If we ar tu reit etimolojikali, then hwei not retrn tu loverd, or hlaford, insted ov lord? tu nosethrill, or nosethirle insted ov nostril; tu swister insted ov sister; hwich wud not be more trbelsm than sword. Wifmann shureli wud be beter than woman; meadwife beter than midwife; godspel beter than gospel, ortyard beter than orchard, puisne beter than puny. Frekwentli the prezent rekogneizd speli[n] luks etimolojikal, bt iz terli netimolojikal. Righteous luks leik an ajektiv in -eous, [pg 165] sch az plenteous, bt it iz reali a Sakson wrd, rightwis, thát iz rightwise, formd leik otherwise, ets.
Could iz riten with an l in analoji tu would, bt hweil the l iz jstifeid in would from will, and should from shall we feind the Old I[n]glish imperfekt ov can riten cuthe, then couthe, coude. The l, therefor, iz neither fonetik nor etimolojikal. N[t]i[n], agen, kan be more misleadi[n] tu an etimolojist than the prezent speli[n] ov whole and hale. Both km from the same sourse, the Go[t]ik hail-s, Sanskrit kalya-s, meani[n] orijinali, fit, redi; then sound, complete, whole. In A[n]glo-Sakson we hav hæl, hole; and hal, hel[t]i, without eni trase ov a w, either before or after. The Old I[n]glish halsum, holesm, iz the Jerman hailsam. Whole, therefor, iz a mere mis-speli[n] the w havi[n] probabli been aded in analoji tu who, which, ets. From a piurli etimolojikal point ov viu, the w iz ro[n]li left out before h in hou; for az A[n]glo-Sakson hwy bekame why, A[n]glo-Sakson hwa shud hav bekm whow.
If we reali atempted tu reit etimolojikali, we shud hav tu reit bridegroom without the r, bekauz groom iz a mere korpshon ov guma, man, A[n]glo-Sakson bryd-guma. We shud hav tu reit burse insted ov purse, az in disburse. In fakt, it iz difiklt tu say hwere we shud stop. Hwei do we not reit metal insted ov mettle, worthship insted ov worship, chirurgeon insted ov surgeon, furhlong (thát iz, frow [pg 166] lo[n]) insted ov furlong, feordhing (thát iz four[t] part) insted of farthing? If we reit piuni puisne, we meit az wel reit post-natus. We meit spel koi, quietus; pert, apertus; priest, presbyter; master, magister; sekston, sacristan; alms, eleemosyne, ets. If enibodi wil tel me at hwot date etimolojikal speli[n] iz tu begin, hwether at 1,500 A. D. or at 1,000 A. D., or 500 A. D., ei am wili[n] tu disk[ú]s the kwestion. Til then, ei beg leav tu say that etimolojikal speli[n] wud play greater havok in I[n]glish than fonetik speli[n], even if we wer tu draw a lein not more than feiv hndred yearz ago.
The two stro[n]gest argiuments, therefor, agenst fonetik speli[n], nameli, that it wud destroi the historikal and etimolojikal karakter ov the I[n]glish la[n]gwej, ar, after all, bt veri parshali true. Here and there, no dout, the etimoloji and histori ov an I[n]glish wrd meit be obskiúrd bei fonetik speli[n]; az if, for instans, we rote “Y[ue][o]p” insted ov Europe. Bt even then analoji wud help s, and teach thoze who nó Greek, ov whom ther ar not meni, that “Y[ue]r” in sch wrdz az Europe, Eurydice, reprezented the Greek εὐρύς. The real anser, houever, iz, that nown kud onestli kall the prezent sistem ov speli[n] either historikal or etimolojikal; and, ei believ, that, taken az a hole, the los oka[z]ond bei konsistent fonetik speli[n] wud not be greater than the gain.
Anther objekshon rjd agenst fonetik speli[n], nameli, that with it it wud be imposibel tu disti[n]gwish [pg 167] homonimz, mst be met in the same way. No dout it iz a serten advantej if in reiti[n] we kan disti[n]gwish right, rite, write, and wright. Bt if, in the hri ov konversashon, ther iz hardli ever a dout hwich wrd iz ment, shureli ther wud be mch les danjer in the slow proses ov readi[n] a kontinius sentens. If varis speli[n]z ov the same wrd ar nesesari tu point out diferent meani[n]z, we shud rekweir eight speli[n]z for box, tu signifei a chest, a Kristmas gift, a hnti[n] seat, a tree, a slap, tu sail round, seats in a [t]eater, and the frnt seat on a koach; and this prinsipel wud hav tu be apleid tu abv 400 wrdz. Who wud ndertake tu proveid all theze variashonz ov the prezent uniform speli[n] ov theze wrdz? And we mst not forget that, after all, in readi[n] a paje we ar seldom in dout hwether sole meanz a fish, or the sole ov a fut, or iz uzed az an ajektiv. If ther iz at eni teim eni real difiklti, la[n]gwej proveidz its own remedi. It either drops sch wrdz az rite and sole, replasi[n] them bei seremony and only, or it uzez a perifrastik ekspreshon, sch az the sole ov the fut, or the sole and onli ground, ets.
[Five other new letters, representing the long vowels, will now be introduced, namely
[e], , [w], [o], [ue],
for the sounds heard in
they, field, saw, no, do, mate, see, call, core, true, mare, police, ought, coal, poor.]
Ths far ei hav treid tu anser the rali important [pg 168] argiuments hwich hav bn br[w]t forward agenst f[o]netik speli[n]. Ei hav dn s[o] with speshal referens tu the pouerful remonstransez ov Archbishop Trench, and hiz m[o]st [e]bel pldi[n] in f[e]vor ov the establisht sistem ov or[t]ografi. Az a mr skolar, ei fuli sh[e]r hiz fli[n]z, and ei sinsrli admeir hiz elokwent advokasi. Ei difer from him bek[w]z ei d[ue] not tink, az h dz, that the los ent[e]ld bei fonetik speli[n] wud b s[o] gr[e]t az w imajin; or that it wud b [w]l on wn seid. Beseidz, nles h kan sh[o] hou a reform ov speli[n] iz not [o]nli for the prezent tu b avoided, bt [w]ltugether tu b renderd nnesesari, ei konsider that the s[ue]ner it iz t[e]ken in hand the beter. It smz tu m that the Archbishop luks on the introdkshon ov f[o]netik speli[n] az a mr krochet ov a fiu skolarz, or az an atempt on the part ov sm haf-ediuk[e]ted personz, wishi[n] tu avoid the trbel ov lerni[n] hou tu spel korektli. If that wer s[o], ei kweit agr with him that pblik opinion wud never asiúm sfishent fors for karii[n] th[e]r skm. Bt ther iz a m[o]tiv pouer beheind thz fenetik reformerz hwich the Archbishop haz hardli t[e]ken intu akount. Ei mn the mizeri endiúrd bei milionz ov children at ski[ue]l, h[ue] meit lern in wn yr, and with ral advantej tu themselvz, hwot th[e] nou rekweir f[o]r or feiv yrz tu lern, and seldom sksd in lerni[n] after [w]l. If the evidens ov sch men az Mr. Ellis iz tu b depended on, and ei belv h iz wili[n] tu sbmit tu eni test, then sh[ue]rli the los ov sn historikal and etimolojikal souvenirs wud be [pg 169] litel agenst the hapines ov milionz ov children, and the stil heier hapines ov milionz ov I[n]glishmen and I[n]glisewimen, gr[o]i[n] p az the [e]rz tu [w]l the wel[t] and stre[n][t] ov I[n]glish literatiur, or n[e]bel tu rd ven th[e]r Beibel. Hr it iz hwer ei ventiur tu difer from the Archbishop, not az bi[n] sa[n]gwin az tu eni immdiet skses, bt simpli az fli[n] it a diuti tu help in a k[w]z hwich at prezent iz m[o]st npopiular. The vil d[e] m[e] b put of for a lo[n] teim, partikiularli if the w[e]t ov sch men az Archbishop Trench iz [t]ren intu the ther sk[e]l. Bt nles la[n]gwe ssez tu b la[n]gwe, and reiti[n] ssez tu b reiti[n], the d[e] wil sh[ue]rli km hwen ps wil hav tu b m[e]d betwn the t[úe]. Jermani haz apointed a Gvernment Komishon tu konsider hwot iz tu b dn with Jerman speli[n] In Amerika, t[ue], sm ldi[n] st[e]tsmen sm inkleind tu t[e]k p the reform ov speli[n] on nashonal groundz. Iz ther n[o] st[e]tsman in I[n]gland sfishentli pr[ue]f agenst ridikiul tu k[w]l the atenshon ov Parliment tu hwot iz a gr[o]i[n] misfortiun?