494 RECORDS. 



The most important reform needed is the substitution of 5 for 

 X in the plural, words like cJiapcaitx, and in masculine adjectives 

 like genereiix, and, in general, at the end of all words where ux 

 is preceded by a vowel. The presence of the x in these words 

 is the result of a misapprehension ; in old French texts the letter 

 X is there for lis, as shown by the interchangeable spellings in 

 the same texts (for instance, biax, biaiis are both found in 

 Aiicassin et Nicolette). We see thus that in the spelling diciix, 

 the letter ii is really twice represented. The advantage of spell- 

 ing, in the plural dieus, chapcmis, and, in a whole class of adjec- 

 tives, gcncrcus, odietis, etc., is evident. Besides being a correc- 

 tion, it would simplify greatly the rules for the formation of the 

 plural of nouns and adjectives, and of the feminine of adjectives, 

 as well as the rules of pronunciation. The rule for the forma- 

 tion of the plural of nouns and adjectives in an, cu, on, would 

 then simply be the general rule : add an s to the singular. The 

 rule for the formation of the feminine of adjectives X^^ gaicrciis, 

 etc., would also be the general rule : add a mute c to the mas- 

 culine. 



Also why spell nez (nose) with .s? This word comes from 

 the Latin nasiim, and in old French texts z stands for ts. Ety- 

 mology would rather require to spell nez (Lat. natos) and iics 

 (Lat. nasiivi), but, of course, no one thinks of substituting )icz 

 for ncs in the participle. 



Silent penultimate letters like / in corps, temps, might be 

 dropped, and one might also spell clianbre instead of chambre^ 

 substituting n for in before b and p, a spelling that would bring 

 more uniformity in the representation of nasal sounds. The 

 Latin origin of these words would be just as clear to scholars 

 as before. 



None of these reforms, however, ought to be considered 

 necessary, except the substitution of s for x, as above outlined. 



This last ought to be introduced at once, for the present spell- 

 ing is perfectly absurd. This paper was discussed by Professor 

 Jackson. 



Professor E. G. Sihler then read the third paper, on The 

 Main Lines of Cicero's Political Judgments. Dr. Sihler 



