^^l^ [April 5, 



(c) Jf some etymologies would he obscured, more would be evidenced cuid 

 durijied, none eould he lost. 



What is known as the "etymological argument" against spelling 

 reform has been so often and so fully met by tlie scholars best qualified to 

 speak that it would seem unnecessary to do more than allude to it here. 

 And yet it is sure to be tlie first objection raised by the person of educa- 

 lion, and even of scholarly habit, who has not made specific study of the 

 subject. It is, indeed, at once the most plausible and the most baseless of 

 all objections. Even if all trace of roots were lost from present forms, 

 there would still be no danger of any such sacrifice of linguistic facts. 

 But if none could be lost, so comparatively few would be obscured, while 

 many false etymologies would be disowned, many true one& restored and 

 made plain. This is an establisht fact aniong filologists, as will appear 

 from the following, from Max Mttller : "An objection often made to spell- 

 ing reform is that it would vxtterly destroy the historical or etymological 

 character of the English language. Suppose it did ; wiiat then ? Language 

 is not made for scholars and etymologists ; and if the whole race of Eng- 

 lish etymologists were really swept away by the introduction of spelling 

 reform, I hope they would be the first to rejoice in sacrificing themselves 

 in so good a cause. But is it really the case that the historical continuity 

 of the English language would be broken by the adoption of fonetic spell- 

 ing, and that the profession of the etymologist would be gone forever? I 

 say No, most emphatically, to both propositions. Because the Italians 

 write Jilosofo, are they less aware than the English, -nho w rile p7iilosopher, 

 that they have before them the Latin philosoplius and the Greek filosofos f 

 If we write / in fancy, why not in phantomf If in frenzy and franHc, 

 why not in phrenology? A language which tolerates vial for phial need 

 not shiver at 'filosofer.' What people call the etymological conscious- 

 ness of the speaker is strictly a matter of oratorical sentiment only. If 

 anybody will tell me at what date etymological spelling is to begin, 

 whether at 1500 A. D., or at 1000 A. D., or at 500 A. D., I am willing to 

 discuss the question. Till then, I beg to say, that etymological spelling 

 would play greater havoc in English than fonetic spelling, even if we are 

 to draw a line not more than five hundred years ago. If we w^rite puny, 

 puisne, we might as well write post-natus. We might spell coy, quietus ; 

 pert, apertus ; priest, pres^hyter ; master, mngister ; sexton, saeritstan, etc." 

 And from Prof. A. H. Sayce : "We are told that to reform our alfabet 

 would destroy the etymologies of our words. Ignorance is the cause of 

 so rash a statement. The science of etymtdogy deals with sounds, not 

 with letters, and no true etymology is possible when we do not know the 

 exact way in which words are pronounced. The whole science of com- 

 parative filology is based on the assumption that the ancient Hindus, 

 Greeks, Romans and Goths spelt pretty nearly as they pronounced. 

 English spelling has become a mere series of arbitrary combinations, an 

 embodiment of the wild guesses and etymologies of a pre scientific age, 

 and the hap hazard caprice of ignorant printers. Il is good for little else 



