etymology, I would remark, that the etymology of most words is already
lost, even to the learned; and to the unlearned, etymology is never
known. Where is the man that can trace back our English words to the
elementary radicals? In a few instances, the student has been able to
reach the primitive roots of words; but I presume the radicals of one
tenth of the words in our language, have never yet been discovered,
even by Junius, Skinner, or any other etymologist. Any man may look
into Johnson or Ash, and find that _flesh_ is derived from the Saxon
_floce_; _child_ from _cild_; _flood_ from _flod_; _lad_ from _leode_;
and _loaf_ from _laf_ or _hlaf_. But this discovery will answer no
other purpose, than to show, that within a few hundred years, the
spelling of some words has been a little changed: We should still be at
a vast distance from the primitive roots.
In many instances indeed etymology will assist the learned in
understanding the composition and true sense of a word; and it throws
much light upon the progress of language. But the true sense of a
complex term is not always, nor generally, to be learnt from the sense
of the primitives or elementary words. The current meaning of a word
depends on its use in a nation. This true sense is to be obtained by
attending to good authors, to dictionaries and to practice, rather than
to derivation. The former _must_ be _right_; the latter _may_ lead us
into _error_.
But to prove of how little consequence a knowlege of etymology is to
most people, let me mention a few words. The word _sincere_ is derived
from the Latin, _sine cera_, without wax; and thus it came to denote
_purity of mind_. I am confident that not a man in a thousand ever
suspected this to be the origin of the word; yet all men, that have
any knowlege of our language, use the word in its true sense, and
understand its customary meaning, as well as Junius did, or any other
etymologist.
_Yea_ or _yes_ is derived from the imperative of a verb, _avoir_ to
have, as the word is now spelt. It signifies therefore _have_, or
_possess_, or _take_ what you ask. But does this explication assist
us in using the word? And does not every countryman who labors in
the field, understand and use the word with as much precision as the
profoundest philosophers?
The word _temper_ is derived from an old root, _tem_, which signified
_water_. It was borrowed from the act of _cooling_, or moderating
heat. Hence the meaning of _temperate_, _temperance_, and all the
ramifications of the original stock. But does this help us to the
modern current sense of these words? By no means. It leads us to
understand the formation of languages, and in what manner an idea
of a visible action gives rise to a correspondent abstract idea; or
rather, how a word, from a literal and direct sense, may be applied to
express a variety of figurative and collateral ideas. Yet the customary
sense of the word is known by practice, and as well understood by an
illiterate man of tolerable capacity, as by men of science.
The word _always_ is compounded of _all_ and _ways_; it had originally
no reference to time; and the etymology or composition of the word
would only lead us into error. The true meaning of words is that which
a nation in general annex to them. Etymology therefore is of no use but
to the learned; and for them it will still be preserved, so far as it
is now understood, in dictionaries and other books that treat of this
particular subject.
4. "The distinction between words of different meanings and similar
sound would be destroyed."
"That distinction," to answer in the words of the great Franklin, "is
already destroyed in pronunciation." Does not every man pronounce _all_
and _awl_ precisely alike? And does the sameness of sound ever lead a
hearer into a mistake? Does not the construction render the distinction
easy and intelligible, the moment the words of the sentence are heard?
Is the word _knew_ ever mistaken for _new_, even in the rapidity of
pronouncing an animated oration? Was _peace_ ever mistaken for _piece_;
_pray_ for _prey_; _flour_ for _flower_? Never, I presume, is this
similarity of sound the occasion of mistakes.
If therefore an identity of _sound_, even in rapid speaking, produces
no inconvenience, how much less would an identity of _spelling_, when
the eye would have leisure to survey the construction? But experience,
the criterion of truth, which has removed the objection in the first
case, will also assist us in forming our opinion in the last.
There are many words in our language which, with the _same
orthography_, have _two_ or more _distinct meanings_. The word _wind_,
whether it signifies _to move round_, or _air in motion_, has the
_same spelling_; it exhibits no distinction to the _eye_ of a silent
reader; and yet its meaning is never mistaken. The construction shows
at sight in which sense the word is to be understood. _Hail_ is used
as an expression of joy, or to signify frozen drops of water, falling
from the clouds. _Rear_ is to raise up, or it signifies the hinder
part of an army. _Lot_ signifies fortune or destiny; a plat of ground;
or a certain proportion or share; and yet does this diversity, this
contrariety of meanings ever occasion the least difficulty in the
ordinary language of books? It cannot be maintained. This diversity
is found in all languages;[187] and altho it may be considered as a
defect, and occasion some trouble for foreign learners, yet to natives
it produces no sensible inconvenience.
5. "It is idle to conform the orthography of words to the
pronunciation, because the latter is continually changing."
This is one of Dr. Johnson's objections, and it is very unworthy of his
judgement. So far is this circumstance from being a real objection,
that it is alone a sufficient reason for the change of spelling. On
his principle of _fixing the orthography_, while the _pronunciation
is changing_, any _spoken language_ must, in time, lose all relation
to the _written language_; that is, the sounds of words would have
no affinity with the letters that compose them. In some instances,
this is now the case; and no mortal would suspect from the spelling,
that _neighbour_, _wrought_, are pronounced _nabur_, _rawt_. On this
principle, Dr. Johnson ought to have gone back some centuries, and
given us, in his dictionary, the primitive Saxon orthography, _wol_
for _will_; _ydilnesse_ for _idleness_; _eyen_ for _eyes_; _eche_ for
_each_, &c. Nay, he should have gone as far as possible into antiquity,
and, regardless of the changes of pronunciation, given us the primitive
radical language in its purity. Happily for the language, that doctrine
did not prevail till his time; the spelling of words changed with
the pronunciation; to these changes we are indebted for numberless
improvements; and it is hoped that the progress of them, in conformity
with the national practice of speaking, will not be obstructed by the
erroneous opinion, even of Dr. Johnson. How much more rational is the
opinion of Dr. Franklin, who says, "the orthography of our language
began to be fixed too soon." If the pronunciation must vary, from age
to age, (and some trifling changes of language will always be taking
place) common sense would dictate a correspondent change of spelling.
Admit Johnson's principles; take his pedantic orthography for the
standard; let it be closely adhered to in future; and the slow changes
in the pronunciation of our national tongue, will in time make as
great a difference between our _written_ and _spoken_ language, as
there is between the pronunciation of the present English and German.
The _spelling_ will be no more a guide to the pronunciation, than the
orthography of the German or Greek. This event is actually taking
place, in consequence of the stupid opinion, advanced by Johnson and
other writers, and generally embraced by the nation.
All these objections appear to me of very inconsiderable weight, when
opposed to the great, substantial and permanent advantages to be
derived from a regular national orthography.
Sensible I am how much easier it is to _propose_ improvements, than
to _introduce_ them. Every thing _new_ starts the idea of difficulty;
and yet it is often mere novelty that excites the appearance; for on
a slight examination of the proposal, the difficulty vanishes. When
we firmly _believe_ a scheme to be practicable, the work is _half_
accomplished. We are more frequently deterred by fear from making an
attack, than repulsed in the encounter.
Habit also is opposed to changes; for it renders even our errors dear
to us. Having surmounted all difficulties in childhood, we forget the
labor, the fatigue, and the perplexity we suffered in the attempt, and
imagin the progress of our studies to have been smooth and easy.[188]
What seems intrinsically right, is so merely thro habit.
Indolence is another obstacle to improvements. The most arduous task a
reformer has to execute, is to make people _think_; to rouse them from
that lethargy, which, like the mantle of sleep, covers them in repose
and contentment.
But America is in a situation the most favorable for great
reformations; and the present time is, in a singular degree,
auspicious. The minds of men in this country have been awakened.
New scenes have been, for many years, presenting new occasions for
exertion; unexpected distresses have called forth the powers of
invention; and the application of new expedients has demanded every
possible exercise of wisdom and talents. Attention is roused; the mind
expanded; and the intellectual faculties invigorated. Here men are
prepared to receive improvements, which would be rejected by nations,
whose habits have not been shaken by similar events.
_Now_ is the time, and _this_ the country, in which we may expect
success, in attempting changes favorable to language, science and
government. Delay, in the plan here proposed, may be fatal; under a
tranquil general government, the minds of men may again sink into
indolence; a national acquiescence in error will follow; and posterity
be doomed to struggle with difficulties, which time and accident will
perpetually multiply.
Let us then seize the present moment, and establish a _national
language_, as well as a national government. Let us remember that
there is a certain respect due to the opinions of other nations. As
an independent people, our reputation abroad demands that, in all
things, we should be federal; be _national_; for if we do not respect
_ourselves_, we may be assured that _other nations_ will not respect
us. In short, let it be impressed upon the mind of every American, that
to neglect the means of commanding respect abroad, is treason against
the character and dignity of a brave independent people.
To excite the more attention to this subject, I will here subjoin what
Dr. Franklin has done and written to effect a reform in our mode of
spelling. This sage philosopher has suffered nothing useful to escape
his notice. He very early discovered the difficulties that attend the
learning of our language; and with his usual ingenuity, invented a plan
to obviate them. If any objection can be made to his scheme,[189] it is
the substitution of _new_ characters, for _th_, _sh_, _ng_, &c. whereas
a small stroke, connecting the letters, would answer all the purposes
of new characters; as these combinations would thus become single
letters, with precise definite sounds and suitable names.
A specimen of the Doctor's spelling cannot be here given, as I have not
the proper types;[190] but the arguments in favor of a reformed mode of
spelling shall be given in his own words.
_Copy of a Letter from Miss S----, to Dr._ FRANKLIN, _who had sent her
his Scheme of a Reformed Alphabet. Dated, Kensington (England) Sept.
26, 1768._
DEAR SIR,
I have transcribed your alphabet, &c. which I think might be of
service to those who wish to acquire an accurate pronunciation, if that
could be fixed; but I see many inconveniences, as well as difficulties,
that would attend the bringing your letters and orthography into
common use. All our etymologies would be lost; consequently we could
not ascertain the meaning of many words; the distinction too between
words of _different meaning_ and _similar_ sound would be useless,[191]
unless we living writers publish new editions. In short, I believe we
must let people spell on in their old way, and (as we find it easiest)
do the same ourselves.---- With ease and with sincerity I can, in the
old way, subscribe myself,
Dear Sir,
Your faithful and affectionate Servant,
M. S.
_Dr. Franklin._
_Dr._ FRANKLIN'S _Answer to Miss S----._
DEAR MADAM,
The objection you make to rectifying our alphabet, "that it will be
attended with inconveniences and difficulties," is a very natural one;
for it always occurs when any reformation is proposed, whether in
religion, government, laws, and even down as low as roads and wheel
carriages. The true question then is not, whether there will be no
difficulties or inconveniences; but whether the difficulties may not
be surmounted; and whether the conveniences will not, on the whole,
be greater than the inconveniences. In this case, the difficulties are
only in the beginning of the practice; when they are once overcome,
the advantages are lasting. To either you or me, who spell well in
the present mode, I imagine the difficulty of changing that mode for
the new, is not so great, but that we might perfectly get over it
in a week's writing. As to those who do not spell well, if the two
difficulties are compared, viz. that of teaching them true spelling in
the present mode, and that of teaching them the new alphabet and the
new spelling according to it, I am confident that the latter would be
by far the least. They naturally fall into the new method already, as
much as the imperfection of their alphabet will admit of; their present
_bad_ spelling is only bad, because contrary to the present _bad_
rules; under the new rules it would be _good_.[192] The difficulty of
learning to spell well in the old way is so great, that few attain it;
thousands and thousands writing on to old age, without ever being able
to acquire it. It is besides, a difficulty continually increasing;[193]
as the sound gradually varies more and more from the spelling; and to
foreigners it makes the learning to pronounce our language, as written
in our books, almost impossible.
Now as to the inconveniences you mention: The first is, "that all our
etymologies would be lost; consequently we could not ascertain the
meaning of many words." Etymologies are at present very uncertain; but
such as they are, the old books still preserve them, and etymologists
would there find them. Words in the course of time, change their
meaning, as well as their spelling and pronunciation; and we do not
look to etymologies for their present meanings. If I should call a man
a _knave_ and a _villain_, he would hardly be satisfied with my telling
him, that one of the words originally signified a _lad_ or _servant_,
and the other an under _plowman_, or the inhabitant of a village. It is
from present usage only, the meaning of words is to be determined.
Your second inconvenience is, "the distinction between words of
different meaning and similar sound would be destroyed." That
distinction is already destroyed in pronouncing them; and we rely on
the sense alone of the sentence to ascertain which of the several
words, similar in sound, we intend. If this is sufficient in the
rapidity of discourse, it will be much more so in written sentences,
which may be read leisurely, and attended to more particularly in case
of difficulty, than we can attend to a past sentence, while the speaker
is hurrying us along with new ones.
Your third inconvenience is, "that all the books already written
would be useless." This inconvenience would only come on gradually
in a course of ages. I and you and other now living readers would
hardly forget the use of them. People would long learn to read the
old writing, tho they practised the new. And the inconvenience is not
greater than what has actually happened in a similar case in Italy.
Formerly its inhabitants all spoke and wrote Latin; as the language
changed, the spelling followed it. It is true that at present, a mere
unlearned Italian cannot read the Latin books, tho they are still read
and understood by many. But if the spelling had never been changed, he
would now have found it much more difficult to read and write his own
language;[194] for written words would have had no relation to sounds;
they would only have stood for things; so that if he would express in
writing the idea he has when he sounds the word _Vescovo_, he must use
the letters _Episcopus_.[195]
In short, whatever the difficulties and inconveniences now are, they
will be more easily surmounted now, than hereafter; and some time or
other it must be done, or our writing will become the same with the
Chinese, as to the difficulty of learning and using it. And it would
already have been such, if we had continued the Saxon spelling and
writing used by our forefathers.
I am, my dear friend,
Your's affectionately,
B. FRANKLIN.
_London, Craven Street, Sept. 28, 1768._
[Illustration: The END.]
FOOTNOTES:
[181] _Wont_ is strictly a contraction of _woll not_, as the word was
anciently pronounced.
[182] "_Ta-ke_, _ma-ke_, _o-ne_, _bo-ne_, _sto-ne_, _wil-le_, &c.
dissyllaba olim fuerunt, quæ nunc habenter pro monosyllabis."----Wallis.
[183] The words _number_, _chamber_, and many others in English are
from the French _nombre_, _chambre_, &c. Why was the spelling changed?
or rather why is the spelling of _lustre_, _metre_, _theatre_, _not_
changed? The cases are precisely similar. The Englishman who first
wrote _number_ for _nombre_, had no greater authority to make the
change, than any modern writer has to spell _lustre_, _metre_ in a
similar manner, _luster_, _meter_. The change in the first instance was
a valuable one; it conformed the spelling to the pronunciation, and I
have taken the liberty, in all my writings, to pursue the principle in
_luster_, _meter_, _miser_, _theater_, _sepulcher_, &c.
[184] The first by Sir Thomas Smith, secretary of state to Queen
Elizabeth: Another by Dr. Gill, a celebrated master of St. Paul's
school in London: Another by Mr. Charles Butler, who went so far as
to print his book in his proposed orthography: Several in the time
of Charles the first; and in the present age, Mr. Elphinstone has
published a treatise in a very ridiculous orthography.
[185] I once heard Dr. Franklin remark, "that those people spell best,
who do not know how to spell;" that is, they spell as their ears
dictate, without being guided by rules, and thus fall into a regular
orthography.
[186] In Chaucer's life, prefixed to the edition of his works 1602, I
find _move_ and _prove_ spelt almost correctly, _moove_ and _proove_.
[187] In the Roman language _liber_ had four or five different
meanings; it signified _free_, _the inward bark of a tree_, _a book_,
sometimes _an epistle_, and also _generous_.
[188] Thus most people suppose the present mode of spelling to be
really the _easiest_ and _best_. This opinion is derived from habit;
the new mode of spelling proposed would save three fourths of the labor
now bestowed in learning to write our language. A child would learn
to spell as well in one year, as he can now in four. This is not a
supposition--it is an assertion capable of proof; and yet people, never
knowing, or having forgot the labor of learning, suppose the present
mode to be the easiest. No person, but one who has taught children,
has any idea of the difficulty of learning to spell and pronounce our
language in its present form.
[189] See his Miscellaneous Works, p. 470. Ed. Lond. 1779.
[190] This indefatigable gentleman, amidst all his other employments,
public and private, has compiled a Dictionary on his scheme of a
Reform, and procured types to be cast for printing it. He thinks
himself too old to pursue the plan; but has honored me with the offer
of the manuscript and types, and expressed a strong desire that I
should undertake the task. Whether this project, so deeply interesting
to this country, will ever be effected; or whether it will be defeated
by indolence and prejudice, remains for my countrymen to determine.
[191] This lady overlooked the other side of the question; viz. that
by a reform of the spelling, words now spelt alike and pronounced
differently, would be distinguished by their letters; for the nouns
_abuse_ and _use_ would be distinguished from the verbs, which would be
spelt _abuze_, _yuze_; and so in many instances. See the answer below.
[192] This remark of the Doctor is very just and obvious. A countryman
writes _aker_ or _akur_ for _acre_; yet the countryman is _right_, as
the word _ought_ to be spelt; and we laugh at him only because _we_ are
accustomed to be _wrong_.
[193] This is a fact of vast consequence.
[194] That is, if the language had retained the old _Roman_ spelling,
and been pronounced as the modern _Italian_. This is a fair state of
facts, and a complete answer, to all objections to a reform of spelling.
[195] In the same ridiculous manner, as _we_ write, _rough_, _still_,
_neighbor_, _wrong_, _tongue_, _true_, _rhetoric_, &c. and yet
pronounce the words, _ruf_, _stil_, _nabur_, _rong_, _tung_, _tru_,
_retoric_.
Transcriber's Notes:
Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant
preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.
Simple typographical and spelling errors were corrected. The
double commas occurring three times on p. 311 & 312 appear to be
intentional.
In DISSERTATION V the author was inconsistent in the use of
italics in the minor headings--most of the time the language was
italicized but when there were two or more languages then the
language name was in standard font and the articles, conjunctions
etc. were italicized. The usage was changed so that languages were
always italicized and the other words were unitalicized.
Italics words are denoted by _underscores_.
Bold words are denoted by =equals=.
Gespert font is denoted by +plus signs+.
Greek text has been transliterated and enclosed in ~tildes~.
Hand pointing right is denoted by -->
Symbols for Diacritical Marks Encountered in the Text.
In the table below, the "x" represents a letter with a diacritical
mark.
DIACRITICAL MARK SAMPLE ABOVE BELOW
macron (straight line) ¯ [=x] [x=]
1 dot · [.x] [x.]
acute accent (aigu) ´ ['x] [x']
breve (u-shaped symbol) ∪ [)x] [x)]
tilde ˜ [~x] [x~]
numbers 2 [2x] [x2]