2 7 o POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



whether relating to spelling or to anything else, need to be pulled 

 gently, periodically and patiently. They are proof against argument, 

 dictation, ridicule, legislation or physical force; but they will slowly 

 yield if pulled in the right way and in the right succession. 



However important may have been the influence of half-educated 

 printers in the fastening of a hereditary spelling disease upon the users 

 of the English language, the responsibility does not rest wholly upon 

 them. Like other people, printers endeavor to adapt themselves to 

 popular demands. The great classical schools of England have done 

 much to infuse Latin and Greek into the language and to cultivate 

 classical forms of spelling. Against the orthographic riot due to the 

 early printers a reaction was inevitable. They gradually discarded 

 many of the worst word forms that had been brought into use, but in 

 the selection of surviving forms they had but small guidance from 

 competent scholars. An approach toward uniformity was made, but 

 it was under the domination of conservatism rather than reason or 

 consistency, and popular habits were formed with no regard for sim- 

 plicity or etymology. In the earlier English dictionaries by Bailey 

 and Johnson very little was done to correct the prevailing inconsist- 

 encies. Johnson's great force of character made him a power among 

 men. His knowledge of Latin was exceptional, but of etymology he 

 knew little and cared less. As a lexicographer he was narrow, preju- 

 diced and illogical. His dictionary was made the basis of Walker's 

 dictionary, which in time attained wide currency on both sides of the 

 Atlantic. 



In all of these dictionaries it was apparently assumed that the 

 function of the lexicographer is to record and define the words in 

 current use, but not to search out or expose inconsistencies. The 

 incongruities of our language make the dictionary more important as 

 a reference book than it deserves to be. To this day multitudes of 

 people accept without question what they find as allowed spelling in 

 Webster or Worcester; and they resent any criticism upon what they 

 consider to be established by the favorite standard. 



What then are we to do about it ? 



The first and most important thing is to recognize the facts of 

 human nature and the conservation of energy. This has been done by 

 a small band of scholarly men, who have become incorporated during 

 the year just ended as the Simplified Spelling Board, and to whom has 

 been given the practical support of Andrew Carnegie and Theodore 

 Eoosevelt. This board recognizes the futility of trying to coerce the 

 public, of trying to change the alphabet, of trying to secure immediate 

 phonetic spelling, of advocating any radical changes, however desirable 

 these may be theoretically. It has no intention of trying to set the 

 pendulum into motion by breaking the thread. Its chief object is to 

 attract the attention of the public to the history and present condition 



