IS THE OLD SYSTEM PHONETIC P 27 



prejudice to the historic or prehistoric forms, which she 

 may study when she grows up and enters the University ? 

 Why lay burdens upon the shoulders of children which 

 you cannot bear yourselves ? 



It would be strange if the historic orthography had lasted 

 so long without some attempt being made to simplify it 

 in accordance with the development of the language. But 

 before describing to you one of the earliest attempts to 

 reform that spelling I must deal briefly with a few char- 

 acteristic objections to change of any kind. 



Objection i. "The old system suited the language 

 very well. It was the Irish system as long as Ireland 

 was Irish." 



This is the hackneyed excuse of the sluggard. " What 

 was good enough for our fathers is good enough for us." 

 But we cannot live like our fathers. In the Middle Ages, 

 when the old system was flourishing, very few people could 

 read or write. Literature was the monopoly of a small 

 aristocratic class. When Ireland was Irish there were 

 few books in the land, and no newspapers. Above all, 

 there was no English. But it is dull work arguing with 

 a sluggard. 



Objection 2. " But the old system is really phonetic 

 when you understand its principles." 



Is the conventional system really phonetic ? If so, what 

 does phonetic mean ? Take a single sound, a very common 

 one in the language, that of u in cu, cu, cut, ut>, etc. The 

 same sound is also represented by : 



i. utj n 



2. 



3. 



4. 



5- 



6. ut> tl cput> (horseshoe) 



7. ut)^ ,, -Amut>,d 



8. ut> ,, cput> (milking) 



