430 
ters, to excite in another the idea of 
exaétly the fame found, that he had who 
wrote it. ‘Thus Mr. Elphinfton may 
write foarce, but fome, in pronunciation, 
make two fyllables of it, fo-arce, ana if 
they do not, it is plain, that they do not 
get the idea of the ufual way of pronounc- 
ing the word, from Mr. E!phinfton’s im- 
-proved arrangement, but from remem- 
bering that is ufually fo pronounced: 
‘for the founds we give to letters being 
entirely arbitrary, there is no reafon, 
@ priori, why the leters force fhould 
not reprefent the found ufually given to 
that word, as wellasfoarce. But as 
different men pronounce the fame word, 
confiftiag of the fame letters, differently, 
3t follows, that with different men the 
fame letter ftands for a different found ; 
and, therefore, what one man would think 
an exaét mark or fign for the found he 
means to exprefs, would, perhaps, in an- 
other excite the idea of quite a different 
found. Again, as the lIctters are derived 
from, and are the types of founds, and 
not founds, of letters, mt is of no ufe to fet 
about making combinations of letters 
adapted to the founds of various words, 
‘till we are agreed upon the founds we 
‘give to thofe words. Thus, then, if we 
are Rot agreed Upcn our pronunciation, 
we Caigpot alter our mode of fpelling ; if 
we sewereed, there is no occafion for it 
There are alfo fome founds which cannot 
be exprefled by amy letters we have al- 
ready, as of 1h in them, the, &c. for I 
‘think it is not to be granted that d/ will 
anfwer the purpofe. As to the 
stew figns or letters, I am of opinion, that 
nothing could be of raore pernicious con- 
fequence. But I will repeat what I be- 
gan with, that it would deitroy all etymo- 
logy, whtch is caufe enough in all con- 
- {cence for dropping the defign. So far 
alfo would this reformation be from ren- 
dering the language more eafily attainable 
by foreigners, that the obliterating of the 
etymology of words would make it more 
& ficult. In all probabiliry, the Greeks 
did not pronounce their wards as they 
fpelled them. Let us fuppofe, then, that 
they had once taken a refolution to write 
their words according to their pronuncia- 
tion ; who fees not the bad confequences 
that would have followed? The elegance 
of their compounds, and the perfpicuity of 
their derivations, which fo much facilitate 
she acquirement of that tongue, would 
have been utterly defaced and obfcured. 
Laftly, how do we know but that the 
next generation may pronounce the Eng- 
x 
On Spelling according to Pronunciation. 
show he wrote. 
inventing. 
[Dee. 
lifh language very differently from the 
prefent, as perhaps the pronunciation of 
the prefent day has varied much from. 
that ufed in the times of Gower and 
Chaucer? Thus our language would be 
continually unfettled, and an author moft 
not expeét to be underftood a hundred 
years after his death. So much for the 
practicability of this fcheme 5 bat I would 
fain know what neceffity there is for 
altering our fpelling? Do we not fufii- 
ciently underftand one another for all the - 
purpofes of common life? Would you 
fpoil the language, in the delufive hope of 
reducing every body to prenounce alike ? 
Should the propofed reform take place, 
‘the former effeét muft inevitably follow ; 
whether the latter would, may be doubt- 
ed. Upon the whole, then, i would ad- 
vife thofe who wifh to improve the Eng- 
lith language, to turn their {peculations 
towards reforming its grammar (for in 
this department there are many crying 
abufes) and to fuffer its orthography te 
remain as itis. If any alteration dhould 
take place in the latter refpeét, it thould 
be with a view. to render the etymology 
of words more plain, and not in the de- 
fign of improving their pronunciation : 
for the former of thefe remains, but the lat- 
ter paffes away. When we read an author, 
we confider not how he pronounced, but 
_ Let us not, therefore, for 
the fake of rendering table-talk more ele- 
gant, caufe the works of our learned men 
to be tranfmitted to pofterity defaced and 
barbarifed. lam, yours, &c. | 
Dec. 14. - . WEG. ¥,. 
ee ee 
To the Editor of ibe Monthly Magazine. 
STR, 
OME of your correfpondents ftrenuoufly 
affert, that the population of Great 
Britain is every day increafing, while 
others as firmly maintain, that it is rapid- 
ly declining. It is fincerely te be wifhed, 
that a faét of fuch national importance 
fhould be clearly afcertained, and that 
thofe who have accefs to proper documents 
fhould beftow the neceflary labour in 
evincing the true fate of our population. 
T mutt confefs, that I am of opinion, it is 
at prefent decreafing, and that it has been 
fo for feveral years. Among many con- 
curring caufes of this decreafe, I efteem 
the prevailing fyftem of monopeclizing 
large farms, not the leaft efficient. The 
people, deprived of the means of fubitt- 
ence in the country, are reduced to the 
neceflity of flocking in great numbers to 
the manufaéturing towns, which of con- 
fequences 
