blofii) fes. Aghast, insted ov 61d Iigglij~ agasl, iz supozd
tu luk mor freitful bekoz it remeindz ‘88 0V ghost. He
Freng lanterne woz riten taut-horn, az if it had bin so
kold from de transperent [its ov horn dat enklozd de
leit. He s in island oz its orijin tu a mistaken belif dat
de word iz konekted wid isle (tnsula), wheraz it iz de
Anglo-Sakson edland (J erman ez'laud ), dat iz, water-
-land. He spelii) iland woz stil ksrent in Shakspere’s
teim. In aisle, tu, de s iz snetimolojikal, do it iz his-
torikal, az havin bin teken over from de @“ld Freng aisle.
His tendensi tu olter de SPGIIlJ in order tu impart tu
a word, at 031 hazardz, an etimolojikal karakter, beginz
iven in Latin, wher postumus, a siuperlativ ov post, woz
s‘smteimz riten posthumus, az if, when apleid tu a let- -
-born sen, it woz dereivd from humus. In Igglif, dis
fols spelig iz retend in posthumous. Cena woz speld bei
_ pipel hu wonted tu fo der nolej ov Grik, ccena, az if
konekted wid newt’, Whig it iz not.
But nou let us luk mor kerfuli intu do far mor
important stetment, dat de Inglif langwej, if riten fo-
netikali, wud riali lu,z its historikal and etimolojikal
karakter. He ferst kwestion iz, in whot sens kan de
prezent spelii) ov Igglif bi kwld historikal? Wi hav
onli tu go bak a veri fort we in order tu si de modern
spstart karakter ov whot iz kold historikal spelirJ. nou reit pleasure, measure, and feather, bet not veri 103g
ago, in Spenser’s teim, diz wa'rdz wer speld plesure,
mesure, fether. Tyndale rot frute ; de 2' in fruit iz a mir
restore] on ov de li‘reng spelirJ. For debt, on de kontrari,
wi feind, but dri or for hundred yirz ago, dett. His iz
mor historikal derfor dan debt, bekoz in Freng, from
0N SPELLING. 29
wbig de ward woz borod, de 6 had disapird, and it woz
a piurli etimolojikal fansi tu restor it. He b woz leik-
weiz ri-introdiﬁst in doubt, bat de 12 woz not restord in
to count (Freng compter, Latin computare), wher p had
at list de sem reit az b in doute. He's receipt reziiir'nz de
Latin 12, but deceit dsz widout it. To deign kips de g,
to disdain dzs'z widout it. Her iz anader b whig haz a
serten historikal er in sxm Irjglif wxrdz, but Whig woz
orijinali piurli fonetik, and iz nou simpli siupérﬁiuss.
He old word for member woz Zim. In sag kompoundz
az lim-lama, lim(b) -lame ; Zim- Zeas, lim(b) -less, it woz im-
posibel tu avoid de interkalej' on ov a b in pronelnsiej' on.
In dis maner de b krept in, and wi hav nou tu tig dat
in limb, crumb (crume), thumb (thuma) de b mast bi riten,
but not pronoiinst. Agen, tung (J er. zunge), yung (J er.
‘ 'jung), az speld bei Spenser, hav a far mor historikal
aspekt dan tongue and young.
If wi wi j” t tu reit historikali, wi ot tu reit saim insted
ov psalm, for de inij'al p, biirj lost in pronsnsief on, woz
dropt in reitiij at a veri erli teim (Anglo-Sakson sealm)
and woz ri-introdiiist simpli tu pliz ssm ekliziastikal
etimolojists ; also nevew (Freng ne'veu) insted ov nephew,
Whig iz bod Xnetimolojikal and snfonetik.
In whot sens kan it bi kold historikal spelirj if de
old pliuralz ov mouse and louse, whig wer mys and Zys,
ar nou speld mice and lice .? He pliural ov goose iz not
speld geece but geese, yet everibodi noz hou tu pronouns
it. He ssm mistsken atempt at an okegonal fonetik
speliij haz separated dice from die, and pence from pens,
dat iz, penyes; wheil in nurse, wber de speliIj nurce
wud hav bin yusful, az remeindirj as ov its tru etimon
nourrice, de 0 haz bin riplsst bei s.
Her ar, in fakt, meni speliijz whig wud bi at de ssm -
30 ON SPELLIN G.
teim mor historikal and mor fonetik. Whei reit little,
when nowan pronoiinsez little, and when de old spelig
woz lgtel? Whei girdle, when de old spelig woz girdel?
He sem rul apleiz tu nirli ol wardz endig in lo, sag az
sickle; ladle, apple, ets., wher de etimoloji iz komplitli ‘
obskiiird bei de prezent ordograﬁ. W hei scent, bat
dissent, when iven Milton stil rot sent? Whei ache,
insted ov de Zskspirian ake? Whei cat, bat kitten;
whei cow, bat kine .? Whei accede, precede, secede, bat
exceed, proceed, succeed? Whei indid, eksept tu west
de prefas teim ov gildren?
And if it iz diﬁkalt tu se whot konstitiuts historikal
spelig, it iz ikwali perpleksii] tu defein de rial minig ov
etimolojikal spelig. For, wher ar wi tu stop ‘P It wud
bi konsiderd' veri anetimolojikal wer wi tu reit nee
insted ov knee, now insted ov know, night insted ov
knight; yet nowan komplenz about de los ov de inifal'
h, de reprezentativ 0v an orijinal k, in loaf; A. S. hlaf
(cf. KAlBaVOS), in ring (A.S. hring); in lade, ladder,
neck, ets.
If wi ar tu reit etimolojikali, den whei not retarn tu
looerd, or hlaford, insted ov lord? tu nose-thrill, or
nosethirle insted ov nostril ; tu swister insted ov sister ;
Whig wud not bi mor trabelsam dan sword. Wi mann
jiurli wud bi beter dan woman; meadwife beter dan
midwife; godspel beter dan gospel, ortgard beter dan
orchard, puisne beter dan pung. Frikwentli de prezent
rekogneizd spelig luks etimolojikal, bat it iz aterli
anetimolojikal. Righteous luks leik an ajektiv in -eous,
sag az plenteous, bat it iz riali a Sakson ward, rightwis,
dat iz rightwise, formd leik otherwise, ets.
Could iz riten wid an l in analoji tu would, bat wheil
de l iz jastifeid in would from will, and should from '
0N SPELLING. 81
shall, wi feind de Old Igglif imperfekt ov can riten
cuthe, den couthe, coude. He l, derfor, iz neider fonetik
nor etimolojikal. Nadir‘), agen, kan bi mor mislidig tu
an etimolojist dan de prezent spelig ov whole and hate.
Bod k'om from de sem sors, de Godik hail-s, Sanskrit
lcalga-s, minii] orijinali, ﬁt, redi; den sound, complete,
whole. In Agglo-Sakson wi hav heel, hol; and hat,
heldi, Widout eni tres 'ov a w, cider befor or after. He ‘
Old Igglij' halsum, holsom, iz de Jerman hailsam.
Whole, derfor, iz a mir mis-spelii], de 20 havig probabli
bin aded in analoji tu who, which, ets. From a piurli
etimolojikal point ov viu, do w iz rogli left out befor h
in hou; foraz Agglo-Sakson hwy bekem why, Anglo-
Sakson hwa Ind hav bekom whow.
If wiriali atempted tu reit etimolojikali, wi [ud hav
tu reit bridegroom Widout de 1', bekoz groom iz a mir
koropj’on ov guma, man, Agglo-Sakson bryd-guma. Wi
j'ud hav tu reit burse insted 0v purse, az in disburse. In
fakt, it iz diﬁkslt tu ss wher Wi jud stop. Whei du wi
not reit metal insted ov mettle, worthship insted ov
worship, chiru-rgeon insted ov surgeon, furhlong (dat iz,
foro 101,1) insted ov furlong, feordhing (dat iz, ford part}
insted ov farthing? If wi reit piuni puisne, wi meit az
wel reit post-natus. Wi meit spel koi, guietus ; pert,
apertus ; prist, presbyter 3 master, magister; sekston,
saoristan ; smz, eleemosyne, ets. If enibodi wil tel mi
at whot det etimolojikal spelirJ iz tu begin, wheder at
1,500 A.D., or at 1,000 A.D., or at 500 A.D., ei am wilii].
tu diske‘s de kwestion. Til den, ei beg liv tu se dat eti~
molojikal spelig wud ple grater havok in Igglij' dan
fonetik spelii], iven if wi wer tu drco a lein not mor dan
feiv hundred yirz ago.
He ti’i stroggest argiuments, derfor, agenst fonetik
32 ON SPELLING.
spelii], nemli, dat it wud destroi de historikal and eti-
molojikal karakter ov de Igglif laggwej, ar, after Q1, bet
veri parj'ali trii. Hir and der, no dout, de etimoloji and
histori ov an Igglij' ward meit bi obskidrd bei fonetik
spelii] ; az if, for instans, wi rot “Yurop” insted ov
Europe. But iven den analoji wud-help as, and tic doz
huu no Grik, ov hum der ar not meni, dat “ Yur” in sag
wsrdz az Europe, Eurydice, reprezénted de Grik eilpds‘.
He rial anser, houever, iz, dat nowsn kud onestli kol de
prezent sistem ov spelii) eider historikal or etimolojikal 3
and ei beliv, dat teken az a hol, de los okegond bei
konsistent fonetik spelin wud not bi greter dan de gen.
Anoder objekfon zsrjd 'agenst fonetik spelii], nemli,
dat wid it it wud bi imposibel tu distingwif homonimz,
most bi-met in de sem we. No dout it iz a serten ad-
vantej. if in reitig wi kan distiggwij right, rite, writes
and wright. But if, in de heri ov konversej'on, der iz
hardli ever a dout Whig ward iz ment, fiurli der wud bi
meg les denjer in de slo proses ov ridii] a kontiniuss
sentens. If veriss speligz ov de sem word ar neseseri
tu point out diferent minigz, wi fud rekweir et spelirJz
for how, tu signifei a gest, a Krismas gift, a hsntii) sit,
a tri, a slap, tu sel round, sits in a diater, and de front
sit on a kog ; and dis prinsipel wud hav tu bi apleid tu
absv 4100 wsrdz. I-Iu wud Xndertek tu proveid o1 diz
veriej‘onz ov de prezent yuniform. spelii] ov diz wsrdz?
And wi most not forget dat, after col, in ridip a pej wi
ar seldom in dout wheder sole minz a ﬁf, or de sole ov
a fut, or iz yuzd az an ajektiv. If der iz at eni teim eni
rial diﬁkzslti, laggwej proveidz its on remedi. It eider
drops sag wordz az rite and sole, replesii] dem bei cere-
many and only, or it yiizez a‘ perifrastik eksprefon, sag
az de sol ov de fut, or de sol and onli ground, ets.
0N SPELLING. 33
Has far ei hav treid tu anser de riali important argiu-
ments whig hav bin brot forwerd agenst fonetik spelig.
Ei hav den so wid spejal referens'tu de pouerful remon-
stransez ov Argbij'op Trench, and biz most ebel
plidiij in favor ov de establij't sistem ov ordograﬁ. A2.
a mir skolar, ei fuli I er biz ﬁlirjz, and ei sinsirli admeir
biz elokwent advokasi. Ei difer from him bekoz ei du,
not dirjk, az bi dnz, dat de los enteld bei fonetik spelilj
wud bi so gret az wi imajin; .or dat it wud bi ol on
wen seid. Beseidz, enles hi kan f o hou a reform ov
spelirj iz not onli for de prezent tu bi avoided, but oltu-
geder tu bi renderd enneseseri, ei' konsider dat de suner
it iz tsken in band do beter. It simz tu mi dat de
Argbifop luks on de introdekj'on ov fonetik spelirj an
a mir kroget ov a ﬂu skolarz, or az an atempt on de
part ov .ssm hsf-ediuketed personz, wifiij tu avoid de
tre'bel ov lernirj hou tu spel korektli. If dat wer so, ei
kweit agri wid him dat peblik opinion wud never asiiim
seﬁj'ent fors for kariiij der skim. Bet der iz a motiv
pouer beheind diz fonetik reformerz whig de Argbi J‘ op haz
hardli teken intu akount. Ei min de mizeri endiiird bei
milionz ov gildren at skul, hu, meit 1cm in wen yir, and
wid rial advantej tn demselvz, whot de nou rekweir for
or feiv yirz tu 1ern, and seldom seksid in lernirj after 0)].
‘ ' If de evidens ov sag men az Mr Ellis iz tu bi depended
on, and ei beliv hi iz wilirj tn submit tu eni test, den
fiurli de los ov sem historikal and etimolojikal suvnz'rz
wud we litel agenst de hapines 0v milionz ov gildren, and
de stil heier hapines ov milionz 0v Iijgli f men and Igglif-
wimen, groirj ep az de erz [heirs] tu (01 de weld and
strerjd 0v Iljglif literatiur, or enebel tu rid iven der
Beibel. Hir it iz wher ei ventiur tu difer from de Arg-
bij‘op, not az biig sangwin az tu eni immidiet sskses,
34 ON SPELLING.
bat simpli az iilir] it a diuti tu help in a koz Whig at
prezent iz most anpopiular. He ivil de me bi put of for
alog teim, partikiularli if de wet ov sag men az Arg-
bi i op Trench iz dron intu de ader skel. Bat anlés lag-
gwej sisez tu bi laggwej, and reitig sisez tu bi reitig, de
de wil ~[iurli kam when pis wil hav tu bi med betwin de
mi. Jermani haz apointed a Gavernment Komifon tu
konsider whot iz tu bi dan wid Jerman spelig. In
Amerika, tu, sam lidig stetsmen sim inkleind tu tek ap
de reform ov spelig on nafonal groundz. Iz der no
stetsman in Iggland saﬁj'entli pruf agenst ridikiul tu
kol de atenj'on ov Parliment tu whot iz a groig naj'onal
misfortiun?
Mag, houever, az ei difer from de Argbijop on diz
groundz, ei kanot bat depreket de ton in Whig hiz pou-
erful opozij' on haz bin met bei meni ov de apholderz ov
fonetik spelig. Ne, ei mast go stil farder, and fragkli
konfés dat tu wan ov hiz argiuments ei feind it diﬁkalt,
at prezent, tu giv a satisfaktori anser.
“ It iz a mir asampj'on,” de Argbi J‘ op remarks, “ dat
01 men pronoiins ol wardz aleik; or dat whenever de
kam tu spel a ward de wil ekzaktli agri az tu whot de
outlein ov its sound iz. Nou wi ar fiur men wil not dq
dis, from de fakt dat, befor der woz eni ﬁkst and seteld
ordograﬁ in our laggwej, when, derfor, everibodi woz
mor or les a fonografer, sikig tu reit doun de ward az
it sounded tu him,——for hi had no ader lo tu geid him,
——de veriejonz ov spelii] ar inﬁnit. Tek, for instan's, de
ward sudden, Whig daz not sim tu promis eni gret skop
for vareiet-i. Ei hav meiself met wid dis ward speld in
no les dan fortin wez amag our erli reiterz. Agen, in
hou meni wez woz Italeigh’s nem speld, or Shakspere’s ?
He sem iz evident from de spelig ov anediuketed personz
0N SPELLING. 85
in our on do. He hav no oder but de sound tu geid
dem. Hou iz it dat ds du, not al spel aleik ?”-—-English
Past and Present, p. 203.
Leik most men hii plid wid der hart az we]. az wid
der hed, de Argbij'op haz hir overlukt won ObVlXS anser
tu .hiz kwestion. He du not spel aleik bekaz de hav
bin brat up wid a sistem ov spelig in Whig de sem sound
kan bi reprezented in ten diferent wez, and in whig
hardli eni won leter iz restrikted tu won fonetik pouer
onli. If gildren wer brat op wid an alfabet in whig ig -
leter had but won sound, and in Whig de sem sound woz
alwez reprezented bei de sem sein—and dis iz de veri
esens ov fonetik reitig—den it wud bi simpli imposibel
dat dc fud drim ov reitig sudden in fortin, or Woburn
in 14.40, diferent wez.
But for al dat der iz sum trud in de Argbij'op’s re-
mark; and if wi komper de diferent wsz in whig de
advoksts ov fonetik spelirJ—men leik Pitman, Bell,
Ellis, Withers, Jones—reit de ssm we'rdz, iven when
. yqziig de sem fonetik alfabet, wi fal si - dat de diﬁks'lti
pointed out bei de Argbij'op iz a rial wan. Everiws'n
noz hou diferentli de sem wordz alwez hav bin and stil
ar pronounst in diferent parts ov Iggland. And it iz
not onli in tounz and kountiz dat diz pekiuliaritiz pre-
vel ; der ar serten wordz Whig won famili pronoiinsez
diferentli from ane'der ; and der ar beseidz de stodid and
onstodid pekiuliaritiz ov individiual spikerz. Tu kon-
vins ‘pipel dat won prononsief on iz reit and de ader rog,
simz aterli hoples. Ei hav herd a heili koltiveted man
defendig hiz dropirJ de h at de beginii] ov serten wordz,
bei de Knanserabel argiument dat in de ples wher hi
woz brat op, nowsn pronoiinst diz inij'al h’z. Whot
Skogman wud admit dat hiz pronsnsiefon woz falti?
36 ON SPELLING.
Whot Eiriiman wudsebmit tu lcoz ov speliig past in
London? And whot renderz argiument on eni neisetiz
0v pronzsnsiej' on stil mor diﬁkzslt iz, dat bod de ir and de
ton ar most tregeros witnesez. Ei hav herd Amerikanz
menten in gud ernest dat der woz mag les ov nezal twag
in Amerika dan in Iijgland. Pipel ar not awer hou_ de
pronoiins, and hen diferentli de pronodns won and de
sem word. Az a forener ei hav had ampel oportiunitiz
for obzervef on on dis point. Ssm frendz wud tel
mi, for instans, dat world woz pronodnst leik whirt’d,
father leik farther, nor (befor konsonantsl leik gnaw,
bud leik bird, burst leik bust, for leik fur, birth leik
berth; dat de vouelz had de sem sound in where and
were, in God and gaudy ; wheil oderz afiurd mi dat
nowzsn bet a forener kud dink so. And do worst iz, dat
iven de sem person doz not olwez pronouns de sem word
in ekzaktli de sem maner. Konstantli, when ei askt a
frend tn repit a word Whig hi had just pronounst, hi
wud pronouns it agen, bet wid a sleit diferens. He mir
fakt ov hiz treiii.) tu pronodns wel wud giv tu hiz pro-
nsnsiej'on a konj'a's’and emfatik karakter. He prepozifon
of iz pronoiinst bei most pipel on, hot if kros-ekzamind,
meni wil se dat de pronouns on, hot de 0 not ekzaktli
leik 01?‘.
He konﬁugon beksmz gretest when it iz atempted tu
eidentifei de pronsnsiej'on, se ov a vouel in J erman wid
a vouel in Igglif. No ti’i Ingli f men and no tii J ermanz
simd tu bi ebel tu agri on whot de herd wid der irz, or
whot de sed wid der te'gz ; and de rezzslt in do end iz, dat
no vouel in J erman woz riali de sem az eni xder vouel
in Igglij'. Tu tek won or ti’i instansez from Mr Ellis’s
Ki tu Palioteip (Paloeotype), ei kan hir no diferens be-
twin do a in Italian mano, Iiyglij‘ father, and J erman
ON SPELLING. 37
mahnen, enles ei restrikt mei obzerveionz tu de eterans
ov serten individiualz ; wheraz ei dq hir a veri deseided,
and jenerali adopted, diferens betwin de vouelz in J er-
man bo'cke and Freng jeune. Mr Ellis, tegirj on de sem
diﬁkelti, remarks, “ Mr Bell’s pronensiefon, in meni
instansez, diferz from dat whig ei am akestomd tu giv,
espej'ali in foren werdz. Bod ov es me bi rorj.” Mr
Sweet remarks, pej 10, “ Mr Ellis insists strorjli on de
monofdorjgal karakter 0v hiz on e’z and o’z. Ei hir
biz e (may), and o (no) az distiijkt difdoijz, not onli in
biz Irjglif pronensiefon, bet also in lllZ pronensiejon
ov Freng, Jerman, and Latin.” If fonetik reitig ment
. dis minilit fotograﬁ ov spoken soundz, in Whig Mes. Bell
and Ellis eksél ; if eni atempt had ever bin med tu emploi
dis her-splitirj mafineri for a praktikal reform ov Igglif
spelig, do objekj'onz rezd bei Argbifop Trench wud bi
kweit enanserabel. Her wud bi ﬁfti diferent wez ov
spelig Irjglij', and do konﬁugon wud bi greter dan it iz
non. Not iven Mr Bell’z derti'siks kategoriz ov vouel
sound wud bi seﬁj'ent tu render everi pekiuliariti ov vouel
kwoliti, pig, and kwontiti, wid perfekt akiurasi. (Si
H. Sweet, “Histori ov Igglij' Soundz,” pp. 58, 68,)
Bet "dis woz never intended, and wheil konsidiij meg tu
de Argbijop’s argiuments, ei mest not konsid tu meg.
Whot ei leik in Mr Pitman’z sistem ov spelii) iz ek-
zaktli whot ei n6" haz bin found folt wid bei ederz, nemli,
dat hi dez not atempt tu refein tu meg, and tu ekspres
in reitig doz endles [edz ov pronensief on, whig me bi ov
de gretest interest tu de stindent ov akoustiks, or ov
fonetiks, az apleid tu de stedi ov livig deialekts, bet
Whig, for praktikal az wel az for seientiﬁk ﬁlolojikal
perposez, mest bi enteirli ignord. Reitiij woz never
intended tu fotograf spoken laggwejez : it woz ment tu
38 ON SPELLING.
indiket, not tu pent, soundz. If Voltaire sez, “ L’ecri-
ture c’est la peinture de la voix,” hi iz reit ; bat when
hi goz on tu se, “plus elle est ressemblante, meilleur'
elle est,” ei am not serten dat, az in a piktiur ov a land-
skep, so in a piktiur ov de vois, pri-Itsfeleit miniutnes
me not destroi de veri objekt ov de piktiur. Laggwej
dilz in broad kalorz, and reiti'g at tu folo de ekzampel ov
laggwej, whig do it alouz an endles vareieti 0v pronan-
siej' on, restrikts itself for its on parpos, for de parpos -ov
ekspresig dot in (91 its modiﬁkej'onz, tu a veri limited
namber ov tipikal vouelz and konsonants. Out ov de
larj namber ov soundz, for instans, whig hav bin kata-
logd from de verias Igglij' deialekts, doz onli kan bi
rekogneizd az konstitiuent elements 0v de laggwej whig
in, and bei, der diferens from ig ader konvé a diferens ov
minig. ()v sag pregnant and dot-konveig vouelz, Igglij'
pozésez no mor dan twelv. Whotever de meinor j'edz
ov vouel soundz in Igglij' deialekts me bi, de du not en-
rig de laggwej, az sag, dat iz, de d1], not enebel de spiker
tu konvé mor miniiit j‘edz ov dot dan de twelv tipikal
siggel vouelz. Beseidz, der jenerali iz whot de Freng
meit kol a fonetik solidariti in ig deialekt. If wan vouel
genjez, de aderz ar apt tu folo. and de men objekt ov
laggwej remenz de sem drqout, nemli, tu prevent wan
ward from ranig intu anader, and yet tu absten from tii
miniiit fonetik distigkj'onz, whig an ordineri ir meit feind
it diﬁkalt tu grasp. His prinsipel ov fonetik solidariti
iz ov gret importans, not onli in eksplenig de gradiual
genjez 0v vouelz, bat also sag jeneral genjez 0v konso-
nants az Wi si, for instans, in de Jerman Lautoerschiebung.
Az sun az wan ples iz left vekant, der iz prej'ur tu til it,
or so mag ov it az iz left vekant, bat no mor.
Her er, in fakt, tii brangez, or at 01 events, tii kweit
0N SPELLING. 39
distigkt praktikal aplikefonz ov de seiens ov Fonetiks,
Whig, for Wont ov beter nemz, ei designet az ﬁloloji/ca/
and ~deialektikal. Her iz Whot ms bi kald a ﬁlolojikal
studi ov Fonetiks, Whig iz an esenj'al part 0v de Seiens
ov Laggwej, and haz for its objekt tu giv a klir eidia ov
de alfabet, not az riten, but az spoken. It trits ov de
matirialz out ov Whig, de instruments Wid Whig, and de
proses bei Whig, vouelz and konsonants ar formd ; and
after eksplenig hou serten leterz agri, and difer, in der
matirial 3 in de instruments Wid Whig, and de proses bei
Whig, dc ar prodiiist; it enebelz us tu understand dc
kazez and rezults ov Whot iz kald Fonetik Oenj. In
meni respekts de most instruktiv tritment ov de jeneral
diori ov Fonetiks iz tu bi found in de Pratisakhyas;
partikiularli in de oldest (400 B.K.), dat atagt tu de Rig
Veda.1 Ho dc number ov posibel soundz ms sim inﬁnit,
de number ov rial soundz yuzd in Sanskrit or eni uder
given laggwej for de purpos ov ekspresiiJ diferent fedz
0v minig, iz veri limited. It iz Wid diz brad kategoriz
ov sound alon dat de Pratisakhyas dil ; and it iz for a
proper understandii) ov diz de Seiens ov Laggwej haz
tu inkliud Widin its stir a kerful studi ov Fonetiks.
He deialektikal studi ov Fonetiks haz larjer objekts.
It Wifez tu ekzast al posibel soundz Whig kan bi pro-
dii’ist bei dc vokal organz, litel konsernd az tu wheder
diz soundz oku‘r in eni rial laggwej or not. It in
partikiularli yusful for de purpos ov pentig, wid de ut-
most akiurasi, de aktiual pronunsiefon ov individiualz,
and ov ﬁksig de fentest fedz ov deialektik vareieti. Ho
1 “Rig-Veda-Pratisakhya, Das alteste Lellrbuch der Vedischen Phonetik,
Sanskrit Text mit Ubersetzung und Anmerkungcn, herausgsgeben,” von F.
Max Miiller, Leipzig, 1869.
40 ' ON SPELLING.
most marvele's agivment in dis brang ov apleid fonetiks
me bi sin in Mr. Bell’s “ Vizibel Spig.”
Hiz ti’i brangez ov fonetik seiens, houever, j'ud bi kept
kerfuli distigkt. Az de foundef on ov a praktikal alfabet,
leikweiz az de onli sef foundef on for de Seiens ov Laggwej,
wi wont ﬁlolojikal or dioretik Fonetiks. Wi wont an
"snderstandig 0v doz jeneral prinsipelz and doz brod
kategoriz ov sound Whig ar trited in de Pratisakhyas ;
wi du, not wont eni ov de minidt deialektik distigkj'onz,
Whig hav no gramatikal porpos, and ar derfor outseid de ‘
pel 0v gramatikal seiens. Tu'minidt distigkfon pro-
didsez konﬁugon, and wher it kan bi avoided, widout a
sakrifeiz ov akiurasi, it (at tu bi avoided. Wher vegnes
ekzists in rialiti, and wher netiur alouz a brod marjin on
eider seid, it wud bi rog tu ignor dat latitiud. Akiurasi
itself wud hir beka'm inakiurasi.
But when wi wont tu ekzcost ol posibel fedz ov sound,
when wi wont tu fotograf de pekiuliaritiz ov serten
deialekts, or megur de diviej'onz in de prona'nsiefon ov
individiualz bei de most miniut degriz, wi den most avel
ourselvz ov dat ekskwizit artistik mafineri konstrzskted
bei Mr. Bell, and handeld wid so mag skil bei Mr A. J.
Ellis, do ﬁu onli wil bi ebel tu yuz it wid rial sskses.
Sam pipel sim tu imajin dat de pouer ov distiggwifig
minidt diferensez 0v soundz iz a natiural gift, and kanot
bi akweird. It me bi so in kweit eksepj'onal kesez, bet
ei no az a fakt dat a geild dat had, az pipel se, no ir for
miuzik, and kud not sig “ God Sev de Kwin,” gradiuali
akweird de pouer ov distiggwij'ig de ordineri nots, and
ov sigii] a tiun. Spikig from mei on ekspiriens, ei fud
se dat a gud ir ke'mz bei inheritans, for, az lop az ei kan
remember, a fols not, or, az wi yust tu kol it, an impiur
(unrein) not, woz tu mi ﬁzikali penful.
0N SPELLING. 4:1
Bet dis apleiz tu miuzik onli, and it iz bei no minz
jenerali tru, dat pipel bu hav a gud miuzikal ir, hav
olso a gud ir for laggwej. Ei hav non pipel kweit
enmiuzikal, pozést ov a veri gud ir for laggwej, and
vice oersci. He tii natiural gifts, derfor, if natiural gifts
de ar, ov distiggwij'ii] miniiit degriz ov pig and kwoliti
ov sound du not sim tu bi de sem. He rial diﬁkelti,
houever, whig meks itself felt in diskesig miniiit fedz ov
sound, areizez from de inseﬁj'ensi ov our nomenkletiur,
from do almost irrezistibel inﬁiuens 0v imajinej' on, and in
do end, from de wont ov a fonometer. A gud miuzi I an
kan distiggwij' betwin Cfarp and D ﬂat, a gud fonetij' an
betwin a “lo-bak-naro” and a “lo-mikst-naro” vouel.
Bet de kanot olwez translet der sentiments intu deﬁnit
laggwej, and if de trei bei aktiual eksperiment tu imitet
diz tii soundz ov vouelz, de imperfekfonz ov de ir and
terj, bod in de spiker and de lisener, frikwentli render
o1 atempts at a miutiual enderstandig imposibel. fal never areiv at seientiﬁk presigon til wi hav a fonom-
eter for kwoliti ov sound, nor do, ei si wbei seg an
instrument j'ud bi imposibel. Ei wel remember \Vheat-
stone telig mi, dat hi wud endertek tu riprodius bei minz
ov an instrument everi j' ed ov vouel in eni 1a1ggwej ov de
werld, and ei jud dirjk dat Willis’s and Helmholtz’s
eksperiments wud seplei de elements from whig seg a
fonometer meit bi konstitiuted. Az sun az wi kan
megur, defein, and riprodius, at plegur, whot at prezent
wi kan onli deskreib in aproksimet termz, de seiens ov
fonetiks wil bekem most frutful, and asiiim its lejitimet
ples az a sine gud non tu de stiudent ov laggwej.
Ei hav semteimz bin blemd for havirj insisted on '
Fonetiks biiij rekogneizd az de foundefon ov de Seiens
ov Larjgwej. Prof. Benfey and eder skolarz protested
42 ON SPELLING.
agenst de gapter ei hav devoted tu Fonetiks in de
Sekond Siriz ov mei “ Lektiurz,” az an anneseseri
inovefon, and doz protests hav bekam stil strogger ov
let. Bat hir, 1311, wi mast distiggwij betwin tii, digz.
Filolojikal or J eneral Fonetiks, ar, ei hold az strogli az-
ever, an integral part ov de Seiens ov Laggwej ; Deialek-
tik Fonetiks me bi yusful hir and der, bat de j'ud bi kept
widin der proper sﬁ’r 5 'aderweiz, ei admit az redili aa
eniwan els, de obskitir rsder dan revil de bred and
masiv kalorz ov sound whig laggwej yuzez for its
ordineri wark.
If reﬂekt a litel, wi [al si dat de ﬁlolojikal kon-
sepj'on ov a vouel iz samdig totali diferent from its
piurli akoustik or deialektik konsepj‘on. He former iz
giﬂi konsernd wid de stir ov posibel veriefon, and de later
wid de piurli fenomenal individiualiti ov ig vouel. Tu
de ﬁlolojist, de dri vouelz in septimus, for instans, whot-
ever der ekzakt pronansiefonz me hav bin at diferent
teimz, and in diferent provinsez ov de Roman Empeir,
ar potenj'ali wan and de sem. luk on septimus and
8360,10: az on Sanskrit saptamas, and onli bei noig dat
e, i, and u in septimus ar 01 reprezentativz ov a .fort a,
or dat optimus standz for de mor enjent optumus and
optomos, du, wi tek in at wan glans de hol histori and
posibel veriefon ov diz vouelz in diferent laggwejez and
deialekts. Even wher a vouel disapirz komplitli, az in
gigno for gigeno, in 'rrl'lr'rw for mean», de mental ei 0v de
ﬁlolojist disérnz and wez whot no ir kan hir. And wheil
in diz kesez de etimolojist, disregardig de klirest vareieti
0v pronansiej'on, trits sag vouelz az a, e, i, o, u az wan
and de sem, in aderz wher tii vouelz sim tu hav ekzaktli
de sem sound tu de deialekti i an, de ﬁlolojist on hiz part
persivz diferensez ov de gretest importans. He i in
on SPELLING. 4-3
ﬁdes and aliens me hav de sem sound az de i in gigno or
septimus, de a ov luo me not difer from de u in optumus
or lubens, but der intrinsik valiu, der kepabilitiz ov grod
and deké, ar totali diferent in ig. Wi fal never bi ebel
tu spik wid enidig leik rial seientiﬁk akiurasi ov de pro-
nunsiefon 0v cnj'ent laggwejez, but iven if wi luk tu der-
riten apirans onli, Wi si agen and agen hou vouelz, riten
aleik, ar historikali totali distigkt. Grimm introdiust.
de distigkj‘on betwin oii and at, betwin tin and art, not
bekaz it iz bei eni minz serten dat de pronunsiefon or
diz difdogz verid, but bekaz hi wift tu indiket dat do
antesidents ov di and tin wer diferent from doz ov a2"
and art. In Godik faihu, (Sk. pasu, pecu,) ai iz a-
j'ortend tu i, and broken befor h tu di; in Godik odit
(Sk. veda, (cite), ai iz radikal i stregdend tu (ii. In
Godik dadhtar (Sk. duhitar Gu'yd'rnp), ad iz radikal is:
broken tu ad ; in aiihna, uven (Sk. asna. i-rrvd=ixuo=dxuo),,
de ,au iz a darkend tu u, and broken tu du; wheil in-
Godik bdug ('n'épevya), du iz orijinal u stregdend tu du.
When wi hir é and o’ in Godik, Wi si ti, just az si‘,
Dorik d beheind Eionik 11. When wi hir c in canis, Wi
si Sanskrit s ; when Wi hir c in oruor, wi si Sanskrit k-
When wi hir 'y in 761105‘, Wi si Brian g ; when wi hir 7 in.
gbAe'yw, Wi si Brian 2.
Hiz ﬁu ilustrej‘onz wil eksplen, ei hop, de esenj‘a]L
diferens in de aplikej'on ov fonetiks tu ﬁloloji and-
deialektoloji, and wil [o dat in de former our bruj"
must‘ ov nesesiti bi brad, wheil in de later it must bi
fein. It iz bei miksii) up tii separet leinz ov reserg, it;
heili important in itself, dat so mug konﬁugon haz 0v
let bin okegond. He valiu 0v piurli fonetik obzervefonz'
Iud on no akount bi underrated ; but it iz neseseri, for-
dat veri rizon, dat deialektikal az wel az ﬁlolojikal
e114.‘ ON SPELLING.
fonetiks fud bi konfeind tu der proper sfir. He ﬁlolojist
haz meg tu lern from de fonetijan, bot hi fud never
‘forget dat hir, az elswher, whot iz bred and tipikal iz az
important and az seientiﬁkali akiuret az whot iz minidt
.and spefal.
Whot iz bred and tipikal iz often mor akiuret iven
dan whot iz miniut and spefal. It meit bi posibel, for
instans, bei a fotografik proses, tu reprezent de ekzakt
pozij'on 0v de ton and de inseid wolz ov de moud wheil
wi pronouns de Italian vouel 3'. Bot it wud bi de gretest
mistek tu sopoz dat dis imej givz as de onli we in Whig
‘dat vouel iz, and kan bi, pronounst. Ho ig individiual
me hav hiz on we ov P188113 de ton in pronounsii] Z‘, wi
‘hav onli tu trei de eksperiment in order tu konvins
ourselvz dat, wid sem efort, wi me veri dat poziion in
aneni Wez and yet prodids de sound 0v 3'. When, derfor,
"in mei “Lektiurz on de Seiens ov Laggwej,” ei 'gev
piktiurz 0v de pozifonz ov de vokal organz rekweird_for
pronounsii) de tipikal leterz 0v de alfabet, ei tuk gret
'eker tu mek dem tipikal, dat iz, tu liv dem ref skegez
reder dan miniut fotografs. Ei kanot beter ekspres whot
~ei fil on dis point dan bei kwotig de werdz 0v Haeckel :—
“ For didaktik psrposez, simpel skimatik ﬁgiurz ar
‘far mor yusful dan piktiurz prezervig de gretest fedfulnes
tu netiur and karid out wid de gretest akiurasi.” (“ Ziele
und Wege,” p. 37.)
Tu return, after dis digrei on, tu Mr Pitman’z alfabet,
~ei repit dat it komendz itself tu mei meind bei whot
oderz kol its inakiurasi. It i oz its rial and praktikal
wizdom bei not atemptig tu ﬁks eni distigkj'onz Whig
:ar not absoliutli neseseri. If, for instans, wi tek de
,jgxtzsral teniuis, wi feind dat Igglij' rekogneizez wen k
onli, oldo its pronzsnsieion veriz konsiderabli. It iz
0N SPELLING. 4'5
semteimz pronoiinst so az tu prodids almost a farp
krak; semteimz it haz a dip, holo sound ; and semteimz
a soft, lezi, mouillé karakter. It veriz konsiderabli
akordiij tu de vouel whig foloz it, az enibodi me hir, ne
lil, if hi pronounsez, in seksejon, kot, lcql, kar, kat, kit.
Bet az Igglij' dez not yuz diz diferent Irz for de perpos
ov distirjgwij'irj werdz or gramatikal formz, wen brod
kategori onli ov voisles geteral geks haz tu bi admited
in reitig Igglij'. In de Semitik laijgwejez de kes iz
diferent; not onli ar kaf and kof diferent in sound, bet
dis diferens iz yuzd tu distiggwij' diferent minigz.
Or if wi tek de vouel a in its orijinal, piur pronensie-
Ion, leik Italian a, kan izili persiv dat it haz diferent
kelorz in diferent kountiz ov Iijgland. Yet in reitig it
me bi trited az wen, bekoz it haz bet wen and de sem
gramatikal intenf on, and dez not konvé a niu miniij til
it eksidz its weidest limits. Gud spikerz in Iggland
pronoiins de a in last leik de piur Italian a ; wid
ederz it bekemz brod, wid ederz din. Bet do it me des
osilet konsiderabli, it mest not enkrog on de provins 0v
6, whig wud genj its miniig tu lest; nor on de provins ov
a, whig wud genj it tu lost-3 nor on de provins ov u, whig
wud genj it tu lust.
He diﬁkelti, derfor, whig Argbij' op Trench haz pointed
out iz riali restrikted tu doz kesez wher de pronensiefon
ov vouelz—for it iz wid vouelz gifli dat wi ar trebeld—
veriz so meg az tu overstep de brodest limits ov wen ov
de rekogneizd kategoriz ov sound, and tu enkrog on
aneder. If wi tek de werd fast, whig iz prononinst veri
diferentli iven bei ediuketed pipel, der wud bi no nesesiti
for indiketirj in reitiij de diferent fedz ov pronensisfon
‘whig lei betwin de sound ov de fort Italian a and de 1013
a herd in father. Bet when de a in fast it pronoiinst
46 ON SPELLING.
Ieik de a in fat, den de nesesiti ov a niu graﬁk eksponent
wud areiz, and Argbij op Trench wud bi reit in twiting
fonetik reformerz wid sagkj'onig tii speligz for de sem
ward.
Ei kud menj'on de nemz ov dri bij'ops, wan ov hum
pronoiinst de vouel in God leik God, anader leik rod, a
derd leik gad. He last pronansiej'on wud probabli bi
kondemd bei everibodi, bat de ader tii wud remen,
sagkj'ond bei de heiest odoriti, and derfor retend in
fonetik reitig.
So far, den, ei admit dat Argbi j' op Trench haz pointed
out a rial diﬁkalti inhirent in fonetik reitir) ; bat whot
iz dat wan diﬁkalti komperd wid de diﬁkaltiz ov de
prezent sistem ov Igglif spelig ? It wud not bi onest
tu trei tu eved hiz garj, bei seig dat der iz bat wan
pronansiefon rekogneizd bei de yuzej 0v ediuketed pipel.
Hat iz not so, and doz hu no best de beioloji 0v laggwej,
no dat it kanot bi so. He veri leif ov laggwej konsists
in a konstant frikj'on betwin de sentripetal fors 0v
kastom and de sentriﬁugal fors ov individiual fridom.
Agenst dat diﬁkalti derfor der iz no remedi. (Tnli hir
agen de Argbij'op simz tu hav overlukt de fakt dat de
diﬁkalti belogz tu de prezent sistem ov spelig nirli az
mag az tu de fonetik sistem. Her iz bat wan rekogneizd
we ov spelig, bat everibodi pronolinsez akordig tu hiz
on idiosinkrasiz. It wud bi de sem wid fonetik spelir'].
Wan pronansiefon, de best rekogneizd, Wud hav tu bi
adopted az a standard in fonetik reitig, livig tu everi
Igglifrnau hiz fridom tu pronoiins az simed gud tu him.
Wi j‘ud lqz nadir) ov whot wi nou pozés, and 01 de
advantejez ov fonetik reitii] wud remen animperd. He
rial stet ov de kes iz, derfor, dis--Nowan defendz de
prezent sistem ov spelig ; everiwan admits de sirias
0N SPELLIN G. 47
dnjuri Whig it inﬂikts on nafonal ediukej'on. Everibodi
admits de praktikal adv antejez ov fonetik spelig, but
after dat, al eksklem dat a reform ov spelii), wheder
parfal or komplit, iz imposibel. Wheder it iz imposibel
~ or not, ei gladli liv tu men 0v de wurld tu deseid. A2
a skolar, az a stiudent ov de histori ov laggwej, ei simpli
msnten dat in everzi riten laggwej a reform ov spelig iz,
81331161‘ or leter, inevitabel. No dout de ivil de me bi
put of. Ei hav litel dout dat it wil bi put of for meni
jenerej'onz, and dat a rial reform wil probabli not bi
karid eksept konkurentli Wid a veiolent sofal konvul I on.
Onli let de kwestion bi argiud ferli. Let fakts hav sum
wet, and let it not bi supozd bei men ov de Wurld dat
doz hu defend de prinsipelz ov de Fonetik Niuz ar onli
titotalerz and vejeterianz, hu hav never lernd hou tu
s e1.
(If ei hav spoken strogli in suport ov Mr Pitman’z
sistem, it iz not bekaz on al points ei konsider it siu-
pirior tu de sistemz preperd bei uder reformerz, hu ar
, li inkrisig in number; but giﬂi bekaz it haz bin tested
so larjli, and haz stud de test wel. Mr. Pitman’z Fonetik
Jurnal haz nou [1894:] bin publij't ﬁfti-dri yirz, and if
it iz non dat it iz publijt wikli in 23,000 kopiz, ig kopi
reprezentii) at list for or feiv riderz, it me not sim so
veri fulij, after al, if Wi imajin dat der iz sum veital
pouer in dirt insigniﬁkant jerm. '
\ .
PHONOGRAPHIC INSTRUCTION BOOK
The PHONOGRAPHIC TEACHER; or First Boo
Shorthand, A Guide to a Practical Acquaintance with
Art of Phonography or Phonetic Shorthand, containi
Series of Progressive Lessons. One million nine hun
and ﬁftieth thousand. Price 6d. ; post-free
KEY to the “Phonographic T eacher."y Of great valu
the Private Student. _ Prigeﬁd. ; post-free é
PROGRESSIVE STU-‘DIES in PHONOGRAP l
a simple and extended exposition of? the Art of Phon
Shorthand, as set forth in the “ Teacher,” the “ Manu
Phonography,” and the “ Reporter ;” intended as a sup,
mentary book to these three, and for the use, principall '‘
studentsteachingthemselves. Third Edition. Is.;cloth, Is
PITMAN’S SHORTHAND INSTRUCTOR; a -.
plete Exposition of Sirlsaac Pitman’s System of Phonogra
or Phonetic Shorthand. Designed for Class or Self-Inst
tion. Containing instruction in both the Correspon
and Reporting Styles, with Lists of Phrases and Exerc'
2 3! pages. Cloth, colored edges, 3s. 6d.
KEY to the “Instructor” containing a Key to all
Exercises and Answers to the Review Questions. 70
Price Is. ; cloth, 15.6(1.
PHONETIC READING BOOKS.


SHEET LESSONS (16) for use in classes, for teac '
The NEW TESTAMENT of our Lord and Savi
Jesus Christ. Price, cloth,
phonetic reading. Price ;
Tablets, or the letters of the Phonetic Alphabet, printed
stiff cardboard, to be used in teaching the Alphabet, ‘; ‘
explaining it at Lectures. 3d. ; post-free 4d. ‘
~ PITMAN'S PHONETIG READERS. ,
First Bookin Phonetic Reading, with “ Directions to Teache ‘ ‘
how to use it, Id. ; post-free I§d. - Printed in large type. 1
Second Book, 2d. ; p’ost-free 295d. Large type and z'llustra
Third Book, 3d. ;. post-free 3%d. - '
Fourth Book, 4d. ; post-free 4%(1.
Fifth or Transition Book, 3d. ; post-free 3-§~d.
The set of Five Books, Is., post-free.
Testimonials gratis and post-free.
LONDON: Sir Isaac Pitman 8: Sons, 1 Amen Corner, E.C
' BATH: honetic Institute.
NEW YORK: 33 Union Square.


-__--__-__‘._.__~‘...~_._- _..~._.. -


‘35*
emsreem o.
.e.._‘._._.-. a...__ .._._>..\__ ,_... ...... . __- 1.- W _.
.. y
£11.
a: ..~
.Ktw ,
tam...

J‘, 13ft 5-.
5
" ‘ r82‘???
I’ " "his; ‘1;.
‘- (‘lbw-w
address“.
‘remake 11,; ,
"weir, =7 _
‘ v
‘iii’, '
Wm’; v
ﬁg??? "
" iss-
‘s
'