m mm ( K ()(. I) I \ THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES THE SIMPLIFICATION l)K ENGLISH SPELL TNG. -V\t IAI.I.V ADAITKI) FOB THE RISING GENERATION. JUt (Easj) HJdiU} of Waning viumu I.N WRITING, PRINTING, AND READING. HY Dit. GEORGE HAIiLEY, F.R.S., !".<>. CORRESPONDING MEHBKR OF THK KOVAL Ai'AHEMV '.>F SOIKM'CS OF BAVARIA, "I Tin: AOADEM1 OF Ml M. INK "I MADRID, 01 THF. PHTSIOALISOB MEDICINISCHBN QKSBLLSCHAPT Kl WUR1 FORMERLY PRKSID1 \T OP THK PARISIAS HEDIOAX OCII t\ . ANJi PROFESSOR IN UNIVERSITY COI/lEi i. I' ' HON : ETC , ETC. LONDON : TROBNEK & CO., LUDGATE HTLL E.C. 77. \ \ A \ 1 1 i W IM.MI! I . V- DEDICATED TO Slnglfl-Sran literati OF EVERY STAMP AND SHADE, MANY OF WHOM, LIKE MYSELF, MUST HAVE OCCASIONALLY FELT THE MERE MANUAL PART OF LITERARY LABOR AN IRKSOME IMPEDIMENT TO THE EVOLUTION OF THOUGHT. A 2 ^ t * ' CONTENTS. PAGE. Dedication - - - - - iii On the Proposed Scheme of Spelling Reform ix Prologomena - - 5 Number of Duplicated Consonants in a Copy of the Times - - - - 7 Difficulties in the Path of Literary Reform 8 Idiot Boy's Logic - 10 Lord Palmerston's Contempt for Duplicated Con- sonants - - 13 Lord Macaulay's Use of them - 14 Their Proportion ; a Criterion of an Author's Literary Attainments - J 4 ( )rigin of our Scheme for their Abolition - l!i Etymological Difficulty Considered - lit Effect of their Omission on Pronunciation - 26 PAGE. The I. lu.lfth Century Changes iu I Orthography since th< Daj oJ 1 ibeth - - - 30 Diminutiuti in the Empluymenl ul Doubled Ls since then The P Lianguage is Proportionate to the instruction - 33 uen break the Rules <>i International Lin- . uette 33 I • . plication of Consonants follows no Law The Spelling >\ a \N"nl is no! necessarily an Index Pronunciation - ii The Pronunciation is not always iui Index to its Bpelbj • '-' Omission of Duplicated Consonants will uol Induce i Pronunciation - !"■ 89 Spelling a mosl fallacious Teal "i an ESngliBh Bdu- ■ii - )7 i Origin and Growth ul Langun I ing Power Consid 52 1 1 i ii r.ii-ii • i. aid Millions il i nni 1 1 arj Con a. tut , .iui Annually, in ! alone, throu 00 itivo Proportiuii of Differenl Consonants Dupli- ted ill i I '. \ Pol; I mi D uol oithoi Philosopli Philolo 'ically, 1 >• (J<> i dei da. vii PAGE. Natural Linguistic Abbreviation 7 1 Causes Thereof - - 80 The Newer a Language, the Greater is its Brevity and Euphony - - - - 84 English, Scotch, French, Spanish, German, and Welsh Compared - 8(i-0fi New Phase of English Linguistic Evolution - 97 General Conclusions - - -99 object in Writing the Monograph - 114 PRELUDE ON THE PROPOSED SCHEME OF SPELLING REFORM. The advocates of Spelling Reform, though as yet a small, are, nevertheless, a powerful band. For what they lack in number, they make up in strength. We need only mention a few of their names to prove the truthfulness of this assertion. Among them are numbered Max Midler, A. J. Ellis, R. Morris, A. H. Sayce, E. Jones, I. Pitman, T. PagH- ardini, G. Withers, and several other equally able exponents of the principles of Spelling Reform. Already the Spelling Congress has put the machine in motion ; and if it succeeds, as it anticipates, in obtaining the appointment of a Royal Commission, a most important step in the way of English Spelling Reform will be achieved. The scheme which some of the more advanced of x Prelude. our national philologists arc desirous of seeing brought into operation has, unfortunately, many opponents, who ground their opposition to it on the umptioD of its complexity, and, as they affirm, consequent impracticability. For the scheme not only anticipates an extensive addition to the letters in the alphabet, raising their present actual number from 26 to about 4o, but, at the same time, a complete and radical change in the spelling of nearly every word in the English Language Many persons- and we among the number — incline to the belief that if Buch a sweeping scheme of literary reform as is here indicated be attempted to be suddenly introduced — that is to say, before the genera] public is made sufficiently alive to its advantages and practicability— it will end in failure. A Royal Commission may be appointed, and it may Stamp the .-ehcine With its official seal of approbation ; but it by no means follows that the introduction of the scheme will be thereby made lul. All that a Royal Commission can do is to propose, while it entirely depends on the frame of mind of the literary classes in the nation in dispose The majority of the educated, in a case of this kind, can alone ad iis arbitrators, and therefore the rejection or practical adopti< fa scheme of National Spelling Reform rests entirely with them. The Nation, we believe, may be led, but it cannot erced into acquiescent . and it appears to us Prelude. xi to be a very doubtful question if the public at large are as yet at all prepared to accept of any sweeping scheme of orthographical reform. Men of middle age shrink from the idea of having to begin and learn another, and more complex, form of alphabet. They tremble at the very thought of having to commence a course of spelling anew. They even, to a certain extent, dread the prospect of having their visual organs offended by the abnormal appearance which a new form of words is likely to present. These objections, though they may appear trifling when looked at individually, will nevertheless, we fear, be ascertained to be formidable obstructive agents in the way of orthographical reform when they exert their influence collectively. Let them be eradicated from the public mind, and the path to Spelling Iieform would at once be open. Now comes the question, — How is this desirable object to be attained ? Simply, we believe, by educating the public mind to perceive the Want of the Period, and opening its eyes to the practicability of the scheme of reform. 1st. John Bull being essentially an L. S. D. gen- tleman, must, at the very outset, have it clearly demonstrated to his mind that the adoption of the scheme of reform proposed to him will be to his pecuniary advantage. XI 1 /'/ elude. 2nd As John Bull does eoi enjoy the prospect either of kronble or Lnconvenienop being entailed apon him, the second thing ia to prove to hie satia- tion thai the practice] adoption of the scheme would not him much personal inconvenie n ce. 3rd. If. in addition to these two points, it could be incontrovertibly shown to him that the intro- duction of s Bystem of reformed spelling would not only be a national benefit, hut, at the S8JDM time, a personal convenience to every man, woman, and child in the realm, he would soon cease to oppose the reform movement 4th. Taking these; three prepositions as granted, the next step is to consider — How besl his education in Spelling Reform can be conducted ! W • are of opinion thai the public mind can l>e most readily broughl to aee the advantages of Spelling Reform, not by furnishing it with a quantity of learned books on philology, but by entertaining it with a few treatises, giving a popular ianatioii of the Bubjed : and we imagine tliat as its --yes become opened, its prejudices will in a corresponding proportion diminish, until at last they entirely disappear. Like ni"-: other men, we form theories; and on tie- subjecl "t Spelling Reform we have a theory. [1 thai John Bull cannot be successfully dealt with l • mpting to take him by the horns, bu1 that he may be overcome by appealing to hi res on. Prelude. xiii We are still further of opinion that when an individual, or a class of individuals, cannot readily obtain all at once what he wants, the best plan for him to adopt is to direct his energies to the attain- ing of the object piecemeal. A new alphabet and new phonetic spelling appears to us too large a mouthful to be forced upon the nation all at once. Tt would be better, we think, to try and give it such a huge lump broken up in small pieces. With this object in view, we beg to propose the following plan of procedure, which, although it may take some years to complete, has, at least, the great advantage of causing a minimum of national inconvenience, while the mere loss of the few years in point of time which it necessitates, is, in a matter of this kind, of mere secondary importance to the nation. Our scheme is this : — 1st. Let us begin by following the natural course of linguistic evolution, and at once omit all dupli- cated consonants from English words, not one of which, as we shall afterwards show in this mono- graph, is absolutely necessary. Duplicated vowels, on the other hand, must not be interfered with, as they are an essential index to pronunciation. But doubled b's, c's, d's, fs, g's, h's, &c, are totally unnecessary. So we would propose to do entirely away with them, except in personal names, for reasons to be given afterwards at page G3. 2nd After duplicated consonants have been satis- factorily expunged from English Literature (with the advantage of having thereby a greal aumber of words abbreviated), we propose that the next Btep — Btill following in the normal course of linguistic Lution— should be to omit from every word in the English Language all mute Letters of the alphabet — vowi wells insonanta Thus Isle, we would write Lie, and [aland, [land. Which would in induce a still further abbreviation in a mul- titude of words. 3rd, The rye having thus become familiarised with the changed appearance of words, and the haml habituated to the change in their orthography, we should again advance a step further — to the climax of Spelling Reform and now proceed to spell and write phonetically. A little reflection will, we think, prove that the ultimo thuU "f Spelling Reform is much more likely to be reached in this way, by progressive stages, than by "lie sudden, tell, literary swoop. Moreover, our plan of Spelling Reform has the following nine advanta ach individual one of which has a special practical importance "t its own. J. The omission of duplicated consonants net. litates no re-education whatever. /.' The dropping out of mute letters from word i an be readily dune by the least Learned membei "I the , ommunity. Prelude. xv C. The omission of letters will entail no mental effort upon anyone, after a day or two's practice. D. It will at once lead to a considerable saving of Time and Labour in Writing, Printing, and Reading. E. It will diminish expense, by saving, not only time, but materials. Paper, pens, type, and ink will be saved. F. This scheme of omitting letters can easily proceed side by side, and hand-in-hand, with the present methods of writing and printing, which a few ultra-conservative members of society may prefer to adhere to. G. The omission of certain letters from words will not in any way interfere with the value of existing libraries and literature, which, most unfor- tunately, the adoption of the Congress meditated scheme of Eeform will inevitably do. H. It offers a personal advantage to every man, woman, and child in the nation, and will be an equal boon to the Lazy, as well as to the Busy, members of the community. /. Finally, the general adoption of our scheme would be a most advantageous stepping-stone to the practical introduction of the grand scheme meditated by the Spelling Reform Congress, to which we most heartily wish success. xvi Prelude. It may lot bo out of plane for us here bo remark, that this little monograph ifl merely intended to advocate our own personal opinion! on Spelling Reform, in so far a.s the first stage of our scheme is concerned For we think, that in this instance, at least, it will be found, aa the French Barjv" oh n'est qne le premier pas «{ui cootie," and that once the first sta^' baa been successfully got over, the others will follow as a natural sequence in the chain of linguistic continuity. The hook is not written in an abstruse, but in a popular manner, as it was originally put in type solely for the purpose of private distribution among our personal friends, many of whom take an interest in the Bubject, Some of them having, how- p, suggested to us the desirability of giving bo our views a more extended circulation, a few extra copies have been placed in the hands of Mr, Tridmer, foi disposal to the general public. There is a slight difference Id the private copies; but it is one of a v- trifling character. .: ii.u .1 i.v sn.i i-.r, w., Jan.-, 1-7;. PROLOGOMENA. TO THE PEN, AND THE PRESS, WE POOR MORTALS OWE MUCH THAT WE HAVE, AND NEARLY ALL THAT WE KNOW." S there exists a Philosophy in Lan- $k guage, as well as in pure Science, we purpose to discuss the question of the Simplification of English Spell- ing, according to the system of the Aristotelian school. Each independent fact to be adduced in the chain of evidence will therefore be separately submitted to consideration, weighed, and ap- praised on its own individual merits, and from the whole collective data the general conclusion will at last be drawn. In thus applying the inductive method of philosophy to the subject now before us, it will Tfu Simplification nut be to the imaginative ; but to the reasoning faculties alone, that we shall appeal for our reader's Bupport Nniir but those who have already given special attention to the important pari played by consonants in English literature can possibly suppose that the topic of this essay is uot only one of national importance, l>ut at the same time one actually involving the ]»• -rsonal con- venience <>!' every man, woman, and child reading and writing the English language. Even editors and publishers, as a rule, po nothing beyond a very vague idea of the extenl t<> which consonants are employed in daily literary routine. It will even surprise the uninitiated to learn that they labor under a delusion in thinking thai the presenl mode of employing doubled l»'s, c's, d's, Ps, g/s, Is, &c., is productive of only trifling j >ul »lic inconvenience. Bui the Bequel of this i ay will, in all probability, emancipate them from this pleasing delusion, as well as also prove l" them that the evil, though great, i-, nevertheless, easily reme- diable. Tin- number of doubled d's, Ps, m's, t's, . which infesl English literature is far o English Spelling. beyond the power of human calculation. A glance at the Times newspaper will suffice to illustrate the truthfulness of this assertion. Few persons, we imagine, are aware that each full-sized copy of the newspaper which they so gladly welcome to their breakfast-table in the morning contains more than thirty thousand doubled b's, c's, d's, f's, g's, &c, and that it daily entails upon their visual organs the necessity of deciphering exactly one half — that is to say, more than fifteen thousand — absolutely unnecessary letters of the alphabet, which not only take up a quantity of valuable space in the journal, but must have consumed much valuable time both in their writing and in their printing, besides giving rise to other disadvantages, which need not be here specially alluded to. Moreover, if every daily copy of the Times neAVspaper was equally full-sized, instead of sometimes consisting of twelve instead of sixteen pages, it would compel its readers to peruse no fewer than four millions seven hundred and fifty-three thousand unnecessary letters of the alphabet in the space of every year. The Times, too, be it remembered, is not peculiar in this matter. All newspapers, journals, books, as well as business and social T/o Simplification of letters of correspondence yield a full quota of unnecessary consonants. So that the annual production of unnecessary consonants in Eng- lish literature must be computed by millions upon millions of millions. Fortified with this knowledge, uo one will Burely venture to assert that the discussion of the subject now before us is one of trivial importance to the community. In introducing our Bubject, it may l>e advis- able to remark that we are in no degree Mind to the difficulties which beset the path to literary reform. We are quite cognisant of the tact that there arc at least two formidable obstacles in the way, PREJUDICE AND HABIT. Familiarity, the great breeder of contempt, induces every one to treat with indifference the existence of inconsistencies in his mother tongue, which, were they for the first time brought under his notice after bis intellectual faculties had become developed, would fret, jar, and annoy him to such an extent, that they would at once be unhesitatingly discarded intolerable. The human mind tardily appreciates advan likely to arise from working in other English Spelling. grooves from those in which it has become habituated to labor. All men are slaves to habit, quite as much as they are slaves to prejudice, and we believe that it will be more on account of the passive resistance of these twin sisters than anything else that the plan of improving our spelling, and thereby saving both time and labor now about to be explained will encounter a difficulty in being adopted. We, therefore, earnestly plead on its behalf a calm and impartial hear- ing ere it is subjected to adverse criticism. Before judgment is pronounced against it, let its case, at least, have the benefit of careful consideration. Flaws in the brief, we doubt not there are, but the flaws we believe are entirely due, not to the weakness of the case, but to the want of skill in its advocate. It was once said by a wiseacre that the majority of men are fools, and if the minor half only got the chance, it would lock up the major half of its fellow men in a madhouse. Be this true, or be it false, there is no doubt whatever that many of the actions of perfectly sane men possess in them a strong inter-mixture of folly. The inveterate force of habit is of itself a proof of this. Our actions arc often io Tic Simplification of contrary to our reason ; and no more graphic illustration of the innate tendency to folly of the human mind can be given than by citing the case of a ] r idiol lad, who, on being asked by a kind-hearted old gentleman why be was so very lame, gave the prompt reply, " A bae a nail in tin- beel of ma bute " (J hai i n;iil in the beel of my boot). "Why don'1 you [>ull it nut, then?" the gentleman retorted "01 cause a'm yeused wi'd" (oh! because I am used t<» it), was the sage reply, X<>\v, although tin- was bul the logic of a poor idiot boy, humiliating though the fact be, it never- theless illustrates t" a nicety the principle upon which tli«' va&i majority of mankind acl through- out lit'' : and tlic mosl formidable obstacle t" the removal of the evil of duplicated consonants from our language will probably !"■. thai like the nail in the heel of the boy's boot, "we're yeused wi'd." h inn-! not be forgotten thai no ' human ' law is immutable. That everything earthly is in ,-i perpetual state of change, from the ever r ambient air to the apparently stolid adamantine rock. Science tell as that with every tick <•( the clock myriad of atoms inorganic as well anic - dead as well as Living continually English Spelling. 1 1 and uninterruptedly "ring the changes," al- though their transition movements are imper- ceptible to the human eye. Philology, in like manner, tells us that year by year, week by week, all languages are per- petually passing through states of change — many old words gradually becoming obsolete, while of new there is a continuous accession. The pronunciation, too, of one and the same word gradually becomes altered. Its spelling varies, its meaning changes from generation to generation, though, as in the physical world, the process of the philological transition is equally unappreciable to the human percep- tion until the change has actually become wn fait accompli. Fortunately for us, the changes now induced year by year in the Anglo-Saxon language are of a decidedly progressive, and not retrogres- sive character, so that no attempt need be made to stem their onward current. Fate, the immediary* law-giver and austere judge of the universe, is shown in the essay to have donned the black cap and passed sentence of death on many of the senile incongruities which infest the English language, 1 m ire par- ticularly upon all Duplicated-Consonant.- and AVord coined from immediacy* The Simplification of unnecessary vowels, and "Old Father Time' i- indicated aa their appointed executioner, Still further, we think that in the subsequent pages it is conclusively shown that, although his labors are slow, they are nevertheless as Inevitable as they arc relentlesSj and illustrate well the old Italian proverb, u Chi va piano >o." Moreover, we imagine that ii is not only undeniably proved that all Duplicated-Conso- nants are capable of a Bpeedy removal without a single inconvenience besetting the path, but that, ;it tip' same time, an immediate, as well i permanent, benefit will accrue to all kinds of English literature by then abolition. The fact of an "Evil" possessing a hoary head is no valid excuse for its perpetuation, and above all things, the perpetuation of an evil in language is totally inexcusable ; Bceing that language is in its very nature as unstable ,i- thi' ocean — ever on the ebb or flow. Should even nothing more be gained by this exposition than .1 tacit acknowledgment that all duplicated-consonanta arc inevitably doomed t<> disappear from the Engliah lan- guage, .hi important point will have been achieved. For with this patent fact before their eyes, persons will ~<»oii cease t<» fear that English Spelling. 13 the occasional dropping out of a doubled con- sonant from a word can be regarded as a sign of an inferior education, while the total omis- sion of them from a written document will, on the other hand, gradually come to be viewed in the light of a proof of an advanced education. Strange to say, some of the greatest intel- lects of our times have an utter contempt for the employment of duplicated consonants, and we might quote several ; but not desiring to appear invidious, we shall refrain from citing the names of living celebrities, and limit our- selves to adducing that of the late Lord Palmer- ston as a striking example of the truthfulness offliis remark. In corroboration of this state- ment we may mention that there hangs at this moment — or did hang, at least a few years ago — over the chimney-piece of the coffee- room of the George Hotel, at Bangor, a framed letter from Lord Palmerston, in which he, the then Premier of England, praises the accommo- dation afforded by the inn, spelling the word " inn" with a single " 11." Moreover, we have discovered, by calcula- tion, that the higher the literary style of an author, the fewer arc the words with dupli- cated consonants which lie employs. i4 The Simplification of Compare, lor example, the high class writing of Lord Macaulay's 'Critical and Historical ys " with the humdrum style of a third- class novelist* and it will soon become apparenl on which side the greatest abundance of dupli- cated consonants are to be found. One do.- not need even to go so far as this, for b glance at any newspaper will prove the tact. Every newspaper contains a1 least three well-marked styles of literary composition — a first, a second, and a third-rate style. The first class may be said to comprise the Leading article- : the 3k cond class to b< the product of the pen of the so-called penny-a-liner ; and the third class the florid Btyle of the puffing trade advertiser. By comparing the number of duplicated- consonants In the writings of these different classes, Including those in proper names, it will be found that the smallest ratio is met with in the leading articles, the highest in the advertisement columns, and the medium in the ordinary paragraphs ; so thai we arc thus furnished with the curion fact, that the ratio of duplicated-consonants in a literary produc- tion i to a certain extent . - i criterion of the author's literary power. From a calculation English Spelling. 15 founded on the examination of more than fifty thousand words selected from different writ- ings, the standard of good class writing appears to be represented by the ratio of one word in every fifteen, containing a duplicated-con- sonant. A smaller proportion of words with duplicated consonants, ccetcris paribus, in- dicating a superior, while a larger proportion of duplicated-consonants denotes an inferior order of English composition. After placing these facts before the mind's eye, it is endeavoured to be shown that, no matter however reluctant one may at first feel to share in the downfall of an old custom, it ought, notwithstanding, to be impossible for any enlightened person to hesitate long before lending a helping hand in the removal from the path of literature of a number of effete obstacles ; seeing that, while on the one hand, their ultimate overthrow is absolutely unavoid- able 5 on the other, their speedy demise will be accompanied by an immediate and unsullied advantage to every educated Anglo-Saxon. With these, not unnecessary, preliminary remarks we shall now enter upon the propei consideration of our subject. SIMPLIFICATION. VERY century, every age, is known to manifesl Borne BpeciaJ peculiarity, and tin' nineteenth century and the present age offers no exception to this rule. [f we glance around us on the fields of agri- culture, mechanics, art, or Bcience, we every- where encounter the same prominent symptom, the Bymptom of" Simplification." Tin- mowing machine is employed because it reaps in the brief space of an hour more corn than a laborer can cull in a whole day. Steam is applied to purposes of locomotion, to enable us to travel between dusk and dawn a greater distance than could formerly be accomplished within a week. The art of the photographer again enables mere manual -kill to develope in b few minute b English Spelling. more exact Jikeness than an accomplished miniature painter can pourtray in as many hours. By the simplification of scientific principles we are enabled to waft ideas across the broad Atlantic in the twinkling of an eye, which in former years failed to be transmitted to the same distance within a month. Let us, indeed, gaze on what side we may, the process of philosophic Simplification ever seems to be in the ascendant. It curtails labor, it saves time, it engenders speed, and as time is said to be synonymous with money, Simplifica- tion may be regarded as the synonym of profit. Literature alone hangs fire in the general reform movement. Our methods of communicating ideas by the intervention of paper and ink are but little easier now than they were three hundred years ago. Many reforms are urgently required in this age of speed to facilitate the inter-communica- tion of thought. He must be a slow-brained author whose ideas are not generated in his mind a vast deal quicker than his pen can pourtray them, and he must be an unusually easy-goiug individual who does not feel the mere manual part of literary labor an almost intolerable incubus on his work. B i8 The Simplification of It la difficult to indicate the precise shap which reforms in literary Labor may hence- forth assume ; bul al the present momenl there i Least one which can easily be delineated, and it is with it alone that we purpose now to deal Everyone knows that great dissatisfaction, almost universally, exists among the thinking part of educated Anglo-Saxons regarding the inconsistence - in the orthography of their lan- guage, and various have been the plans at dif- ferent times suggested with the view of reme- dying the defect Hitherto, however, none of the suggested plans have met with general approval The various plans appear to have failed in their object from two principal causes. Firstly, the majority of the propositions em- bodied in them have been too sweeping, and too complicated in their character to admit of y introduction. .Secondly, the laisse2 aller n.it ii r< • of the human mind is a formidable stumbling-block in the way of any improve- ment, he it- object what it may. The scheme of simplifying English Literature now suggested is, fortunately, entirely devoid of thi- first class of objections, while at the ime time it will probably ingratiate it-elf with tin- majority of person • from the welcome fad English Spelling. 19 that it proposes a saving of labor, and conse- quently a saving of time — a -saving of labor and a saving of time being a boon alike to the lazy as well as to the busy members of the com- munity. The plan owes its origin to the following circumstances. In the early part of our Univer- sity career, a book published in the sixteenth century was placed in our hands, and during its perusal surprise was felt that it contained a number of words spelt with duplicated conso- nants which are at the present time spelt only with single ones. This not unnaturally gave birth to the question : — " If so many duplicated consonants have been expunged with apparent advantage, why ape any retained at all ? ' To this seemingly simple query no satisfac- tory reply presented itself, although at first sight it appeared probable that duplicated con- sonants were retained in compound words, on philological grounds, in order to enable their etymology to be readily traced. This reason was, however, rapidly abandoned, as glaring instances presented themselves, where in some of the most simple compound words the original formation of the word has been entirely disre- b 2 20 The Simplification of gardecL Take, for example, the simple word welcome. Who would now think of spelling it with two Is \ No one. The only occasion, in- deed, in which we ever remember to have seen it bo written, was when Queen Victoria visited Paris. It then appeared on a triumphal arch on the Boulevard des [taliens as "Wellcome Victoria," the literal translation of bien venu.* An equally palpaUe contradiction is met with in tli<- word matter, which, when com- pounded into materialism, is robbed of a t. Then, again, exactly the same thing has occurred with our sacred word Almighty (all powerful), which, etymologically written, would be AJlmighty. Yet no one now-a-days ever dreams of so penning it. Although there is DO Tear that the enlight- ened philologist will cavil with the proposed abolition of duplicated consonants on etymo- Logical grounds— as it is possible that the majority of our readers, who are less Learned in the science, may attach an unnecessary amount of importance to the value of duplicated con- sonants in tracing the etymolog) of words, bj attaching Bubtle p a one to the causes of thii * Dion Speed, in hia large end leerned work on the "Theatre <>f the Empire "f Great Britain," publiahed in L611, notwithatanding hii fondneai for doable V§ (ai will rwarda be ihown)ipel1 well with only one I, m p/eL English Spelling. 21 where none actually exist, except in their own imagination — we think it desirable specifically to call their attention to the following facts : — 1st. The etymology of words is traced by phonetic similarity. 2nd. All letters of the alphabet nearly pho- netically alike are transmutable into each other without offering the slightest impediment to etymological research. 3rd. In no case whatever does the tracing correctly the etymology of a word entirely depend on the presence or absence of a dupli- cated letter. Illustrative of these three propositions, we may cite the changes which the common word father has undergone, in its journey towards us and other European languages, from the original Sanskrit word PITAR. Teutonic, Fader. Greek, ncn-Tjf. Modern German, Vater. Latin, Pater. Anglo-Saxon, Fadeur. Italian, Padre. Modern English, Father. French, Pere. It is here seen that, notwithstanding the very marked transmutations which have occurred with' the original word pitar, in adopting it into the modern languages of Europe, there i-> yet no philological difficulty experienced in 22 Th< Simplification <u< - come together, would in the slightest degree interfere with the studies of the scientific philologist. We shall even pro- 1 a step further, and .-how that even in modern times, and among the most Learned men of the nation, a total disregard is still paid to literal etymological Bpelling, both in the adoption of foreign words, and in the construc- tion oul of them of compound words adopted from foreign languages — and this, too, without giving occasion to the slightest etymological inconvenience. For example, the Words tonsil and spleen are the technical English words for two organs in the animal body, the former word being derived from the irregular p' ural Latin noun tonsillar the latter from the sin- gula! Greek noun airx^v (splen); and in adopting these words into the English Lan- guage the original spelling of each has been changed, by Lopping oil' an 1 from the our, and by adding an e to the other. The pre- cise i-ea-Mii for thue Lengthening the one word and shortening the other is nol quite patent to English Spelling. 23 the mental eye, and still less intelligible is the reason why when, after this change had been actually made, as soon as the words were com- pounded with ' itis/ denoting inflammation, the lopping off and lengthening process was again had recourse to : but in exactly the reverse manner. The results being the forma- tion of the compound words tonsillitis, with two l's, and splenitis, with one e. If this second change was made on etymo- logical grounds, with the view of restoring the English derivatives to their originals before transforming them into compound words, the object of the measure remains equally obscure, seeing that their etymology was utterly ignored in the first instance, when they were converted into English words. After drop- ping an 1 out of the one and adding an e to the other, and thus, as it were, stamping them as new English words, there was 110 valid philological necessity for again having recourse to lopping out an c and adding an 1 in order to restore the words to their original spellings before compounding them.* * The ' e ' in the Greek ' splen ' is long, but that is no reason for writing two ' e's ' in spleen, and a single one only in ' splenitis.' 24 The Simplification of The same etymological reason which held good in tin* latter, ought surely, with equal force, to have held good in the former case. It will be observed, boo, that the true clue to lip' etymology of the words in question d not, in the Least degree, depend either on the presence of an additional 1 in the one, or the absence of a double e in the other. More- over, .hi hybridism is here seen to have offered no impediment to the construction of the com- pound word. In Speed's " Empire of Great Britain 11 such monosyllabic words as son, won, Bin, map, lap, stem, and war, arc not only spelt with dupli- cated consonants, but with an additional e at the end of each of them Thus they are written — Bonne, wonne, sinne, mappe, lappe, and wane ; and one might, perhaps, be excused asking the question, Whether it is the old or the new form of spelling which is founded on the best philological principles ' In fact, the presence or absence of duplicated consonants has little or nothing to do with the true etymological understanding of any lan- guage ; therefore, their total abolition from the English l;m cannot 1 bjected to on purely etymological grounds, except by those juper-acute-minded individuals who are in the English Spelling. 25 habit of "discovering subtle intentions in the shallow felicities of chance." The next reason which occurred to our minds against the abolition of duplicated consonants was the probability of it leading to inextricable confusion by entailing upon us the necessity of spelling alike words with entirely different significations. Thus hoping and hopping, riding and ridding, along with a number of other words, would be thereby rendered orthographically undistinguishable from each other. A very moderate amount of acumen, however, and the use of a dictionary by those who have defective memories, will soon prove the contrary. The beautiful and logical English language already contains within its borders a whole legion of words with entirely different significations, yet possessing identical spellings. Here is subjoined a few of them : — Yard, an enclosure. Yard, a measure. Fold, a sheep-pen. Fold, to double up. Skate, a lish. Skate, to slide on ice. Sole, a fish. Sole, the bottom of a boot. Punch, an iron tool. Punch, whisky toddy. Pay, a colour. Bay, an indentation of coast. Draught, a drink. Draught, the act of drawing. Gum, part of the mouth. Gum, an exudation from a tree. Slight, thin. Slight, an insult. Custom, a tax. Custom, a habit. W'.ll. healthy. Well, a fountain. 26 The Simplification of Porter. ;i man. Porter, a drink. Tender, sensitive. Tender, coal-truck attached to an engine. Lie, a falsehood. Lie, to recline. Be er , an animal. Bear, to carry. Weal, prosperity. Weal, mark of a whin. Plan, a design. Plan, to invent. Plant, a vegetable. Plant, to ti\. 1 1 m . the stem of a boat. B< >w, to bend. Low, ojipM.siti' of high. Low, to bellow like an Cruise, a small cup. Cruise, to sail in a ship. Many more examples <>t' this kind might be cited : but these arc surely sufficient to con- vim-. any ordinarily constituted mind thai there exists but little risk of causing confusion by dropping out duplicated consonants, and thereby slightly adding to the number of words with different meanings which already exist in the language spelt alike. As must readily be seen, it is not the mere word, per ae t but the context which is the true index of its meaning. To this important point we shall again take occasion to refer, and that, too, with greater force. another reason against the abolition of duplicated consonante which presented itself was the possibility of its leading the ignorant pronounce all word--, alike which are spell similarly. Tin M * 1 1 1 1 1 » 1 1 1 , like its predci • ore, totally English Spelling. 27 failed to stand the test of close scrutiny. A little reflection revealed the existence of a host of words which, although spelt alike, are, never- theless, pronounced differently. This state- ment looks very like a philological improba- bility, yet a glance at the subjoined list of words will soon prove it to be an orthographi- cal fact. Thus we have — Bow, a weapon to shoot with. Essay, a composition. Minute, small. Sow, a pig. Resign, to yield up. Bass, lowest notes in music. Divers, different. Does, the plural of doe. Polish, belonging to Poland. Tarry, covered with tar. Conjure, to juggle. Entrance, a doorway. August, a month. Refuse, rubbish. Row, a tumult. Close, a confined space. Excuse, an apology. House, a dwelling. Noose, a slip knot. Invalid, a sick person. Put, a game at cards. Tear, a drop from the eye. Incense, church scent. Frequent, often. Subject, a thing. Bow, to bend. Essay, to analyse. Minute, a period. Sow, to sow seed. Resign, to sign again. Bass, a mat. Divers, persons who dive. Does, third person singular of do. Polish, to brighten. Tarry, to linger. Conjure, to entreat. Entrance, to charm. August, great. Refuse, to decline. Row, to propel a boat. Close, to shut. Excuse, to pardon. House, to lodge. Noose, to catch. Invalid, not valid. Put, to throw a stone, to place. Tear, to rend asunder. Incense, to irritate. Frequent, to visit. Subject, to compel. 28 The Simplification of ( Object, a thing. I object, to refa ( rout, a disc ( rout, taai 1 1 -surt, a wilderness. I • BTt, what one luerit ;. I. b 1. a metal. Lead, to c mdn ■< . Sewer, a plaint ill'. B rer, a drain. Wind, air in m >tii >n. Wind, to t-. Bound, I' and, to jump. Ami many, many more Buch examplea could be adduced in support of the assertion did it seem accessary to do so, but there can be little doubt tin- lisl will be deemed more than ample. It will be seen, too, that in craving for the abolition of duplicated consonants we arc not kins to do a thing that will make tin* lan- guage one whit less logical than it already is. ( In the contrary, we dare venture to opine that, were every duplicated consonanl swept from it to-morrow, the language would be more simple, more logical, and more beautiful -easier for our children to learn, easier for ourselves to write, and much less troublesome to our foreign friends. Moreover, in thus desiring the aboli- tion of duplicated consonants, strange to Bay, we are hut seconding the efforts, and seeking to orten the labors, of " I M-l Father Time ; " for he, after his own peculiar fashion, has, during the Last three centuries, been alowly, but Burely, doing the very thing which we are anxious to 'I". This statement is easily proved. English Spelling. 29 Look at English spelling in times gone by, and it will be seen that many, very many, of the words which were formerly spelt with dupli- cated consonants " are now written with only single ones. It will be cpiite unnecessary for us to go back to early Anglo-Saxon literature in order to illustrate this point ; indeed, were we to attempt to do so we should find it a very difficult task, as there are too few of the original Anglo-Saxon words left which bear a sufficient resemblance to those now in daily use to enable us to make an exact orthographical standard of comparison between them. Old Anglo-Saxon reads much more like a foreign language than anything else. Thus the Lord's Prayer of the twelfth century is, " Fadeur, ur in heune, haleweide beith thi neune, simin thi kuneriche, thi wille beoth idon in heune and in erthe. The euryen dawe bried, gif ous thilk dawe. And vorrgif ure dettes as vi vorrgifen ure dettoures. And lene us nought into tem- tation, bot delyvor eus of evel. Amen." A.D. 1158.* In truth, the whole of King Alfred's English (1,000 years ago) is totally unintelligible to all English scholars, except the few who have made it a special study ; and the English of * Diprose's Annual, p. 108. 30 The Simplification of the present day will probably l>e as incom- prehensible to our Bnccessoni of 1,000 years hereafter, as thai of King Alfred is to as now. No douht the future changes in our language will be fewer in quantity and slower in quality than those of the past, as there are now power- ful conservative forces al work which were not before in existence. These we shall poinl ou1 further on ; for our purpose it is only requisite to include in our review what is commonly called Modern English — that is to say. the language which has been employed since the advent of Caxton and his printing press-; the intro- duction of Protestantism, and the more general diffusion of literature among the laity (which began in the sixteenth century), l>y which it has been supposed thai the language acquired a sufficiently complete organisation to merit the title of Modern English. To indicate e few of the changes which consonants have undergone in their employ- mi hi Bince the daya of Queen Elizabeth will be, therefore, sufficient for our purpose, and by thus avoiding pressing into our service ancienl English, we Bhall probably prevenl adverse criticism from cavillers, over the early con" t ruction of the language. In a letter addressed to Queen Elizabeth by English Spelling. 31 Sir Martin Frobisher, and published in his " Arctic Voyages," he writes " that he had been shott in the legg with a bullett ; " but who among us would spell shot and bullet with two t's, or leg with two g's. At the very moment this paper is being revised, there lies on the table before us the March number of the Leisure Hour (1876), and at page 132 there is a copy of a letter from the Rev. J. Ellis, dated 26th Oct., 1^73, in which he spells sap — sappe, permit — per- mitt, and let — lett. Innumerable other examples might be cited of the unnecessary frequency of duplicated consonants in the writings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries ; but ever)' - one must be so perfectly familiar with this fact that there can be no necessity for quoting more. Many of the present generation will remem- ber that when at school they were taught to spell waggon with two g's, while it is now r spelt with only one g. Fulfil, skilful, and wilful, each with four l's, and dulness with two. Now, however, each of these words has had its l's diminished to one-half. The dimi- nution, too, came about gradually ; first, only one of the l's was quietly dropped out, and we had fulfill, skilfull, and wilfull — and, as is seen, Ti 5 nplijication of o- without any regard being paid to the order in which the diminution of tin L's was made — then, ;ilt»r a short time more had elapsed, •Tin, ." the executioner, again Btepped in with his pruning-hook, and silently cu1 off the third 1 : BO that the words arc now reduced to fulfil, .skilful, and wilful. The writings of the seventeenth century abound in double l's. It', for example, we look at '"His Pilgrimage," by Purchas, we Bhall find that he writes equall, Jewell, marvell, metalli and naturall \ or, at Speed's "Theatre of Great Britain" (1611), we shall find the words admiral!, general!, Wall, royall, quarell, actuall, eternall, imperiall, prodigall, gospell, poeticall, cattell, minerall, and counsell — all of which words have been robbed of the double! without a Bingle voice having been raised against the innovation ; the whole Anido- Saxon world baving quietly acquiesced in the change, and if we are not mistaken, even raided it with something akin to approbation, Why then should we be reluctant to proceed a atep further, and abolish all double Pal The gradual and slow, yet buto, shortening of English words may be illustrated yel in another way. It we look at a ■• rii of dictionaries in chronological order, it will be English Spelling. 33 found, we believe, that they present marked differences in the spelling of identical words. Thus: — Cotgrave's Dictionary published Circa. 1650. Johnson's ,, ,, ,, 1750. Webster's ,, ,, ,, 1850. In the first, music and frolic are spelt, nuisicke and frolicke. ,, second ,, ,, musick and frolick. ,, third ,, ,, music and frolic. Each succeeding century amputated a letter from each of the words, and yet, after the operation, the one remained as full of melody, and the other as brimful of fun as ever. So it is seen that, without any attending dis- comfort, the words have been made less troublesome, alike to the writer and to the reader, and the language itself has been a gainer thereby ; every step towards Simpli- fication being a step towards perfection. The perfection of a machine consists, in a great measure, in the simplicity of its construc- tion. In like manner, THE PERFECTION OF A LANGUAGE CONSISTS IN THE SIMPLICITY OF ITS CONSTRUCTION. The more ideas that can be expressed in the smallest number of words, and the shorter the words are in which they can be expressed, the more simple, the more perfect, and, con- sequently, the more beautiful is the language. C 34 Tin Simplification of Let us glance for a moment at our Less fortunate German friends, and Bee what circumlocution they arc compelled to adopt in order to express themselves correctly. Si »m«' of their .scientific winds till nearly whole lines ; some of their scientific sentences occupy marly whole pages. This is a slight exaggeration, but only very slight. Many years ago, when talking on this Bubject, we were challenged by a friend t" adduce a single instance written by the late Baron von [iebig that contained more than fifty words. Rising from the table, we went into the study, and returned with a printed address of his to the Academy of Sciences of Bavaria, which had arrived from him that very morning. A wry short search discovered a Sentence which contained over one hundred and fifty words. And Karon Liehig, be it remembered, was not a bad scientific German writ' r. Hut to return to I hi plicated-Consonants. Our German friends spell man with two o and it may he asked if their matin is any more of a man than our I Again, our French friends Bpell their (< appartements " with two !>' ; hut does that make them the Bmallesl hit more ronifortahle than our '. No, not a whit. English Spelling. 35 The spelling is here a mere matter of choice. It is rather strange, too, that both words — man and apartment — are taken by us from these respective nations ; and yet we did not hesitate to drop from them the duplicated- consonants, even without their consent. IT IS NOT ALONE IN THE MODE OF ADOPTING ORDINARY WORDS FROM FOREIGN LAN- GUAGES THAT ENGLISHMEN BREAK THE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL ETIQUETTE. We are unfortunately guilty of a far greater crime in changing altogether the spelling of the proper names of foreign towns. Thus we have for no tangible reason whatever transformed Venezia into Venice, Wien into Vienna, and Munchen into Munich, without apparently the slightest compunctions of conscience. Nay, more : we daily permit our explorers to alter entirely the native names of places, and they very often substitute a vastly inferior-sounding title for a euphonious one. It is said that a barbaric Briton has transformed the sweet- sounding native name Kalinda — a beautiful ravine in one of our colonies — into the harsh- sounding title of Dick's Gully, or something like that. Verily, c 2 36 The Simplification of A LAW MIGHT BE PASSED WITH ADVANTAGE TO RESTRAIN OUR NATIONAL CONCEIT FROM GIVING NEW NAMES TO FOREIGN PLACES. For it frequently leads to great difficulty in identifying the place, from its new name being totally different from its ancient native title. Moreover, persons ought to be restrained from giving to places already possessing native names, others that have been previously else- where appropriated, and thereby engendering geographical ambiguity. Between England, America, and Australia there arc already no less than three different towns named London, four called Portsmouth,' six Newcastle, and seven Richmond Our Teutonic brethren have gone still further, ami succeeded in dotting the world over with no fewer than fourteen Neustadi To return to the question of the intrinsic importance of duplicated consonants in English literature — THE DUPLICATION OF THE FINAL CONSO- NANTS IN ENGLISH WORDS BEFORE ADDING TO THEM A SUFFIX APPEARS TO FOLLOW NO KNOWN LAW. Thus, for example, the final consonanl ia duplicated before adding tic suffix, ing. English Spelling. 37 In Fit — fit-ting, but not in Fix — fix-ing. ,, Fan — fan-ning, „ Fish — fish-ing. ,, Dig — dig-ging, ,, Work — work-ing. ,, Run — run-ning, „ Stand — stand-ing. ,, Flog — flog-ging, ,, Thrash — thrash-ing. ,, Stop — stop-ping, ,, Stoop — stoop-ing. ,, Begin — begin-ning, ,, End — end-ing. „ Slip —slip-ping, „ Sling — sling-ing. Again, there are a number of monosyllabic words, such as — Root — root-ing. Reel — reel-ing. Speed — speed-ing. Sleep — sleep-ing. Seed — seed-ing. Weed — weed-ing. In which the final consonant is not duplicated for an (imaginary) reason, once propounded to us by a philologist of some standing. His glibly- explained theory was that in all words with a terminal consonant preceded by a duplicated vowel, the pronunciation of the final consonant was so softened by the preceding vowels as to render its duplication, previous to adding the suffix, unnecessary. This cuphonistic theory we had the hardihood, alas ! at once to demolish by quoting to him a number of words in which no such euphonistic cause could be admitted to exist, and yet failed to find it necessary to duplicate their caudal consonants previously to adding the suffix, ing. Such, for example, as the harsh-sounding words - 38 The Simplification of Thrash — thrashing. Stick — sticking. Filch — filching. Brush — brushing. Work — working {tend — rending, fte., &c In fact, it is a Bad thing for tin- poor duplicated consooante which infest the English Language, that the more minutely their case is inquired into, the more untenable is found to be their claim for conservation on philosophic principles. Their only raison d'etre appears to real entirely upon the unstable and unsatisfactory shifting sands of the rule-of-thumb. Let any one, for example, try logically to answer the question, " Why do we have a duplicate 1 in really, and n in sunny, and uOt a duplicate d in hardy, or a duplicate t in gouty?" Still more curious is the facl that when we turn the words sole and whole into adverbs we actually write them: — Soic-ly — solely. Whole-ly— wholly. Au;ain, let him attempt to solve the mystery on logical grounds, why the word puzzle is allowed to indulge itself in the luxury of p ing two z's while poor hazard has \<> contenl itself with tie- p don of only one ? English Spelling. 39 IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR A PERSON NOT SPECIALLY TRAINED IN THE ART OF MENTAL ANALYSIS TO APPREHEND THE ABSURDITIES EXISTING IN HIS MOTHER- TONGUE. This arises from the fact that he is intro- duced to them in the nursery, before his brain has learned to think. He becomes familiarised with them at school, and they end by being indelibly grafted into his nature during his pupilage at college, so that by the time his reasoning faculties are fully developed he is no more conscious of their existence (unless his attention be specially drawn to them) than he is of the presence of a feather accidentally ad- hering to the back of his coat. It is the foreigner who, with the greatest fre- quency and force, recognises the errors daily committed in a language. This is easily un- derstood when we remember that very often he does not begin the study of the foreign tongue until his mind has been trained to o think, compare, analyse, and generalise the materials placed at his disposal. It is for this reason that most of us so readily seize upon the weak points in the German, Freneli, and other Continental languages, all of which pos- sess within themselves a sufficiency of incon- sistencies. 40 The Simplification of For example, upon what principle is a young German girl classed in the neuter gender- das Madchen, a grown-up woman re- garded as feminine -die Frau, while a wife is again reduced to the neuter gender— daa Weibl THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS SCARCELY ONE WHIT LESS ILLOGICAL THAN THE GERMAN. While Btudying at Vienna, in 1854, we had this fact forcibly brought under our notice. An Austrian gentleman, who was a fair English scholar, while reading an English book at the table where we were sitting writing a letter, suddenly threw down the hook, and indignantly exclaimed, " Oh, de stoopid Eng- lish, it eis unbearable/ 1 ''What's wrong?" asked we in astonishment. "Wrong!- vi, everyding eia wrong. Bere dis Btoopid man tells de boys t<> stand fast, which means, I suppose, nut to move. Den immediately after- wards, he tells deni to run East, which is to move as quick as ever dey can. Oh ! do stoopid ! language lor de same man runs last, holds fast, breakfasts, eats last, and yet fasts when h.- does ii"t .at at all ! ! " We Bniiled ; but .ill that we could do was in- 1' l\ t<» retort that his language was not English Spelling. 41 one whit less stupid than ours. Alas! two bads do not make one good. Yet another objection may be offered to the abolition of duplicated consonants, on the ground that the spelling might not in all cases correspond to the pronunciation of the word.* This will, however, on investigation be found to be an invalid argument ; for abundant evidence can be given that — IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE THE ACTUAL SPELLING OF A WORD CANNOT ALWAYS BE TAKEN AS A CRITERION OF ITS PRO- NUNCIATION. This may be illustrated by comparing the following words : — Bough is pronounced like Bow. Colonel >> >> Kurnel. Corps j> >> Core. Deign j> >j Dane. Done )> )> Dun. Hymn >> >> Him. Quay >> >> Key. Lynx >> j> Links. Prophet >> >j Profit. Red j> > j Read. Thyme >j j> Time. Ewes >> >> Use. Mayor >» j> Mare. Ewer >> >» Your. Would >» >» Wood. * Pronunciation is another word which "Time" has of itself lately shortened. It was formerly written pronuncia- tion. 42 The Simplification of NOR CAN THE PRONUNCIATION OF AN ENGLISH WORD ALWAYS BE REGARDED AS A GUIDE TO ITS ORTHOGRAPHY. Thus, we pronounce He and Hand, and yet Bpell them Isle and Island. It was not, how- ever, always so. There was a time when He and Uand was considered the orthodox inaii- ner of spelling these two words ; and so it remained, until someone, with a total disregard to euphony, introduced an s into them, and thr publie slavishly adopted the innovation, iiiiior;iiitly supposing that the s was introduced on etymological grounds ; the words baving been derived (as they erroneously supposed) from the Latin word Insula — an Island. By placing the two words into juxta-position, however, it will readily he made apparent th.it such an impression i- an erroneous one. Thus INSULA has no similitude whatever to I S L A N l> (except it be in the numher of its letters), either in its spelling or in its sound ; while it is equally easy, on the other band, to show that the original English word Hand came direct to ua (Voin the Teutonic stem, as both in the old Saxon word, Baland, and the modern Dutch word, Eiland, we have thcexacl counter- part of our old English word [land Tip' English Spelling. English He, again, is nothing more nor less than the non-modified French word lie. More- over, as the original pronunciation of the English words — Hand and He — is still adhered to, the sooner we drop out the mute, and consequently unnecessary s from these falsely spelt words — island and isle — the better will it be for the credit of our language and of our intelligence. THE OMISSION OF DUPLICATED CONSONANTS- CONTRARY TO WHAT MIGHT AT FIRST BE SUPPOSED-WILL RARELY TEND TO INDUCE A CHANGE IN THE PRONUNCIATION OF THE WORDS FROM WHICH THEY ARE OMITTED. At least it is not found that they have hitherto had this effect, and we can see no reason why they should do in the future what they have failed to do in the past. For example — Sis still pronounced exactly in the same way *\ as when it was written with duplicated con- \ shott. sonants Dulness Fulfil Peril Wagon Man Forest Bachelor dullness. fullfill. perill. waggon. mann. forrest. bacchelour. And so on with many others, which it is 44 The Simplification of quite unnecessary for us to cite. In fact, in the vast majority of cases, it is neither the presence of, nor the absence of, a duplicated consonant which governs the pronunciation of the word, as is proved by the patent fact that words spelt alike are pronounced differ- ently, while words spelt differently are often- times pronounced exactly alike. It is the context alone which distinguishes the invalid gentleman from the invalid deed (which he unfortunately signed) when the word invalid is presented to the mind through the agency of the eye ; and it is the context alone which distinguishes the mayor from the mare on which he rides when conveyed to the mind through the instrumentality of the organs of hearing. So, in like manner, hopping and ridding will be distinguished from hoping and riding when they are shorn of their duplicated letters. The context will save them from ever being confounded with each other as easily as it saved the invalid and the mare from being confounded with the deed of the our and the rider of the other. In fact, the further one investigates the question of English pronunciation, the less regard is ascertained t" be paid to the mere pelling of the words. Ought, for example, English Spelling. 45 for no apparent reason, is vocally sounded like nought ; while light is entoned exactly like height. We doubt not that there will be some few words from which the omission of a duplicated consonant will tend to render the spelling discordant to the pronunciation. Their num- bers cannot, we imagine, possibly be great, as at the present moment we are acquainted with only one class in which this discordance is likely to occur. We allude to words contain- ing a duplicated c ; such, for example, as accident, success, and succeed. These, when written without the duplicated consonants, will read acident, suces, and suceed — an abnormality which is decidedly objectionable. Fortunately for our cause, however, the antago- nism between the pronunciation and ortho- graphy is very easily removed, by the simple substitution of an x for the duplicated c. The words would then be written axident, suxes, and suxeed, aud would not only offer no further impediment to our scheme, but have the additional advantage of being written in exact conformity to phonetic law. Our pronunciation must be admitted to be perfectly arbitrary, and to follow no logical rule. Pronunciation, indeed, obeys alone the dictates of fashion. There is a fashion in 46 The Simplification of language, eyen of tin- pulpit, ns there is a fasbiou in the millinery of the stage* The objection to the abolition of duplicated consonants on the grounds of their a,bsencc inducing an alteration in the pronunciation of the words from which they arc omitted, is, therefore, as unworthy of acceptation as ;my theoretical over ;i practical objection can pos- sibly 1 >e ; for the simple reason thai very MAN? ENGLISH WORDS, ALTHOUGH SPELT DIFFERENTLY, AND POSSESSING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MEANINGS, ARE NEVERTHELESS PRONOUNCED ABSOLUTELY ALIKE. Thus we pronounce Abb like abbey. Altai like alter. Boy )> buoy. Bridal )> 1 iridic. Choler >> collar. Lyre >) liur. i >> feet. Weak > > week. Eloign >> rain. Ai )> isle. Hugh M llcW. Ruff >» rough. Knew >) 11. W. Blue >> blew. Flour »> ftow< r. ( Mir )> hciur. Air i > heir. Eye M I. Bean >> bow. Illicit )) Kli.it. Palate tf pallet. Pair | | pear. It.Ui it bear. Bail 1 ) hare. Beet »> beat. ( irate >> it. Their there. Two )) too and to. Plain plane. Here hear. Need >> knead. Deer | | dear. Soul )» ■lr. i..„ t) dough, Sun * i ■on. Nun 1 » in ni«'. There are, indeed, so many Incongruities in English Spelling. 47 the spelling of the English language that one cannot help feeling that THE IDEA OF MAKING ORTHOGRAPHY THE TOUCHSTONE OF AN ENGLISH EDUCATION IS FALLACIOUS. Why do we write pull, and rule, when both are pronounced exactly alike ? If there were Wic in our language, we should be compelled to write them either as pull and rull, or as pule and rule. Language, however, existed long before logic was born — long before grammar was thought of — long before the conception of a system of orthography entered into the mind of man. Language is itself an aged sire, while spelling is but one of its infant scions — not yet shorn of its swaddling clothes. As in pleading a cause like this against two such potent enemies as Habit and Prejudice, it is essential, in order to have a chance of suc- cess, that every point in the argument should not only be so clearly stated, but so fully sup- ported by fact, that it may at once appear to the mind of the reader as incontrovertible, it is requisite for us to make a slight digression for a moment from the point immediately under consideration, in order to dethrone two very common errors regarding the origin and growth 48 The Simplification of of human speech ; for a just appreciation of the true nature of language will exert r marked influence <>n the apparent plausibility of our scheme of literary reform. AS REGARDS THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF SPEECH. From the Bible telling us that our first parents were created in a perfect state, and in the image of their Creator, many good and worthy people have been led to suppose that .\y studying the nature of bis tools, his weapons, his utensils, and his ornaments, we can Form a pretty correel conception of whal his occupations, his manners, and his tastes must bave been a1 successive periods of his ial history. And ii is conclusively ascer- tained from these archaeological studies thai man by slow and gradual Btages emerged from ;i wild, rude stair of being into a more, and more developed, and refined one. Moreover, ii will be subsequently Bhown thai linguistic developmenl follows the course of natural laws, in the wake of intellectual deve lopment, quite independent lv of the consort of any artificial purifying literary process. It may here, perhaps, be as well to make the Incidental observation thai \>t\ many \. o ii wa suggested to u by a pbilologisl of English Spelling, 5 r the highest standing — in fact, by the then Presi- dent of the Philological Society — to publish our views on this very subject, and as a matter of fact the skeleton of this monograph was already sketched out for publication as early as the year 1859. From the circumstance of our province being in the realms of science, and not in regions of literature, we, however, hesitated to send it to press, and in the end abandoned the idea of publishing it altogether, with the consolatory reflection that men's minds were not yet suffi- ciently ripe for the calm consideration the subject merited. An important change has since then, how- ever, taken place in the Anglo-Saxon mind. The ephemeral Spelling Bee unwittingly did a service (for which we cannot be t'»> grateful) in successfully pointing out to reflecting minds very many inconsistencies ; aye, it might even be said, many palpable absurdities in English orthography, while it had at the same time the advantage of conclusively proving that it is not necessarily the best educated persons who arc the most proficient spellers. Thus it is that the paltry Spelling P>ce, by prominently calling attention to these two important facts, Bet vibrating the chords of dissatisfaction with p 2 52 The Simplification of English orthography in the educated, though somewhat indifferenl breast ; and it is chiefly owing to this Latter circumstance, and the orga- nisation of a Spelling Reform ( longress, that this iy is now submitted to consideration, in the hope that ere the vibrating chorda of dissatis- tion are permitted to regain a quiescent state, a decided, as well as a permanent improvement will be brought about in English orthography. It may not here be out of place to make a few remarks on what is denominated SPELLING POWER, for it is pretty generally known that some men of high education and fair literary attainments can only trust themselves to spell correctly the ordinary words in everyday use, while many a man standing behind a shop counter, with no more education than what a parish school can afford, may spell correctly almosl any word employed in the newspapers. Many years ago our attention was forcibly called to a remarkable instance of spelling power, in the case of a little maid-of-all-work. It v.. i related to us by a gentleman, when we were on a visit to the Lammermoor I tills, in L848, and,. as near as we can now recollect, he ted that while he was standing in the village " all-sort-shop," waiting to be Berved, English Spelling. 5, he heard a lady customer tell the shopkeeper to address her parcel to so-and-so, and it would be called for. The shopkeeper bowed, the lady left the shop, and he began to address tbe parcel. He had not proceeded far, how- ever, when he suddenly stopped, and, with a comical expression of countenance, put down the pen, took off his large round-eyed spec- tacles, rubbed them with the corner of his apron, and after giving to his whisker a twitch, replaced the spectacles on his nose, and took up his pen again. An intense stare at the parcel, a wise shake of the head, and a peculiar puckering of his mouth overcame the on-looker's politeness, and, with a quiet grin, he inquired of the shopkeeper what was the matter with him. " A weel, Sir, ye see I dinna ken hoo to spell that leddie's address. May be ye can spell it for me ? " " Spell it ! ' : exclaimed the stranger ; "why, 1 don't believe that 1 could pronounce the jaw-breaking name. Is the place not in your own neigh- bourhood?" "Weel, Sir, it's certainly no far awa', only aboot live miles ; but it's on the other side o' the hills, and oot o' OOI district. I'll get Sally, and she'll spell it for me." Sally, the gentleman very naturally thought, would be an educated daughter of the shopkeeper ; 54 The Simplification oj but, to his surprise, on the name being called aloud, a dirty Little slattern girl appeared, and b1 1 in the doorway, between the Bhop and the back room, drying her wet arms- with her ragged apron. She quickly spelt the word and disappeared " Are you sure the girl has jpell the word correctly '. asked the stranger, "ii Beeing the shopkeeper proceed to write ii down. "I think bo 3 Sir. Whenever the missus or me are no 3 Bhure aboot a word, we always ask Sally." "Has Bhe been well edu- cated, then '." - Not that 1 know of," replied the shopman. " I wish you would call her back, and let me ask her a few questions," said the gentleman, Sally was recalled, and bhe following conversation took place. " Bow old are you, Sally?" "Going thirteen, Sir." "Were you long at school?" "Noi very; I lefl it at twelve, and came here to Ben i <■." " I [ow "Id were you when you \\ ent t«> I I : " •• I think I was about eight, Sir." •■ \\ 'hai school v. ere you at ! " The pari Ii 'i I. Sir." Then, turning to the shopkeeper, the Btrangei asked if the schoolmaster wa clever man ; and on bearing that he v. nothing particular, he Bald to Sally, " ll"\\ do you know how to Bpell that word \" "I read it on a cart one day." " Were j on ei er at the English Spelling. 55 place ? " u No, Sir." The gentleman copied down the word as Sally had spelt it, and subsequently found that the poor little igno- rant maid-of-all-work had spelt correctly a word which defied his boasted learning. If this story be correctly reported, it offers a nice puzzle for orthographists to unravel. Much discussion has taken place regarding the peculiar nature of the spelling faculty. That the power of spelling does not altogether depend on education is now almost universally admitted. Moreover, that different degrees of spelling power are manifested in individuals of much the same educational acquirements and intelligence is a matter of everyday observa- tion. It is well known that children of the same family, with about the same amount of mental power and training, spell with very different degrees of facility. Some people attribute this to a difference in ear, others to a difference in eye. Yet neither of these opinions is satisfactory, for no doubt, although the possession of a good musical ear is a great advantage, yet there arc many deaf people who are excellent spellers ; besides which, as we have seen, many words are not spelt a.- ihey are pronounced. The spelling power cannot, again, be said to rest entirely with the 56 The Simplification of eye, for Dearly-blind persons arc sometimes fair spellers. A third opinion is thai the spelling faculty has but little to do either with the ear or with the eye, and that it entirely depends on a special faculty inherent in the brain, exactly as there exists in the brain an arithmetical faculty, quite independent of any special arith- metical training. To this third opinion we incline : for just as the arithmetical faculty is Btrongly manifested in Borne persona of mode- rate education, and of no very high order of intellect, bo the spelling faculty is occasionally met with (as in the case of the little maid-of- all-work) in people with an equally moderate amount of intelligence and education. It oughl not to l»e forgotten, however, thai much of the spelling power depends upon the possession "I" a good memory, and although memory is independent of a high order of intellect, a high order of intellect cannot hear fruit unless it is associated with a good memory . So unsettled, even at the present day, is our English orthography, that in order to remedy the evils which -till exisl in having a variety of ways of writing the same word, it was a !i..it time ago suggested a1 a meeting of the English Spelling. 57 London Association of Correctors of the Press to issue a " Printer's Dictionary " of all the words of disputed spelling, giving each word in one form only, according to the most general usage among the best standard writers of the present day. (Vide " The Publisher's Circular," Feb. 1st, 1877, p. S3.) It ought not to be wondered at, then, that a knowledge of spelling has almost ceased among the educated class to be regarded as a trustworthy criterion of an Anglo-Saxon edu- cation. We believe that far greater confidence in judging of Anglo-Saxon education is to be placed on the construction of the person's sentences, than upon the mere spelling of the words. It might be well for teachers of children o always to remember, ere they punish a pupil for spelling wrongly, that the fault may not entirely lie on the side of the supposed delin- quent, but depend in some measure upon an innate defect in the orthography of the word the pupil has been called upon to spell. As regards pronunciation, again. Verily, of the variety of different modes of pro- nouncing the same word there is no end. Even ;il the present moment some of the diosI common of our words in everyday use haw, 5> s Th Simplification of at Least, two equally correct (or incorrect) modes of pronunciation. Take the words either, and knowledge, for example. One *e1 of people pronounce them in harmony with their true spelling, while another 8e1 of indi- viduals, totally ignoring their spelling, pro- nounce them as ither and noliere. DUPLICATED CONSONANTS OCCASIONALLY OCCUR WITH AMAZING FREQUENCY' IN BUSINESS LETTERS. With the view of illustrating this point the following has been composed, and it may be added, that although it consists of only one hundred and forty-six words, it nevertheless contains one hundred and two duplicated con- sonants, fifty-one of which, according to our rendering, are utterly unnecessary. It may be remarked, too, thai no word possessing a duplicated consonanl has 1 d repeated, bo thai the Letter cannol be said to present a sum ciently anomalous appearance to tl w, to attracl special attention to its peculiarity. Shipping < Mfioe, Millu.ill. Sib,— I am lorrytohave to tell you thai the small i of M.ii tills and Hennewey»' brandy, addr o Ba od to the oonv mittee "i the auwuranoe Aaeooiation, hai arrived, with • ■. '.in- ..i n - bottli . broken. \ ooord {to our commie- « i • 1 1 ount (who happened to be ] lelwhen the aooideni ooonrred), it appears thai there \% i 1 1 be ;i diffi- English Spelling. 59 culty in settling the question upon whom the loss of the goods ought to fall, for he says it might equally be attributed to one of two causes : — Firstly, the gross carelessness of the men engaged in unshipping the box ; secondly, from the fact that, owing to some unaccountable reason or other, the words "Glass, with care," were omitted to be written upon it. The latter circumstance renders Mr. Cresswell, the shipper of the goods, liable, unless he can adduce suflicient evidence to attach the blame elsewhere. The reason why so very few persons are aware of the extraordinary frequency with which duplicated consonants occur in the Eng- lish language arises from the simple fact that the eye is so familiar with their appearance, that unless attention be specially called to them, they fail to attract notice. Now just as it is possible to write a letter full of duplicated con- sonants, it is equally easy to write one devoid of them, and yet use the words common in everyday life. A friend of ours, who takes an interest in this article, has written a paper entitled " Exhibiting Exotic Ferns/'" which con- sists of more than two thousand words, and yel contains only three in the possession of a dupli- cated consonant, and most unfortunately thi three, as we are told, chanced to get into the article by mere oversight, or the paper would not have contained a vestige of one. * T. M. Shuttleworth, Esq. "Journal of the Horticul- tural Society," January, 1877. 6o The Simplification of Nothing, perhaps, will impress more forcibly on the miinl of the reader the advisability of getting rid of duplicated consonants than a glance at the post-office statisl ics. We are Informed by the annual report of the Postmaster-t reneral that during 1 8 7.") more than one thousand millions of letters passed through the post-office, besides eighty-seven millions of post-cards, and uearly two hundred and eighty millions of books and newspapers. "\\ ill any one try to calculate how many millions upon millions of duplicated consonants this annual mass of correspondence represents, and then -iv that the abolition of them would not be attended \\ ith benefit '. Let us, for the Bake of illustration, make a calculation of tin duplicated consonants in the mere Letters alone. Four sides of a single sheet of uote paper may be said to represent an average-sized letter, and on calculation it will be found that taking gentlemen's and ladies 1 letters together, the Dumber of duplicated consonants in a heel of uote paper amount to about fort j . Twenty of which are unneci asary. It' so, a \ ery easy multiplication sum will sho\t that the cor- responding part of the British nation writes twenty thousand millions of unnecessary cons aniii - iii the brief *paec of a j ear. English Spelling. 61 While the millions upon millions of dupli- cated consonants occurring in printed books, newspapers, &c, continually passing through the post-office are simply incalculable ; who, then, will gainsay that the abolition of unneces- sary duplicated consonants from the English language will be unattended with advantages more than sufficient to counterbalance the trifling inconveniences attendant on the first introduction of the reform % CERTAIN LETTERS OF THE ALPHABET OCCUR IN THE DUPLICATE CAPACITY WITH VERY MUCH GREATER FREQUENCY THAN OTHERS. We have been at the trouble of counting the number of doubled letters in fifty thousand words taken from Lord Macaulay's " Critical and Historical Essays," two first-class novels, the Times and the Standard newspapers ;* and we find that a duplicated consonant occurs on an average in every fifteen words, and that in every thousand duplicated consonants the dif- ferent letters appear in the following propor- tions : — * It is necessary to calculate the proportion of doubled consonants in writings on different topics, for on one and the same subject the same words arc frequently repeated, and would, consequently, lead to error if the calculations were made upon them alone. 62 Thr Simplification of L 486 B 224 T lis F - 80 R - 80 . P - ... ,7 M 44 C 40 N -40 D - 16 G 12 B 3 Z 1 Total double consonants - 1,000 The four consonants, II, K. Q, and X, occur so very rarely doubled, thai no1 one of them chanced to appear among the whole fifty thou- sand words examined. The mosl frequently occurring letter of the alphabet, nexl to the consonants L and S. is the vowel EL Band <> may be Baid to be the only two vowels that occur in ;i duplicate capa- city, for A and I are exceedingly rare, while a (loulili'.l l' is of course a thine* unknown. The letter e occurs more than twice as often as the letter o, :nit contenl with merely doubling as many letters as they pos- sibly can in their names, causes Little annoy- ance i" their friends by attempting to double nearly everything else, and hence a Mr. WVII- woodd had addressed to him by one of his especial friends these four sarcastic lines : — You double not only each story you tell, And double each sight thai yon Bee : Bat you till up your name with doubles as well, A double n, o, 1, ami d. An equal fondness for the duplicating of letters in the name wo pen-rive, in a volume lying "ii the table, is possessed 1>) a Welshman, who writes his name as I Jew ellvnn ; Imt whether this is done with the objecl of grati- fying the organs of hearing or the organs of seeing, we are wholly ;it a loss to explain. Kven in the manner of spelling some Chris- tian names there seems t<> he almost no end to tie- variety. The simple Dame of Theodore has n actually spelt in qo fewer than Bixty-five different waj This may aeem t" 1"' an im- -iliility, but a glance at the preface of Kingsley'e "Roman and Teuton/' page 17, will how it to lie a fact, and facts, as we al! knOW, arc often .>t ranger i ban Bet ion. In some persona] names there is an extraor- English Spelling. • Unary frequency of consonants without the slightest attempt being made to double any of them. Thus, for example,, we have been told by Mr. Vaux, Secretary to the Koyal Asiatic Society, that there was formerly a watchmaker in Regent Street, whose name, which consisted of nine letters, possessed but one solitary vowel — an e. This curious name was " Wrentzsch." We cannot refrain from here briefly alluding to a spinster's idea of the personal disadvantage which might accrue to her by the abolition of duplicated consonants. After having silently listened to our discus- sion of the subject with a learned brother of hers, she all at once exclaimed, " Oh, Dr. Harley, please do not try to do away with duplicated consonants, for if you succeed I shall for the remainder of my life be deprived of the only honorable title I ever possessed, and instead of being Miss, I shall be reduced to the level of Mis-understood." " Never fear," was our prompt reply, "though you should live to a hundred, you will never by any pos- sibility be deprived of your honorable title by the abolition of duplicated consonants, for it is not in the caudal s, but in the capital M of the word the honor lies, and .Mis ( ) will be as much respected in the future as Miss i: 66 Tin Simplification of ( ) has been in the past." Wonderful to relate, our spinster friend's fears were at once dispelled. This apparently imaginary dilemma of our spinster friend Leads us to make a pass- ing remark on an abbreviation in daily use — Messrs. for Gentlemen. It is, n<> doubt, a con- traction of Messieurs the French plural for Monsieur, which we have adopted as an English Bynonym ; bul why we have reduced it by only one-third (leaving six oul of its original nine Letters), when it might have been easily reduced by two-thirds, and still have been an equally g 1 symbol fur the term gentlemen, we arc at a 1"-- to understand. In addition to our theory of doing away with the duplicated con- sonanl in the word Messrs., we would 1 »* »1«1 1 \ venture to propose a .-till further shortening of the word by three more Letters. Reducing it to Mes. t" correspond with our abbreviations Mr. and .Mrs. Only three oul of the original uine letters would then be retained, and the contraction would really meril the uame, and i hi advanl : of an abbrevial ion. For the future we intend to write Mes. in our own correspondence, objecl to it who maj . Another friend, more interested in, and bel tei acquainted with philology, one morning after we had been di jcu ring t he quesl ion of the English Spelling. 67 abolition of duplicated consonants, sent to us by post the following witty lines : — " Oh ! Doctor, listen to our prayers, All doubles don't suppress, Lest while you still retain our cares You leave us no caress." The Doctor to the Canon in rejoinder : — " Ah ! Canon, Avhen We once begin, Your occupation's gone. There'd be no use to preach 'gainst sin When sin ners there be none."* Some sympathetic hearts might even objed to the abolition of the duplicate s from caress, on grounds suggested to their minds by the pretty lines of the great George Canning, for as he says : — " A word there is of plural number, A foe to rest and peaceful slumber, Now, eveiy word you choose to take By adding S you plural make. B\it if you add an S to this, Strange is the metamorphosis ! Phiral is plural now no more, And sweet what bitter was before." To the poetic mind lull license, must be granted, but stubborn fact will soon show us that the bitters of care will never be con- founded with the sweets of caress, even after the latter has been shorn of its terminal consonant. * The Rev. Canon Tarver (Chester Cathedral). 1: 2 68 The Simplification of The supposed confusion 18 based on theoretical '•rounds alone, and there never will, nor ever .an exist any practical confusion in theemploy- nient of these two words, or even in the confounding of any other two words whose spellings are identical. Paradoxical as this assertion at first right appears to be, it is nevertheless quite as conso- uanl with truth as was Columbus's assertion that he could make an eeg stand upon its end. No BOOner is the process made apparent than its paradoxical appearance vanishes, as we shall presently -how at page 70. Next ;i> regards geographical and other proper names, we would make QO exception in their favour, for the spelling of some of them, like that of Mississippi, is comical in the extreme. Would anyone, we ask, ever think of pronouncing Misisipi differently after the expurgation of its three unnecessary consonants ! We think not. In proof of the sertion thai FOREIGNERS EXPERIENCE VERY GREAT DIFFI CULTY IN SPELLING WHAT APPEARS TO BE SIMPLE ENGLISH NAMES, we venture to call attention to a paragraph which fell under our notice in The Mail, of English Spelling. 69 27th September, 187G. It shows how an English word, apparently pronounced in an orthodox manner, may puzzle foreigners. The title given to the paragraph is, " A Polyglot Town ; " and it is therein stated that the Danish and Norwegian Consul at Ipswich has, for several years past, received letters from Northern Europe, on the envelopes of which are some extraordinary variations of the spell- ing of Ipswich. No fewer than 57 (!) incorrect spellings are given in the newspaper. The only reason we can see for retaining so many incongruities in our language at the pre- sent time is that the schoolmaster is not yet abroad amongst us, and that we are incorri- gible slaves to habit. THE MOST POTENT OBJECTION THAT CAN BE RAISED AGAINST THE ABOLITION OF DUPLICATED CONSONANTS appears to us to be the one already mentioned of its necessitating an increase in the number of words of different significations, with similar spellings ; and we are conscious that if we fail to clench this nail sufficiently firmly to prevent its being dislodged by irritable fingers, we shall be accused of having left a formidable objection obstructing the way to our proposed plan of ;o The Simplification of reform. We will, therefore, add one or two still more conclusive arguments in it- favour, and distinctly prove that the addition of a few more words of different significations, with similar spellings, is, in reality, only an imagi- nary obstacle in the path of the mode oi Literary reforms here suggested. Attention has already been called to the feci that there is no difficulty in correctly inter- preting the meaning of similarly Bounding words, like flour and flower, eye and I, too and two, when they are presented to the "ear, although they bave entirely similai Bounds, We shall now proceed to prove that there can- in. t possibly exist any greater obstacle in cor- rectly interpreting the meaning of words with different significations when they are presented to the "eye" with identical spellings: — 1st. For lip' obvious reason that it is nol the ear that hears, nor the eye thai sees, no more than it is the artificial tympanum inserted into tin' '1 iaf man's ear, 01 the magnifying Lenses in tin- spectacles "l" the Bhort-sightod individual, by which tin' one hears and the other sees. The hearing and seeing part of the pro< done, nol by the artificial tympanum and lenses, bul by t be brain il self. 2nd. If the brain find no difficulty in English Spelling. 71 interpreting differently-meaning words with identical sounds, it cannot have any greater difficulty in interpreting differently-meaning words with identical spellings. 3rd. In fact, it is neither the sound nor the sight of the word, per se, which indicates its true meaning, but, as before said, the context which precedes or follows it. 4th. Remove the context, and the bra in would totally fail to appreciate the signification of tlic one word presented to it by the ear, just as much as it would fail to solve the meaning of the other word presented to it by the eye. It is the context alone which guides the brain to distinguish between soi ! and sole when conveyed to it by means of the ear, and it is the context alone which enables the brain to distinguish between slight (insult) and slight (slender) when presented to it by the eye. 5th. Therefore the reduction of a few more words, with different significations to the same spelling, can in no wise be regarded as a for- midable obstacle to the abolition of duplicated consonants from the English language. Since this article was written, we have perused an interesting paper on spelling in The Simplification of • - Tln' Corahill Magazine" for .May, l s 7»'>. in which the author calls attention to the curious fact that Johnson Bpells rpliill with two l's, and Downhil with only one. Molehill ,, Dunghil ,, Illness „ Talneu ,, There is, however, no ncee.-^ity lor us to go bo far back aa to the time of Johnson to dis- cover inconsistencies in the spelling of our guide-books. Similar unaccountable Inconsis- tencies are still indulged in at the presenl day. Turn, for example, to Dr. Eyde Clarke's "Nevi and Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language as Spoken and Written," and there it will be found thai dullness is spelt with two l's, and fulness with only one. On what prin- ciple is this done ! In the seventeenth century the words hill and well were gem-rally sprit as Inl and wel (vide Speed), and why an addi- tional I was subsequently added to them, ing that their pronunciation perfectly accorded with tlnir spelling, it is difficult to understand, except from the fact that the benefits arising from the shortening of Language were in tho • lay.-, ueither understood uor appreciated. Enough has aurely now been said to prove that the continuance of English Spelling. 73 THE EMPLOYMENT OF DUPLICATED CONSO NANTS IN ENGLISH LITERATURE CANNOT BE LOGICALLY DEFENDED, EITHER ON PHILOSOPHICAL, OR ON PHILOLOGICAL GROUNDS, nor on the grounds that their disuse will make the language less beautiful. Common sense, too, rebels against their retainment on economic principles. With the abolition of duplicated consonants would be annihilated all the rules, with their fetters of exceptions, which so perplex our children, for the addition of a eonsonant here, and the subtraction of one there, in the forma- tion of compound words, and their place would be occupied by the one single, great, and intel- ligible rule — namely, that NO DUPLICATED CONSONANTS EXIST. Life is too short, and money too precious, to be thrown away unnecessarily ; and as the per- fection of an art is to produce a maximum of profit, at a minimum cost of time and labor, perfection must be regarded as the goal of human progress, and philosophic simplification — the ne plus ultra of the age — the royal road thereto. Why, then, .should we hesitate to apply the process of simplification to the English lan- guage, and sweep from it, at once and for ever, 74 The Simplification of many of the inconsistencies which at present hang around it '. By the abolition of duplicated consonants, as has been shown, we should bul aid the efforts of "Old Father Time," who has long been silently engagi d, and still is, and will ever con- tinue to be engaged, in slowly Lopping off with bis pruning-hook all unnecessary vowels, as well as mute consonants. LINGUISTIC ABBREVIATIONS. Were we to take a -till more minute retro- spective survey of English Linguistic evolution during the Last three centuries, we could no1 fail to be forcibly struck with the remarkable abbre- viation which has occurred during that time in ,i whole legion of t \\r ordinary words in daily u \- an illustration of the verity of this state- ment, we shall begin with tin- word bachelor. One hundred and fifty vears ago il was almost universally written as bacchelour: bo we i that it has Lost two out of its original ten Letters- -a vowel and a consonant Before the same period of time, Bhip v. , It shippe, and out of ii- -i\ original Letters it has Lost two again a vowel and a consonant. Sin was writ ten sinne, jo now only three out of its original li\ e lei tei i emain. \ glance at t he L( II for March, I B76 (already English Spelling. 75 ferred to), and at the page already cited, will reveal the words " soe suddayn, publick, and woeman ; " while on the following page, in a letter headed " Trinity, Cambridge, October 31st, 1681,'' will be seen the words "lett slipp and physick," all of which have been shortened by " Time," without a single voice of complaint having been raised against the innovation, and every educated person has been a gainer thereby. A saving of labor having been effected to the writer, to the printer, and to the reader, type has been saved, paper has been saved, ink has been saved, and it may be that an occa- sional fit of loss of temper has been saved to dubious spellers. The natural process of national word-short- ening can be illustrated in another way. Compare, for example, a German and an English sentence, the German being taken as the representative of an old language, the English of a new (and improved) one, and we shall soon discover how, by an unconscious process of natural national mental develop- ment, linguistic evolution has been compelled, by means invisible to our menial eyes, to economise our animal forces, in vocal utterance, as well as our manual labor in penmanship. 7') The s mplijication of While the German requires twenty-seven letters of the alphabet to express the Bimple idea of " Ich habe ein Acstchcn zu spalten," all Englishman expresses exactly the same idea in seventeen letters — that is to say, with more than one-third less vital waste : "• I haw a twig t'> split. After having given these illustrations, it is scarcely polite towards our Continental con- freres to say — what is, nevertheless, perfectly true —that language is simplified in proportion to the mental capacity of its employer. The more muddle-headed the speaker, the more complicated, and, consequently, the more ambiguous is the language in which be ex- presses himself The clearer the intellect, the fewer are the words it requires to employ in th<- transmission <»f its ideas ; just a- the accomplished artist can in a few seconds, and with a few scratches of his pencil, delineate a facial expression, which it would take hours of tillie, ;H|,| ;| 1 1 1 » I 1 t it 1 1 < 1 • • of stl'o|n tin ( Irowtb of Lai English Spelling. 77 The tendenc)' to shorten words by dropping out letters from them is particularly observable when nations adopt words from each other's vocabularies. Thus, for example, we find that the Italians shortened the Latin word fides into fede. The French shortened the Italian fede into foi, while the Spanish reduced it into fe. So that at last fides lost more than one half of its original letters, notwithstanding which cur- tailment the word of two letters remained as potent a linguistic symbol of faith as ever ; for the Spanish word fe is just as powerful an expression of the conventional vocal sign for our word faith, as is the original Latin word fides, with its five letters. It is so exceedingly inte- resting to observe the linguistic alterations which words undergo in passing from one lan- guage to another, that we cannot refrain from subjoining the three following characteristic examples of the process, as seen in our English words, law, priest, and bishop. 1st. Gothic - - - Lagyan. Saxon .... Laga. Latin - - - - Lex. English ... - Law.* French ... - Loi. * We have occasionally spoken with persons who imagined that our English word law came to us from the Latin lex : but the application of the phonetic test of derivation proves, on the contrary, that its original source is laga, be the deri- vation of tin' Lit in word lex what it may. • s The Simplificatioii of 2nd. Greek .... Preabuteroe.'* Anglo-Saxon - - - Pryabeter. nan ... . Prieater. Danish .... \> v , , it. English ... . Priest. [talian - I 'rote. 3rd. Greek .... Episkoj German - Biachof. Saxon ... Bisoop. English - - - Biahop. Portuguese - - - Bigpo. Danish .... Bisp.t Thus there i> convincing proof thai all Euro- pean languages, as well as English possess within themselves an Lnherenl tendency to ab- breviate the terms which they adopl from each other's vocabularies, and that, too, withoul pay- ing any regard to the original form of spelling, beyond the retention of the minimum which is absolutely necessary to give phonetic expression of some pari of the original sound. X<> one need be the Leasl surprised al this, when he recollects thai words are merely con- ventional signs, and thai no sooner has a new The word presbuteros u the lUfmil-iii w degr oom- pariaon of the Greek adjective preabtia, signifying old. Oon- tently preabuteroe simply means the- aldeatjan eook siaatioal appelatiou to an office bearer in the church in Scotland called an alder. t Some Languages, like the French and the Welah, b changed almost everything about the original Greek word, i imary lei B ; the French writ i . pie, and W\ lab BSagob. English Spell lay. 79 word been incorporated into a language and be- come a recognised conventional sign of a given idea in the language which adopted it, than it may he said to be completely, and for ever severed from its parent stem, and made an independent entity, whose etymology henceforth dwindles down to be a matter of mere second- ary importance to the language in which it has become naturalised. Just in precisely tin • same manner as a twig cut from a tree and planted in the ground becomes an independent tree. Throwing out its branches wherever it listetli, and blossoming, withering, and even dying independently of its parent. The bloom of the cutting may even in some cases cea><' to resemble in colour that of the parent plant. Thus the cutting of a red rose has been known to throw out a yellow bloom ; and just like two straight lines once begun to diverge from a common point, the further they extend the greater becomes the distance between them, it happens with words undergoing the process of linguistic evolution when engrafted into a new language. Moreover, it ought to be remem- bered that the shorter a word is made, so long as it adequately expresses the desired coiiecji- tion, the more pithy does it become. Dilution in every sense in language is a cause of weak- ness. So The Simplification of The exciting cause of abbreviation in lan- guage, of every kind, springs, ao doubt, from an innate unconscious desire existing in the human hear! to Bave trouble in transmitting to its rtes- tanation the Bymbols of the idea it wishes to express. Not only the abbreviation of the adopted word, but the very facl of it- adoption, proves this. Both the adoption and the abbre- viation originate in one and the same cause, which may without injustice be said to repre- sent a great principle in linguistic evolution — uamely, the mundane desire to economise vital power in utterance, and manual labor in pen- manship. Wereil bul possible for > produce a greal revolution in telegraphy. English Spelling. 81 ferring thought to paper by means of short- hand, make beyond the very faintest approach to the great ultima thule of linguistic perfec- tion. The Spaniards have, as far as we are aware, outstripped all other nationalities in abbre- viating lano-uage. Like the French and the Italians, their tongue is of course merely modernised Latin, and we shall now further show that they have completely eclipsed their French and Italian confreres in shortening the original Latin words, as well as in making them more euphonious to the ear. For example, instead of saying and writing C / Oculus they say and write ojo. Mensis ,, ,, nies. / Picis ,, ,, pez. Centum ,. ,, cien. Milia ,, ,, mil. Video ,, ,, veo. Sapio ,, ,, se. Ilabeo ,, ,, he. And so on with hundreds of other words. This abbreviation by the Spaniards, we imagine, is due to no other cause than that of saving trouble, for we know that the old Spanish proverb says, "Never try to do, what you can leave undone." P S: J) S pi ficatio oj No one can dare Maine the Spaniards for thus Bavine themselves time and trouble, for these are the two great objects of man's short life. WTiat, forsooth, are all modern inventions devised for, hut to save time and trouble'? Why do our fair acquaintances purchase sewing machines, if it be not to economise thn< and Labor, and thereby reap a corre- sponding advantag The Spaniards merit applause, not censure, for having adopted a simple and most effi- cacious means of not only saving themseh both time and trouble in Bpeaking, writing, printing, and reading ; hut also for facilitating tip' acquirement of their language by foreign- ers, many of whom, like ourselves, are apt to grudge the waste of unn try labor in literary pursuits. At an earlier stage of this monograph, it was promised that 3ome farther facts would he offered in Bupport of our vi, vva regarding the natural growth of Language ; and as this appears i" he the proper place i" introduce them, we shall begin by premising thai we wish it to be thoroughly understood thai no matter however much the pen and the printing press may have contributed to Linguistic culture, the natural growth of ;ill Language uninterruptedly English Spelling, 8 j follows in the immediate wake of mental development, quite independently of the artificial influence of these two cultivating & agents. Had there never been an alphabet invented, either for the pen or for the press, the language of the Englishman of the nineteenth century, would still have shown a marked improvement over the language of his early ancestors. The growth of language, like the growth of every other human attribute, is an inseparable concomitant of man's physical and mental evolution from a relative state of barbarism to a comparative condition of civilisation, quite irrespective of any of the physical methods which he may possess of transmitting thought, such as pen, press, picture, sculpture, monolith, chromlech, or cairn. In illustration of the correctness of this assertion, we tabulate the eight following facts : 1st. It is in general conceded that pre-his- toric man gradually, and by slow degrees, emerged from a rude, rough, wild state of being, by a process of natural, physical, and mental evolution. 2nd. It has been conclusively shown by archaeological research that the occupations, manners, and tastes of ] ire-historic men became P 2 84 The Simplification of in each succeeding generation more and more refined. 3rd. Written history proves that all languages, from a- far back as there an' ;m\ Bcriptory records whatever, have undergone wry marked changes in their organisation. 4th. Every known language that has been reduced to writing shows a gradual tendency to become more powerful, and more exact, in direct proportion as the intellectual capacities of the individuals employing it become more developed. 5th. The more modern the Language, tin* fewer are the words in it required to expi any given idea. 6th. Tin- more modern the Language, the fewer are the number of Letters of the alphabel employed in each word. 7th. Tin' more modern the alphabet, the fewer, as a genera] rule, arc it< Letters. For example, the Chinese, which is one of (if not) the mosl ancienl of all Languages, requires to employ many thousands of characters to explain it- systems of ethics, philosophy, and science, which it takes from twenty to five- and-twenty years of ;( man's Life to master. While modern Bnglish accomplishes the Bame task with d\-and-t went \ alphabetical charac- English Spelling. 85 ters, which any ordinary intellect can master in a forenoon. 8th. The more modern the language, tin- more euphonistic arc the tones of its speech. This statement can be rendered still more appreciable to the mind by simply tabulating some of the alphabets, and writing the number of letters in each opposite to it, Thus the Sclavonian contains .'59 distinct letters. Armenian j: 38 Iberian )> 37 Coptic » 31 Persic )> 30 Arabic :> 20 Ethiopic )> 20 Gothic U 24 Erse !) 21 The youngest of all, the Erse, as is seen, contains the smallest number. There is, however, a marked exception to this rule in the ancient Assyrian and the early Greek (a mere repetition of the Assyrian), which possess only 17 letters in their alphabets. But in spite of exceptions, the rule is seen by the above list to he, in the main, correctly stated. As a necessary corollary to the preeedin-j propositions, it may be said that the newer the language is, the more perfect is it- organisa- tion, orthography, and euphony. While it may he still further added — S6 Th>- Simplification of A. That this is even the case where no distinct refining literary agents are discernible, excepl those spontaneously springing from the causes of natural linguistic evolution. B. The more modern the form of speech, the greater is the brevity of its words and sentences, and consequently the greater is the saving of vital power in its oral and scriptory employment Such being the case, it is no exaggeration to say that the speech of the humble lowland Scottish peasant, which can scarcely be accused of having enjoyed the advantage of having had a literary nurse, as far as it goes, is a more perfect language than that used by the noble English peer in the Bouse of Lords at West- minster. This assertion will probably startle many of our readers, and raise a Bmile of incredulity on the visages of not a few of them. However, we can easily prove that this is no exaggeration by applying to these two languages the crucial lingui tic tests of euphony and brevity. Before doing bo, however, let as remind some of our readers thai although lowland Scotch is in common parlance desig- nated a dialect, and dialed though no doubt it is, it is nevertheless a language in the philological srii.v.' of thr word, quite as much English Spelling. 87 as either Danish or Hollandish is ; both of which are merely Teutonic dialects, though by usage and courtesy denominated languages. A dialect is simply a limited language, or portion of a language, used either by an indi- vidual or a community, and all that it requires to constitute its right to the genuine title of language is an official recognition and employ- ment in the affairs of the State, although it be neither printed nor written. The terms dialect and language arc convertible into each other, according to their geographical distribution and mode of employment. Some may be inclined to deny to lowland Scotch the title of a language, because it is only spoken by the common people, and is consequently vulgar. Beauty in anything, however, is only a fluctuating quantity, and just like right and wrong owes it» significance to the merely arbitrary, temporary standard of a given time, which an equally artificial standard of another period may reverse, or even annihilate. It is only necessary to cast a retrospective glance over past history in order to discover that what is considered as beautiful at one time is looked upon as ugly at another ; whal is regarded as right at one time is stigmatised 88 7V" Simplification of as disgraceful al another; bo thai to say that Lowland Scotch is doI a language, because al the presenl moment it is thought vxdgar, and consequently ugtyj ifi Bimply an absurdity. We can easily make our meaning perfectly plain by relating the following anecdote : In 1854, while standing in front of and admiring a picture of an ancient dame in booped skirts, a young lady standing by our side exclaimed, "Did yon vxw Bee Buch a bidious dress ! Bow could a woman with any pretentions to good taste ever dream of making herself into a guy like that '." Turning to our fair critic, we Bmillingly remarked, " Fashion is taste. Were hoops fashionable to-morrow yon would immediately think them beautiful, and array yourself in the very largesl of them." "No Buch thing, Dr. Harley; I never could admire a hideous dress like that, even were it the very tip-top of fashion." Strange to say, ere this same young lady was ten years older, we met ber out al a Grand l»all given l>\ one • ■I our then ministers decked out in one of the most voluminous of crinolines we ever saw, and the good lady, now a matron, thought Bhe looked magnificent in it. II< i taste had changed with the fashion. Fashion was to ber beauty. With this prologue we shall now English- Spelling. 89 proceed to convince onr readers that the de- spised lowland Scotch dialect, patois, or what- ever other name may be bestowed upon it, is not only more perfect in its organisation, but even more beautiful than high English. As we have just said, this can readily be proved by applying to the two languages the crucial linguistic tests of euphony and brevity. 1st. As regards euphony : How much more harmonious to the refined ear are the words — " Ye banks and braes o' bonnie Doon, " than " Yea banks and hillocks of pretty Doon." 2nd. As regards brevity : While the English peer would tell his coach- man to "Drive slowly" — employing 11 letters of the alphabet, the humble Scotch peasant would say, " Ca canie " — thereby employing only 7 letters to express ex- actly the same idea. Again the English peer salutes his friend with, " How are yon all to-day i " ( 17 letters of the alphabet) while the illiterate Scotchman says, " Hoo's a we ye noo ? " (= 12 letters of the alphabet) ; Thereby making precisely the same salutation with an actual economy of nearly one-third of tin.' vital power. 90 The Simplification of Lowland Scotch cannot, therefore, properly be .said to In- a despised language on account of its organisation being Less perfect than high English, but wholly and solely on account of its labouring under the misfortune of being an unfashionable dialect Were logic applied a little more assiduously to language than it Is a1 present, Borne curious us well as startling linguistic revelations would be made. As still further proof that we are correct in saying that the more modern, and consequently the more perfect, a language is, the greater is its brevity of expression, quit' 1 irrespective of any artificial literary culture, we shall pause for a moment and compare the modern Spanish with its elder sister French, and for the pur poses of illustration, in order thai there maj bf no mistaking our meaning, we Bhall Beleol the very Bame sentences as we did in com- paring low Scotch with English. Thus, the Frenchman Bays to his Bervant, Ulez donoement,' while the Spaniard Bays to his Bervant^ ■• Vaya despaoio." So thai while the Spaniard expresses himself in twelve letters of the alphabet, the French- English Spelling. 91 man is compelled to use for the same purpose fourteen. The shortening process is still more marked in the friendly salutation of, " Comment vous portez vous aujourcl'hui, Monsieur? " in which the Frenchman employs no less than 39 letters of the alphabet, while the equally polite Spaniard, with his more perfect language, expresses precisely the same idea in 20 letters — nearly one half; for he simply says, " Como esta ustecl hoy, Seii6r? " It is not to be expected, of course, that this shortening process is universally visible throughout the whole of these four languages. There are many exceptions to the rule ; but if the languages be taken as a whole, especially as regards the social phrases in every day use, it will be at once seen that the newer (lie language, the greater is the vital ceononiy employed in its utterance. Of all the European languages and dialects which it has been either our pleasure or fate to hear spoken in the land of their nativity — ami their number are not few, seeing that for no less a space than five years we wandered <>\ complainl raised against us by ultra-patriotic Cymerians, we shall apply to the Language what we regard as the crucial linguistic testa of development — Brevity and Euphony and in order thai we may avoid being accused of partiality, we .-hall employ exactly the same form of test-agents as wo have already done to the other languag similarly brought under consideration. 1st. As regards brevity in orthography. Instead of employing, The Welsh actually in English, employ n<> less than 3 letters to expr* • Law Blettei cyfraith- 6 ,, ., IV; 9 .. offeiriad. 8 ,, ., I Eolini ll .. Sancteiddrwydd. 9 ,, ,, Eiappinesa 10 ,, dydwyddueh. I<> ,, ,, Excellency 16 ,, Ardderchowgrwydd. These examples 3peak for themselves more Btrongly than any words of ours can, so we shall past on without any further comment, except the passing remark that we know of op other language po ing a word approaching in the leasl rt< in its orl bographicaJ con English Spelling. 93 struction to Ardderchowgrwydd, except that of the ancient British Druid, who gave to his Bachelor of Arts the distinguishing title of Disgibldisgybliaidd. The modern, no more than the ancient Cymerian can, we fear, be accused either of brevity or of simplicity in his orthography. We shall now proceed a step further, and prove that, as a rule, he is equally guiltless of exhibiting any particular partiality for con- ciseness in expression. One single example will suffice for this purpose, if we select it from among the social phrases common in everyday life, and the most practical test with which we are acquainted is that furnished to us by coin- pairing the universal form of everyday friendly salutation made by one individual to another. The Englishman gives ex-"\ pression t<> his in 14 Y How are you, today 1 letters. i \ Whereas the Welshman has , actually to employ no less than 23 letters of the al- phabet to deliver himself of the same polite quest i< >i i . ' I ';t sut yr ydych clvwi heddy n ' The preceding examples (we could easily cite many more) are sufficient to Bhow that, as a rule, not only arc Welsh words longer, but at the same time more complex in their ortho- graphy than the English ; and also that the tj Ti>> Simplification qj Welsh mode of expression entails upon the human vocal organs, in its utterance, an un- necessarily great amount of labor, while in writing it necessitates a needless waste of time and space. 2nd. As regards euphony.* This is a subject that we must handle with great caution, otherwise we shall engender a flame of fury in many a patriotic breast AH Welshmen, without exception, that we have ever Bpoken to <>u tin- Bubject, and their name is legion, staunchly declare thai their language is a mosl euphonious one, and they will no doubt consider that it is grossly maligned if we have the hardihood to opine that we con- sider their views on this point t<» 1><- erroneous. As philology has no compunction of conscience in its linguistic criticism, in order t<» be impartial, we fear that, even at the risk of raising Cymerian ire, we must give a candid opinion, and state that to our ear, at least, Welsh, even when proceeding from the lips of ;i pretty Welshwoman, has never appeared to ii- particularly euphonious. In fact, it sounds to <»ur 'in- in»i only inferior to Italian, and Spanish ; but even to French. * The euphony of .-i i in a great measure pro- portionate to tlic number "f roweli it oontaine. English Spelling. 95 This want of appreciation on our part of the beautiful Welsh language perhaps originates from the fact that we are not Welshmen, and, consecpiently, do not possess sufficient refine- ment of ear to enable us to appreciate its innate beauties, which are so apparent to the indigenous inhabitants of Wales. With all due deference to higher authorities, we would further call attention to the fact that, in spite of the common AVclsh argument that this language must be more euphonious than others, on account of the number of mut- able consonants it contains, and of the y and w being employed as vowels, it seems to us that something must be radically wrong in it, or why should foreigners be always finding fault with it, and compel Welsh patriots to make such strenuous efforts to alter their opinions. The old proverb is, we fear, not altogether inapplicable here — " Good wine needs no bush." We freely admit that we may be wrong; but, if we are to speak honestly, we must say that the results of the crucial tests of brevity and euphony when applied to modern Welsh prove that it is not only an immature, but an imper- fectly organised language. This, to our minds, is very easily accounted for, on the ground 96 77/' Simplification oj thai it is a v&cy ancient language ; for, parar doxical though it Bounds, our linguistic inves- tigations have led us to th<' conclusion that tin- younger the language is. 30 long as its founda- fcion is buill upon other languages, the more developed, and, as a matter of course, the more p it'- >-t Lb it- organisation. After the preceding rather st.'\vivly-s«nunlinij critic upon Welsh, we must do it the justice of remarking that, antiquated though the Ian- guage I"', it nevertheless conforms to the linguistic: law of abbreviating, as a rule, all th'- words which it engrafts from foreign tongues upon its nun patriarchal stem. Tim- we find it has shortened the spelling of the original words — 1. ti. 1- I'icu ur. di b) Dan >w lab) 8 b tfc n Cud! 'ill) I ., I'liirli ( „ ) ( | (,.)'J «.i\:illii- (Low Latin) 8 .. Cberal < .. ) Oefel ( )6 .. que ( ., ) Itsob ( .. ) .. ,. N 1 1 1 1 1 1 • - 1 - of other words mighl 1"' added to these, which the Welsh language has of it- own accord abbreviated. We must, however, admit that, on the whole, the proportional number is small when it be compared with thai met v>ith in more modern languagi . Foi rnple, English abounds in abbreviations. It hat* shortened almost every word thai it haa English Spelling. 97 adopted, and, what is still more, it has cur- tailed the orthography of even those from its own parent stem. Thus, as an example, we may cite the follow- ing Teutonic words which have been abbre- viated from Konigthum into our English kingdom. Weii *heit >> J) wisdom Irrtlmm >> )> error. Komnien >> )> come. Halten J5 >J hold. Geben » 5) give. Haben )f 5> have. Nicht >> 3) not. Ochs )> >} ox. The English language has, moreover, not yet ceased in its career of linguistic abbreviation. It has, on the contrary, rather extended its sphere of action ; and in obedience to an irre- sistible and definite law of linguistic continuity — after having passed through the first epoch of its development by attracting to itself a multi- tude of fragments from other languages — it has entered upon another phase of linguistic evolu- tion, and now occupies itself in refining its collected materials, as well as in eliminating all extraneous and unnecessary cumbrous matter from them. G 98 7% s iplification of \ itisfied with only shortening the ortho- phy of foreign words, aa well aa it- own, it is uow relentlessly engaged in abbreviating its phrases by applying to them another branch of the great natural law of evolutionary develop- ment The application <>f this branch of the great law is most particularly observable in the in- fluence it exerts upon the colloquial English of the present day. Within the last fifty years «>r s «> the amount of vocal and, consequently, vital power which has been economised is very considerable. And what is strange too, is, thai this has actually been accomplished, in Bpite of the economising process having been almost universally (mosl erroneously) stigmatised as vulgarism. People forget that what is regarded as slang one day may be designated as classic English another. Ami bo it is with vulgarisms; they are only vulgarisms until they come into general us< — qoI after. In illustration of the grounds upon which we found our assertion thai the English laneru i -till active!) engaged in the proces of irj time and Labor in utterance and pen- manship, we may cite the following colloquial I'ln English Spelling. 99 It was formerly the correct thing for a gen- tleman to say — I am going by the railway train. ,, ,, steamboat, omnibus. >> >) Now he simply says (and it is equally correct) — I am going by rail. ,, ,, steamer. „ „ bus. Again, in telegraphing to a friend, one used formerly to say, "Reply by telegraph;'' but now he only says, " Wire reply." In fact, the older one grows, the more con- cise and pithy his language becomes; and what holds good for the individual, holds equally o-ood for the nation. Our successors of 1,000 years hence will, we have no doubt, be able to express their ideas not only more lucidly, but a vast deal more concisely than we are able to do at the present time. Having now redeemed the promise made at the outset, that every fact to be adduced in the chain of evidence for and against our plan of simplifying English literature, would be inde- pendently submitted to consideration, weighed, and appraised od its own individual merits, we feel ourselves, we think, in a position, from the o 2'hi N iplificiUioii of data we have laid before our readers, to make the definitive ass irl ion that there does nol actually exist one Bingle valid objection to our proposed plan of saving time and trouble in writing, printing, and reading the English Ian- guage, by a total abolition of duplicated conso- nants from all words except personal names. We dare even venture to opine thai there is only one potent obstacle Looming in the path to the speedy success of the scheme, and thai is the existence of our recognised national canker, " PREJUDICE." There are persons, we arc aware, with temerity enough to assert thai the organisation of the English Language has become a fixation since the days of our greal Lexicographer Johnson ; and were this affirmation made by any other than a philologist, it would be deemed by us utterly unworthy of even a passing notice, For a more gratuitous assertion ii is scarcely possible to imagine. Language, Like human Life in its passage from the cradle to the grave, knows of do period, do hour, do minute, when it can be Logically said to be stationary. Marvellous though the Gael be, there is nothing in nature stationary ; and Btranger is it still, that the Laws governing the transition English Spelling. 101 process arc in themselves eternal, and im- mutable. Uniformity and universality in their mode of application being at one and the same time the most characteristic features of these laws. The same law which causes the particle of dust to adhere to the sole of the boot, enables Mont Blanc to attach itself firmly to the sur- face of the globe ; and the self-same laws which led to the organisation of the Anglo-Saxon language in early times regulate and control its evolution even now. As in the physical world there is a definite law which compels two material bodies when they collide to change their physical form, so likewise in the philological world the same law compels two languages, or the parts of two languages, coming in contact with each other, to produce to a certain extent a change in the organisation of each. The Anglo-S;i.\«.n, then, though it sin ail' 1 continue to be a spoken language for a million of years, will ever remain transitory in its organisation. Like the flame of the gas-burner, its corporeal fixation is only an illusion, being nothing more than the evanescent representa- tion of myriads of unseen infinitesimal lin- guistic particles undergoing in rhythmical sequence states of change. 102 The Simplification oj \~ Beraclitua Btated, " Life La nothing without movement," and it may now be added thai nothing appertaining to life exists without motion, ami consequently there is no Langua without change. 1st In every civilised language, there arc a1 one and the same time, a laigo number of words, only on trial [ntroduced, but Btill nol gem rally accepted, 2nd. There are also a number of old words slowly undergoing changes in their meaning, in their pronunciation, and in their orthography. 3rd. There are likewise a certain proportion of words slowly dying out, by a process oi natural decay. Consequently a man's vocabulary, even if there were no other causes at work than these, must of necessity gradually, though Blowly, change from \ ear to year. To hesitate then to improve our language on the grounds of ii- fixation, would he little I' illogical than to attempt to place a pyramid on it- apex, instead of on it- ba Moreover, it i-> lolK to ,i\ thai Johnson, great lexicographer though he was, put an end to all linguistic change in the English langua \ multitude of changes have already taken place in it since his daj . Many of the word English Spelling. in general use in Johnson's time, have already actually disappeared from our spoken language altogether, while a host of other words that were utterly unknown to him, such for example as — Skeddacllc Bezique Crinoline Guano Benzole Croquet ParafHne Lithium Telegram Flabbergast Uroh;ematin Nitro-glycerine Telephone Spiflicate Hremin Picaniny Zanthin Mythelated and hundreds of others have glided in, and altered not only the quantity, but even the quality, of the language itself. AVhen any sudden general change has been proposed, such as that by AVebster, of dropping out the u in all words ending in our, except Saviour, a furious outcry has been raised against the innovation ; but after a time, the turmoil of hostility has subsided into the tranquility of calm acquiescence. We well remember the fate of the first article we wrote — for one of the Quarterly Reviews — according to Webster's system of orthography. When the proof sheets were returned to us for cor- rection, every u that we had purposely omitted, had been carefully replaced. Whether at the 104 The Simplification of BUggestioD of the then editor, or on the simple )■• sponsibility of the corrector of the press, we know not ; for being a1 thai time but a aovice in literature, we deemed it inadvisable to rebel in-! the Btern fiat, or even to Inquire by whom the judgement had been passed. Years have slipped by since then, and now we find thai when we indulge in the luxury of Leaving oul the Letter u, the press sheets are returned to us with the Bame spelling as in the copy. Even the sudden introduction of ,n new word into the language is sometimes Bufficienl to raise a storm of abuse from irritable pens. No one •••in have forgotten the Literary hubbub which the introduction, a Few years ago, of tin- word telegram occasioned. Nearly the whole daily pi'—, !'• our notice when at- J s npli/ication of tempting aa a youth to read French novels. Every new author we took up compelled us, for the first forty pages or bo, to have constant recourse to a dictionary, while long before we bad finished bis first volume we scarcely ever required to refer to a dictionary at all to understand his words ; and we observed, too, that ;ill the subsequent novels that were written by the same author were mastered by us, after our perusal of the first volume, with equal ease— that is to Bay, after we had sur- mounted the pons asinorum of the author's vocabulary ; whereas the first volume of everj oew author taken up entailed upon us a greater or less amount of dictionary labour, until we had in a similar manner become familiar with the words our uew author was in the habit of employing. /;. There is a greal uniformity uot only in the Btyle of writing, but in the actual words employed by newspaper writers. Articles on the same subject in different papers, no matter bow widely differing their views may be, are written in almost identical words. C. Tin- u ide distribution of the penny pi brings daily before the majority of the nation uot only the same words and the same modes ion, but e\ en the same ideas. I [< nee English Spelling. 107 the reader's views, modes of expression, and vocabulary of words, gradually become in some measure identical with those employed by the writers whose articles he is constantly in the habit of reading. D. Had a daily press, such as we at present possess, existed in England in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and had it been uninter- ruptedly continued until now, much more of that Queen's English than we at present possess would have still remained in daily use. Next to the penny press may be classed railways as the most important conservators of language, for the more the members of distant parts of the country are brought into oral communication with each other, the more closely will their dialects, and their words accord. This is easily proved by a glance at the great difference which now exists between the Dutch and the English lanu - uao;cs which were at one time identical. They divert' 1 from each other and grew into distinct lan- guages only in consequence of the broad (Ger- man Ocean interfering with the intimate inter- communication of these two branches of the Teutonic stem. Even were we to separate a family of twelve persons, dwelling in the same house, into two 8 ioS The Simplification of halves, and allow nn oral communication bo take place between them, even though Living under the same roof, in the course of a single generation there would already be observable a distincl dialectic difference in the members of the two sections of the family. Before Laying down the pen we would venture to remark thai ii oughl to be im- possible for any educated human mind, emancipated from the thraldom of prejudice, to regard otherwise than with pleasure a pro- position which has for its objecl the facilitat- ing the acquisition of knowledge, either l>y simplifying the means of its acquirement, or by removing obstacles from the paths of its transmission from one individual to another, through the intervention of apparatus, experi- ment . books, or Lectin i . A man. therefore, who exerts his abilities to simplifying our means of transmitting thought, even should his efforts prove unavailing, should at Leas! enjo) the privilege of obtaining an impartial hearing. Every educated English- man owes a deep debl of gratitude to our American collaborator, Noah Webster, for the trenuous efforts he made to shorten, and to implify, our imperfect language ; and it is much to be deplored that his endeavours met English Spelling. 109 with such scanty support — even equivocal approbation — on this side of the Atlantic. Many of the literary class acted like short- sighted and prejudiced individuals ; and instead of marshaling themselves in the van, and granting him their support, as they ought to have done, lagged behind, and reluctantly allowed themselves to be dragged along; in the rear. It is strange that though literary men are, as a class, the most enlightened on things in general, in too many instances they are totally ignorant of, or at least unmoved by, the blurs and blemishes upon things immediately apper- taining to themselves. If, for example, a perfect stranger to them, as a class, was to form his opinion of their mental calibre, solely from what is generally known regardino; their luke-warmness in the regeneration of the vocal and manual means for transmitting thought, he would be com- pelled to rank them, as a class, among the narrow-minded members of the community ; there are so many among them who appear entirely to forget that speech and writing have absolutely but one object in view, namely, to serve as a ready means of mental inter- communication. i 10 The Simplification oj Every superfluous word, every superfluous syllable- even everj superfluous Letter in a word, being an actual disadvantage to the recipients, as wel] as to the distributors of thought In a Language, dilution in every Bense, as before said, is a Bign of weakni - so that every means which tends towards Linguistic abbreviation should be welcomed as an addition of strength, instead of it- being eived — as it now too frequently is — with a cold Bhoulder. Would not this stubbornness l"' Less appa- renl if they would condescend t<> write tin- word without its three unnecessary duplicated Letters b, n. and - \ Before Baying adieu to our subject, we would to <'all attention t<> the fact that we arc by n<» means the only persons who have endeavoured to obtain a diminution "l" the number of duplicated consonants in the Eng- lish Language ; ami although uothing ha- come of it hitherto, we will venture i" prophecy that, sooner or Later, duplicated consonants are I". .1 t<> disappear in toto from our litera- ture. Th<' natural evolution of the languai If demands il ; and in a iking our con temporarii - to lend a helping hand to the English Spelling. i 1 i overthrow of duplicated consonants, we are but asking them to aid in hastening an in- evitable result, which will of itself follow, as a natural sequence, upon the more complete development of the language. Unfortunately, all philologists are not philo- sophic linguists, and, consequently, they are occasionally found straining at gnats while they swallow camels ! It is, therefore, not im- possible that our plan of saving time and trouble in English literature by the abolition of the unnecessary duplicated consonants may encounter opposition from a few of them. Fur it is a pitiable fact that, however numerous may be the liberal-minded who arc ready and willing to acknowledge the merits, and put into practice the advantages, of a new scheme, there arc always a much larger percentage of narrow- minded individuals eager to point out its defects and to impede its progress. Human nature is so fond of airing its real (or its imaginary) wisdom, that it never fails to let slip the opportunity of magnifying a defi- ciency of wisdom in its fellows ; so that, even in cases where the merits of a new deviee are in greater proportion than its defects, the former are apt to be passed over with scanty recognition, while the latter arc vauntingly i ; 2 The Simplificat'i >n of paraded before the eye of the public, and gloated over by the would-be Bupposed-to-be impartial critic Too true it la that ;ill men are wise in their own conceit Be tip' supposed objections to the presenl scheme what they may, it must at Least, we think, lie conceded by all who give a careful perusal t<> thse pages that there are no diffi- culties in the path to the practical adoption of this improvement in English orthography, such aa those which bo unfortunately beset tin- wax- to the Bpeedy introduction of phonetic spelling, which is so desirable. 41 The goal before us i- not only one of easy accomplishment, but the prospect in Bight La one of universal and permanenl advantage. Even admitting that the change will for ;i time l)c associated with some tiitlin"- incon- O yeniencc, surely BUch a consideration cannot weigh heavily in the l. .dune,' against its adop- tion. Bince the inconvenience can only be tern- porary, while the resulting benefits will endure for all time. Without diverging from an already existing custom, no progress whatever towards perfec- tion in anything is possible, and it is only by * Who An ironld think hi* photo any leu charming .[>clt foto ' English Spelling. I i 3 disregarding existing rules that new and im- proved methods are developed ; just as it is necessary for the assay ist to begin by destroy- ing the mineral, in order to lie able to extract from it the pure gold. It is not improbable that the suggestion of the abolition of duplicated consonants is before its time, and will, therefore, perhaps meet with the approval of but a few of the more advanced philologists, while a storm of invective is raised against it, and cause it to appear as if about to be totally overwhelmed in the surf. The raging billows will probably, however, pass over it, and in the quiet water behind, it will raise its head triumphantly ; for being founded upon the principle of Simplification- the life- buoy of improvement in this progressive age — and having for its sheet-anchor the saving of Time and Labor, it is impossible for it, we think, to be permanently swamped, no matter how long or how fiercely tin- stormy billows of prejudice may rage around it. Since it has been clearly shown that the abolition of duplicated consonants from Eng- lish literature will be an unsullied <>ain to • •very man, woman, and child lending and writing the language — be they natives or he they foreigners — we may now ask. " Wherefore H 1 14 Thi Simplification should we refrain from doing al once, and for all tin)'', thai which must inevitably, afteT a lapse of years, take place, by the hands of \ ture'a < rreal Reformer ! " faint-hearted philologists may utter their waitings of regral over tins orthographical change in English literature; bu1 while bo doing, lei them pluck a twig from the tree of comfort, and console themselves with the reflection that, by the abolition of duplicated consonants, there is do fear that their beautiful Language will Buffer shipwreck on the ROCK OF COMMON SENSE. Before bidding a final adieu to our subject, we oughl doI to omil to mention thai we have had a more ambitious aim in writing this monograph than a mere desire to Bave Time and Trouble in the Writing, Printing, and Reading of the English Language Our real object has been to call the attention of all educated men, in <\ ery quart* r of the globe, tn a class of general principles which, when properly applied, cannol fail to ensure the simplification of all languages already reduced to writing, or which yel remain to be enrolled in the genera] economy of literature. If our scheme of simplifying English litem- English Spelling. 115 turc should meet with public approval, and be successfully introduced, we incline to believe that its visible advantages will be so greal that other nationalities will very soon be tempted to enter their languages upon the same course of literary reform. The French and the German — indeed, every language — cannot fail to be benefited by pursuing the course of procedure we have indicated, and we imagine that generation upon generation, yet unborn, will find cause to rejoice at the wisdom of their respective forefathers, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, for having saved them from an immense loss of vital force in literary labor. Having now fairly launched our little bark on the restless and endless ocean of thought, we leave it to the tender mercies of the winds and waves of Public Opinion. 1 <>•> tngeles I hi\ book ii i»i I on ilu l.isi