I04 JOURNAL AND PROCEEDINGS 



to a few curious heads, would rivet forever upon millions of writers 

 and readers of English, the burden of such an orthography. The real 

 etymologist, the historic student of language, is wholly independent 

 of any such paltry assistance, and would rejoice above measure to 

 barter every ' historical ' item in our spelling during the last 300 years 

 for a strict phonetic picture of the language as spoken at that dis- 

 tance in the past." 



There is much truth in the words of the editor of '* Spelling " 

 when he says, " One of the most persistent objections to the pro- 

 posed reform of English spelling is that known as ' the etymological 

 objection.' In so far as the phrase imphes that the objection is 

 made by etymologists, it is misleading. It is an objection made on 

 behalf of etymology by persons who are not etymologists." 



The sound of words should, I think, be quite as important a 

 part of their history as the letters which go to make up the words. 

 However, it would appear that etymology, in the minds of most 

 people, looks for its perpetuation not in sounds but in dumb letters. 

 As it is, our present spelling is frequently misleading, and one has 

 merely to mention such falsifications as : tongue, island, foreign, 

 sovereign, rhyme, delight, nephew, currants, wormwood, belfry, ising- 

 glass, causeway, fantastic, and leave to the curious the extension of 

 the list, which can be made with little labor. 



Let us for a moment look at the word "' calculate." How many 

 of those who use this word from day to day are aware that it is de- 

 rived from the Latin " calculus," a stone or pebble ? I must confess 

 it as my belief that if this and other words were written according to 

 the sound heard in the pronunciation, the purposes of etymology 

 would be quite as satisfactorily served. " Kalkulat " might look 

 strange, but it would be true spelling.* 



If the "c " of " phonetics " suggests to us the Greek " k," why 

 should we suppose that it would be more difficult to discern in "kal- 

 kulat" the Latin " c "? After all is said and done, is not the root- 

 meaning of the word " language " practically " tongue-action "? If 

 language be " tongue-action," would it not be well to observe in 

 writing a principle in full harmony with the spoken word? Is it 

 unscientific, is it unreasonable, to make writing to the eye what 

 speech is to the ear? 



* Even this strangeness would disappear if "c" were used consistently with the 

 power of " k." 



