SPELLING REFORM.

BY PROFESSOR A. G. MARSHALL.

THE

HE present age is eminently one of examination and investigation. Ancient beliefs and customs are brought anew to the bar of reason to show cause why they should continue to hold their place, or why they should not be consigned to the gulf of oblivion. As illustrations of this inquiring disposition, witness the questionings in respect of religion, government and science. In all of these subjects, little or no reverence is paid to the decisions of an tiquity. Indeed, it would sometimes seem that novelty is preferable for its own sake. This unrest is shown in religion by the constant increase in the number of sects with their discordant beliefs, by the various theories of government, and in science by the promulgation of the doctrines of Darwin and Huxley, and by the proposed changes in our methods of computation, and finally by the proposed reform of our spelling. Nor should any one think that all change is deterioration, nor that every alteration is an improvement. The 'middle is generally safest. It will be granted that no science, institution, or custom of human origin, is incapable of improvement. It is also admitted that the proposed changes in science are, in general, in the direction of brevity and simplicity. In accordance, then, with the motto that "we should pro mote the greatest good of the greatest number," it would seem that we should approve these innovations and encourage their adoption. Perhaps this would be a just conclusion, if there were no other principles to be considered. To confine our attention, then, to the subject before us, viz: a radical change,reformation of the spelling of our language. Ought we to spell the words of our language phonetically? Theoretically, yes; practically, no. In theory, it is evident that the single characters representing should be so used that their united sounds would form the sound of words as heard in correct pronunciation. To effect this, it would be necessary that every character should represent only one definite elementary sound, and that every elementary sound should have its corresponding character. This scheme would necessitate for our language an alphabet of forty or forty-two characters. By some reformers this plan has been recommended, and an alphabet has been invented.

If a number of philosophers were about to reduce to writing a language which had never before been represented by written forms, they might adopt a perfect alphabet, provided they could agree on the number and quality of the distinct elementary sounds. But, in practice, this harmony of sound and judgment would, probably, fail.

The nicest critics differ concerning the number and quality of elementary sounds in our language; and in the pronunciation of some of our words hardly two orthoëpists agree. This fact itself militates strongly against the plan of strict phonetic spelling, unless we wish to have as great a variety in spelling words as there is in pronouncing them.

Our language is an exceedingly composite language. If I do not err, Dr. Webster quotes in his great dictionary twenty-two different languages with which our own is more or less intimately connected. This compositeness, while it increases the irregularities, adds much to the copiousness and precision of our language.

Now when we adopt a word from some other tongue is it not right and proper that it should show by its form and sound something of its relationship? In. deed, is it not a kind of verbal plagiarism, or, at least, ingratitude, to take a word from a foreign tongue, and, at the same time, to do all that we can to disguise its parentage? If our language were a simple homogeneous tongue, having little or no connection with any other language, I would say without reservation that the spelling and pronunciation of every word should always be mutually correspondent. And even now I am so far in agreement with the phonetic spellers as to favor a great reformation in our spelling, especially of words derived from Anglo-Saxon. For examples, build should be spelled without u, and tongue should be written tung, these being the original simple forms. Corrections and simplifications like these should be made immediately and adopted universally. Let us spell etymologically, analogically and systemati cally. Here permit me to say that if the literary men and the people generally had favored all the changes proposed by Dr. Noah Webster as they have some of his improvements, our spelling would have been much more simple and regular. Our genuine English words should be spelled more simply, and words directly derived from other languages should indicate their origin by their form and should be spelled systematically. We ought not to have such inconsistencies as occur in the words concede, exceed, precede, proceed, intercede, succeed, all being composed of the same Latin verb combined with different prepositions. But I would not put s for c in these words; for that would go far to disguise their origin, and therefore to obscure their meaning.

Besides the cultivation of the judgment and literary taste, one of the greatest advantages of a classical education in the ancient languages, is comparative philology, the tracing of words from one language to another and observing the various shades of meaning acquired and how they are related. Within a few years past, some would-be reformers, or, at least, innovators, have endeavored to convince the world that the study of the ancient languages is a useless waste of time and labor which might be spent to much better advantage; and I could easily believe that this sweeping change of spelling which is advocated by some, is a movement in the same direction; i. e., to make good their assertion. This radical change in writing our language would, to the eye, sever the connection between our language and those of other civilized nations. It seems to me that to do this would be not only an injury, but almost a crime. But our spelling needs to be revised for the sake of simplicity and consistency. This is granted by all. But to do this, is it necessary to invent a new alphabet, to give to our letters unusual powers and take from them powers which they have had ever since our language was reduced to writing? Nay, verily. Instead of

so great and injurious a change, I suggest the following plan, and would respectfully invite the teachers and editors of educational journals to assist in putting it into practice. Let the Philological Society, or National Spelling Association, of this country, in conjunction with a similar society in England, appoint a committee of learned and practical men who shall take Webster's and Worcester's American Dictionaries, and Richardson's English Dictionary, (or any other, if more eminent,) and examine them word-for-word, in order to simplify and correct the spelling of every word contained in our standard dictionaries, always having due regard to derivation, analogy, and consistency. Let this work be done by an International Committee, let the result of their labors be embodied and published in the form of a REVISED ANGLO-AMERICAN DICTIONARY, and let spelling books be made to conform to the dictionary. Let this plan be adopted and carefully executed, and, I believe, we should find our spelling simplified and rectified, and that the improvements would be accepted and adopted by all English speaking peoples. This general acceptance and adoption is a "consummation devoutly to be wished."

66

Having recently read an article on Spelling Reform," by professor Francis A. March, who is an earnest advocate of phonetic spelling, I notice some of its inaccuracies, false inferences and absurdities. In the first sentence, he says: "There were 5,658,144 persons of ten years old and over who reported themselves illiterates at the last census of the United States; one-fifth of the whole population." This is a palpable misstatement. The census of 1870 gives the population of the United States at 38,925,598, and, allowing the number of illiterates to be correct, the proportion is very little more than one-seventh. Moreover, nearly the whole of these illiterates are either recently emancipated slaves or immigrants from foreign countries. With what show of reason or candor does he charge the illiteracy of these persons to the difficulties of English spelling? None. He might as well charge it to the "man in the moon. It is done merely to make out a case. On the same first page of this essay it is said that, “In Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, there are none [illiterates] to speak of." The Swiss speak German or French. Neither of these languages is easy to spell. If they are intelligent it is certainly not on account of their easy spelling.

The fact that the Mormons go to Norway and Sweden for many of their recruits does not indicate very high intelligence in these countries. The notion that the ease or difficulty of the spelling of a language has any considerable influence on the intelligence or ignorance of the people who speak it, is a transparent humbug. The Latin is the easiest language to spell with which I am acquainted. Does that prove that the Latins were generally well educated? Not at all. The truth is that the intelligence of a people depends on far other causes than the spelling of their language. Among these I would mention climate, religion, and law, and commerce with other nations.

Let us now notice the Roman alphabet proposed for English use, as given by professor March. The following letters retain their usual sound, viz: b, d, f,

h, j, l, m, n, p, r, l, v, w, y, z, (y being always a consonant, I suppose ;) ch=ch in church, ng=ng in sing, th=th in thin, dh—th in thine, sh=sh in ske, zk—z in azure, c=k or q, g=g in go, s=s in so. A=a in far, e=e in met and they, i=i in pick and pique, o=o in no, u=u in full and rule. The sounds of the vowels in the words fat, fare, not, nor, but, burn, are not definitely provided for. Some changes in the form of a, o, and u, are recommended to represent these sounds. The diphthongs are, ai=i in find, au=ou in house, oi=oi in oil, iu or yu—u in music, unit. "With this alphabet," says professor March, "the English language can be spelt according to its sounds." Query: Would not spelled be better than “spelt?" It is to be remembered that there is no long a as in fate, except as it is represented by e in they, though how this e is to be distinguished from e in met, is not stated; also, that there is no short a as in fat, nor short o, nor short u. Let us now spell a few words according to this alphabet. We must spell name, neme, (I add, without authority, final e to make the previous e long), make=mece, ache=ece, meat, or meet-mite, beat, or beet-bite, quite=cwait; cat, hog, dog, cur, and many more words, we cannot spell for want of proper vowels. Now try house and mouse, and we have haus and maus, which are very good German words; also, cow and how make caw and haw, which, at least, look rather broad for genuine English. Spell keep=cipe, kite =cait, choir, or quire=cwair, music=miuzic, tune=tiun, union=yuneyun, thine= dhain, be=bi, bees=bize, rite, write, right, and wright, would=rait, geography= jiogrefi, (or fe,) George=Jorj. Fir, fur, her, sir, as well as many others, we cannot spell. Proper names would be so tranformed as to be nearly unrecog nizable. This alphabet is a vain attempt to give to our letters the same power, or sound, which some persons suppose they had in the time of Cæsar and Cicero. If we should grant that in the old Roman language, ‹ and g were always hard, and that i always equaled our e, etc., this seems to be no better reason for changing our spelling than it is for changing our pronunciation. If c and g are to be always hard, we oughɩ to substitute k for c, and, instead of changing g soft intoj, (in words from Latin and Greek,) we should, to be consistent, change our pronunciation into hard g; e. g., in gigantic, apogee, geometry, let all the g's-g in go. Also, to follow the same system, v should equal our w, and ch should be a guttural like the German ch. It is rather remarkable that in this new old alphabet ch and v should be permitted to retain their usual Engglish sounds. Instead of this inconvenient, inconsistent and imperfect alphabet, it is far better to retain our common alphabet, and indicate by a system of diacritical marks the various sounds of the letters. By means of marks or fig. ures we easily distinguish five sounds of a, six sounds of o, etc.

Professor March says: "A host of scholars are pursuing the historical study of the English language. They must know the pronunciation of the language at its several epochs; but they find etymological and scientific truth is buried under piles of rubbish mountain high."

*

What the scholars want for historical spelling is a simple and uniform fonetic system, which shall record the current pronunciation. If the written word is

made a different thing from the spoken, and has a history of its own, as in English, the materials of science are lost. The spoken language is the most interesting and important of the creations of man. The writing is but the sign of a sign, of trifling importance in itself, and its proper function, whether as record or apparatus of communication, is truthfully to represent the present speech."

Now from this doctrine I respectfully, but emphatically, dissent. The sole function of language is to convey ideas or thoughts from one to another, or, as Talleyrand has it, to conceal our thoughts. This being true, why must scholars “know the pronunciation of the language at its several epochs ?" The value or importance of a word depends not on its sound but on its sense. The proper function of writing is to represent words to the eye, and to preserve their identity and recognizability from age to age; and this it does with far greater certainty and defniteness than spoken language, (which is, as it were, but a passing breath,) can possibly do. But if the written word is to be forever varying its form with the ever recurring changes of pronunciation at different times and places, who will determine its identity, derivation and signification? It would soon be impossible for any one to do so, and comparative philology would then be a lost science. On the other hand, if the written form of a word remains unchanged, we may always recognize its countenance and parentage and strength, however much its voice may be disguised. Who feels any difficulty in understanding a Greek or Latin word or sentence, because he does not know precisely how Demosthenes or Cicero pronounced it? In order to understand Hebrew, is it necessary to know how Abraham or Isaiah pronounced it? And whether Shakespeare could, or could not, understand his own plays as pronounced by us, is a matter of no possible consequence, since he no longer attends the theater. It is quite sufficient if they are intelligible to us. The Herculean efforts put forth to recover and perpetuate the ancient pronunciation of our own and other languages, remind me of Shakespeare's play, “Much Ado About Nothing." So, then, I invert the assertion that writing is "of trtfling importance in itself" and assert, on the contrary, that the ancient pronunciation of any language (English not excepted) is of almost no importance in comparison with its written, unchangeable, imperishable forms. Again. Take the following remarkable quotations from Professor March. "The persons in danger of inconvenience [by phonetic spelling] are mostly those who have some literary scholarship, who read much and spell much, and notice more or less the resemblance of words to other words, to Latin, or Greek, or French, or German. Scholars by emphasis know the laws of change in sounds, and like best the best representation of the sounds. [Is not this an elegant sentence for a scholar, "by emphasis ?"] The great mass of the people do not spell well enough to be troubled by these changes. They do not know but “ Nasby' spells as well as anybody."

Again he says, “The scholars proper have, in truth, lost all patience with the etymological objection." It seems to me that such remarks smack strongly of