2g2 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XII. No. 306. 



over our speech ; and, however imperfect the latter's pronunciation 

 may be, it is in general quite as intelligible as our own attempts at 

 foreign utterance. 



The third proposition is. The correct phonetic elements of Eng- 

 lish may be acquired with native accuracy by foreign learners as 

 readily as the elements of a foreign language can be similarly 

 acquired by English learners. The " broken English " of foreigners, 

 and the wretched attempts at foreign speech by school tyros, 

 result simply from the want of timely and precise direction. 

 There is not a sound in any language, which a learner, of any 

 nationality, cannot be taught to produce with all the characteristics 

 of native utterance ; and English sounds, as compared with the 

 phonetic elements of other languages, are organically easy of for- 

 mation. The ditficulties of pronunciation which have been com- 

 plained of in connection with English, arise mainly from the ambi- 

 guities of spelling. Let a learner see exactly what he has to pro- 

 nounce, and he will do so with facility. There are, indeed, clusters 

 of consonants — the very strength of the language — which test 

 articulative ability to enounce them smoothly and without hiatus ; 

 but a good speaker delivers them — to quote the words of Austin's 

 'Chironomia' — " as beautiful coins newly issued from the mint, 

 neatly struck by the proper organs, deeply and accurately im- 

 pressed, perfectly finished, distinct, sharp, in due succession and of 

 due weight." 



The fourth and last proposition is, In regard to the expression of 

 ideas with definiteness, fulness, and directness, — the main object 

 of speech, — English is not inferior to any language. Inflected lan- 

 guages are generally briefer in expression ; but English, with its 

 separate words, not only for ideas but for nearly all the relations 

 between ideas, is more elastic and variable in construction ; admit- 

 ting of niceties of distinction in phraseology, which are a source of 

 precision and appositeness, emphasis, or elegance in diction. 



These propositions merely assert the claims of English to a de- 

 gree of fitness for international use at least equal to that of any 

 language. Other considerations will be found to establish a sitprem- 

 acy that is no less indisputable. 



The crowning recommendation of the English language for uni- 

 versality is the simplicity of its grammar. In this respect English 

 is immeasurably superior not only to other national tongues, but 

 also to every form of artificial language that has been, devised. The 

 various moods and tenses, declensions and conjugations, which bur- 

 den other grammars have practically no existence for us. We ex- 

 press by combinations of simple words the import of complex in- 

 flections. The words are easily learned and remembered ; whereas 

 the inflections are perplexing to learn, and their recollection is a 

 constant tax on the memory. If brevity were the principal desid- 

 eratum, then the meaningful adjuncts to root-words — in substantive, 

 verbal, and other terminations — might be preferable to the de- 

 tached words by which we convey the same ideas. But brevity 

 would be too dearly purchased at the cost of such a category of 

 shifting enclitics. English is happily almost free from these, 

 but it presents a solitary example of such freedom, as if the lan- 

 guage had been predestined to universality, and by this means made 

 ready for its great function. An English word expresses a thought 

 definitely, absolutely, fixedly ; the words of an inflected language 

 are unsteady in the mind, and they veer to point after point of the 

 logical compass, under the influence of the little rudders of gram- 

 matical inflection. 



But, while English grammar is unquestionably the simplest of 

 all grammars, it is still susceptible of further simplification. The 

 chief advantage claimed for some artificial languages is that their 

 rules are absolute, and free from exceptions. But there is no reason 

 why English should not be relieved from its small growth of irregu- 

 larities, and its rules made equally free from exceptions. For ex- 

 ample : its irregular forms of the plural in nouns, and of the preterite 

 in verbs, might be made regular : that is, it might be permissible to 

 form the plural always by adding s to the singular, and the preterite 

 always by adding the sound of / or (e)d to the infinitive, and 

 write ' childs ' for ' children,' ' mans ' for ' men," ' mouses ' and 

 • gooses ' for ' mice ' and ' geese,' ' goed ' for ' went," ' knowed ' for 

 ' knew,' 'seed ' for ' saw,' ' singed ' and ' bringed ' for ' sang ' and 

 ' brought.' The literary forms of such words would be alternative 

 modes of expression, for which a preference might be indicated be- 



cause they are established in our literature. The dictionary would 

 read, — 



Ox : plural oxes, or oxen. 

 Sheep: ** sheeps, or sheep. 

 Tooth: " tooths, or teeth. 



Do : preterite deed, or did. 

 Let : " letted, or let. 



Seek: " seeked, or sought. 



Such changes need not be prescribed, but simply allowed, ad 

 libitiim. They would, for the most part, be a mere revival of old 

 forms, many of which are not entirely obsolete. 



A few other irregularities might be similarly rectified. For 

 example: why might not degrees of comparison — when not ex- 

 pressed by the separate words ' more ' and ' most ' — be always 

 formed by adding ^r and est to the positive ? In this way the words 

 ' gooder ' and ' goodest,' and ' weller ' and ' wellest,' would be allow- 

 able alternatives for the irregular words ' better ' and ' best,' which 

 now do duty as comparatives for both ' good ' and ' well.' To 

 legitimize all words for iiied on accepted rules — without disturb- 

 ing established exceptional words — would remove the only source^ 

 of difficulty from the language. A few more words would be 

 added to the dictionary, but the vocabulary would be enriched by a 

 corresponding increase of phonetic variety. 



These suggestions are made now for the first time. The advisa- 

 bility of adopting them must be left to the decision of other minds. 

 But there can be no doubt that the recognition of such alternative 

 modes of expression would be a convenience to learners in their 

 early attempts at writing the language. 



English has a further recommendation for universality, in its al- 

 ready wide diffusion. It is the vernacular tongue of a far larger 

 number of persons than any other language ; and it is undoubtedly 

 studied as a foreign tongue by a larger number than any other. By 

 its phonetics, its copious expressiveness, and its ready intelligibility,. 

 English is at least as well adapted for international employment as- 

 any language ; while, in regard to grammatical simplicity and widely 

 established use, it has a fitness pre-eminent over all other languages, 

 natural or artificial. 



How, then, can we account for the fact that this obvious fitness 

 is not universally recognized, and that schemes for artificial lan- 

 guages are still seriously entertained and laboriously developed }' 

 The reason is not far to seek. The English language and its or- 

 thography are two distinct things. The language is almost all that 

 could be desired ; the orthography, almost all that can only be de- 

 plored and condemned. Our spelling is disorderly, difficult, mis- 

 leading, marred both by redundancy and deficiency of letters, and 

 it requires more time and labor to master it than the language itself 

 does. And why? Simply because, for distribution among upwards 

 of forty phonetic claimants, we have only two-thirds of that number 

 of letters. Fully one-third of our sounds are thus compelled to be 

 wanderers and sorners among the letters. This condition of things 

 in human society would convert it into a mass of paupers and 

 criminals. In the republic of letters the results are also depraving. 

 Between letters and sounds there are no acknowledged rights of 

 meuin and tuuin / the homeless sounds have to steal a shelter as 

 best they may, now here, now there, among the letters ; and the 

 letters have to share their quarters, willy-nilly, with strange inter- 

 lopers. In plain language, the alphabet is so extremely defec- 

 tive that it catinot, without amendment, adequately represent our 

 speech. 



How is this necessary amendment to be effected .' Here irrec- 

 oncilable discord arises between words. Each word claims its 

 customary appropriation of letters, and — possession being nine 

 points of the law — each resolutely holds to what it has. "I 

 should not be known in any other dress," says word after word. 

 One adds, " I came from France with the Conqueror ; " another, 

 " I hail from classic Rome ; " a third, " I boast of Anglo-Saxon 

 origin ; " a fourth, " and I of sacred Eastern origin." " I am from 

 Ireland," " I from Wales," say others. Danes, Swedes, and 

 Dutch, Arabians, Spaniards, Greeks, and a host more, assert their 

 claims ; and each word points with pride to some poor ragged 

 vestige of old national costume supposed to be distinguishable in 

 its orthography. 



But all this attempting to record the nationality of words in spell- 

 ing has nothing to do with the requirements of popular writing. 

 The spoken sound, and not the written sign, is the real word ; 



