SPELLING OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 23 



Up to the time we have been considering the spelling 

 had been at least partially phonetic, if such an epithet 

 can be applied to a system so loose as to admit of endless 

 variations in the writing of common words. It was in 

 this vague sense phonetic as regards the standard dialect, 

 though it no longer represented the spoken language of 

 any particular district. It admitted simplified and short 

 spelling of a number of words without regard to their 

 etymology, such as Af\if for earlier aridisi, O. Ir. afrithissi, 

 Aici-o for Aicitnt), O. Ir. accidit from the Latin, peAfo^, 

 earlier fodesta, fodechtsa, hifechtsa, etc., ^ne, Mid. Ir. 

 inne, inde. As several sounds originally distinct had long 

 before this fallen together, in doubtful cases none but 

 the best scribes possessed scholarship enough to choose 

 the historic form. 



After the downfall of the native schools in the seventeenth 

 century, the historic system in the older sense was no longer 

 possible. No ordinary writer in the eighteenth century 

 could be expected to know whether fin-Oe or ftuje, unt>e 

 or tinge was correct. Both t> and 5 were silent, and even 

 when they were still pronounced t> had taken the sound 

 of 5 as early as the twelfth century. In such words as 

 ptnt>e the best scholars in Keating's day cared very little 

 whether they wrote -6 or 5. But it was chiefly in the 

 eighteenth century that the plague of silent -6's and 's 

 sprouted forth. For fear of leaving out anything " historic " 

 writers began to sprinkle additional dead lettering over their 

 pages, turning, e.g. : 



bim into bitnm 

 SeAn ,, SeAgAti 



Site ,, Site 



CtAO1 



Another difficulty in connexion with the historic spelling 

 arose after the loss of the standard dialect. Writers who 

 had to fall back on the spoken language of their own district 

 often wanted to write down words and forms which had 



