542 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



matter of memory, especially of the visual memory. Reasoning has nothing to 

 do with it, for there is no reason why apporter should be written with two p's, 

 while apercevoir and apaiser should have but one; or why the plural of chou 

 and six other words should be formed with an x, while all other words termi- 

 nating in ou take s, following the ordinary usage. On the other hand, the 

 acquisition of a logical spelling would bring the reasoning powers into play 

 far more than the memory. 



But the most forcible passages in M. Meyer's own plea for simpli- 

 fication are in response to the various arguments urged in behalf of 

 the existing orthographic confusion: 



The objections advanced by the public to all modification of spelling may 

 be grouped under four heads : 



1. Every change in spelling distresses us. We dislike to alter our habits. 

 Books printed in a new spelling are distasteful to us. Besides, we have had 

 enough trouble to learn the current spelling; why should we be obliged to 

 learn another ? 



2. Words in their very form and independently of their sound, have an 

 esthetic beauty, which would be lost as soon as the appearance was modified. 



3. The proposed changes would result, in many cases, in causing all trace 

 of the etymology to disappear. We love the g of doigt, which reminds us of 

 the Latin digitus ; the p of temps, behind which we can see the Latin tempus; 

 and physique written fisique seems barbarous to us. Further, these changes 

 would obscure the derivation of words of the same family. 



4. These same changes will lead to lamentable confusion, since we shall no 

 longer be able to distinguish corps (a body) written without p from cors (a 

 corn ) . 



It is apropos of arguments of this kind that a great English linguist, A. *L 

 Ellis, said: "These are very sweeping assertions, and those who have given 

 serious attention to the subject for many years feel astonished that any person 

 of ordinary intelligence and linguistic attainments could commit himself to 

 such statements." 



1. Let us take up these feeble arguments one by one. We shall not at- 

 tempt to dispute the fact that any suddenly introduced innovation shocks us. 

 When the fashion of crinolines came in during the Second Empire it seemed at 

 first utterly ridiculous. But people became accustomed to it; the reason it 

 disappeared was not that people disliked it, but because the fashionable dress- 

 makers had to have new styles. It will be somewhat similar with the altera- 

 tions in spelling that we propose. Assuredly, they will arouse a more general 

 feeling of instinctive and inexplicable opposition than they would have a 

 hundred years ago, for the number of people who know spelling, or at least 

 who have studied it, is infinitely greater than formerly. The changes intro- 

 duced by the third edition of the academic dictionary do not seem to have been 

 combatted; those which we are proposing would scarcely have met with objec- 

 tions had they been brought to the attention of the revisers of the sixth edition 

 (1835). But the longer we wait the more difficult it will be both to repair 

 the harm done to the language by the bad spelling in vogue to-day, and to 

 overcome the repugnance to any change. ... It is inconceivable that, out of 

 respect for opinions which are only prejudices, children and foreigners should 

 be forever condemned to commit to memory complicated and contradictory 

 rules whose only result is to pervert the reasoning faculty. Life is too short 

 to waste a part of it in such absurdities. Besides, the transition will be made 

 in a very simple way which will spare the prejudices of the present genera- 

 tion. . . . When we have to write a book, a memorandum, simply a letter, it 

 is quite certain that we shall not stop at every word to ascertain how it 

 ought to be written, according to the new spelling. In this matter changes 

 can not be imposed by law or by decree, like those regulating public accounts. 

 But although tne generation that has reached maturity will continue to follow 

 the usage with which it is familiar from childhood, the younger generation and 

 foreigners who have not unalterable habits will learn the new spelling and 

 spare themselves useless labor. Proof-readers, with the help of a printer's 

 dictionary, will conform to it. . . . Thus the change will take place in the 

 course of a generation, without wounding the deep-rooted sentiments of any one. 



2. The second objection may be dealt with briefly. It consists in saying 



