For and Against Simpler Spelling.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXXVII, Issue 25, 22 December 1906, Page 25

For and Against Simpler Spelling.

DISCISSION AROi’SED BY THE PROPOSAL TO REFORM SOME OF THE WORDS IN THE ENGLISH LANGIAGE. Ihe edict has gone forth that hereafter government public.it ions will con tain th;* form of spelling proposed by the Simplified Spelling Board in the list of three hundred words prepared by that body. English critic- arc especially bitter against the President for what they consider his unwarranted meddling with the language. Only the *’Sp; ctator" has arisen to defend him. Prof—sor Brander Matthews, chairman of the board, protests, however, that no drastic revolution i- contemplated by the reform. <1 organization: It is prepared to make haste slowly, and not to expect too much in a hurry. It is planning a campaign in which ultimate victory is only dimly foreseen. It proposes first of all to call public attention to the whole question, and to keep on calling attention to it. urging every man to enquire into it for himself, and to decide on his own course. It hopes to be able to encourage independence. and to uvercom lethargy, and in time io make a breach in the walls of bigoted coiis ; i\ at ism. It has issued a list of words now spelled in two ways, and it will urge the public and the publishers and the printers to accept finally th • simpler of the two. It will 1 Hid the weight of its authority to the various minor simplifications now struggling to establish themselves — tho ami altho. for exampb . catalog and program, esthetic and maneuver. Attempting at first only the easiest things, and thosp nearest at hand, working along th* line of least resistance, and arousing as little opposition as possible, it will propose still further simplifications by the easting out of letters which are plainly superfluous. slowly and steadily, without haste and without rest, it will try to win acceptance for many little simplifiva tions. inconspicuous and unimportant individually, hut collectively putting our spelling in a more satisfactory position to take a longer step in advance whenever the public has I ecu prepared to consider this favourably. One result of its efforts is likely to Hie the restoration of many an old spelling discarded foolishly in the eight enth century. And another will he to accelerate more or les- the constant tendency toward simplicity (by the easting out of useless letters) which has been steadily at work in English from the very beginning, and which is opposed only by those who are obstinate in declaring that there shall be no change of any kind hereafter. The board l.*elieves that this attitude of opposition to nil change i< not only unreasonable in itself, but also that it is contrary to the tradition of the language. It feels assured that its follow citizens, however weddul to the exist Hig forms, can be made to see clearly the many disadvantage- of the present sp. Hing of our language, with resulting wastefulness of time ami money, with its inconvenience- for foreigners, and with its cruelty to our own children. Another friend of the now movement is Benn Pitman, brother of the father of phonography. Mr. Pitman would go much furl her and proposes a refqrm of the alphabet which would eliminate the letters c, q, and x:

They art vmireh supvrlliiou-. I would eliminaie the »b‘l over Hii* i an I j. ami U- the <lol over the vuwei-’. . i. o. and u, to indicate when lhe\ a ■ long. Then when the child >uw the word ’•pet” he would pioiioumr the hort. because there is no dot over it. When lit* saw the word ••pale” he would know that the a is long, lor a <l«»t is over it. Do you know that the twrutv i\ letters of the alphabet ni.qv Im* u-cd (»5S ways? Hence the chance o| yoiii pi<»iloiiiiring a strange word i- in the ratio of GSX to 2G pretty long otitis. The |H*rfect alphabet that I have devised contains torly lett ns. but twenlythree will alisW r. However, the -ohi tion of the spelling problem i- found in the elimination of c. q. and x. ami the new use «>l th * dot a- I have described. Tin* sound o; is obtained in nine tern ililler nt w.iy-«. Which one will the child ehoos I would -pell “cough ••koi.” Ihe pit nuiitnation could not be wrong, for there i- no dot over the o to denote that it is anything but short. Where e is soft s may be used; where it is hard k will <lo. and k will invariably do for q. On th* other side of th* Imu-e l’rc-i dent Eliot, of llarvanl. ri-es to tfcelnre that unless the English accept the reform il w ill be fruit le**: it can he s*en at a glance that the publishers will object strenuously to any change in tin* -y-trm of spelling, and as uur book- natairally set the style of orthography, il would certainly he practicnllv impossible, or at least ditliciilt. to bring about any innovation in this direction without the assistance of the puhli-hers. It will be found that tin* public will not like the look-* of ••thru” and -tho.” and words similarly spelled. The opinion of Profc-sor Goldwiu Smith is no I*— unfriendly, although based on different rea-ons. He -ays; English spelling. like the language itself, is the product ot a very complex history, of which it- anomalies show the traces. But it i< at once hi-torical and familiar. Phonetic clipping will make it unhistorical. unlamilia r, and uncouth. Can anything be more un couth than "thru.” commonly tend-red as a specimen of the phonetic system? The language eschews ending- in “u except in the <a-es of diphthongs and incorporal e l foreign- name-. The contents of our existing hhrariewould suffer, r-peeially. perhaps, our books of poetry. Thor.* would be. per plrxit \ in our school-. \\ <>uld a slight savin’* of type or of handw > iting suilit • to repay u-? Such a change at all events would seem to require th* consent of the various communities b\ which English is written. How could t hi- con-ent be obtained ?