200 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XV. No. 373 



mental principle of alphabetic writing — namely, a separate 

 letter for every sound, and a single sound for every letter — 

 has been so widely departed from in English orthography that 

 spelling-reformers have not dared to advocate the application 

 of the principle in its perfect and beautiful simplicity, but have 

 contented themselves with attempts to remove the most obvious 

 anomalies in practice. 



I should prefer to add at once the necessary radical improve- 

 ment of new letters for unrepresented sounds; but compara- 

 tively few persons seem yet prepared to carry reform to this 

 extent, and therefore the application of a completely phonetic 

 orthography must at present be confined to the initiation of 

 children and of foreign learners of our language. A simplifica- 

 tion of general spelling is, however, very desirable, and it is 

 easily practicable by the means recommended by the commis- 

 sion of the Pennsylvania Legislature; namely, by adoption, in 

 the public printing of the United States, of the Joint Rules for 

 Amended Spelling, which have been approved by the Philologi- 

 cal Society of London and the American Philological Associa- 

 tion. 



With your permission, I shall state briefly some of the chief 

 recommendations of the simplified spelling proposed in these 

 rules. 



First, Economy of time. About one-half of the time now 

 spent in learning to read will be saved by simplified spelling. 

 Phonetic initiatory systems have been largely tested during a 

 number of years, and the result has uniformly been a saving of 

 not less than fifty per cent in the time required to make good 

 readers. 



Second, Economy in printing. In the report of the Pennsyl- 

 vania commission, made in April, 1889, the saving in expen- 

 diture for paper and printing, from the use of simplified spell- 

 ing, is calculated at seventeen per cent. I have tested this 

 computation by comparing the number of letters in some pages 

 of "World-English" and of ordinary typography: and I find a 

 difference in favor of the phonetic letters of one in seven, or a 

 little over fourteen per cent in the number of types. Adding 

 the values of labor and paper, this calculation will amount to 

 very nearly the same as that in the report. This economy can- 

 not be considered unimportant, when we reflect that wo now 

 waste nearly one column in six in our newspapers, one page 

 in six in our magazines, and one volume in six in all our works 

 of literature. In hand-writing and type-writing, also, for every 

 six letters that we really require, we have the trouble of writ- 

 ing at least seven. 



Third, Rationality in teaching. The want of correspond- 

 ence betu'een letters and sounds stultifies children, and hinders 

 the development of the reasoning faculty in education. We 

 might as well allow a fluctuating value to the numerals 1, 3, 3, 

 etc., as to the alphabetic letters. If e4-a may sometimes 

 sound e (read) , sometimes a (great) , sometimes e (head) , and 

 sometimes ah (heart) , why may not 1 -|- 2 be sometimes equal 

 to 1, sometimes to 2, sometimes to 3, and other times to 6? 

 The mental confusion in the learner would not be greater in the 

 one case than in the other ; and the latter case is not merely 

 supposititious, but, unfortunately, real and existent. In pho- 

 netic spelling the learner pleasedly recognizes the truth of re- 

 lationship between letters and sounds, whereas in common 

 orthography he is painfully aware of the falseness of the pre- 

 tended relation. He is thus taught a life-lasting lesson of 

 truth or of falsehood in the very beginning of education. 



Fourth, Simplicity and practicability. The scheme proposed 

 has the sufiicient recommendation of approval by the English 

 and American Philological Societies. As an instalment of 

 spelling-reform, it is entirely unobjectionable, and it will un- 

 doubtedly effect a large part of the advantages of a more pho- 

 netic system. Every change consists in reduction of the number 

 of letters used in spelling : consequently the plan is altogether 

 a simplification of the method of representation. We who can 

 use the old cumbrous orthography have nothing to learn in con- 

 nection with the new scheme: we have only to dispense with 

 superfluities. 



Fifth, Ultimate perfectibility. A scientific scheme would 



necessarily include new letters for unrepresented sounds. The 

 introduction of these is not contemplated in the present move- 

 ment, but is left to the action of those who will, under pho- 

 netic training, be more and more free from existing "ortho- 

 graphic" prejudices. The scheme indorsed by the philological 

 societies will facilitate the removal, in time, of all remaining 

 anomalies ; while it will not create diiBculties to stand in 

 the way of future improvements. What we do now within 

 the prescribed limits, will not require to be undone at any 

 time hereafter. 



Sixth, Justice to the young. Children are condemned to a 

 positive wrong when they are unnecessarily subjected to a long 

 and severe task in order simply to acquire the use of the in- 

 strument of learning. The helplessness of the victims of this, 

 wrong should be one chief recommendation of such a measure of 

 redress as that which is now proposed. The time saved in 

 learning to read will be so much added to that for acquisition 

 of knowledge. Teachers and learners will be alike benefited 

 and elevated by the elimination of so much of mere drudgery, 

 and the addition of so much valuable opportunity for profitable 

 study. Brighter and more intelligent pupils will rise to higher 

 standards in the common schools, and every department of edu- 

 cation will participate in the advantages begun with learners, 

 of the ABC. 



Such considerations as are here briefly presented should not 

 require the addition of a single word to induce all but those 

 predetermined against any change to favor the adoption in the- 

 public printing of the nation of the proposed scheme of 

 amended orthography. 



A short time would suffice to test the influence of this ex- 

 ample on general practice. The conductors of the periodical 

 press will not be slow to adopt the changes if these shall be- 

 widely approved by the public. At the same time, adoption or 

 rejection will be equally voluntary. The old orthography will 

 remain as legible as it is now ; and the vast capital invested 

 in permanent literature will lose none of its present value. 



I have spoken of this plan of amended spelling as only an in- 

 stalment of what is due to our language. To attempt more as 

 a beginning, might be impolitic ; to do less would be worth- 

 less. 



The substance of the rules embraced in the recommendation 

 before you might be expressed in a single sentence; namely, 

 omit all silent and phonetically dispensable letters. This prin- 

 ciple would cover every change included in the twenty-four 

 rules. 



I cannot refrain from adding that observance of these rules- 

 ought to have prevented such a manifest inconsistency as is 

 exhibited by the Spelling-Reform League in dropping m from the 

 combination ou in favour, harbour, valour; and dropping o 

 from the same combination, with the very same sound, in 

 nourish, journey, double. Every change should be a step in a 

 strictly phonetic direction, or it had better not be made. The 

 rule in the ' 'Report of the Pennsylvania Commission' ' (p. 36, 

 No. 7) is phonetically right: the League's concomitant to it 

 (p. 37, No. 1) is phonetically wrong. The limits prescribed 

 by the rules must be observed with exactness, or the latter can 

 no longer be called the rules indorsed by the philological so- 

 cieties. This action of the Spellig-Eeform League seems to 

 show the same principle at work which has frustrated all pre- 

 vious attempts at amended orthography: namely, prejudice in 

 favor of what is already in use. In a question between the 

 right and the wrong use of letters, such a consideration should 

 have no place. 



This is not a subject respecting which enthusiastic advocacy 

 or passionate discussion can be roused. Those who are called 

 to act will be themselves unaffected by the result, for we have 

 passed the stage when the right use of letters was a trouble to 

 us. May we never reach the stage when the difficulties of 

 beginners shall cease to excite our sympathy and inspire our 

 efforts ! 



Tlie one impediment to the changes which we seek to accom- 

 plish — and which reason, right feeling, and policy demand — 

 is simply that of prejudice. We are accustomed to the pres- 



