ANALYTIC ORTHOGRAPHY. 367 
rejected c would then be at the mercy of every one who might want a new character; so 
that whilst c, e would be too much alike with c as cay, the case would be different with a 
perverted power. Moreover, wand are more alike than c and e, v and 7, and various 
examples we have taken from native sources, are worthless on this account. 
533. The Gothic hemi-greek alphabet has k, with which the Germans barbarised their 
alphabet, especially in the use of the hibrid ck, but ck and ch are concessions to the true 
cay, and the use of & has not caused kk and kh to replace ck and ch. An Englishman 
will spell ‘sceptic’ rather than ‘skeptic; an Italian prefers ‘chi,’ and the Spaniard ‘qui’ 
to ki, whilst any one desirous of uniformity, who acknowledges ‘ca’ to be correct, will not 
object to ce, ci, if he is provided with the means of spelling tre, tri. 
534. The use of kah for cay is to be deprecated in a highly latinised language like 
English. It is equivalent to granting that when words change, the spelling should not 
change (§455,) but that a new character must be placed in the unchanged words; letting 
tin the French ‘nation’ have the power of s, using s for z, as in rose, and going to Greek 
for a new ¢ with which to spell words like ‘naif. This mode is always wrong—that 
which does not interfere with forms which retain their historic value, is believed to be 
always right, no matter how long the time during which it has been neglected or broken.* 
535. In old high German and middle high German, Cay and Kah were both used, and 
cay quite extensively, so that if the Germans were to re-adopt it, it would be a restoration 
rather than a novelty. ; 
536. Htymologic relations. (§135.) cmsar, Ohg. caesar, keisar, cheisar. CASEUS, Ohg. 
kas, case, chase, Ang. cese, Hng. cheese. croc-10, to croak, Ang. circ, Eng. kirk, church. 
*Mr. Ellis puts a note here to the effect that English 4, y, z, will prevail. ‘As I deny the effect of & for ¢ in 
altering the relations—merely altering them to the eye, not the ear—the argument does not touch me. To mark 
the connection between English and Latin by the eye only, I consider false.” This remark is just, and we admit 
that like letters should represent similar sounds. ‘If we know c=4,” [and we know and have it as well for 
English as for Latin] “this is enough, we may then change the Latin; writing (in palaeotype) kaizar? kaisar, 
keesar, cesar; kaaseus, caseus; krookioo, crocio; . . . Ang. keeze, cese, Eng. tshiiz, cheese, &c., where the real 
comparison is between the phonetic words, and the original spelling (and meaning) is merely added as a means of 
identification. We must thus alter Sanscrit, Greek, Hebrew,—why not Latin too? I doubt whether we shall 
ever get people to agree on a pronunciation of Latin, even by introducing such an alphabet as yours. Let us 
introduce the best we can get people to accept, even though we pay the price of letting Latin be like the rest, a 
language to be transliterated.” 
To this we reply, that in transliterating Sanscrit, we do not falsify a single Sanscrit letter, whilst in thus 
meddling with Latin, the falsifications cannot even have the collateral merits of uniformity and stability—even if 
we do not take truth to the original into account. No one can yet predict the degree of perfection which people 
will or may be prepared to accept, but the fact is constantly before us, that the nation which has advanced 
farthest in civilization, has adopted a metric system in no way connected with the systems already in use, systems 
which every other nation would probably have determined to be too firmly associated with political organisation 
and domestic life, to render a reform desirable or possible. Farther, an alphabet displeasing to a Européan 
heterotypist, may meet with favor when examined by Cherokees or Chippeways. 
