“With the fonetik sistem ov speli[n], the Primer iz masterd within tree mn[t]s at most. The children then proseed tu praktis this fonetik readi[n] for sm teim, til they kan read with fluensi from the jeneral luk ov the wrd, and not from konsideri[n] the pouerz ov its leterz. [T]ree mn[t]s more, at most, ar rekweird for this staje.
“Hwen this pouer ov fluent readi[n] in fonetik print iz akweird, buks in the ordinari print, suited tu their kapasitiz, ar tu be put intu the children'z handz and they ar told tu read them. Each wrd hwich they fail tu ges iz told them immedietli; but it iz found that children ar mostli abel tu read the ordinari print without eni frther instrkshon. The teim nesesari for kompleti[n] this step may be taken, at the lo[n]gest, az two mn[t]s, so that the hole teim ov lerni[n] tu read in the ordinari print, on the Readi[n] Reform sistem, may be rekond az feiv ourz a week for eight mn[t]s. The hole task haz, in meni kasez, been akomplisht in les teim, even in [t]ree mn[t]s. On the ther hand, in wn skool hwere it iz uzed, eleven [pg 156] mnts ar okupeid, az the master feindz it advantajs in ther respekts tu keep the piupil lo[n]ger at fonetik readi[n] Bt onli wn our a day iz rekweired.” Mr. Ellis smz p az folowz:
“Kareful eksperiments in teachi[n] children ov varis ajez and ra[n]ks, and even pauperz and kriminal adlts, hav establisht—
“1. That piupilz may be taught tu read buks in fonetik print, slowli bt shureli, in from ten tu forti ourz, and will atain konsiderabel fluensi after a fiu weeks' praktis.
“2. That hwen the piupilz hav ataind fluensi in readi[n] from fonetik print, a veri fiu ourz wil sfeis tu giv them the same fluensi in readi[n] ordinari print.
“3. That the hole teim nesesari for imparti[n] a nolej ov bo[t] fonetik and ordinari readi[n] dz not ekseed eight mnts for children ov averaj intelijens, between four and feiv yearz ov aje, taught in klas, at skool, not more than haf-an-our tu an our each day; and that in this teim an abiliti tu read iz akweird siuperior tu that u[z]uali ataind in two or [t]ree teimz the period on the old plan; hweil the pronnsiashion ov the piupil iz mch improved, hiz interest in hiz stdiz iz kept aleiv, and a lojikal traini[n] ov endiuri[n] valiu iz given tu hiz meind bei the habitual analisis and sin[t]ensis ov spoken soundz.
“4. That thoze taught tu read in this maner akweir the art ov ordinari speli[n] more redili than thoze instrkted on the old me[t]od.”
Tu all who no Mr. A. J. Ellis, this evidens wil be be sfishent az tu the praktikal usefulnes ov the Fonetik Sistem ov speli[n]. Tu thoze who wish for more evidens ei rekomend a pamflet bei Mr. G. Withers, “The I[n]glish La[n]gwej Speld az Pronounst,” 1874; and wn bei Dr. J. W. Martin, “The Gordian Not Kt,” 1875, hwere they wil feind the konkrent testimoni ov praktikal teacherz in I[n]gland, Skotland, Eirland, and Amerika, all agreei[n] that, bo[t] az a praktikal and a lojikal traini[n], the Fonetik Sistem haz proved the greatest skses.
Ther remainz, therefor, this wn objekshon onli, that hwotever the praktikal, and hwotever the [t]eoretikal advantejez ov the fonetik sistem may be, it wud terli destroi the historikal or etimolojikal karakter ov the I[n]glish la[n]gwej.
Spoze it did; hwot then? The Reformashon iz spozed tu hav destroid the historikal karakter ov the I[n]glish Chrch, and that sentimental grievans iz stil felt bei sm stiudents ov ekleziastikal antikwitiz. Bt did I[n]gland, did all the reali progresiv nashonz ov Europe, alou this sentimental grievans tu outweigh the praktikal and [t]eoretikal advantejez ov Protestant Reform? La[n]gwej iz not made for skolarz and etimolojists; and if the hole rase ov I[n]glish etimolojists wer reali tu be swept away bei the introdkshon ov a Speli[n] Reform, ei hope they wud be the ferst tu rejois in sakrifeizi[n] themselvz in so gud a kauz.