296 
ftates “the advantages which would 
refult frem rendering the orthography of 
words correfpondent to the pronuncia- 
ion,” Anal. Rev. p. 175 5 and, in the 
following page of the Review, an extract | 
is given to exhibit the orthography ufed 
by Mr. W. I have not feen Mr. 
WEBSTER’s book, and, probably, fhall 
not foon get a fight of it; I thall, there- 
fore, in my animadverfions on his mode 
of fpelling, confine myfelf to the above- 
mentioned extract. 
‘The Analytical reviewers go on to fay, 
that ‘‘feveral attempts have already 
been made in England to alter the 
mode of fpelling our language. Mir. 
ELPHINSTON has publifhed an elaborate 
treatife, certainly more complex than the 
prefent of Mr. W. but on the fame prin- 
ciple, namely, the correfpondence of 
pronunciation with orthography; yet 
thefe two gentlemen would write the 
fame fentence very differently, which 
renders the fact decifive, that an uni- 
formity of {pelling would be impraéti- 
cable where the mode is directed by the 
ear.” 
IT cannot heip lamenting that the 
Analytical reviewers, who, in general, 
are liberal in their opinions, and detirous 
of promoting knowledge of every Kind, 
fhould have fpoken thus decifively, as 
their authority may be a means of deter- 
xing many perfons from epplying their 
minds tothis fubjeéts yet there is fcarculy. 
any one which more requires inveftiga- 
tion. 
“It is certainly not to be wifhed that 
every perfon fhould ufe a peculiar fyftem 
of orthography according to his own 
“ideas of proper pronunciation ; but, as 
he prefent method is manitteftly very 
defeciive, is ir not defirable that a new 
mode fhould be eftablithed, which fhouid 
be an exaét reprefentation of the bef 
pronunciation? If this were effected, 
and every one underftood that he was to 
pronounce ashe faw written, the Englith 
language would be much more correétly 
fpoken by the natives, and wouid be 
much more eafily attainable by foreigners. 
‘There are’ only two ways by which 
this can be accomplifhed; one is by 
introducing an additional number of 
figns, or letters, into the alphabet, 
which would, probably, be the moft 
effe€tual; the other is, by combining 
the figns already in general ufe, fo as to 
produce the fame effeét : this it is which 
Mr. ELPHINsToNn has attempted, and 
in which be has been yery fuccefsful. 
Maeffrs. Elphinfton ahd Webjier’s maces of Speliing: 
[ Sept. 
We will confider in what. refpects 
Mefirs: ELpHINSTON and WEBSTER 
differ in their modes of fpelling; we 
fhall thus fee, that the Analytical review- 
ers are not right in ftating, that the dif- 
ference between thefe gentlemen is a 
decifive fact of the impraéticability of | 
introducing an uniformity of fpelling, 
where the mode is direéted by the 
ear; for, if it be proved that Mr. W. 
has not written as he pronounces, the 
argument of the reviewers is gone tc 
the ground. 
The following is the extra& from Mr. 
WEBSTER’S book, given in the Anal. 
Rev. p. 176, as a fpecimem of his 
mode of fpelling, , ; 
“ In the eflays ritten wrthin the laft 
yeer, a confiderable change of {pelling zs 
introduced by way of experiment. This 
liberty was taken by the writers before 
the age of queen Elizabeth, and to this we - 
are indeted for the preference of modern 
fpelling over that of Gower and Chaucer. 
Tbe man who admits that the change of 
houfebonde, mynde, ygone, mowth, into 
huiband, mind, gone, mouth, zs an im- 
provement, mutt alo acknowlege ihe 
riting of helth, breth, rong, munth, /o be 
‘an improovment. There is no alternativ, 
every reezon that could ever be oftered for 
altering the {pelling of words, ftil exifts 
in’ full force; and, if a gradual reform 
feould not be made in our language, it 
will proov thai we are lefs ander i4é in- 
fluence of reezon than our anceftors.” 
If Vir. W. were to pronounce the words 
in italics as he has here fpelt them, ‘he 
would fcarcely be underftood, and wouid . 
certainly be laughed at for the uncouth- 
nefs of his language. ‘His method of 
fpelling ought not, therefore, to be -pro- 
duced as a proof of the impraéticability 
of introducing a better fyftem of ortho- 
graphy than we have at prefent. I will 
now give the above fentences in Mr. 
ELPHINSTON’s matiner, by which your 
readers will fee, that it is not impoffible 
to form the letters we already pofiefs; 
into a more perfe&t reprefentation of 
iPecch | 
“‘ In dhe effays ritten widhin dhe laft 
year, 2 confidderabel chainge ov fpelling 
iz introduced by way ov experriment. 
Dhis libberty waz taken by dhe riters 
before dhe age ov Queen Elizzabeth, and 
io dhis we ar indetted for dhe prefference 
av moddern fpelling over dhat ov Gower ~ 
and Chaucer. Dhe man hoo admits dhat 
dhe chainge ov honfebonde, mynde, 
ygone, moneth, inte hhufband, mind; 
: gone; 
