HE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



333 



1 had much better success in using drone- 

 comb instead of the molded cups. I took 

 a piece of drone-comb in which the cells 

 were about j^ to yi inch in depth, cut it 

 into strips one row of cells in width, and 

 stuck each row on a stick. I then put a 

 younj< larva and some royal jelly in each 

 alternate cell, and got a nice cell for 

 every one. 



Saginaw, Mich., Oct. i8, 1S99. 



ood things 



From Other Journals. 



SELECTED BY DR. A. B. M.-VSON. 



THE PHONETIC SPELLING. 

 It may be a question with some, but 

 for one I am pleased to see the steady but 

 sure advance there is being in what is 

 known as "Reformed Spelling," and 

 glad to note that our bee journals are not 

 behind in this matter. The American 

 Bee Journal has for some time been 

 changing "d" or "ed" final to "t" when 

 so pronounced, and it lookt very od for 

 sum time, but we can becum ust to al- 

 most eny thing in a very brief period uv 

 time, and I thoroly enjoy it now, altliu it 

 still looks od, and if I were to try this 

 new fangldway I'm sure I'd mak a faihir 

 of it. 



In Gleanings for October 15, page 761, 

 K. B. Thornton calls the editor's atten- 

 tion to the matter, and points out some 

 words, such as "catalog" "neighbor," 

 " wagon, " " color " and others that are 

 ver\- properly used by the editor, instead 

 of in the old way, and goes on to 

 say that "The more ancient the book or 

 manuscript you compare it with, the 

 more does mtxlern Ivnglish depart from 

 what was once considerefl correct. ' ' 



.\ few months since one of our leading 

 Baptist papers had an article I editorial ) on 

 this subject, and came to the conclusion 



that it would be impossible to reform our 

 spelling in the lines indicated, but in the 

 same issue there were two examples, or 

 quotations, from an old English bible 

 to show how much difference there is be- 

 tween the former and present English 

 method of spelling. That knocked the 

 editorial in the head. Any one at all ac- 

 quainted with the old method knows how 

 difficult it is to read it, owing to the out- 

 landish spelling. 



Among other things, Mr. Thornton fur- 

 thur says, "The only advance that has 

 ever been made on this line has been 

 made by the step-by-step method — a A^ord 

 or a class of words at a time. The old 

 system is not, as Mr. Hutchinson says, 

 radically wrong. It is the details that 

 need tinkering with." 



To what Mr. Thornton says, editor 

 Root says, in part, 



Personally, we (the Root Co.) approve 

 of the changes suggested by the National 

 Educational Association; but we do not 

 know w'hether our readers would sanction 

 it or not. For an experiment we will la\^ 

 the matter before them; that is, we would 

 like postal cards votes on the matter. 

 All those who fail to vote, we shall as- 

 sume have no preferences one way or the 

 other, so that a majority of those who do 

 vote either for or against may decide. 



These changes are very moderate, and 

 are not such as would shock the average 

 reader I have always felt, however, 

 that to spell the word pasf ior passed, and 

 carry out this rule all through, was per- 

 haps going a little too far, because it in- 

 cludes such a very large class of words; 

 * * "■■■ but when, for instance, we can 

 omit us^fi from the words though, al- 

 though, through, throughfare, etc.; ■'•" * 

 then we are taking a step in advance. * 

 •::• -::■ \\'g Jiave already begun it by s^i^X- 

 Wng prograiniiie prograin, catalogue cat- 

 alog, and none of our readers have inter- 

 posed or objected. Now will they if we 

 go one step farther ? I feel that we can 

 hardly be in sympathy vrith the move- 

 ment for shorter spelling without at least 

 putting that sympathy into tangil)]e 

 form." 



There doesn't that last sentence of 

 editor Root settle the matter without 

 "our readers" voting at all? I believe, 

 and hope he'll stay in sympathy with the 



