58 Transactions. — Miscella neo m . 



the English alphabet is treated in the way in practice : when 

 the child is taught that a = ae, and no symbol is given for the 

 broad a ; that /' = ai ; that u = in, &c. Let the reform begin 

 at the fountain head, by a re-arrangement of the alphabet. 



One or two Scotch names give good examples of the 

 difficulties in spelling brought about by the want of system 

 in English orthography. Let us take the name MacNeil. 

 We find this variously spelt McNeil and McNeal. Although 

 apparently a Celtic name, I suspect that it came from Scan- 

 dinavia, where we have to this day the frequent Christian name 

 of Nil, Xils. The French could make nothing of Neil, so 

 changed the spelling to Niel, in the case of the celebrated 

 marshal. The McNeils and Neals should do the same, and 

 the name would then be written phonetically. 



We find the name Mackay spelt the same, whether the 

 owner of it comes from the Highlands or from Galloway ; but 

 the pronunciation is different. In the former case it is Mackai, 

 in the latter M&ckae ; and at San Francisco I found another 

 variation, viz., MaekHe, the accent being on the last syllable. 



In looking up the Scandinavian languages, I have been 

 struck with the similarity in some respects to broad Scotch, and 

 I suspect that the language of the old kingdom of Northumbria, 

 extending from the Humber to the Forth, has been more 

 influenced by Scandinavian immigrants than is generally sup- 

 posed. Such words as banc for bairn are suggestive ; and in 

 Norwegian I found a sentence, viz. : " Qua sae? " meaning " What 

 do you say?" which one may hear any day in the streets of 

 Edinburgh or Glasgow. 



Art. VII. — The Non-Euclidian Geometry Vindicated: a Reply to 



Mr. Skey. 



By F. W. Frankland F.I.A. 

 [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, 13?/t February, 1884.] 



The following observations are an abridgment of a series of 

 letters addressed to Mr. Skey, the author of the paper entitled 

 " Notes upon Mr. Frankland's Paper ' On the Simplest Con- 

 tinuous Manifoldness of two Dimensions and of Finite Extent,'" 

 read before the Wellington Philosophical Society on 26th June, 

 1880, and contaiued on pages 100-109 of the thirteenth volume 

 of the Transactions of the New Zealand Institute. By Mr. 

 Skey's kindness and courtesy these letters were made available 

 to me for the preparation of a printed reply to his criticisms. I 

 make no apology for the form in which this reply appears. 1 

 have taken, seriatim, the main points which Mr. Skey raised, 

 and replied to each of his contentions in detail. Mr. Skey's 

 own words are in each case placed at the commencement of the 



