_Tobacco and Alcohol_
As to tobacco, since reading the article on it in this number, this
Review has really thought more seriously than ever before about (not
_of_) giving up smoking. But many doctors here and in Europe have told
us to keep on, and but one has told us to stop. How is it with you? We
wonder whether life with tobacco _can_ seem to those who know only
life without it, as bad as life without it seems to those who have
known life with it! Perhaps each class should experiment in the
other's field.
As to the outlay for mere pleasure, and the destruction of life
involved, we wonder how those caused by tobacco would compare with
those caused by travel--short trips as well as long, by carriage,
automobile, vessel--and aeroplane? Our contributor has seen these
paragraphs, and he says, very much to our edification and
entertainment:
"It is a relief to know that the tobacco article is not going to
interfere with the pleasure which 'This Review' derives from smoking.
But the writer confesses to a little surprise at the precocity of an
infant which in its first year has acquired the nicotine habit to such
an extent as to lead it to consult several physicians on the subject."
[It is many years since, but we remember that in at least two cases,
the prescription was _volunteered_. Ed.]
"As for the expense caused by driving for pleasure, our statistics do
not give us a conclusive answer, but they at least supply us with an
outside figure, for Uncle Sam in counting his horses at the time of
the last census distinguished between those on farms and those
elsewhere. It is fair to assume that the great bulk of the horses used
for pleasure are in the second class, and that they constitute a
comparatively small fraction of that class. Now horses not on farms
numbered 3,182,789 in 1910, and were valued at $422,204,393. In other
words, a third of what smokers spend for tobacco would enable them to
buy up all of the horses in a big class, only a fraction of which is
used for pleasure, and an equal amount would probably suffice for
their keep.
"In the case of automobiles, it is still more difficult to distinguish
between those used for pleasure and those used for directly productive
or public purposes. However, the object of the article was to call
attention not so much to gross figures of expenditure, as to the
indirect burden imposed by smokers upon the community at large. The
automobilist who is willing to run down innocent wayfarers rather than
curb his craze for speed is in the same class with the smoker who so
smokes as to destroy property and life. Indeed the two are often
identical, and it was no mere accident that led the Massachusetts
Forestry Association to depict upon its poster designed to stop forest
fires, a party of smoking automobilists bowling along and leaving a
trail of fire behind them. If the 'Review' can devise some painless
way of eliminating both the reckless smoker and the reckless joy-rider
from the landscape, it will kill two undesirable birds with one
stone."
* * * * *
And as to alcohol. Well! There's Horace and Schiller and the feast of
Cana, and the whiskey Lincoln wanted for his other generals, and lots
of other people and facts.
But as to bar-maids, we are bound to say that since the graceful
tribute to them on earlier pages was in type, there has been placed in
our hands evidence of a crusade against their employment in England,
and of its abolition by law in South Australia. See the Memoir of
Margaret Ethel Macdonald. London, 1913.
For all we know, the preponderance of argument may be against the
substitution of women for men as barkeepers; but we suspect that at
least it would diminish the shooting at and by barkeepers, in New
York.
And another thing we think we do know--that in these progressive days,
it would be hard to find any pursuit in which women are engaged, where
there is not agitation to improve it off the face of the earth. Their
old-fashioned pursuits of wife and mother have lately been specially
honored by such agitation.
_Answering Big Questions_
A contemporary that we have always very highly "esteemed" (we believe
that is the correct term, but we are new in the profession) is now
proceeding to fill us with awe. It announces that it is going to
circulate privately among its friends, a series of brochures that
"will answer big questions." We wish we could do that; but our
cotemporary has already engaged the only editor we know of who can.
For our poor part, we are apt to encounter in any country grocery some
question too big for us to answer. But the answers our esteemed
cotemporary is going to send out may occasionally help us in telling
how a big question that we don't profess to be able to answer, looks
to us. We have already had some help of this kind from the editor in
question: on many subjects his glowing imagination has thrown such
high lights that we have found places of shadow before unsuspected.
The matter reminds us of Horace Greeley's proposition to issue "for
the people," a series of pamphlets for five cents each, to contain
only "the pure truth." He did not say where he was going to get it.
_Decency and the Stage_
In the present agitation regarding decency on the stage, it is
probably safe to assume that the proponents for license or liberty or
freedom or whatever they call it, admit that there are _some_
necessary acts and places which should not be represented on the
stage. Now would it not clarify discussion if the said proponents were
to draw the line between such inadmissible matters and those that
should be admitted? We have never happened to see such a line drawn.
_What Is the Matter with the American Colleges_
Everybody in every one of them seems to know that something is the
matter, but nobody in any seems to know just what, much less, then, a
remedy for whatever it is.
Some say it is the suppression of the individual, the glorification of
the average. Others say it is college yelling and athletics. Yet
others, that it is vocationalizing and the deadly practical. Still
others call it the proletariat of the doctorate, the fad of the
faculties for immature or imitation research.
Can it be that it is all these things and several more, particularly
all those that exist in contrasted pairs, such as discipline and
required work according to the standard of the mean, and at the same
time, elective studies and the freedom of the city? Or simultaneous
college yells and doctor's dissertations. And can it be that all these
grow out of a single actual condition which is common to all American
higher education, and which compels it to be "lower" at the same time
that it is "higher"? For in the present organization of practically
every American college and university that condition actually does
exist.
It exists by virtue of the fact of the housing in the same dormitories
and fraternity houses, and mixing in the same class rooms and
laboratories, and providing with the same teachers and deans, and
ruling by the same regulations and gum-shoe committees, of dependent
preparatory students and independent advanced students.
Our high schools stop short of finishing the preparation of students
for University work. Our universities assume part of the high school
function along with their own. The German _Gymnasium_ and French
_lycée_ include the equivalents of the American college Freshmen and
part of the Sophomores. They finish up the drill and discipline stage
of education. The Continental university begins and carries on the
stage of intelligent and self-chosen and independent work. But in the
American universities there must be discipline, college yells, drill
in routine and elementary work, classes handled on the basis of
averages, and teachers of the _Gymnasium_ and _lycée_ type, existing
side by side with recognition and encouragement of the individual
freedom of bent, disregard of credit hours and assigned tasks, and
scholarly professors and investigators of real university type.
The outcome is that the drill teachers are made pseudo-investigators;
the investigators made unwilling drill teachers. The students are
invited to soar, and at the same time ordered to march in ranks.
Preparatory school rules are made for the sake of the Freshmen, which
the Seniors have to obey. Freedom of choice in study is offered
because of the Seniors and graduates, to the utter demoralization of
the Freshmen.
Because of this impossible juxtaposition of discipline and freedom,
drill and inspiration, the American university feels sick. It knows
very well that something is the matter with it. It has to be all
things to all students, and is, in fact, too little of a real thing to
any of them.
_Wanted: Proportionate News_
The most noteworthy difference between European and American
Journalism, as regards news, is the prominence we give to what is
technically called the news of the day. Let a great liner be sunk or
saved and all the newspapers, even the most conservative, print page
on page of repetitious story or comment, playing on the emotions from
every point of view. No European paper would feature even the most
affecting news on any such scale. Doubtless our American practice is a
natural enough tribute from the editors to the mobility of our
sympathies, not to say the flightiness of our minds. What the
enthralled reader does not realize is that to provide him with the
completely modulated thrill of the day scores of important items of
routine news have been curtailed to meaningless epitome or wholly
suppressed. For several days that duty of daily chronicle which a good
newspaper ordinarily performs is intermitted. The most important
debates of a congressional year will receive bare notice so long as a
heroic Marconi operator is in the public eye. The greatest of foreign
statesmen or authors might die in the glorious interim and receive the
barest notice; a revolution in Persia would yield to a factory fire on
the East Side.
Now something of this disproportion is necessary. No paper could live
in America which scrupulously treated news according to its abstract
importance regardless of the reader's cravings. Yet a journal that
respects itself has a function of daily chronicle that should under no
circumstances be suspended. A really good newspaper ought to be
valuable material for the historian, and our best newspaper will
several times in every twelvemonth leave him badly in the lurch. For a
week he will find admirable reports of say the discussion of a very
important measure like the currency bill, and then suddenly the
_Volturno und kein Ende_. Just about the time when mail letters were
beginning to tell a certain amount of truth about the Messina
earthquake, the telegraphic reports of which were egregious inventions
of distant improvisers, _The Republic_ was saved through the
intrepidity of Jack Binns. A correspondent who had been on the ground
at Messina and remained in close touch with the rescuers and refugees
received the sufficient answer with regard to additional earthquake
facts "Jack Binns has killed Messina." Here is obviously both a good
and a bad reason. There was every reason for celebrating at length the
pluck and loyalty of Jack Binns, and no reason for curtailing the
record of one of the greatest disasters registered in history.
The first duty of a good newspaper is to the more important routine
news. It is a duty that every American journal neglects at times quite
scandalously. The old fashion of relegating striking news of the day
to an extra had much to commend it. Abuse of the extra by the yellow
press has pretty well killed the practice among the conservative
papers. Possibly a discreet revival of the legitimate extra might help
matters. But what is really needed is a juster sense of proportion and
a clearer conception of duty among editors. With a little insight and
much courage a managing editor might make himself the controller of
the "news of the day," rather than its mere conduit. In the long run
his paper would more than gain in steady prestige what it lost in
occasional flurries of sensational success.
_Simplified Spelling_
Rather than bother our readers and distract their attention from what
we have to say, we print in the orthographic forms we are all
accustomed to. But we realize that many of these forms are
inconsistent and irrational--more so in English than in any other
civilized language--and that the difficulty of learning them wastes
the time and tissue of our children, and obstructs among foreigners
the spread of English to its natural position of a world language,
with the blessings that its attaining that position would bring in
peace and commerce.
Our orthography is, of course, an evolution. It began with picture
symbols, and some of these were gradually changed into the letters of
our alphabet. But the signs have always been later than the sounds,
and we never had enough of the former to express the niceties of the
latter. Therefore imperfections and inconsistencies in any new system
proposed should not be fatal against it, if it is enough of an advance
on the existing system, and a better advance than any other proposed.
The orthography of the future will undoubtedly be eclectic from many
proposals, and probably, like the present orthography, from many
involuntary and unreasoned practices.
The English Simplified Spelling Society, which contains the leading
British authorities, has gone on the principle that it is not worth
while to recommend any changes short of a comprehensive scheme for the
whole language, and has recommended an approximate one. Nothing more
than approximation is possible.
The American Simplified Spelling Board, sustained by Mr. Carnegie,
which corresponds in authority with the English society, has not
attempted a comprehensive system, but for the worst extravagances and
inconsistencies has simply recommended a number of remedies,
especially such forms as _tho_, _thru_, and the following changes in
final syllables--saving all silent _e's_, including the one in _ed_;
the _me_ in _gramme_, and programme; the _ue_ in final _gue_; the _te_
in final _ette_; also the substitution of _t_ for _d_ final, when so
pronounced.
As is well known, several of the remedial forms are already in
considerable use, especially in advertising and other writing where no
appreciable demands are made on the understanding or emotions.
* * * * *
From here until we giv notis on a later page, we wil uze som of those
forms and a few more--all of which may be not too radical for present
use in informal riting, as abuv mentioned, and may be regarded as
transitional toward an ideal system. It woud undoutedly be easier to
teach children a comprehensiv and consistent sistem than the existing
caos minus varius uncorrected partial remedies, as illustrated in the
present riting. The authoritys ar agreed that children woud lern a
consistent sistem years qicker than the present lac of sistem, and
having lernd the consistent sistem, woud pic up the forms they find in
newspapers and existing bouks without conscius effort. Then of course
a generation familiar with a goud sistem woud soon be suppleid with
literature in it. But a rising generation cannot be taut such a sistem
before the elders ar convinst of its utility.
We wish to promote such a conviction as far as we can, but no won
without experience can begin to realize the difficultys, in fact the
impossibility, of presenting new forms with absolute consistency.
Words really sound differently in som connections than in others; and
habit asserts itself in spite of reson. In half a dozen revisions of
these paragrafs, inconsistencys hav bin found every time, and som
undoutedly remain. But such inconsistencys ar not permanently inherent
in the reform, and shoud not prejudis it. Habits of pronunciation
disagree, and even if they did not, perfect discrimination coud not be
attaind even with an alfabet twice as large as our present one; and if
absolute discrimination wer attaind, it woud sune be nullified by an
accent in som new popular song, or from som new popular orator. The
only way to keep spelling abrest of language is for lexicografers to
cut luse from precedent, and closely follo the actual pronunciation
of their own times. William D. Whitney used to say that if they had
always don that, filological sience woud be much farther advanst.
A special cause of inconsistency is the tendency to preserv what is
not very bad, and to make changes as slight as reson wil permit, but
when no slight change wil do the tric, to make the change as goud as
possibl. But see what somtimes coms. The _w_ in _write_ is utterly
useless. Take it off, and we have a fairly good word _rite_. But the
_gh_ in _right_ is also useless--not pronounst, as is the _ch_ in the
cognate German _recht_. If we get rid of it, however, we have _rit_,
which rimes with _fit_. Now take it all in all, the best way to
lengthen that _i_ is to dubl it, just as in silabls closed with a
consonant we alreddy somtimes dubl the vowel--the _e_ in _seen_, the
_o_ in _door_. _This is not necessary in open silabls._ The S. S. S.
proposes we shal dubl the _a_ in _faather_, and the _u_ in _tuun_
(_tune_). Then if we dubl the _i_, we hav a uniform sistem with the
long vowels. This givs us _riit_. But then the processes we hav just
been thru land us with _rite_ and _riit_ for the same sound.
Of course to represent a sound in more than won way brings perplexity
to spellers. Yet several ways are resonabl to let stand until a new
generation can be educated to the best. This is a not unresonabl
concession to habit, and is not nearly so bad as to let a simbol
represent more than one sound, as in the two sounds for _tear_, and
the vowel sounds in _door_ and _poor_.
But we must also take into account what Skeat rightly says--that the
simbol for a sound should not be distributed in two places; and
therefore _rite_ is not so good as _riit_. But the _e_ at the end of a
closed silabl to lengthen the vowel, is so intrencht in the language
that it woud be doutful policy to attack it yet in words fairly fit to
stand, e. g., _fate_, _mate_, _bite_, _mote_, _lute_. So the
transition policy we recommend is to let all fairly goud forms stand,
but where a form is to bad to stand, change it into the best possibl,
as _right_ into _riit_, even at the price of such an inconsistency as
leaving _rite_ from _write_, because _rite_ is more workabl, tho
_riit_ woud be theoretically better. Som such inconsistencys ar
inevitabl, as we cannot start fresh, but must evolv from an existing
inconsistent--very inconsistent--orthografy.
In spelling, as in matters perhaps more important (tho the importance
of rational spelling is vastly grater than generally realized), it is
wel to recognize the ideal, but to try to advocate at any time only
what is workabl at that time.
* * * * *
Now we proceed tu a much clooser approximashon tu an ideal for owr
children, so far az it appeerz practicabl with the prezzent alfabet.
It wil at first seem a very funny ideal. All such approximashonz wil
differ, and wil hav tu fiit it owt, and this wun wil seem at first tu
be caos and oold niit, but allmoost enny wun ov them, tu a miind
withowt an alien training--tu a chiild's miind, woud be moor orderly
and luminus than owr prezzent sistem, or rathther lac ov sistem.
The rezonz for the niu formz which ar not obvius wil be explaind
alfabetically after the text.
Moost ov the formz we giv ar recommended by the S. S. B. and the S. S.
S. But thair ar itemz on which theze bodyz ar not yet agreed, even
among themselvz; yet thair laborz hav reecht the point whair
individualz shoud taak hoold and subject the formz thay beleev in tu
the strugl for existens and the survival ov the fittest.
The grait difficultyz ar in indicating the vowelz with owr prezzent
alfabet, which givz, for instans, oonly the wun simbol _a_ for at
leest ait sowndz, and probably moor not generaly discriminated, and
the wun simbol _e_ for at leest fiiv, _i_ for three, _o_ for foor, and
dubld for foor moor, and _u_ for fiiv.
The short vowelz ar dispoozd ov with comparativ eez: for in a silabl
cloozd with a consonant, the vowel iz uzualy short, e. g., _bad_,
_bed_, _did_, _cod_, _cub_, but unfortunaitly not all short vowelz hav
thair silablz cloozd. In Saxon dissilablz, owr ancestorz generaly did
clooz the first silabl when it woz short, by repeeting the vowel
beginning the folloing silabl, e. g., _gabble_, _filling_, _fizzle_.
But the practis ov cloozing in this way woz generaly _restricted tu
dissilabls_, az the pronunsiashon ov polisilabls iz apt tu indicait
itself, and economy iz wurth considering. In wurdz directly from the
Latin, az thair iz les differens ov axent between the silabls, the
clozing ov the first silabl az abuv descriibd, iz not yuzual. It woud
probably be wel tu introduus it, however. If, for instans, the first
silabl wer cloozd in _viggor_, we shoud not hav such contradicshonz az
_vigor_ and _vizor_ siid by siid.
Az tu the long sowndz, the oonly way tu reprezent them, _whair thay ar
not determind by pozishon at the end ov an oopen silabl_, iz (az
allreddy illustrated) by combining the letrz with different letrz, az
we now combiin in _gain_, _real_, _mine_, _soar_, _rule_: evidently
_gan_, _rel_, _min_, _sor_, _rul_, woud not anser the purpus. We hav
tu maik theez combinashonz becawz the genius ov owr rais duz not seem
tu favor adding letrz tu owr alfabet, inazmuch az we hav allreddy
dropt tu valuabl wunz reprezenting respectivly _th_ and _dh_.
It certanly woud be best, az allreddy propoozd, tu dubl eech vowel for
its long sownd, az we allreddy du in _deem_ and _door_. But we hav no
exampl ov dubl _a_, _i_, or _u_ (except in tu or three forren wurdz
liik _bazaar_, and ov coors, owr utterly exentric _w_), but the S. S.
S. recommendz _uu_ insted ov the _oo_ in _coon_, and dubl _a_ in
_faather_, which we accept. We do not need to dubl the _a_ befoor _r_
final in monosilabls becawz it haz the _ah_ sownd befoor _r_ exept
when the _a_ follooz a _w_ sownd, iither in _w_ itself or in _cw_
exprest az _q_, e. g. in _war_ (_wawr_) or _quart_ (_qawrt_). The
foorgoing givz dubl vowelz for all but _i_, and we propooz them thair.
This iz a compleet sistem baasd on a principl.
Now for sum explanashonz.
abuv = above. The e final propperly maiks the _o_ long, and iz
entirely owt ov plais heer and in _love_, _shove_, _etc._ The
sownd ov the _o_ iz propperly a _u_ sownd, az in _but_, and iz
wun ov several cases whair we absurdly yuuz _o_ tu express _u_
sowndz.
allreddy = already. The silabl _al_ propperly riims with _gal_,
_Hal_, _pal_, _Sal_--rather a riotus set ov silabls, but thay ar
whot running down the alfabet givz. And the silabl _read_
propperly riims with _bead_, and shoud be spelt here _red_, but
_redy_ shoud riim with _needy_, so we proviid an addishonal
consonant, in the mood ov owr ancestorz, az allreddy explaind.
This iz at the sacrifis ov economy, but the reformd sistemz hav
uthther economyz, espeshally in the terminal _ed_, tu compensait.
See allso _prezzent_ and _confiuzd_.
allso = also. See _allreddy_.
allwaiz = always. The S. S. S. recommendz _ai_ for the long _a_
sownd az in _pair_. See _allreddy_.
bin = been, which propperly riimz with _seen_.
confiuuzd = confused. Withowt the _i_, propperly pronownst
_confoozd_. Moorover we wawnt tu get rid ov the apparent silabl
at the end ov such wurdz, not oonly tu economiiz the yuusles _e_,
but allso becawz forrenerz tend to pronowns the _ed_ az a silabl.
coors = course and coarse. _oo_ az in _door_ iz the best simbol
for long _o_, az _ee_ iz the best simbol for long _e_. The _ou_
simbol we reserv for such wurdz az _coud_, _shoud_, _woud_. The
temptashon tu maik coors riim with Boors, iz ov the devvil: for
Boors iz abominably spelt. It shoud be Buurz; and furze shoud be
spelt withowt the _e_. Thair iz no serius objecshon tu making
_coors_ serv for both _course_ and _coarse_: thair ar allreddy
menny cases whaar wun wurd meenz several thingz.
determind = determined. _Mined_ can propperly be pronownst oonly
with a long _i_, and the silabl or wurd _mind_, with a short _i_.
Allso see _confiuuzd_.
devvil = devil, which with dubl propriety riimz with _evil_.
duz = does, which propperly riimz with _goes_.
grait = great, which propperly riimz with _beat_.
havving = having, which propperly riimz with _saving_.
impruuvd = improved. Tu reprezent a _u_ sownd with _o_ iz absurd.
Allso see _confiuuzd_.
litl = little. Thair iz so litl vowel sownd in the last silabl ov
this and menny uthther wurdz as tu be hardly wurth expressing,
and thair ar menny difficultyz in duing it.
maid = made. Thair iz no objecshun to this from owr allreddy
havving a wurd _maid_. See _allwaiz_, also _coors_.
menny = many, which propperly and suggestivly riimz with _zany_.
no = know: the S. S. B. touk off the _w_, but after chainging
_knock_ into _noc_, bawkt at this _k_. We ar a litl moor
venchursum. _The o iz long by pozishon at the end ov an oopen
silabl._
nu = knew. See _no_.
oonly = only, which woud propperly riim with _sonly_ if thair wer
such a wurd for filial. The S. S. S. recommendz _oe_ for the long
_o_ sownd, but _oo_ iz betr, and we rigl it in az an inishal
after the manner of _eels_.
owr = our, which propperly riimz with iither _pour_ or _tour_.
The vowel sownd in _our_ iz that in _owl_.
practis = practice. In _practiced_ we pronowns the _ed_ az _t_,
and thairfor shoud spel it so. But if we maid it _practict_, the
_c_ woud be hard. Chainging the _c_ to _s_ in the parent wurd
givs us _practist_, which iz wel simboliizd.
prezzent = present, which propperly riimz with _decent_.
pronowns = pronounce. See _practis_.
pronownst = pronounced. See _practis_.
propper = proper, which propperly riimz with _toper_. See
_allreddy_, allso _litl_.
purpus = purpose. _Pose_ propperly riimz with _nose_.
reecht = reached. See _practis_.
riit = right. The _gh_ wurdz hav that simbol cognait with the
German guttural _ch_ az in _recht_, tho we du not pronowns it.
But _rit_ woud riim with _bit_.
scollar = scholar. Booth Societyz omit the _h_ in _ch_ hard. But
that woud leev _scolar_, riiming with _molar_. See _allreddy_,
allso _litl_.
scuul = school. Dubl _o_ iz abiuuzd in being maid tu reprezent a
_u_ sownd. See _oonly_.
silabl = syllable. We du not keep the dubl l, becawz this iz a
polisilabl: see p. 221 neer bottom. In spelling, children and
forrenerz, and not thay aloon, ar puzzld between _i_ and _y_. The
S. S. B. haz wiizly reservd _y_ for terminals, and we beleev in
it for inishals allso whair thay ar combiind with uthther vowelz.
See yuse and yuzed. Also see _litl_.
simbol = symbol. See _silabl_.
simboliizd = symbolized. See _silabl_. Moorover, if we wer tu
drop the _e_ from _simbolized_ tu prevent forrenerz pronownsing
the apparent last silabl, thay woud be in dainger of maiking the
ending riim with whot we hav spelt az _fizzed_ and woud now spel
az _fizd_. For this rezon we need the _iizd_ simbols. See
_simplifiid_.
simplifiid = simplified. The _ie_ freequently in English and
allwaiz in German haz the long _e_ sownd, and in English iz
alwaiz confiuuzd with the long _e_ sownd in _receiv_, etc.
Rezerving _ii_ for the long _i_ duz away with that confiuzhon. Tu
du away with the confiuzhon between such wurdz az _believe_ and
_receive_, the S. S. B. allreddy reservz _ie_, and the S. S. S.,
_ee_, which we follo.
sownd = sound. See _coors_ and _owr_.
thair = their, see _allwaiz_.
thay = they. Not _thai_ becawz _y_ iz betr than _i_ booth az
inishal and terminal.
tu = too, to and two. The absurdity of reprezenting a _u_ sownd
by _o_ is obvius. _We don't need tu dubl the u, becauz the silabl
iz oopen._
uthther = other. This iz a stumper. The inishal sownd iz the _u_
in _but_. The _th_ propperly reprezents a singl consonant sownd.
Owr Saxon ancestorz had a singl letr for it which we did badly in
throing away. That letr the Anglo-Saxons freqently yuuzd tu clooz
a silabl (see p. 221) az in siððan, _since_, and after thay began
tu yuuz _th_ insted ov the ð, thay freqently yuuzd _th_ for the
saam purpus, until its cumbrusnes thru it owt. We stil yuuz the ð
in filological publicashonz, tho often allso the Greek [Greek:
th]. If we must yuuz _th_, for consistency's saak it shoud be
repeeted in _uthther_, _bruthther_, _muthther_, etc.
Fortunaitly thair ar oonly a scoor ov such wurdz. We riit of
thair spelling partly az a curiosity that may be interesting, and
partly tu sho the dezirability ov getting bac owr oold letrz.
Macaulay's scuulboy nu, if owrz duzn't, that the Greeks wer ahed
ov us over tu thowzand yeerz ago, in havving not oonly a singl
simbol for _th_, but a long _e_ and a short _e_, and a long _o_
and a short _o_.
whot = what, which propperly riimz with _bat_.
woz or wuz = was, which propperly riimz with _gas_.
wun = one, which propperly riimz with _tone_.
wurd = word, which propperly riimz with _cord_. Its vowel is
pronownst with a _u_ sownd, which it iz absurd tu reprezent by
_o_.
wurs = worse, which propperly riimz with _horse_. We woud hardly
pronowns _horse_ az we pronowns _hearse_, tho the latter iz allso
abominabl: for _ea_ propperly reprezents the sownd in _dear_. The
riit way tu spel _hearse_ iz _hurs_, and the riit way tu spel
_her's_ iz _hur'z_.
wuz or woz = was, which propperly riimz with _gas_.
yuus or yuuz = use. See _confiuuzd_. _Use_ iz pronownst both
_uze_ and _use_. _Uze_ iz a betr way to spel the wurd which we
rongly spel _ooze_. Tu yuuz an _o_ for a _u_ sownd iz bad enuf,
and tu yuuz tu ov them iz wurs--dubly fit for _fools_.
We may venture upon another (annuthther?) spelling lesson in the next
number, especially if owr reederz giv enny siin ov wawnting it; and it
may anser sum qeschonz raazd in this lesson. And we may even go so far
az tu prezent a fiu miild innovashonz in owr text, az haz bin
heroically don by the _Educational Review_, _The Independent_ and sum
uthther periodicalz ov standing.
We woud liik to hieer from owr reedrz on the subject.
* * * * *
Press of T. MOREY & SON, Greenfield, Mass.