14 
is an argument ftrongly in point to thew 
the advantage that would be derived to 
the Englifh language from a fimilar im- 
| pravement.._ 
© ¥thought I had, in my former letter, 
refuted the objection that the change in 
orthography would defiroy etymology, 
but your correfpondent perfitts in affert- 
ing, that we fhould thereby be deprived 
of the means of tracing the derivation of 
words. If we examine a little, we fhall 
certainly be convinced that this aflertion 
Js not well founded. 
The following words, for inftanee, 
yrould be changed in their fpelling thus— 
Ever prononnced Evver 
improve. improov 
Honour Onnor 
Stronger Stronguer, or gher 
Danger Dainger 
Travel ; Travvel 
Port Poart 
john Jon. 
Surely the means of tracing the origin_of 
the above words is not defkroyed, and 
fearcely rendered more dificult: and a 
great many words would not require to 
be more altered than thefe. 
But etymology, as I have before flated 
would, in many inftances, become more 
clear and eafy, of which an exampie may 
be given in the word people, the immedi- 
ate original of which is the French word 
peuple, not populus, as the o would 
Jead one to fuppoie; now if it were writ- 
ten as it is pronounced, pepel, we could 
not be mifled as to its etymology. 
It isavery firange idea whicin your cor- 
refpondent entertains, that propofed 
change in fpelling would confign to obli- 
vion the works of our beft authors. Are 
the beautiés cf Dryden and Pope, of Ad- 
4h 
Late 
difon and Bolingbroke, fo dificult to be. 
difcovered that they cannot be feen in a 
new drefs? Are the following lines ren- 
dered unintelli gible ? : 
«¢ Oh cood dhe muze 
{pire, 
Widh warmth like yoors, and raiz an equal 
fire, 
Unnumberd buties in my verfe fhood fhine, 
And Virgil’s Ittaly hood yield to ’mine.” 
my ravvifh’d breft in- 
A child of four years would be able to 
anfwer the queftion. 
I cannot think, that an alteration fo 
abfolutely neceflary to the perfection of 
the Englith language, fhould be prevented 
by arguments fo little forcible as thele. 
~ The abfurdity of our prefent {pelling is 
fo very glaring, that it may perhaps be 
thought unneceflary to defcamt upon it, 
Defence of improved Spelling. 
but as the generality of -people feem not 
to know that they are unable to fpell their 
own language, I will give them a few ex- 
amples in proof of my afferticn. © 
Here follow a very few of the innu- 
nerable inftances, in-which precifely the 
fame letters, or combination of letters, 
are ufed, to reprefent perfectly different ” 
founds: can any thing be more ridiculous 
and irrational? 
~ 
Chamber Character 
Give Gin 
Even Ever This Teistle 
Head Mead Stranger Stronger 
Alcite Oxe She Drew 
Bough Cough | Dough Encugh. 
It is lamentable, that one of the moft 
ufeful languages in the world fhould be 
fhut up from the knowledge of foreigners, 
by fuch a determined attachment to bar- 
barifn. 
Perhaps the beft way of removing the 
7 
objections that have been made to an al- 
teration of our fpelling, is te require the 
obje@ors to betake themfelves to the 
{chool-room of fome old dame employed 
in teaching children their A B C—then 
they will fee a want of amendment; they 
will there become acquainted with the 
immenfe difficulty with which children 
acquire a knowledge of the incongrucus 
jargon called fpelling: and there they 
may hear the good woman expatiate on 
tle obfinacy of this child, and the ftupi- 
dity of that, becaufe fhe cannot make them 
underftand that peo fpells pe; that p le 
{pélls pel; that-one fpells wun; that 
ough fpelis au, and ou, and of, and o, 
and uf; that ove {pells ove, and oov, and 
uy, &e. &c!!! Poor children! it is a 
wonder it can ever be beat into them. 
ther arguments in favour of an altera- 
tion. may be adduced ; at prefent £ fhall 
only mention the advantage which would 
be derived from it to our poetry. The 
beft poets fcruple not to ufe as rhymes, 
words avhich never rhyme but to the eye. 
This is another difadvantage of the ab- 
furd cuftom of making the fame combi- 
nation of letters reprefent different founds, 
An improved orthography could not to- 
lerate this abfurdity, and then eur poets 
would be athamed of prefenting, as 
rhymes, fuch oppolite founds, as meady 
hed, luv, moov, rove, &c. &c. 
There can be no doubt, that an altera- 
tion in erthography muft and will take 
place, but probably it will be by flow 
degrees, which will be fo far difadvan- 
tageous, that the alteration will not them 
be fyK{ematic, and the opportunity of fix- 
ing pronunciation will be loft. 
Fuly 55 1798. M. 
qs 
&. 
