THE SPELLING OF WORDS.
Since, before the invention of printing, there was no standard of
English spelling, our orthography can have no history before that
epoch. The variety of forms in which words appeared was endless;
for not only did different writers spell them differently, but one
writer would often present his readers with several forms of the
same word even in the same page. During the whole of our early
history, then, the language can hardly be said to have had any
fixed laws of spelling.
The orthography of Anglo-Saxon itself seems to have been very
unsettled. Few words appeared invariably in the same form, and
some had as many as three or four different modes of spelling. We
find ‘ác’ and ‘æc’ (oak); ‘lang’ and ‘long’ (long); ‘geaf’ and
‘gef’ (give); ‘seolf,’ ‘self,’ and ‘sylf’ (self); ‘sweaster’ and
‘swuster’ (sister); ‘heauwod’ and ‘heafod’ (head), &c. &c.
The accent also made a difference in both the pronunciation and
meaning of some words. Thus, ‘ís’ meant ice, but ‘is’ (without the
accent) was the 3rd singular present of the verb ‘to be.’ ‘God,’
in Anglo-Saxon, was, in spelling and meaning, our word ‘God;’ but
‘gód’ (pronounced ‘gōād’) was our adjective ‘good,’ &c.
The marked difference in form between the Saxon and the early
English was the substitution of _e_ for the Saxon endings _a_, _e_,
and _u_. Thus, ‘nam_a_,’ ‘end_e_,’ and ‘wud_u_’ appeared in early
English as nam_e_, end_e_, and wood_e_ (probably pronounced as two
syllables). At a still later period there was a tendency to get
rid not only of this _e_, but of the whole system of Anglo-Saxon
inflections; and the nouns, adjectives, and verbs were stripped of
nearly all their endings.
The only two inflections of the noun which survived this decay,
and which may be traced to the present time, were the _es_ of the
possessive (or genitive) singular, and the _as_ of the subjective
(or nominative) plural. The Saxon for ‘of a smith’ was ‘smid_es_,’
and the nominative plural of the same word was ‘smid_as_.’
Wiclif often uses ‘_is_’ as a plural ending, as in ‘hous_is_,’
‘barel_is_,’ &c. Caxton writes ‘thyng_es_,’ and More, tyth_es_,
arrow_es_, &c. Now the usual ending is _s_; as in ‘book_s_,’
tree_s_, &c.
All the inflections of the adjectives also fell off; and instead
of ‘god_ne_’ (acc. sing.), ‘god_es_’ (gen. sing.), ‘god_um_,’
‘god_re_’ (dat. pl.) these endings disappeared, and the word was
reduced in all its cases and genders, and in both numbers, to ‘gód’
(good), as we now have it.
The verb lost its gerund, or rather the latter was confounded with
the participle in _ing_; so that ‘writtane’ (for the purpose of
writing) was used indiscriminately with ‘writende’ (writing); and
many other terminations, though they did not wholly disappear, were
weakened by the substitution of _e_ for _a_, or _en_ for _an_, as
‘bærn_en_’ for ‘bærn_an_.’ Afterwards the participle ending was
changed from _ende_ to _and_, thence to _inge_, and at last to
_ing_, as we now have it. Thus:--‘writende,’ ‘writand,’ ‘writinge,’
‘writing.’
Between the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there was a constant
and increasing tendency to throw off the final _e_. Chaucer,
Wiclif, and other writers of the fourteenth century, have numbers
of words written with that ending, where it is now omitted, as
‘child_e_,’ ‘hert_e_,’ ‘fynd_e_,’ &c. But, in taking away this
final, it became necessary, in some cases, to make another change
in the spelling, in order to prevent a mispronunciation. The
earlier form ‘mete,’ being deprived of its final _e_, would leave
‘_met_.’ Therefore, to preserve the long sound, the _e_ medial was
doubled, and the word stood ‘_meet_.’ The same principle operated
in transforming ‘cloke’ into ‘cloak,’ ‘yere’ into ‘year,’ ‘scole’
into ‘school,’ ‘grete’ into ‘great,’ &c. The _e_ final being taken
away, it was necessary, in order to preserve the pronunciation, to
lengthen the internal vowel.
The art of printing exercised a very powerful influence over
English orthography. The first printers assumed at once an absolute
power, not only in the matter of spelling and punctuation, but even
in cases of expression and grammatical forms. The result was far
from favourable to uniformity; for, as every printer had his own
views on the subject, each consequently differed from the others,
and this entailed endless confusion. The author’s punctuation and
spelling were then always sacrificed to the printer’s convenience.
If the writer used any words of doubtful or unsettled orthography,
of which there was then a very large number, the printer assumed
it as his right to add to, or take from them as many letters as he
thought proper, to suit the length of the line. Many blunders also
arose from the ignorance of the copyists. The various manuscripts
of one poem sometimes differ so widely from each other, that modern
scholars have supposed these varieties to have been the result
of the author’s own revision. But the more probable cause of
these differences is that the manuscript was copied by a number
of different hands, and that consequently each differed from the
other according to the views of such matters which each copyist had
adopted.
We may safely conclude that in orthography, as in other matters,
changes will take place. The phonographers say that, as the whole
object of writing is to represent on paper the sounds of the human
voice, every word should be spelled exactly as it is pronounced.
But there are grave objections to this view. First, pronunciation
itself is in a state of transition--as the present differs from the
past, so will the future differ from the present--and therefore
the spelling would have to be changed as often as the words were
differently pronounced. Secondly, there are so many, and such
delicate shades of sound in the human voice, that, to carry out
this design properly, it would be necessary to invent innumerable
characters to represent them. The remedy, then, would be worse than
the disease, for the multitude of new and strange characters which
this system would require would be far more puzzling to a learner
than any of the existing difficulties.
On the other hand, the conservative party maintain that the
proposed changes in spelling should not be admitted because they
would obscure, if not destroy, the derivation of words. This
argument has certainly considerable force. In the study of English,
a knowledge of derivation is quite as important as correctness of
spelling. Surely the one should not be wholly sacrificed to the
other. Are we to lose the essence of the word for the mere sake
of its outward appearance? It would certainly be a great gain to
simplify our forms of spelling; but if, in so doing, we destroyed
the etymology of the language, would our gain or our loss be the
greater? The present forms of spelling are, in many cases, a key
to the derivation of the word. How did the _b_ get into ‘dou_b_t’
and ‘de_b_t,’ or the _g_ into ‘fei_g_n’ and ‘impu_g_n?’ These
letters are left in the words expressly to show us their origin.
When first introduced into English, ‘debt’ and ‘doubt’ were both
written and pronounced as in French (‘dette’ and ‘doute’). But when
it afterwards became known that they were originally derived from
the Latin verbs ‘de_b_ēre’ and ‘du_b_itare,’ the _b_ was restored
in the spelling.
Some argue that the influence of derivation on spelling is only
partial, and that other and more powerful causes are operating
changes in the forms of words. It is readily admitted that the
language will, _in time_, yield to this pressure. But we must
not precipitate matters; and there is something to be said on
the other side of the question. The study of English has lately
received a great impulse, and increased attention has been paid
to its nature and origin. It is surely somewhat inconsistent to
recommend this increased energy of study, and, at the same time,
to throw obstacles in the student’s way! It is remarkable how long
it takes to work a change of this sort. The writer can remember
the controversy about the substitution of the final _or_ for _our_
for more than forty years back; and yet in that time very little
progress has been made in the proposed reform. But there are
obviously certain tendencies in the English language towards a new
orthography, and we may point out with tolerable certainty what
changes will be eventually effected.
The law of contraction is in constant operation in the spelling
of words. It is this principle that has caused us to reject the
final _k_ in words of two or more syllables. _K_ final is now
confined chiefly to monosyllables. We retain it in ‘back,’ ‘peck,’
‘stick,’ ‘rock,’ ‘duck,’ &c. Formerly ‘music,’ ‘critic,’ ‘traffic,’
&c. retained the k; now it has disappeared from these words. But
it is evidently very loth to go; for it still holds its place in
‘attac_k_,’ ‘ransac_k_,’ ‘bulloc_k_,’ ‘hilloc_k_,’ &c., as well as
in compound words, as ‘shipwrec_k_,’ ‘weathercoc_k_,’ ‘wedloc_k_,’
&c. It is possible that, at some future time, we shall be writing
‘bac,’ ‘pec,’ ‘stic,’ ‘roc,’ and ‘luc;’ but for the present we
must, in these cases, add the _k_.
The same contracting tendency affects the forms of certain past
tenses of verbs. We write ‘sent’ for ‘sended,’ ‘built’ for
‘builded,’ &c. Some would extend this contraction to all verbs
ending in close consonants, as _p_, _ck_, _f_, or _s_. They would
have us write ‘slapt,’ ‘drest,’ ‘hisst,’ ‘hopt,’ and ‘snufft.’
There is, no doubt, a leaning this way in the language. The verbs
‘creep,’ ‘feel,’ ‘sleep,’ &c. make, in the past tense, ‘crept,’
‘felt,’ ‘slept,’ &c. But it will be some time before such forms as
quafft, peept, pickt, hopt, and supt are generally adopted.
This contracting principle also originated the tendency to omit
the _u_ in the termination _our_. Most of the words which have
this ending come to us from Latin through French, where the ending
is _eur_, as seen in ‘honn_eur_,’ ‘vigu_eur_,’ ‘val_eur_,’ &c.
American writers leave out the _u_ in all these cases. They write
‘endeav_or_,’ ‘neighb_or_,’ behavi_or_, &c. There is, no doubt, a
tendency to omit the _u_ in such words. It may be observed that
most of the words which have lost this _u_ are names of agents,
as ‘act_or_,’ ‘auth_or_,’ ‘creat_or_,’ ‘doct_or_,’ ‘govern_or_,’
‘orat_or_,’ ‘sail_or_,’ ‘tail_or_,’ and ‘warri_or_;’ whereas
comparatively few abstract nouns have rejected it, though it no
longer appears in ‘err_or_,’ ‘horr_or_,’ ‘stup_or_,’ ‘terr_or_,’
and ‘torp_or_.’
Another pair of endings--_ise_ and _ize_--has given rise to a
divided practice in spelling. The leaning here is decidedly towards
_ise_. The words tempor_ise_, advert_ise_, author_ise_, &c. were
all formerly written with a _z_. Strictly speaking, _ize_ should be
used in those verbs of this class which can be traced directly to a
Greek source, as ‘bapt_ize_,’ ‘idol_ize_,’ ‘agon_ize_;’ especially
those used in a scientific sense, as catech_ize_, symbol_ize_,
epitom_ize_, &c. But many such words come to us through a French
medium, as ‘critic_ise_,’ ‘real_ise_,’ ‘civil_ise_.’ These should
be spelled _ise_. In all probability, we shall some day reject
the _z_ altogether. The letter _s_ seems to be taking its place
in these and many other cases, as in ‘arti_s_an,’ ‘parti_s_an,’
&c. The late Dr. Donaldson was of opinion that all the above verbs
should be spelled _ise_.
By the same law of contraction it is proposed to give up the
diphthongs _ae_ and _oe_, found in many English words derived from
Greek and Latin, and to spell them all with a simple _e_. Many
of this class have already adopted the change, for we now write
‘_E_gypt,’ ‘_e_conomy,’ ‘f_e_deral,’ ‘_e_nigma,’ ‘ph_e_nomenon,’
‘p_e_nal,’ &c. But it is reasonable to expect that many of
them will retain the diphthong for some time. Proper names and
scientific terms are likely to keep it longer, whilst in more
familiar words it will, probably, give place to the single vowel.
Accordingly we may predict that the diphthong will remain in
‘_Æ_sop,’ _Œ_dipus,’ ‘_Æ_tna,’ ‘_Œ_ta,’ and ‘C_æ_sar,’ as well as
in ‘arch_æ_ology,’ ‘anap_æ_st,’ ‘_æ_sthetic,’ cyclop_æ_dia,’ and
‘hom_œ_opathy;’ while from such words as ‘_e_conomy,’ ‘pr_e_tor,’
‘prim_e_val,’ ‘_e_qual,’ ‘_e_dile,’ ‘_e_difice,’ &c., if not
already gone, it will soon disappear altogether. There is here an
_e_conomical tendency in favour of the single _e_, and the longer
these words remain in the language, the more likely are they to be
spelled with the single vowel.
In many English words there has been a sort of rivalry between the
letters _y_ and _i_, and the general tendency now is in favour
of _i_. This does not seem to be a question of contraction. It
is supposed to have arisen from a dislike of the printers to
the ugly appearance of _y_ in the middle of a word. Mandeville
writes ‘l_y_til’ (little), ‘w_y_se’ (wise), ‘t_y_mes’ (times); and
Wiclif has ‘with_y_nne’ (within), ‘rece_y_ve’ (receive), ‘wr_y_te’
(write), ‘fa_y_le’ (fail), ‘everlast_y_ne’ (everlasting), &c. In
certain Greek words, however, the _y_ still holds its place, as in
‘h_y_mn,’ ‘t_y_pe,’ ‘h_y_dra,’ ‘t_y_rant,’ ‘l_y_re,’ &c. These will
probably long remain in the spelling.
One innovation proposed by the phonographers was to substitute
a _k_ for the ending _que_. All our words of this class are from
the French, where the ending is invariably _que_. Many of these
have already conformed to the English tendency, and are written
with a _k_ final, as ‘mas_k_,’ ‘cas_k_,’ ‘bris_k_,’ ‘ris_k_,’ &c.
These are monosyllables. But we hesitate to extend this practice to
words of two or three syllables. We are not prepared to adopt such
forms as ‘pictures_k_,’ ‘grotes_k_,’ ‘burles_k_,’ &c. Nor is it
likely that we shall be easily reconciled to ‘opa_ke_,’ ‘anti_ke_,’
‘obli_ke_,’ &c. In some few cases, if only to mark a difference
of meaning, it is expedient to have two forms of spelling; for
instance, between _bark_ (of a tree) and _barque_ (a vessel),
_check_ (a restraint) and _cheque_ (on a banker), _pike_ (a weapon)
and _pique_ (a petty quarrel), _mark_ (a note or sign) and _marque_
(a reprisal) as in ‘letters of marque.’
We ought not to conclude, because changes of spelling have been
adopted in certain words, that similar changes should be applied
to all the words of that class--because, for instance, the old
forms ‘advaunce,’ ‘commaund,’ ‘chaunt,’ and others now appear as
‘advance,’ ‘command,’ ‘chant,’ we should, for this reason, write
‘tant,’ ‘hant,’ ‘dant,’ and ‘lanch’ instead of ‘taunt,’ ‘haunt,’
‘daunt,’ and ‘launch.’ But nature and habit are not to be trifled
with. Both experience and reason combat all sudden changes. If
they are to be, they will come in good time; meanwhile let us watch
and follow.
Again, the reformers of our spelling would have us cut off
the ending _ue_ from such words as ‘catalogue,’ ‘demagogue,’
‘synagogue,’ ‘colleague,’ ‘harangue,’ ‘tongue,’ &c., and spell them
‘catalog,’ ‘demagog,’ &c. It may be most confidently predicted
that, whatever may happen in the course of future ages, this change
will not take place either in this or the next generation.
Another proposed change is to invert the ending _re_, and write
it _er_, as being more in accordance with English pronunciation.
That this is the tendency of the language is not to be denied,
for it is well known that many English words now ending in _er_
were formerly written _re_. Such are the Norman names of the
months--‘Septemb_re_,’ ‘Octob_re_,’ ‘Novemb_re_,’ ‘Decemb_re_,’
&c. Some of this class have not yet adopted the change, and
still appear in their French forms, as ‘accout_re_,’ ‘cent_re_,’
‘fib_re_,’ ‘lust_re_,’ ‘nit_re_,’ ‘och_re_,’ &c. But it is to be
noticed that these are not common words--not words of the homestead
or market-place--and that therefore they are much more likely to
retain their old forms. In some of them, also, it is desirable to
have two modes of spelling. We have ‘met_er_’ in the sense of a
measurer, as in ‘baromet_er_,’ ‘thermomet_er_,’ &c., and ‘met_re_’
in versification. ‘Cent_er_’ appears as a verb, and ‘cent_re_’ as
a noun. That most of this class will, in time, be spelled with the
ending _er_ is highly probable, but the above remark may account
for their not having yet adopted that termination.
It has often been objected to our language that its study, as
regards pronunciation and spelling, is more difficult than that
of any of the continental languages. Foreigners endeavouring to
master these difficulties are often quite overwhelmed by them, and
not unfrequently give up the study in despair. But no language is
without difficulties of this sort. Indeed, the difference between
written and spoken French offers quite as formidable obstacles to
the speller in French as could happen in English. The French words
‘_ver_’ (from ‘vermis,’ a worm), ‘_vert_’ (from ‘viridis,’ green),
and ‘_verre_’ (from ‘vitrum,’ glass) are all pronounced exactly
alike, and it is only by a knowledge of their derivation that one
can account for the difference of their forms. Again, _mère_ (from
mater, a mother), _mer_ (from mare, the sea), and _maire_ (from
major, greater) differ in spelling, though not in sound, because of
their different derivations. If all these words had the same form
of spelling because they have the same pronunciation, no one could
trace them to their source or account for their meaning. We may,
then, conclude that the proper spelling of a word depends mainly on
its etymology, and that the reason why bad spelling is looked upon
with such disfavour is, that it argues ignorance of derivation.
In all probability, if the project of instituting an English
Academy for the regulation of our language were carried out, there
would immediately arise innumerable protests against its decisions.
It is well known that the literary decrees of the French Academy
are not generally accepted or adopted, and that the opinions of
some of the most eminent literati in France are directly against
its conclusions. Besides, the spirit of the English people is
so strongly opposed to dictation, in this as in other matters,
that such an institution would stand no chance of success in this
country.
It is too much the fashion now-a-days to find fault with English
orthography, and it is also too much the fashion to acquiesce in
its general condemnation. But, in truth, it is only those who have
paid no attention to our language, as a scientific study, who
can fail to recognise the causes of these objections. The three
principal elements of English--viz. Saxon, French, and Latin--have,
each, and all, had some influence on the formation of our words;
and this will account for the various forms of our spelling. A
word, when introduced into a language, is at first spelled in
accordance with the genius of the nation from which it comes. By
degrees, and generally by slow degrees, it is moulded into a new
form by the genius and instinct of the language in which it is at
length naturalised; still, however, retaining sufficient of its
original form to indicate its source and etymology. Various causes
contribute to effect this change; a difference in pronunciation;
the influence of some local dialect, political, religious, or
literary disputes, the example of popular writers, &c. &c. may all
assist in working a change in the outward forms of words.
But a study of the subject will prove that this operation must be
the work of time, and that no assumed power can, of itself, work
a sudden change in spelling. This alone is sufficient to account
for the failure of the phonographic system. It may also be laid
down for certain, that any newly-proposed form of spelling which
obscures or destroys the derivation of a word stands but little
chance of success. The general body of writers knew full well
that if they had at once adopted phonetic spelling, it would have
inevitably involved the language in confusion and ruin by the
destruction of its etymology, and would have thus effaced every
vestige of its beauty and variety.