Bt iz it reali the kase that the historikal kontiniúiti ov the I[n]glish la[n]gwej wud bei broken bei the adopshon ov fonetik speli[n], and that the profeshon ov the etimolojist wud be gon for ever? Ei say No, most emfatikali, tu bo[t] propozishonz. If the seiens ov la[n]gwej haz proved eni[t]i[n], it haz proved that all la[n]gwejez chanje akordi[n] tu law, and with konsiderabel uniformiti. If, therefor, the reiti[n] folowd pari passu, on the chanjez in pronnsiashon, hwot iz kalld the etimolojikal konshsnes ov the speakerz and the readerz—ei speak, ov kourse, ov ediukated peopel onli—wud not sfer in the least. If we retain the feeli[n] ov an etimolojikal konekshon between gentlemanly and gentlemanlike, we shud shureli retain it hwether we reit gentlemanly or gentelmanli. If we feel that think and thought, bring and brought, buy and bought, freight and fraught, belo[n] tugether, shud we feel it les if we rote t[w]t, br[w]t, b[w]t, fr[w]t? If, in speaki[n], thoze who no Latin retain the feeli[n] that wrdz endin in -ation korespond tu Latin wrdz in -atio, wud they looz the feeli[n] if they saw the same wrdz speld with [e][sh]on, or even “-e[sh]n?” Do they not rekogneiz Latin -itia, in -ice; or -ilis in -le, az in -able (Latin abilis)? If the skolar noz, at wns, that sch wrdz az barbarous, anxious, circus, genius, ar ov Latin oriji[n], wud he hezitate if the last silabel in all ov them wer uniformli riten “s?” Nay, iz not the prezent speli[n] ov barbarous and anxious enteirli misleadi[n], bei konfoundi[n] wrdz endi[n] in [pg 159] -osus, sch az famous (famosus) with wrdz endi[n] in -us, leik barbarous, anxious, ets.? Bekauz the Italianz reit filosofo, ar they les aware than the I[n]glish, who reit philosopher, and the French, who reit philosophe, that they hav before them the Latin philosophus, the Greek φιλόσοφος? If we reit f in fansi, hwei not in phantom? If in frenzy and frantic, hwei not in phrenology? A la[n]gwej hwich tolerates vial for phial, need not shiver at filosofer. Everi eidiukated speaker nóz that sch wrdz az honour, ardour, colour, odour, labour, vigour, error, emperor, hav past from Latin tu French, and from French tu I[n]glish. Wud he nó it les if all wer speld aleik, sch az onor (onorable), ardor, vigor (vigorous), labor (laborious), or even “onr, ardr, vigr?” The old speli[n] ov emperor, doctor, governor, and error, woz emperour, doctour, governour, and errour. If theze kud be chanjed, hwei not the rest? Spenser haz neibor for neighbor, and it iz difiklt tu say hwot woz gaind bei chanji[n] -bor intu -bour in sch piurli Sakson wrdz az neighbor, harbor. No dout if we see laugh riten with gh at the end, thoze who nó Jerman ar at wns remeinded ov its etimolojikal konekshon with the Jerman lachen; bt we shud soon nó the same bei analoji, if we found not onli “laf,” bt “kof” for cough (Jerman, keuchen), enf for enough (Jerman, genug), ets. In “draft,” fonetik speli[n] haz nearli splanted the so-kalld historikal speli[n] draught; in “dwarf” [pg 160] (dwergh, thweorh) and in “ruff” (rough), altugether.
Hwot peopel kall the etimolojikal konshsnes ov the speaker iz striktli a mater ov oratorikal sentiment onli, and it wud remain nearli az stro[n] az it iz nou, hwotever speli[n] be adopted. Bt even if it shud sfer here and there, we ought tu bear in meind that, eksept for oratorikal prposez, that konshsnes, konfeind az it iz tu a veri fiu ediukated peopel, iz ov veri small importans, nles it haz ferst been korekted bei a strikt etimolojikal disiplin. Without that, it often dejenerates intu hwot iz kalld “popiular etimoloji,” and aktiuali tendz, in sm kasez, tu vishiate the korekt speli[n] ov wrdz.
Ei hav frekwentli dwelt on this before, in order tu show hou, hwot iz nou kalld the etimolojikal or historikal speli[n] ov wrdz iz, in meni kasez, terli netimolojikal and nhistorikal. We spel to delight, and ths indiús meni peopel tu believ that this wrd iz smhou konekted with light [lux], or light [levis]; hwereaz the old speli[n] woz to delyt or to delite (Tyndale), reprezenti[n] the old French deleiter. On the ther hand, we feind for quite and smite, the old speli[n] quight, smight, hwich may be old and historikal, bt iz deseidedli netimolojikal.
Sovereign and foreign ar speld az if they wer konekted with reign, regnum; the true etimoloji ov the former beï[n] superanus, Old French, sovrain, Old I[n]glish, soveraine; hweil foreign iz the late Latin [pg 161] foraneus; Old French forain; Old I[n]glish forein. And hwei du we reit to feign? Archbishop Trench (“I[n]glish Past and Prezent,” p. 238) [t]i[n]ks the g in feign iz elokwent tu the eí; bt its elokwens iz misleadi[n]. Feign iz not taken from Latin fingo, az litel az honour iz taken from Latin honor. Feign kmz from the Old French faindre; it woz in Old I[n]glish faynen and feynen, and it woz therefor a mere etimolojikal feint tu insert the g ov the Latin fingo, and the French feignant. The Old I[n]glish shammfasst (Orm.), formd leik stedefasst (stedfast), iz nou speld shamefaced, az if it had sm[t]i[n] tu do with a blshi[n] fase. Aghast, insted ov Old I[n]glish agast, iz spozed tu luk more freitful bekauz it remeindz s ov ghost. The French lanterne woz riten lant-horn, az if it had been so kalld from the transparent sheets ov horn that enklozed the leit. The s in island owez its orijin tu a mistaken belief that the wrd iz konekted with isle (insula), hwereaz it iz the A[n]glo-Sakson eáland (Jerman eiland), that iz, water-land. The speli[n] iland woz stil krent in Shakspere'z teim. In aisle, too, the s iz netimolojikal, though it iz historikal, az havi[n] been taken over from the Old French aisle.
This tendensi tu olter the speli[n] in order tu impart tu a wrd, at all hazardz, an etimolojikal karakter, beginz even in Latin, hwere postumus, a siuperlativ ov post, woz smteimz riten posthumus, az if, hwen apleid tu a late-born sn, it woz dereivd from humus. [pg 162] In I[n]glish, this fols speli[n] iz retaind in posthumous. Cena woz speld bei peopel who wonted tu show their nolej ov Greek cœna, az if konekted with κοινή, hwich it iz not.
Bt nou let s luk more karefuli intu the far more important statement, that the I[n]glish la[n]gwej, if riten fonetikali, wud reali looz its historikal and etimolojikal karakter. The ferst kwestion iz, in hwot sens kan the prezent speli[n] ov I[n]glish be kalld historikal? We hav onli tu go bak a veri short way in order tu see the modern pstart karakter ov hwot iz kalld historikal speli[n]. We nou reit pleasure, measure, and feather, bt not veri lo[n] ago, in Spenser'z teim, theze wrdz wer speld plesure, mesure, fether. Tyndale rote frute; the i in fruit iz a mere restorashon ov the French speli[n]. For debt, on the kontrari, we feind, bt [t]ree or four hndred yearz ago, dett. This iz more historikal therefor than debt, bekauz in French, from hwich the wrd woz borowd, the b had disapeard, and it woz a piurli etimolojikal fansi tu restore it. The b woz leikweiz re-introdiúst in doubt, bt the p woz not restored in tu kount (French compter, Latin computare), hwere p had at least the same reit az b in doute. Ths receipt reziúmz the Latin p, bt deceit dz without it. Tu deign keeps the g, tu disdain dz without it. Ther iz anther b hwich haz a serten historikal air in sm I[n]glish wrdz, bt hwich woz orijinali piurli fonetik, and iz nou simpli siupérflus. The old wrd [pg 163] for member woz lim. In sch kompoundz az lim-lama, lim(b)-lame; lim-leas, lim(b)-less; it woz imposibel tu avoid the interkalashon ov a b in pronnsiashon. In this maner the b krept in, and we hav nou tu teach that in limb, crumb (crume), thumb (thuma), the b mst be riten, bt not pronoúnst. Agen, tung (Jerman zunge), yung (Jerman jung), az speld bei Spenser, hav a far more historikal aspekt than tongue and young.
If we wisht tu reit historikali, we ought tu reit salm insted ov psalm, for the inishal p, beï[n] lost in pronnsiashon, woz dropt in reiti[n] at a veri erli teim (A[n]glo-Sakson sealm), and woz re-introdiúst simpli tu pleaz sm ekleziastikal etimolojists; also nevew (French neveu) insted ov nephew, hwich iz both netimolojikal and nfonetik.
In hwot sens kan it be kalld historikal speli[n] if the old pluralz ov mouse and louse, hwich wer mys and lys, ar nou speld mice and lice? The plural ov goose iz not speld geece bt geese, yet everibodi nóz hou tu pronoúns it. The same mistaken atempt at an okazhonal fonetik speli[n] haz separated dice from die, and pence from pens, thát iz, penyes; hweil in nurse, hwere the speli[n] nurce wud hav been useful az remeindi[n] s ov its true etimon nourrice, the c haz been replast bei s.
Ther ar, in fakt, meni speli[n]z hwich wud be at the same teim more historikal and more fonetik. Hwei reit little, hwen nown pronoúnsez little, and [pg 164] hwen the old speli[n] woz lytel? Hwei girdle, hwen the old speli[n] woz girdel? The same rule apleiz tu nearli all wrdz endi[n] in le, sch az sickle, ladle, apple, ets., hwere the etimoloji iz kompleteli obskiúrd bei the prezent or[t]ografi. Hwei scent, bt dissent, hwen even Milton stil rote sent? Hwei ache, insted ov the Shaksperian ake? Hwei cat, bt kitten; hwei cow, bt kine? Hwei accede, precede, secede, bt exceed, proceed, succeed? Hwei, indeed, eksept tu waste the preshs teim ov children?
And if it iz difiklt tu say hwot konstitiuts historikal speli[n], it iz ekwali perpleksi[n] tu defein the real meani[n] ov etimolojikal speli[n]. For hwere ar we tu stop? It wud be konsiderd veri netimolojikal wer we tu reit nee insted ov knee, now insted ov know, night insted ov knight; yet nown komplainz about the los ov the inishal h, the reprezentativ ov an orijinal k, in loaf, A. S. hlâf (cf. κλίβανος), in ring (A. S. hring); in lade, ladder, neck, ets.