THE SPELLING OF CLASSICAL NAMES. 



BY HENRY L. BROOMALL. 



For some years past writers on classical names have exhi- 

 bited a tendency to ignore the established Latin spelling of 

 Greek names and to attempt a closer literal representation of 

 the Greek spelling. Hence we have Hcktor, Isokrates and 

 L7ikourgos . These changes seem to play mainly upon k for c, 

 on for u, OS for 7is, and at for ae. In these days of universal 

 reading and writing, the written form of a word is a matter of 

 practical importance. Many words have no other life. The 

 average citizen reads and understands many words that he 

 cannot pronounce correctly. It behooves those who make 

 sweeping changes in familiar forms of words, thereby render- 

 ing them less promptly apprehended by the mind, to show 

 good reasons therefor. 



All reasons for this orthographical reversion, so far given, 

 are one at bottom, namely, that thereby these names are more 

 correctly spelled. 



But if correct spelling consists in writing the names of men 

 and things as the men themselves and the men who use these 

 things spell or spelled them, then there is a deal of spelling in 

 need of reform. Without undertaking to formulate what 

 shall determine correct spelling, we may still adduce some 

 objections to this particular reform. 



And first, it is historically incorrect. Our letters are Latin 

 letters. In the course of time, from their first introduction 

 into English use, Latin methods of spelling have more and 

 more predominated. For instance, the long surviving Runic 

 sign Thorn at last gave way to ///, cw (as in cwcan) to qu (as 

 in queen) ^ and hiv, a phonetically correct digraph, gave wa}' 

 to wh in analogy with and under the influence of the Latin 

 forms th, ch and ph. That part of the English vocabulary 

 which is of Greek origin, introduced mainly by the Church, 

 the scholiasts and the scientists, comes to us in Latin dress — 

 spelled with Roman letters and pronounced by Roman rules 



