THE I>llOrOSED PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET SOME practical. POINTS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE PKACTICAL POINTS STATE]3 1. It differs materially from the alphabet indorsed by the American Philological Association and by the Modem Language Association. It is, in fact, an independent alpha- bet used by no other body. 2. It disregards present English usage as to the sounds of many vowels and substitutes the sounds that these vowels have in the Continental languages : thus, a in face, rate, etc., would be represented by e ; e in me, knee, etc., by i; the i in ice, fight, etc., would be represented by ai. 3. It is an insidious move toward bringing the N. E. A. ultimately to indorse the substitution of phonetic spelling with this alphabet for our present English spelling. 4. It teaches erroneous ideas as to the real differences in sound ; thus it teaches that the sound of e in prey is the same as the sound of e in met prolonged. This is not true. Nor is e in me the same as i in it prolonged ; nor is u in urge the same as u in up prolonged. 5. Many of its symbols are ill-formed and lack the es- sential quality of distinctiveness. 6. It proposes to substitute for an alphabet already well- known, and used in millions of textbooks and reference books, another alphabet which in a very similar form has been used by one publisher only, and has proved so flat a failure when tried in textbooks that the series is not in use and has confessedly been withdrawn from the market. 7. Some of the arguments in the final report need care- ful testing. THE PKAC^llCAL POINTS DISCUSSED I. It differs materially from the alphabet indorsed by the American Philological Association and by the Modern Language Association. It is, in fact, an independent alpha- bet used by no other body. This proposed N. E. A. alphabet started in a inovenient to secure an agreement between the Modern Language Associa- tion, the American Philological Association, and the National Education Association in recommending a phonetic alphabet in the hope,” as stated in the report of the Committee in February 1904, that the recommendations of these bodies ” will bring it into “universal use in our dictionaries, spelling books and their manuals.” The result has been the sanctioning of one alphabet by the Modern Language Association and the American Philologi- cal Association that they “ recommend to the makers of dic- tionaries ” and the proposition that the N. E. A. shall adopt another alphabet that they recommend “ for uniform use in in- dicating pronunciation in all our cyclopedias, dictionaries, gazetteers, text and reference books.” What- then shall the publisher do ? He is using a practi- cal system that is widely known and generally accepted as good. He is urged by some philologists to discard this in favor of a second alphabet and by some superintendents to discard it in favor of a third alphabet. From some statements in some of the N. E. A. Committee reports, a wrong inference may be drawn as to the amount of disagreement' between these two proposed alphabets. They are shown on the next page. The left-hand column of the two columns headed “ letter ” is the proposed N. E. A. alphabet. The right-hand one shows the 21 symbols that the Modern Language and American Philological associations have adopted to replace the corresponding N. E. A. symbols. Of course, any two alphabets using the Roman letters must 2 THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET Letter Key-word d A a art a a artistic cd ai aisle, find au au out, thou , a se air a ae at b be dh chew d day A e e prey e men f fee g go h he A marine 1 1 i iu iu tin iu| ju ju mute j jaw k kin 1 let m met n net I) sing 0 0 note 0 poetic Letter Key-word e A e nor e not ei oil P pit r rat s set j ship t ten fh > thin A that u A u mood u push •• A XJ u urge u hut V vat w win y j yes z zest 3 azure for a in ask f‘.i a about 1“ e‘.‘. over “ i “ candid “ e“ added THE IMIONETIC KEY Al.PHABET 3 agree as to b, d, f, g, li, k, 1, in, n, p, r, s, t, v, w, and z, that is, in IG of the 47 symbols there is no chance for dis- agreement. For 21 of the remaining 81 sounds the proposed N. E. A. alphabet gives one symbol and the Philological and Modern Language alphabet gives another. In H of these cases it is a different form of letter. In some cases one alpha- bet assigns one value to a symbol, while the other assigns another value to the same, or a similar, symbol ; thus, a in the proposed N. E. A. alphabet has the sound of a ” in at,” but in the other alphabet it has the sound of '' a ” in artistic.” This is certainly confusion worse confounded. In one vital respect the Philological and Modern Language alphabet is markedly superior to the N. E. A. proposal — namely, in its avoidance of the use of the macron. For many generations in English the macron has been associated with the name-sound of the vowels (a as in ale; e, me; I, ice; o, note ; u, use), and to use it now with another meaning would introduce a chance for serious trouble and misunderstand- ing. The circumflex is certainly much better. It seems hardly necessary to add that the alphabet of the Modern Language Association and American Philological Association, wherein it differs from the proposed K. E. A. symbols, was made to differ by men who are thoroughly fa- miliar with this subject and with the various alphabets that have been recommended. They know by experience the weak points of former systems and, undoubtedly, have tried to im- prove on the past. For the IST. E. A. committee to claim credit because their recommendations agree with an alphabet made in 1877 is for them to say in effect that no improvement is possible over the 1877 recommendation. The American Philo- logical Association and Modern Language Association, from their greater familiarity with the subject, recognized defects that could be remedied. These disagreements, then, are vital. That they are firial is indicated by the action of the Modern Language Association, who, at their last meeting, discharged their Committee that had conferred with the N. E. A. committee on this subject — after accepting their recommendation that no further action of the Modern Language Association seemed necessary. 4 THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET Dr. Hanns Oertel, Professor of Linguistics and Compara- tive Philology at Yale University, has written: ‘‘I do not think that the transcription proposed by the N. E. A. meets the requirements of a scientific transcription. A number of the symbols are misleading if judged from the scientific standpoint. I also have the gravest doubts as to its practical acceptability, and I regard the multiplication of methods of transcription not only as useless but as harmful.” If any alphabet of this khid is to be adopted, would it not be far better to take one that is as nearly satisfactory as pos- sible to the experts in phonetics ? But is this kind of an alphabet the best for popular use ? This brings us to the vital second point. 2. It disregards present English usage as to the sounds of many of the vowels and substitutes for English values the sounds that these vowels have in Continental Europe. The basis of this proposed alphabet is the European vowel system, which differs radically from the English vowel sys- tem in many particulars, especially in the following : the sound of a ” in ‘‘ ale ” is represented by the letter ''e ” ; the sound of e ” in me ” by the letter '' i ” ; the sound of ‘‘ oo ” in moose ” by the letter ‘‘ u ” ; the sound of ‘‘ i ” in “ ice ” by the letters '' ai.” In considering the advisability of adopt- ing the alphabet with such a basis, several things should be borne in mind. a. The decision to use this basis was reached at a very small preliminary meeting of the Committees of the Na- tional Education Association, the American Philological As- sociation, and the Modern Language Association after a purely informal discussion at which the needs of the ele- mentary schools had no just representation. The meeting was almost entirely in the hands of theoretical phoneticians, men who were not personally familiar with the problems of the public schools. Nevertheless, because of the standing of these men in their particular field, their action has, no doubt, been very influential in affecting the decisions of all subsequent questions. Further, the basis adopted was the American Philological Association alphabet of 1877. This al- THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET 5 phabet was devised by Professors Whitney, March, Child, Trumbull, and Haldeman, all men of the most thorough scholarship in phonetics, but none of them teachers in the elementary schools. It should be remembered, also, that both Whitney and Haldeman later edited dictionaries in which they did not use this alphabet, but adopted one based on the name-sound of the vowels. b. The use of this European vowel system will affect a very large number of words. It is, of course, recognized as true that centuries ago the English vowel sounds corre- sponded pretty closely with, and were represented by, the same letters as the vowel sounds of the European languages, but today in English the a ” in ale ” is almost universally represented by the letter a,” and not by the letter e,” as is proposed in the N. E. A. alphabet ; the sound of “ e ” in me ” is usually represented by the letter e,” and not by the letter “ i ” ; the sound of “ i ” in ‘‘ ice ” is almost always represented by the letter ‘‘i,” and only very rarely by a diphthong ai ” ; the sound of “ oo ” is represented by a double “ o ” and only in rather exceptional cases by the u.” Conversely the digraph “ ai ” in ordinary spelling (fail, pail, mail, pain, etc.) represents the sound of a ” in ‘‘ ale,” but in this phonetic respelling ‘‘ai ” will represent the sound of “ i ” in “ ice ” ; similarly “ au ” usually sounds as in “ caught ” and “ Paul,” but in this new respelling “ au ” will indicate the sound of “ou”in “out.” Confusion is sure to result from its use. The following figures are of interest in this connection. The vocabulary of a school dictionary has been taken as being one that would be fairly representative, and the words begin- ning with “ A ” and “ B ” have been considered. In these words the sound of “ a ” in “ ale ” occurs in 395 words and is represented by the letter “ a ” in 383 of these 395 cases. If the t proposed alphabet is adopted all of these “ a ” sounds would be respelled “e.” The sound of “i” in “ice” occurs in 188 words, and in 187 cases it is spelled with the letter “i” (or “y”). All of these would be respelled “ai” by the new al- phabet. The sound of “ e ” in “ eve ” and in “ event ” is found in 267 words. In 263 cases the sound is spelled with an “ e ” 6 THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET (in 14 with an ‘"ie,” believe, etc.), but in the new alphabet it would be respelled with I.” Figures like these show conclu- sively? if proof be needed, that English has developed a vowel system of its own, and it would certainly seem better for the N. E. A. to devote its reform efforts to something else than the fostering in English of a use of the Continental vowel system. Of all the great European tongues English is the only one that shows a relative increase in the number of persons using it. According to Mulhall the percentage of individuals using each of the great European tongues in comparison with the total number using these tongues was as follows in 1801 and 1901. The percentage of English in 1801 was 13.7, in 1901, 29.3 ( i French “ “ “ 19.4, “ “ 11.7 t i Italian “ “ “ 9.3, “ “ 7.0 ( ( Spanish “ “ “ 16.2, “ “ 10.4 ( ( German “ “ “ 18.7, “ “ 18.8 n Portuguese “ “ 4.7, “ “ 3.3 ( < Russian “ “ “ 19. “ “ 19. The case for an American is even stronger. For probably 90% of the people of the United States English is the com- mon and only tongue. Why, then, should not English conform to its own princi- ples? Paul Hanus of Harvard University, Professor of the History and Art of Teaching, has said : “ It seems absurd to me to reach into a foreign language to teach an English- speaking child the sounds of the letters in his own language.” The effect of using these un-English values appears more clearly in the following list of words with their pronuncia- tion indicated according to the proposed Alphabet. THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET 7 A FEW TYPICAL RESPELLINGS ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED N. E. A. ALPHABET The second list shows the ordinary spellings. Don’t be sure you know the word until you consult 1 miin'lait 2 miin'lait nait 3 mun'lait sel 4 mun'bimz 5 mun'gled 6 mlin'shain 7 de'lait 8 di-lait' 9 rain 10 ren 11 paut 12 par 13 par 14 pen 16 pin 16 pain 17 pain-trl stet 18 mel'tren 19 mel'pauch 20 ail 21 ais 22 ais'krim 23 ais'baund 24 sii)'ii) 25 tich'or 26 pre'irj 27 dai'ii] 28 sai 29 fut'sthl 30 tru'li 31 ru'ral 32 ftu'char 33 piur 34 fad 35 le 36 tul 37 stll 38 stall 39 buk 40 hed'ek 41 Ir'ek 42 tuth'ek 43 skdr 44 skar 45 sket 46 grep'vain 47 raut 48 plau 49 luk'aut 60 skaut die ordinary spelling 51 strit'kdr 52 strlt'sain 53 strlt'rel'we 54 buk'kip-ar 55 buk'mek- 0 r 66 buk'baind-ii] 57 buk'dll- 0 r 58 niuz'dll- 0 r 59 haus'klp- 0 r 60 skul'buk 61 si'said 62 bruk'said 63 bich'trl 64 me'p’l-tri 65 kuk'buk 66 krik 67 ais'baund strct 68 haid'baund 69 kaunt'ii) haus 70 kaunt'ii) rum 71 faun-de'shun 72 skul'haus 73 fain 74 lain 75 shain 76 flit paund 77 pur fud 78 hwel 79 pur'haus 80 pau'wdu 81 tek' 0 r 82 mek' 0 r 83 ret 84 ag'ri-get 85 met 86 let 87 miut (here i) 88 fil'yel (here y) 89 mlt 90 fai'nait 91 in'fi-nit 92 pl'nal 93 pen'al-ti 94 ka-pe'shus 95 ka-pas'i-ti 96 siv'il-aiz 97 siv-il-i-ze'shun 98 o-p6k' 99 o-pas'i-ti 00 rl'bet 1 moonlight 2 moonlight night 3 moonlight sail 4 moonbeams 5 moonglade 6 moonshine 7 daylight 8 delight 9 Rhine 10 rain 11 pout 12 par 13 pair 14 pain 15 peen 16 pine 17 Pinetree State 18 mailtrain 19 mailpouch 20 isle 21 ice 22 icecream 23 icebound 24 singing 25 teacher 26 praying 27 dying 28 sigh 29 footstool 30 truly 31 rural 32 future 33 pure 34 food 35 law 36 tool 37 steel 38 style 39 book 40 headache 41 earache 42 toothache 43 scar 44 scare 45 skate 46 grapevine 47 rout 48 plow 49 lookout 50 scout 51 street car 52 street sign 53 street railway 54 bookkeeper 55 bookmaker 56 bookbind-ing 57 bookdealer 58 newsdealer 59 housekeeper 60 schoolbook 61 seaside 62 brookside 63 beechtree 64 mapletree 66 cookbook 66 creek 67 icebound strait 68 hidebound 69 counting house 70 counting room 71 foundation 72 schoolhouse 73 fine 74 line 75 shine 76 foot pound 77 poor food 78 whale 79 poorhouse 80 powwow 81 taker 82 maker 83 rate 84 aggregate 85 mate 86 late 87 mute 88 filial 89 meat 90 finite 91 infinite 92 penal 93 penalty 94 capacious 95 capacity 96 civilize 97 civilization 93 opaque 99 opacity 100 rebate 8 THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET 3. It is an insidious move toward bringing the N. E. A. ultimately to indorse the substitution of phonetic spelling with this alphabet for our present English spelling. In a printed communication privately circulated the chair- man of the committee has stated : — “My hope has been, were any control of the working policy of our branch [of the simplified Spelling Board] allowed me, to quietly organ- ize a wide side-campaign to revive and stimulate the teaching of fonetics in the schools. . . . ''lam satisfied this could he done without suggesting any hearing what- ever upon the spelling reform movement. The schools need this revival. A large portion of the young people of the country could he familiarized with this alphabet through school practice hy efforts perfectly legitimate. “ It would require considerable money, systematic work, and at least six or eight years of time. But when accomplished, the way would be prepared and short for the gradual adoption of the [then] familiar Key Alphabet, say one letter, or a differentiated pair of letters, at a time, into everyday use. “With the endorsement of our alphabet by the N. E. A. and the teach- ers of the country, the machinery will be complete and in running order for the consummation of this reform.” That is, the N. E. A. is to be led by “ perfectly legitimate ” efforts toward an end it suspects not. President Wheeler of the University of California, in speak- ing of some of the phases of spelling reform, including pho- netic spelling, has said, “ The interests here involved are too serious to be treated craftily, or on the principle of the entering wedge ! ” This is certainly true of this radical and unproved alphabet. If it is being urged as a step toward phonetic spelling the N. E. A. should be in a position to con- sider it with that in mind and the far-reaching results of success in such an effort should be weighed before taking even a first step in that direction. a. The effect on indexes and all alphabetical lists would be tremendous. All words beginning with '' a ” pronounced as in ale ” would be spelled with an '‘e ” and transferred to a new alphabetic position. Likewise words beginning with ‘'e ” (eve) would be begun with an ‘M,” words beginning with "‘i” (ice) would be spelled ‘‘ ai ” and transferred to the a ” position, etc. TIIK PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET 9 b. It would make the English written in the new spelling dilfer as much from English written in the present spelling as Italian does from Latin. Therefore all of us would have as much trouble in learning the New English as a Latin student does in learning Italian, and conversely, one know- ing only the New English would have equal trouble in read- ing the standard literature now in print. c*. Unless England and her colonies adopted the selfsame alphabet, it would make our written language differ markedly from British English. This would certainly be a calamity. d. If phonetic spelling is to prevail, a fixed pronunciation must first be secured, or either ” will be spelled aithur by one man, Ither by another. e. It would produce such anomalies as sain (sign) but sig- nal; dam (damn) but damneshun; fioks, the name of the common flower, but Phlox its genus name; jirenium but the genus Geranium, Professor W alter Rippman of London University, Treasurer of the Simplified Spelling Society of England, in an article advocating Simplified Spelling,” says the following : — “ I do not believe that it [a purely phonetic alphabet] can be recom- mended for general use in place of the present spelling for the following reasons : — “ A phonetic spelling necessarily contains a number of new symbols that are quite unfamiliar, and requires a number of old symbols to be used in an unfamiliar way. “The phonetic alphabet is not easy to print or to write. The most practical and far the most widely used is that of the International Pho- netic Association; although it presents less diflSculty in this respect than any other with which I am acquainted, it is by no means easy to print. “ A phonetic spelling must differ considerably from the present spell- ing; the transition from the changed spelling to the old spelling would give a good deal of trouble. “The most serious objection, however, is the absence of uniformity in English speech. ... If we adopt a phonetic spelling we must decide in favour of one particular form for each word ; that means, we must adopt a definite standard. What is that standard ? If we spell phoneti- cally in accordance with Southern English usage, will our friends across the border and across the ocean consent to speak as we do ? Some day it may come to pass; but not soon. If we were to seek acceptance for a scheme of spelling which presupposed that all who adopted it should 10 THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET speak the English of a section (not even of a majority), we should quickly find that our efforts were wasted.” 4. The proposed N. E. A. alphabet teaches erroneous ideas as to the real differences in sound. The report states distinctly that the macron has one in- variable use, viz., to indicate the long sound ” of whatever letter it is used with. Length must here refer to quantity, duration of utterance. One sound is longer than another if it is more prolonged in utterance. Test the proposed N. E. A. alphabet by this statement. The e ” is used for the vowel sound in men ” ; ‘‘ e ” is for the vowel sound in ‘‘ prey,” day,” etc. That is, if you prolong e ” you will get the sound of the vowel in prey.” Is this so ? Try it and see. Are our dictionaries to mark on this basis and our children to be taught on this basis? Would it not result in a strangely stilted and affected speech ? Pronounce the following sen- tence, using the sound of e ” in ‘‘ men ” but merely pro- longing it. ''At de-brek the laiun et hiz pre.” Who would understand you ? Can any one seriously contend that these two sounds differ in length only? Again, " i ” and " 1 ” are to be considered as the same sound except for length. But you can prolong the " i ” in " kin ” until eternity and it will never equal the " e ” in " me,” and, con- versely, you may shorten the " e ” in " me ” until it almost vanishes but the quality of the vowel will never be that of " i ” in " fish.” A Frenchman, Italian, or Spaniard naturally says "feesh” when he first reads the English word “fish,” shortening the sound of the “ e,” but do we wish to have our children taught such a pronunciation ? The same objection holds for the pair of sounds “ u ” ( in push) and “ u ” ( in mood), and for “ u ” (in up) and '' u ” (in urge), and, to a less extent, for “ o ” and “ o ” and “a” and “ a,” so that this use of the macron is positively misleading instead of helpful. It teaches a thing that is not so and overlooks distinctions that must be made and emphasized in practical teaching if any real phonetic work is to be accomplished. Again, it emphasizes unduly the diphthongal character of “ i ” in “ ice,” but does not mention that “ a ” in “ ale,” “ o ” in THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET 11 “coat,” and other long vowels are also diphthongs. Such phonetic inconsistency is certainly illogical. Can such an alphabet justly be called “ scientific,” and is it likely to secure universal or international acceptance ? 5. Many of the symbols are ill-formed and lack the es- sential quality of distinctiveness. Difficulty is sure to arise from assigning one value to the ordinary script “ a ” and another value to the open “ a ” of print. To the ordinary man, and above all, to the child, they are both nothing but “ a.” In writing, the trouble is increased. Is there any advantage in having the letter “ 0 ” with the diacritic within ? It is as much a diacritic as if it were above the letter. In its present place it makes the “ o ” resemble a filled-up “ e ” and requires the nicest discrimination to see just what symbol is intended. Here, too, script doubles the trouble, for in handwriting the ordinary “ o ” is often formed with a little loop dropping into its upper part, thus exactly resembling the “ e.” The two forms of “ u ” are so nearly alike that it is very dif- ficult to discriminate between them and to remember, or even to see the distinction, when it is pointed out. The two forms of “ th ” are so nearly alike that it is almost impossible without a glass to see any difference between them, let alone to recall what the minute differences may mean. In “ di ” and “ di ” what advantage can come from the form adopted ? The tie here is needless and serves no prac- tical purpose. “ 3 ” also seems a needless addition where “ zh ” (coordin- ate with “sh”) is so readily available. It is practically a script “z,” and will be interpreted as “z ” by children and by most adults. Of the ten proposed new symbols, therefore, nine seem impracticable in form. Again : a difficulty arises in the use of unmarked vowels. In this proposed alphabet “ a,” “ a ” (script a), “ e,” “ i,” “ o,” “ u,” and “ u ” (the ordinary unmarked letters) are each limited in meaning to a certain specific sound. In our ordin- ary English spelling, however, each vowel letter is used un- 12 THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET marked for several vowel sounds. The unmarked symbols of the proposed alphabet will in many cases not differ from the letters of the ordinary alphabet; in others they will differ but slightly. Confusion must inevitably arise in the use of the two systems — the ordinary spelling and an un- marked phonetic spelling. The pupil or the foreigner having been taught, for instance, that an unmarked a ” has the sound of “ a ” in at,” will naturally apply that sound to the un- marked a” wherever it occurs, and will say ‘‘call,” “hall,” “ ail ” “ swan,” “ any,” etc. Having learned that an un- marked “o” is to be pronounced as in “poetic,” he will naturally give this sound to the unmarked “ o ” in “ got,’’ “ not,” “ sop,” and call them “ goat,” “ note,” “ soap.” In the proposed alphabet, the sound of “ u ” in “ pull ” is given to the ordinary unmarked “u.” The pupil will give this sound instinctively to the letter wherever he sees it. The more thorough his teacher, the deeper will it be drilled into his consciousness that the plain, ordinary letter “ u ” should be given this sound. But this sound of “ u,” although a usual one in European languages, is one of the rarest in English, being less than one-half of one per cent of our entire utter- ance. Therefore, when the child or a foreigner comes to apply his supposed knowledge and gives this sound in such words as “much,” “but,” “hut,” “hungry,” “cull,” “dull,” etc., he will be wrong much more often than he will be right. It would, certainly, seem clear that where one letter of the ordinary spelling has so many speech- values it would be much more definite and specific to use some certain symbol added to the letter to identify definitely each of these values. Then there would be no chance for confusion. The “ a ” with the macron would always have one sound ; “ a ” with the cir- cumflex another ; “ S, ” with the breve, another, and their interpretation would never be in doubt. Unmarked “a,” how- ever, is ambiguous. In one place on a page it may mean the sound in “ at ” ; in another, the sound in “ care ” ; in another, the sound in “ ate,” and so on. 6. It proposes to substitute for an alphabet already well- known and used in millions of textbooks and reference books THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET 18 another alphabet which in a very similar form has been used by one publisher only and has proved so flat a failure when tried in textbooks that the series is not in use and has been confessedly withdrawn from the market. In attempting to learn the value of the new alphabet for use in textbooks it transpired that in 1902 and 1904 the Funk & Wagnalls Company issued two books of a series using an alphabet almost the same as that now proposed, but careful inquiry can discover no schools using the system and it is understood that the books are withdrawn from the market. Comment is needless, further than to ask attention to the many points of identity and close resemblance between the proposed N. E. A. alphabet and that used in these readers. (See the Table that follows). In contrast with this is the fact that in successful school textbooks wherever a phonetic alphabet is needed one based on the English vowel- values has been adopted almost inva- riably, whether the publishers be Messrs. Ginn & Company, Silver, Burdett & Company, The American Book Company, D. C. Heath & Company, Houghton Mifflin Company, The Macmillan Company, Little, Brown & Company, Newson & Company, and whether the book be the Hunter’s Encyclo- pedic Dictionary, Stormonth, Johnson’s Encyclopedia, the International Encyclopedia, Borland’s Medical Dictionary, the Oxford Bible, the Nelson Bible, etc. Letters recently received written by all of the above-named school-book pub- lishers show that there is practical unanimity in this. It is not contended that all of the publishers or publications mentioned use identically the same symbols, but the basis is the same for all and this basis is in conformity with the genius of the English language and does not attempt to restore values long since discarded. This system is in con- formity with the English vowel system. Some of the Statements in the Final Report Uniformity. — It is claimed that the new alphabet will bring about uniformity, and the statement is made that it is highly improbable that uniformity in our system of indi- cating pronunciation would ever come about by the spon- Column 1 is the proposed N. E. A. alphabet. Column 2 is the Funk & Wagnall’s alphabet. Key-word 1 2 Key-word 1 2 art d d nor e e artistic a a not e e aisle, find ai ai oil ei ei out, thou au au pit P P air a a rat r r at a a set s s be b b ship dh Sh chew dh ch ten t t day d d thin fh th prey e e that th dh men e e mood u u fee f f push u u go e S urge 0 © he h h hut V V marine I t vat V V tin i i win w w mute iu iu yes y y duration iu iu zest z z jaw j j azure 3 zh kin k c, k let 1 1 met m m net n n ask a a sing ng about ) e a bank g n over ) er note 0 6 candid 1 i poetic o , 0 added e THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET 15 taneous agreement of rival publishers.” The fact is that uni- formity practically exists at the present time, so far as school books and leading reference books in the United States are concerned. Over 90 per cent of those published use the Web- ster system, and if uniformity is desired the shortest step would be to adopt an alphabet based on this system. To change to the alphabet recommended by the N. E. A. Committee would involve a complete modification of current usage. On the other hand, What are the probabilities that this pro- posed iY E, A, alphabet may be considered final? The differ- ences between this alphabet and that recommended by the American Philological Association and the Modern Language Association are shown on page 2 of this circular ; the differ- ences between this alphabet and that used in Murray’s Eng- lish Dictionary are even greater ; the differences between this alphabet and the alphabet of the International Phonetic Association are, also, very marked. It would seem that until the phoneticians who urge these new systems can get together it would be of doubtful expediency for publishers to change, or for teachers to urge a change. The Copyright Question, — The Report says : ''This [new] alphabet cannot be copyrighted or claimed by any publisher and will, therefore, be free to all.” The natural inference from this would be that the use of the so-called " Webster alphabet ” has been hampered by copyright, and an effort has been made to convey this impression by interested par- ties. Indeed, the Funk & Wagnalls Company, in 1905, sent to ail the active members of the National Education Asso- ciation a letter in which occurred the following statement : " The Standard Dictionary Series is not permitted to com- " pete in some schools — shut out solely because of a mono- “ poly held by its rival in an exclusive copyrighted system " of diacritics.” The system that is used in nearly all schoolbooks is, of course, what is generally known as the "Webster system,” but if there could be any copyright control of these diacritics, nearly all of which have been in use for a very long time, the publishers of Webster’s Dictionaries have certainly been gen- erous in foregoing their copyright privileges. In point of fact, 16 THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET however, it is doubtful if a claim for copyright on this al- phabet could be sustained, and certainly no effort has ever been made to enforce such a claim, — nor have the publish- ers of Webster’s Dictionaries ever put any obstacle in the way of other publishers who may have wished to use these phonetic symbols. Vocal Training. — Again, Professor Calvin Thomas is quoted as saying that we need a '' notation that we can teach to the young in school, thereby training their vocal organs, and leading them to pronounce the language more accur- ately and more intelligently.” Is it possible that teaching any particular system of notation will train the vocal organs^ of children ? Is it conceivable that by teaching that the sound of a ” in '' ale ” is represented by '' e ” the child will more easily learn to pronounce this diphthongal vowel sound in ale ” than he would if the sound is represented by an “ a ” ? Teaching Foreigners. — Prof. Thomas also states that we need '' a notation that will facilitate the learning of English by foreigners.” Professor Giroux, of the American Inter- national College at Springfield, Mass., devotes most of his time to teaching foreigners how to speak English. To him come foreigners of various nationalities who have already received training in their own language, and are accustomed to seeing the sounds represented by their own methods of spelling. They should, therefore, be prejudiced in favor of an alphabet based on the Continental vowel sounds, but Pro- fessor Giroux says : — “ In response to a request that I briefly express an opinion as to the desirability of making the changes in the English alphabet proposed by the National Education Association, I wish to state that I am not in favor of the changes proposed. “ The task of making the changes will be much greater than the gain therefrom expected to be accomplished. “The Continental phonetic equivalents proposed will revolutionize the symbolizing of common vowel sounds and will result in necessary and lasting confusion. “ The new symbols have no special advantage over the old, as both are arbitrary signs requiring practically the same amount of mental effort to master them. The proposed symbols are more complicated ; less practical. They exact more use of the eyes. THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET 17 “External diacritical marks are, on the whole, more easily distinguisli- able. “My experience in teaching phonetics to foreigners confirms the posi- tion above taken. The Continental phonetics are of no especial value either to immigrants from Europe or from more eastern lands. For years the phonetic system of Webster’s dictionaries have been used in our institution. They are practical and easily learnable. A change would be unwise. This conviction has grown upon me as my experi- ence, beginning about a quarter of a century ago, has lengthened and I have known more intimately the details of the education of foreigners in the English language.'’ A striking statement, — The Report further says : '' Indeed, upon the appearance of our special Report of last July, the publishers of one of our leading dictionaries [this was stated at Mobile to be the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, whose pronunciations are being edited by Prof. Calvin Thomas, named above] then in process of revision, who had devised an entirely new pronouncing key of their own, the types for which had all been cast, threw away this new type and the pages already set and started in anew, using this alphabet as a key to indicate pronunciation.” This is a very striking statement, but the facts might be stated in another way, viz., that the National Education Association is being urged to adopt an alphabet that is almost identical with the one that the Funk & W agnails Company has been using since 1903. These two alphabets are shown at page 14 of this cir- cular ; the addition of the marks for obscuration brings them into even closer conformity. An examination of the two will show how much they “ threw away.” It is, indeed, fortunate that this alphabet is being used by one publisher, for it will give the National Education Association an opportunity to test it as a practical working device. It would seem, however, not unreasonable to suggest that until the result of such practical testing has been made known, the National Educa- tion Association should, at least, hold its judgment in abey- ance, rather than place its ‘‘ royal seal of approval ” upon a device that up to the present time has failed to achieve suc- cess. If this test of use proves that the alphabet is a useful tool for teachers and pupils, they will demand it, and pub- lishers will hasten to meet the demand. But at present the 18 THE PHONETIC KEY ALPHABET publishers, at least, are more likely to recall that the experi- ence of the past does not augur well for the new venture. Conclusion If the question is to be determined now, it should be borne in mind that since 1877, two systems have been known by all who are interested in the subject of phonetic alphabets. One system has gradually won adoption from practically all publishers and is familiar to hundreds of thousands of pupils and teachers. The other system, in spite of an active propa- ganda in its favor by one publisher, is not in general use. The value of familiarity cannot, and must not, be overlooked ; cannot, and must not, be underestimated. Any new alpha- bet of no more value than one in use should be rejected in favor of one that is familiar. Any new alphabet, even if somewhat better than one already familiarly known, ought, and would, be rejected for the same reason. Any new alpha- bet, therefore, ought and must present features of marked superiority before it can expect to be favorably considered in comparison with one already familiar. Has not the test of usage practically determined the rights of the question, and are not the results of this practical use really in accord with the sober, common-sense principles of the language? If the principles back of the alphabet proposed by this Committee have inherent merits for English, they will win in the long run, but actual use is the only criterion to go by, and it is difficult to see why the National Education Association should be called upon to indorse one system any more than it has ever been called upon to indorse another.