544 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



cient to convince one that there is nothing less unalterable than our spelling. 

 Without going back to early times, when writing was subject to no fixed rule, 

 when each one expressed sounds according to his own pronunciation and fol- 

 lowing exceedingly vague methods — simply taking as the starting point the 

 first edition of the dictionaire of the French Academy (1694), it is noticeable 

 that each new edition of this dictionary has changed the spelling of numerous 

 words. The third edition (1740), of which the Abbe d'Olivet was the editor- 

 in-chief, altered the spelling of about 5,000 words out of 18,000 included in the 

 dictionary. The fourth (1762), the sixth (1835), the seventh (1878), have 

 continued, within narrower limits, it is true, to modify the spelling. But many 

 of these changes so introduced at different periods, most of which merit ap- 

 proval, have the fault of having been proposed without regard for the whole, 

 and without any certain method. In some words silent letters were eliminated, 

 while in certain others they were allowed to remain. At times, even, by a 

 retrogression, the spelling which had been simplified was again complicated. 



The French are a logical race and they have not frightened at a 

 theory as easily as the two peoples who speak English. And, therefore, 

 the report of the French commission reveals the fact that they are 

 looking further into the future than any English-speaking committee 

 would dare to do while retaining the hope of ever achieving any prac- 

 tical result. The French commission ventures to hint at more radical 

 reforms than have entered the minds of our own Simplified Spelling 

 Board. Yet these final suggestions of theirs are as significant of the 

 trend of scientific opinion as they are interesting in themselves: 



These are the changes we propose, and which we hope will not be deemed 

 excessive. The committee is not at all insensible to the objections which may 

 be advanced against its work. The chief one is that the proposed alterations 

 are not the result of a system of spelling logically devised, all of whose ele- 

 ments are rigorously coordinated. But it was not the business of the com- 

 mittee to create a new system of spelling; they were simply authorized to 

 remove as far as possible the anomalies which complicate our spelling and 

 render the study of it so difficult for children and foreigners. The committee 

 has had, therefore, to use as a basis the present system of spelling, which 

 represents a bygone condition of the language — and to restrict itself to regu- 

 lating this system. They themselves admit that they have not even succeeded 

 fully in this modest attempt. In the cases where a rational and uniform 

 notation could not be obtained except by creating new conventional spellings, 

 or at the price of too numerous changes, they refrained, leaving the present 

 spelling intact in spite of its defects. But their self-imposed restraint does not 

 bar subsequent changes. They foresee in the future reforms more general than 

 those they endeavored to prepare by partial changes. Many of the members 

 have even expressed the hope which ought to be recorded here, that some day 

 a new committee composed not only of grammarians but also of phonetic 

 experts may be set to work to develop a system of spelling better adapted than 

 ours to the present state of the language, and sufficiently elastic to follow it 

 through its inevitable changes. 



But from now on, important advantages will be secured if the moderate 

 propositions of the committee are accepted. At any rate, the teaching of the 

 language will be greatly facilitated; the number of exceptions that the pupils 

 must learn will be noticeably diminished. Our language will be more easily 

 acquired by foreigners. Finally, by the suppression of inconsistent and obscure 

 forms which make the real pronounciation doubtful, it will be made possible 

 to teach in our schools, that greatly neglected subject, orthoepy. This teaching 

 alone is able to prevent errors in pronunciation which, individual at first, finish 

 by becoming general. 



