_Guttural._
A a _a_m at
[A] [a] _al_ms [a]
E e _e_ll et
[E] [e] _a_le [e]
I i _i_ll it
[I] [i] _ee_l [i]
_Labial._
O o _o_n ot
[W] [w] _a_ll [w]
[U] [u] _u_p [u]t
[O] [o] _o_pe [o]
U u f_u_ll ut
[Ue] [ue] f_oo_d [ue]
DIPHTHONGS: Ei ei, IU iu, OU ou, AI ai, OI oi, as heard in b_y_, ne_w_,
no_w_, K_ai_ser, b_oy_.
[In the next fourteen pages, five of the new letters will be employed,
viz., [a], [u], [t], [z], [n], for the sounds represented by the italic
letters in f_a_ther, _s_on, b_u_t, _th_in, vi_si_on, si_ng_.]
Nou ei ask eni intelijent reader who d[u]z not [t]i[n]k that everi[t]i[n]
niu and stranje iz, _ipso facto_, ridikiul[u]s and abs[u]rd, hwether after
a fiu dayz’ praktis, he or she wud not read and reit I[n]glish, akordi[n]
tu Mr. Pitman’z sistem, with perfekt eaze? Ov kourse it takes more than
feiv minits tu master it, and more than feiv minits tu form an opinion ov
its merits. B[u]t admiti[n] even that peopel ov a serten aje shud feind
this niu alfabet tr[u]bels[u]m, we m[u]st not forget that no reform kan be
karid out without a jenerashon or two ov marterz; and hwot true reformerz
hav tu [t]i[n]k ov iz not themselvz, b[u]t thoze who k[u]m after
them—thoze, in fakt, who ar nou growi[n] [u]p tu inherit hereafter,
hwether they leik it or not, all the gud and all the evil hwich we chooz
tu leav tu them.
It meit be sed, houever, that Mr. Pitman’z sistem, bei[n] enteirli
fonetik, iz too radikal a reform, and that meni and the w[u]rst
irregiularitiz in I[n]glish speli[n] kud be removed without goï[n] kweit
so far. The prinsipel that haf a loaf iz beter than no bred iz not without
s[u]m tru[t], and in meni kasez we nó that a polisi ov kompromeiz haz been
prod[u]ktiv ov veri gud rez[u]lts. B[u]t, on the [u]ther hand, this
haf-harted polisi haz often retarded a real and komplete reform ov
ekzisti[n] abiúsez; and in the kase ov a reform ov speli[n], ei almost
dout hwether the difik[u]ltiz inherent in haf-me[z]urz ar not az great az
the difik[u]ltiz ov karii[n] a komplete reform. If the w[u]rld iz not redi
for reform, let [u]s wait. It seemz far beter, and at all events far more
onest, tu wait til it iz redi than tu kari the rel[u]ktant wurld with you
a litel way, and then tu feind that all the impulsiv forse iz spent, and
the greater part ov the abiúsez establisht on fermer ground than ever.
Mr. Jones,(70) who reprezents the konsiliatori reformerz ov speli[n], wud
be satisfeid with a moderet skeme ov speli[n] reform, in hwich, bei
obzervi[n] analoji and folowi[n] presedent in olteri[n] a komparativli
small n[u]mber ov w[u]rdz, it wud be posibel tu simplifei ortografi tu a
konsiderabel ekstent without apleii[n] eni niu prinsipel, or introdiúsi[n]
niu leterz, and yet tu rediús the teim and labor in teachi[n] readi[n] and
speli[n] bei at least w[u]n-haf. It meit at all events be posibel tu setel
the speli[n] ov thoze two or three touzand w[u]rdz hwich at prezent ar
speld diferentli bei diferent au[t]oritiz. This skeme, advokated bei Mr.
Jones, iz sertenli veri klever; and if it had a chans ov s[u]kses, ei
meiself shud konsider it a great step in adváns. Mei onli dout iz hwether,
in a kase leik this, a small me[z]ur ov reform wud be karid more eazili
than a komplete reform. It iz diferent in Jerman, hwere the diseaz haz not
spred so far. Here the Komíti apointed bei G[u]vernment tu konsider the
kwestion ov a reform ov speli[n] haz deklared in favor ov s[u]m s[u]ch
moderet prinsipelz az Mr. Jones advokates for I[n]glish. In I[n]glish,
houever, the difik[u]ti leiz in chanji[n] eni[t]i[n]; and if the prinsipel
ov eni chanje iz w[u]ns admited, it wud reali be eazier, ei believ, tu
begin _de novo_ than tu chanje s[u]m[t]i[n], and leav the rest
[u]nchanjed.
Let [u]s nou see hou Mr. Pitman’z or eni similar sistem ov fonetik
reiti[n] haz w[u]rkt hwere it haz been put tu the test.
Mr. William White reits: “Ei speak from eksperiens. Ei hav taught poor
children in Glasgow tu read the Sermon on the Mount after a kourse ov
ekserseizez ekstendi[n] over no more than siks ourz.”
The folowi[n] iz an ekstrakt from a leter riten s[u]m teim ago bei the
late Mr. William Colbourne, manajer ov the Dorset Ba[n]k at St[u]rminster,
tu a frend ov hiz a skoolmaster. He sez:—
“Mei litel Sidney, who iz nou a fiu m[u]n[t]s more than four yearz old,
wil read eni fonetik buk without the sleitest hezitashon; the hardest
namez or the lo[n]gest w[u]rdz in the Old or Niu Testament form no
obstakel tu him. And hou lo[n] do you [t]ink it tuk me (for ei am hiz
teacher) tu impart tu him this pouer? Hwei s[u]m[t]i[n] les than eight
ourz! You may believ it or not, az you leik, b[u]t ei am konfident that
not more than that amount ov teim woz spent on him, and that woz in
snachez ov feiv minits at a teim, hweil tea woz geti[n] redi. Ei no you
wil be inkleind tu say, ‘All that iz veri wel, b[u]t hwot iz the use ov
readi[n] fonetik buks? he iz stil az far of, and may be farther, from
readi[n] romanik buks.’ B[u]t in this you ar mistaken. Take an[u]ther
ekzampel. Hiz nekst elder br[u]ther, a boi ov siks yearz, haz had a
fonetik ediukashon so far. Hwot iz the konsekwens? Hwei, readin in the
ferst staje woz so deleitful and eazi a [t]i[n] tu him that he taught
himself tu read romanikali, and it wud be a difik[u]lt mater tu feind
w[u]n boi in twenti, ov a korespondi[n] aje, that kud read haf so wel az
he kan in eni buk. Agen, mei oldest boi haz riten more fonetik shorthand
and lo[n]hand, perhaps, than eni boi ov hiz aje (eleven yearz) in the
ki[n]dom; and now[u]n ei daresay haz had les tu do with that abs[u]rditi
ov abs[u]rditiz, the speli[n]-buk! He iz nou at a ferst-rate skool in
Wiltshire, and in the haf-year presedi[n] Kristmas, he karid of the preiz
for or[t]ografi in a kontest with boiz s[u]m ov them hiz seniorz bei
yearz!”
Bei the adopshon ov the fonetik alfabet, the difik[u]ltiz that lei in the
way ov forenerz lerni[n] I[n]glish, also wud be d[u]n away with. The Rev.
Newman Hall reits, “Ei met with a Danish jentelman the [u]ther day who
heili preizd the I[n]glish fonotipik Niu Testament. It had been ov great
use tu him, and _enabeld him tu read [buks in the komon speli[n]] without
an instr[u]kter_, removi[n] the greatest obstakel in akweiri[n] I[n]glish,
the monstr[u]s anomali[z] ov pron[u]nsiashon.” Ekzampelz leik theze go a
lo[n] way.
Mr. A. J. Ellis, than whom now[u]n haz labord more devotidli for a reform
ov speli[n], az a ferst step in a reform ov nashonal ediukashon, and who
haz himself elaborated several most injeni[u]s sistemz ov fonetik
reiti[n], givz [u]s the folowi[n] az the rez[u]ltz ov hiz praktikal
eksperiens:
“With the fonetik sistem ov speli[n], the Primer iz masterd within tree
m[u]n[t]s at most. The children then proseed tu praktis this fonetik
readi[n] for s[u]m teim, til they kan read with fluensi from the jeneral
luk ov the w[u]rd, and not from konsideri[n] the pouerz ov its leterz.
[T]ree m[u]n[t]s more, at most, ar rekweird for this staje.
“Hwen this pouer ov fluent readi[n] in fonetik print iz akweird, buks in
the ordinari print, suited tu their kapasitiz, ar tu be put intu the
children’z handz and they ar told tu read them. Each w[u]rd hwich they
fail tu ges iz told them immedietli; but it iz found that children ar
mostli abel tu read the ordinari print without eni f[u]rther
instr[u]kshon. The teim nesesari for kompleti[n] this step may be taken,
at the lo[n]gest, az two m[u]n[t]s, so that the hole teim ov lerni[n] tu
read in the ordinari print, on the Readi[n] Reform sistem, may be rekond
az feiv ourz a week for eight m[u]n[t]s. The hole task haz, in meni kasez,
been akomplisht in les teim, even in [t]ree m[u]n[t]s. On the [u]ther
hand, in w[u]n skool hwere it iz uzed, eleven m[u]nts ar okupeid, az the
master feindz it advantaj[u]s in [u]ther respekts tu keep the piupil
lo[n]ger at fonetik readi[n] B[u]t onli w[u]n our a day iz rekweired.” Mr.
Ellis s[u]mz [u]p az folowz:
“Kareful eksperiments in teachi[n] children ov vari[u]s ajez and ra[n]ks,
and even pauperz and kriminal ad[u]lts, hav establisht—
“1. That piupilz may be taught tu read buks in fonetik print, slowli b[u]t
shureli, in from ten tu forti ourz, and will atain konsiderabel fluensi
after a fiu weeks’ praktis.
“2. That hwen the piupilz hav ataind fluensi in readi[n] from fonetik
print, a veri fiu ourz wil s[u]feis tu giv them the same fluensi in
readi[n] ordinari print.
“3. That the hole teim nesesari for imparti[n] a nolej ov bo[t] fonetik
and ordinari readi[n] d[u]z not ekseed eight m[u]nts for children ov
averaj intelijens, between four and feiv yearz ov aje, taught in klas, at
skool, not more than haf-an-our tu an our each day; and that in this teim
an abiliti tu read iz akweird siuperior tu that u[z]uali ataind in two or
[t]ree teimz the period on the old plan; hweil the pron[u]nsiashion ov the
piupil iz m[u]ch improved, hiz interest in hiz st[u]diz iz kept aleiv, and
a lojikal traini[n] ov endiuri[n] valiu iz given tu hiz meind bei the
habitual analisis and sin[t]ensis ov spoken soundz.
“4. That thoze taught tu read in this maner akweir the art ov ordinari
speli[n] more redili than thoze instr[u]kted on the old me[t]od.”
Tu all who no Mr. A. J. Ellis, this evidens wil be be s[u]fishent az tu
the praktikal usefulnes ov the Fonetik Sistem ov speli[n]. Tu thoze who
wish for more evidens ei rekomend a pamflet bei Mr. G. Withers, “The
I[n]glish La[n]gwej Speld az Pronounst,” 1874; and w[u]n bei Dr. J. W.
Martin, “The Gordian Not K[u]t,” 1875, hwere they wil feind the
konk[u]rent testimoni ov praktikal teacherz in I[n]gland, Skotland,
Eirland, and Amerika, all agreei[n] that, bo[t] az a praktikal and a
lojikal traini[n], the Fonetik Sistem haz proved the greatest s[u]kses.
Ther remainz, therefor, this w[u]n objekshon onli, that hwotever the
praktikal, and hwotever the [t]eoretikal advantejez ov the fonetik sistem
may be, it wud [u]terli destroi the historikal or etimolojikal karakter ov
the I[n]glish la[n]gwej.
S[u]poze it did; hwot then? The Reformashon iz s[u]pozed tu hav destroid
the historikal karakter ov the I[n]glish Ch[u]rch, and that sentimental
grievans iz stil felt bei s[u]m stiudents ov ekleziastikal antikwitiz.
B[u]t did I[n]gland, did all the reali progresiv nashonz ov Europe, alou
this sentimental grievans tu outweigh the praktikal and [t]eoretikal
advantejez ov Protestant Reform? La[n]gwej iz not made for skolarz and
etimolojists; and if the hole rase ov I[n]glish etimolojists wer reali tu
be swept away bei the introd[u]kshon ov a Speli[n] Reform, ei hope they
wud be the ferst tu rejois in sakrifeizi[n] themselvz in so gud a kauz.
B[u]t 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 pron[u]nsiashon, hwot iz kalld the
etimolojikal konsh[u]snes ov the speakerz and the readerz—ei speak, ov
kourse, ov ediukated peopel onli—wud not s[u]fer 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 w[u]rdz endin in
-_ation_ korespond tu Latin w[u]rdz in -_atio_, wud they looz the feeli[n]
if they saw the same w[u]rdz speld with _[e][sh]on_, or even “-e[sh][u]n?”
Do they not rekogneiz Latin -_itia_, in -_ice_; or -_ilis_ in -_le_, az in
-_able_ (Latin _abilis_)? If the skolar noz, at w[u]ns, that s[u]ch
w[u]rdz az _barbarous_, _anxious_, _circus_, _genius_, ar ov Latin
oriji[n], wud he hezitate if the last silabel in all ov them wer uniformli
riten “[u]s?” Nay, iz not the prezent speli[n] ov _barbarous_ and
_anxious_ enteirli misleadi[n], bei konfoundi[n] w[u]rdz endi[n] in
_-osus_, s[u]ch az _famous_ (_famosus_) with w[u]rdz 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 s[u]ch w[u]rdz 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, s[u]ch az _onor_ (_onorable_), _ardor_, _vigor_ (_vigorous_),
_labor_ (_laborious_), or even “on[u]r, ard[u]r, vig[u]r?” 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 difik[u]lt tu say
hwot woz gaind bei chanji[n] _-bor_ intu _-bour_ in s[u]ch piurli Sakson
w[u]rdz az _neighbor_, _harbor_. No dout if we see _laugh_ riten with _gh_
at the end, thoze who nó Jerman ar at w[u]ns remeinded ov its etimolojikal
konekshon with the Jerman _lachen_; b[u]t we shud soon nó the same bei
analoji, if we found not onli “laf,” b[u]t “kof” for _cough_ (Jerman,
_keuchen_), en[u]f for _enough_ (Jerman, _genug_), ets. In “draft,”
fonetik speli[n] haz nearli s[u]planted the so-kalld historikal speli[n]
_draught_; in “dwarf” (_dwergh_, _thweorh_) and in “ruff” (_rough_),
altugether.
Hwot peopel kall the etimolojikal konsh[u]snes 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. B[u]t even if it shud s[u]fer
here and there, we ought tu bear in meind that, eksept for oratorikal
p[u]rposez, that konsh[u]snes, konfeind az it iz tu a veri fiu ediukated
peopel, iz ov veri small importans, [u]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 s[u]m kasez, tu
vishiate the korekt speli[n] ov w[u]rdz.
Ei hav frekwentli dwelt on this before, in order tu show hou, hwot iz nou
kalld the etimolojikal or historikal speli[n] ov w[u]rdz iz, in meni
kasez, [u]terli [u]netimolojikal and [u]nhistorikal. We spel to _delight_,
and th[u]s indiús meni peopel tu believ that this w[u]rd iz s[u]mhou
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 [u]ther hand, we feind for _quite_ and _smite_, the old
speli[n] _quight_, _smight_, hwich may be old and historikal, b[u]t iz
deseidedli [u]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
_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; b[u]t its elokwens iz
misleadi[n]. _Feign_ iz not taken from Latin _fingo_, az litel az _honour_
iz taken from Latin _honor_. _Feign_ k[u]mz 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 s[u]m[t]i[n] tu do
with a bl[u]shi[n] fase. _Aghast_, insted ov Old I[n]glish _agast_, iz
s[u]pozed tu luk more freitful bekauz it remeindz [u]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 w[u]rd 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 k[u]rent in
Shakspere’z teim. In _aisle_, too, the _s_ iz [u]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 w[u]rd, at all
hazardz, an etimolojikal karakter, beginz even in Latin, hwere _postumus_,
a siuperlativ ov _post_, woz s[u]mteimz riten _posthumus_, az if, hwen
apleid tu a late-born s[u]n, it woz dereivd from _humus_. 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.
B[u]t nou let [u]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 [u]pstart
karakter ov hwot iz kalld historikal speli[n]. We nou reit _pleasure_,
_measure_, and _feather_, b[u]t not veri lo[n] ago, in Spenser’z teim,
theze w[u]rdz 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, b[u]t [t]ree or four h[u]ndred
yearz ago, _dett_. This iz more historikal therefor than _debt_, bekauz in
French, from hwich the w[u]rd woz borowd, the _b_ had disapeard, and it
woz a piurli etimolojikal fansi tu restore it. The _b_ woz leikweiz
re-introdiúst in _doubt_, b[u]t the _p_ woz not restored in _tu kount_
(French _compter_, Latin _computare_), hwere _p_ had at least the same
reit az _b_ in _doute_. Th[u]s _receipt_ reziúmz the Latin _p_, b[u]t
_deceit_ d[u]z without it. Tu _deign_ keeps the _g_, tu _disdain_ d[u]z
without it. Ther iz an[u]ther _b_ hwich haz a serten historikal air in
s[u]m I[n]glish w[u]rdz, b[u]t hwich woz orijinali piurli fonetik, and iz
nou simpli siupérflu[u]s. The old w[u]rd for _member_ woz _lim_. In s[u]ch
kompoundz az _lim-lama_, lim(b)-lame; _lim-leas_, lim(b)-less; it woz
imposibel tu avoid the interkalashon ov a _b_ in pron[u]nsiashon. In this
maner the _b_ krept in, and we hav nou tu teach that in _limb_, _crumb_
(crume), _thumb_ (thuma), the _b_ m[u]st be riten, b[u]t 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 pron[u]nsiashon, woz dropt in
reiti[n] at a veri erli teim (A[n]glo-Sakson _sealm_), and woz
re-introdiúst simpli tu pleaz s[u]m ekleziastikal etimolojists; also
_nevew_ (French _neveu_) insted ov _nephew_, hwich iz both
[u]netimolojikal and [u]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_ b[u]t _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] [u]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 now[u]n pronoúnsez
_little_, and hwen the old speli[n] woz _lytel_? Hwei _girdle_, hwen the
old speli[n] woz _girdel_? The same rule apleiz tu nearli all w[u]rdz
endi[n] in _le_, s[u]ch az _sickle_, _ladle_, _apple_, ets., hwere the
etimoloji iz kompleteli obskiúrd bei the prezent or[t]ografi. Hwei
_scent_, b[u]t _dissent_, hwen even Milton stil rote _sent_? Hwei _ache_,
insted ov the Shaksperian _ake_? Hwei _cat_, b[u]t _kitten_; hwei cow,
b[u]t _kine_? Hwei _accede_, _precede_, _secede_, b[u]t _exceed_,
_proceed_, _succeed_? Hwei, indeed, eksept tu waste the presh[u]s teim ov
children?
And if it iz difik[u]lt 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 [u]netimolojikal wer we
tu reit _nee_ insted ov _knee_, _now_ insted ov _know_, _night_ insted ov
_knight_; yet now[u]n 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.
If we ar tu reit etimolojikali, then hwei not ret[u]rn tu _loverd_, or
_hlaford_, insted ov _lord_? tu _nosethrill_, or _nosethirle_ insted ov
_nostril_; tu _swister_ insted ov _sister_; hwich wud not be more
tr[u]bels[u]m 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, b[u]t iz [u]terli [u]netimolojikal.
_Righteous_ luks leik an ajektiv in _-eous_, s[u]ch az _plenteous_, b[u]t
it iz reali a Sakson w[u]rd, _rightwis_, thát iz _rightwise_, formd leik
_otherwise_, ets.
_Could_ iz riten with an _l_ in analoji tu _would_, b[u]t hweil the _l_ iz
j[u]stifeid 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[u][t]i[n], agen,
kan be more misleadi[n] tu an etimolojist than the prezent speli[n] ov
_whole_ and _hale_. Both k[u]m 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_, holes[u]m, 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 bek[u]m _whow_.
If we reali atempted tu reit etimolojikali, we shud hav tu reit
_bridegroom_ without the _r_, bekauz _groom_ iz a mere kor[u]pshon 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 difik[u]lt 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, f[u]row 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
h[u]ndred 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, b[u]t veri parshali true. Here and
there, no dout, the etimoloji and histori ov an I[n]glish w[u]rd meit be
obskiúrd bei fonetik speli[n]; az if, for instans, we rote “Y[ue][o]p”
insted ov _Europe_. B[u]t even then analoji wud help [u]s, and teach thoze
who nó Greek, ov whom ther ar not meni, that “Y[ue]r” in s[u]ch w[u]rdz az
_Europe_, _Eurydice_, reprezented the Greek εὐρύς. The real anser,
houever, iz, that now[u]n 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.
An[u]ther objekshon [u]rjd agenst fonetik speli[n], nameli, that with it
it wud be imposibel tu disti[n]gwish homonimz, m[u]st 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_. B[u]t if, in the h[u]ri ov
konversashon, ther iz hardli ever a dout hwich w[u]rd iz ment, shureli
ther wud be m[u]ch les danjer in the slow proses ov readi[n] a
kontiniu[u]s sentens. If vari[u]s speli[n]z ov the same w[u]rd 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 h[u]nti[n] seat, a tree, a
slap, tu sail round, seats in a [t]eater, and the fr[u]nt seat on a koach;
and this prinsipel wud hav tu be apleid tu ab[u]v 400 w[u]rdz. Who wud
[u]ndertake tu proveid all theze variashonz ov the prezent uniform
speli[n] ov theze w[u]rdz? And we m[u]st 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
difik[u]lti, la[n]gwej proveidz its own remedi. It either drops s[u]ch
w[u]rdz az _rite_ and _sole_, replasi[n] them bei _seremony_ and _only_,
or it uzez a perifrastik ekspreshon, s[u]ch 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], [i], [w], [o], [ue],
for the sounds heard in
th_ey_, f_ie_ld, s_aw_, n_o_, d_o_, m_a_te, s_ee_, c_a_ll, c_o_re, tr_ue_,
m_a_re, pol_i_ce, _ou_ght, c_oa_l, p_oo_r.]
Th[u]s far ei hav treid tu anser the r[i]ali important argiuments hwich
hav b[i]n br[w]t forward agenst f[o]netik speli[n]. Ei hav d[u]n s[o] with
speshal referens tu the pouerful remonstransez ov Archbishop Trench, and
hiz m[o]st [e]bel pl[i]di[n] in f[e]vor ov the establisht sistem ov
or[t]ografi. Az a m[i]r skolar, ei fuli sh[e]r hiz f[i]li[n]z, and ei
sins[i]rli admeir hiz elokwent advokasi. Ei difer from him bek[w]z ei
d[ue] not tink, az h[i] d[u]z, that the los ent[e]ld bei fonetik speli[n]
wud b[i] s[o] gr[e]t az w[i] imajin; or that it wud b[i] [w]l on w[u]n
seid. Beseidz, [u]nles h[i] kan sh[o] hou a reform ov speli[n] iz not
[o]nli for the prezent tu b[i] avoided, b[u]t [w]ltugether tu b[i] renderd
[u]nnesesari, ei konsider that the s[ue]ner it iz t[e]ken in hand the
beter. It s[i]mz tu m[i] that the Archbishop luks on the introd[u]kshon ov
f[o]netik speli[n] az a m[i]r krochet ov a fiu skolarz, or az an atempt on
the part ov s[u]m haf-ediuk[e]ted personz, wishi[n] tu avoid the tr[u]bel
ov lerni[n] hou tu spel korektli. If that wer s[o], ei kweit agr[i] with
him that p[u]blik opinion wud never asiúm s[u]fishent fors for karii[n]
th[e]r sk[i]m. B[u]t ther iz a m[o]tiv pouer beheind th[i]z fenetik
reformerz hwich the Archbishop haz hardli t[e]ken intu akount. Ei m[i]n
the mizeri endiúrd bei milionz ov children at ski[ue]l, h[ue] meit lern in
w[u]n y[i]r, and with r[i]al advantej tu themselvz, hwot th[e] nou rekweir
f[o]r or feiv y[i]rz tu lern, and seldom s[u]ks[i]d in lerni[n] after
[w]l. If the evidens ov s[u]ch men az Mr. Ellis iz tu b[i] depended on,
and ei bel[i]v h[i] iz wili[n] tu s[u]bmit tu eni test, then sh[ue]rli the
los ov s[u]n historikal and etimolojikal _souvenirs_ wud be 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] [u]p az the [e]rz tu [w]l
the wel[t] and stre[n][t] ov I[n]glish literatiur, or [u]n[e]bel tu r[i]d
[i]ven th[e]r Beibel. H[i]r it iz hwer ei ventiur tu difer from the
Archbishop, not az b[i]i[n] sa[n]gwin az tu eni imm[i]diet s[u]kses, b[u]t
simpli az f[i]li[n] it a diuti tu help in a k[w]z hwich at prezent iz
m[o]st [u]npopiular. The [i]vil d[e] m[e] b[i] put of for a lo[n] teim,
partikiularli if the w[e]t ov s[u]ch men az Archbishop Trench iz [t]ren
intu the [u]ther sk[e]l. B[u]t [u]nles la[n]gwe[i] s[i]sez tu b[i]
la[n]gwe[i], and reiti[n] s[i]sez tu b[i] reiti[n], the d[e] wil sh[ue]rli
k[u]m hwen p[i]s wil hav tu b[i] m[e]d betw[i]n the t[úe]. Jermani haz
apointed a G[u]vernment Komishon tu konsider hwot iz tu b[i] d[u]n with
Jerman speli[n] In Amerika, t[ue], s[u]m l[i]di[n] st[e]tsmen s[i]m
inkleind tu t[e]k [u]p the reform ov speli[n] on nashonal groundz. Iz ther
n[o] st[e]tsman in I[n]gland s[u]fishentli pr[ue]f agenst ridikiul tu
k[w]l the atenshon ov Parliment tu hwot iz a gr[o]i[n] misfortiun?
M[u]ch, houever, az ei difer from the Archbishop on th[i]z groundz, ei
kanot b[u]t deprek[e]t the t[o]n in hwich hiz pouerful opozishon ház b[i]n
met bei meni ov the [u]ph[o]lderz ov f[o]netik speli[n]. N[e], ei m[u]st
g[o] stil f[u]rther, and fra[n]kli konfés that tu w[u]n ov hiz argiuments
ei feind it difik[u]lt, at prezent, tu giv a satisfaktori anser.
“It iz a m[i]r as[u]mpshon,” the Archbishop remarks, “that [w]l men
pronoúns [w]l w[u]rdz aleik; or that hwenever th[e] k[u]m tu spel a w[u]rd
th[e] wil ekzaktli agr[i] az tu hwot the outlein ov its sound iz. Nou w[i]
ar sh[ue]r men wil not d[ue] this, from the fakt that, bef[o]r ther woz
eni fikst and seteld or[t]ografi in our la[n]gwej, hwen, th[e]rfor,
everibodi woz m[o]r or les a a f[o]nografer, s[i]ki[n] tu reit doun the
w[u]rd az it sounded tu _him_,—for h[i] had n[o] [u]ther l[w] tu geid
him,—the v[e]ri[e]shonz ov speli[n] ar infinit. T[e]k, for instans, the
w[u]rd _sudden_, hwich d[u]z not s[i]m tu promis eni gr[e]t sk[o]p for
vareieti. Ei hav meiself met with this w[u]rd speld in n[o] les than
f[ó]rt[i]n w[e]z am[u][n] our erli reiterz. Agen, in hou meni w[e]z woz
Raleigh’z n[e]m speld, or Shakspere’z? The s[e]m iz evident from the
speli[n] ov [u]nediukated personz in our [o]n d[.[e]]. Th[E] hav n[o]
[u]ther r[ue]l b[u]t the sound tu geid them. Hou iz it that th[e] d[ue]
not [w]l spel aleik?” _I[n]glish, Past and Prezent_, p. 203.
Leik m[o]st men h[ue] pl[i]d with th[e]r hart az wel az with th[e]r hed,
the Archbishop haz h[i]r [o]verlukt w[u]n obvi[u]s anser tu hiz kwestion.
Th[e] d[ue] not spel aleik bek[w]z th[e] hav b[i]n br[w]t [u]p with a
sistem ov speli[n] in hwich the s[e]m sound kan b[i] reprezented in ten
diferent w[e]z, and in hwich hardli eni w[u]n leter iz restrikted tu w[u]n
fonetik pouer onli. If children wer br[w]t [u]p with an alfabet in hwich
[i]ch leter had b[u]t w[u]n sound, and in hwich the s[e]m sound woz
[w]lw[e]z reprezented bei the s[e]m sein—and this iz the veri esens ov
f[o]netik reiti[n]—then it wud b[i] simpli imposibel that th[e] shud
dr[i]m ov reiti[n] _sudden_ in f[o]rt[i]n, or _Woburn_ in 140, diferent
w[e]z.
B[u]t for [w]l thát ther iz s[u]m tr[ue][t] in the Archbishop’s remark;
and if w[i] komp[e]r the diferent w[e]z in hwich the advokets ov f[o]netik
speli[n]—men leik Pitman, Bell, Ellis, Withers, Jones—reit the s[e]m
w[u]rdz, [i]ven hwen y[ue]zi[n] the s[e]m fonetik alfabet, w[i] shal s[i]
that the difik[u]lti pointed out bei the Archbishop iz a r[i]al w[u]n.
Everiw[u]n n[o]z hou diferentli the s[e]m w[u]rdz [w]lwez hav b[i]n and
stil ar pronoúnst in diferent parts ov I[n]gland. And it iz not onli in
tounz and kountiz that th[i]z pekiuliaritiz prev[e]l; ther ar serten
w[u]rdz hwich w[u]n famili pronoúnsez diferentli from an[u]ther; and ther
ar beseidz the st[u]did and [u]nst[u]did pekiuliaritiz ov individiual
sp[i]kerz. Tu konvíns p[i]pel that w[u]n pron[u]nsi[e]shon iz reit and the
[u]ther ro[n], s[i]mz [u]terli hoples. Ei hav herd a heili k[u]ltiveted
man defendi[n] hiz dropi[n] the _h_ at the begini[n] ov serten w[u]rdz,
bei the [u]nanserabel argiument that in the pl[e]s hwer h[i] woz br[w]t
[u]p, n[o]w[u]n pronoúnst th[i]z inishal _hz_. Hwot Skochman wud admit
that hiz pron[u]nsi[e]shon woz f[w]lti? Hwot Eirishman wud s[u]bmit tu
l[w]z ov speli[n] past in L[u]ndon? And hwot renderz argiument on eni
neisetiz ov pron[u]nsieshon stil m[o]r difik[u]lt iz, that b[o][t] the
[i]r and the t[u][n] ar m[o]st trecher[u]s witnesez. Ei hav herd Amerikanz
m[e]nt[e]n in gud ernest that ther woz m[u]ch les of n[e]zal twa[n] in
Amerika than in I[n]gland. P[i]pel ar not awer hou th[e] pronoúns, and hou
diferentli th[e] pronoúns w[u]n and the s[e]m w[u]rd. Az a forener ei hav
had ampel oportiunitiz for obzerv[e]shon on this point. S[u]m frendz wud
tel m[i], for instans, that _world_ woz pronoúnst leik _whirl’d_, _father_
leik _farther_, _nor_ (bef[o]r konsonants) leik _gnaw_, _bud_ leik _bird_,
_burst_ leik _bust_, _for_ leik _fur_, _birth_ leik _berth_; that the
vouelz had the s[e]m sound in _where_ and _were_, in _not_ and _war_, in
_God_ and _gaudy_; hweil [u]therz ash[ue]rd m[i] that n[o]w[u]n b[u]t a
forener kud [t]i[n]k s[o]. And the w[u]rst iz that [i]ven the s[e]m person
d[u]z not [w]lwez pronoúns the s[e]m w[u]rd in ekzaktli the s[e]m maner.
Konstantli, hwen ei askt a frend tu rep[i]t a w[u]rd hwich h[i] had j[u]st
pronoúnst, h[i] wud pronoúns it agen, b[u]t with a sleit diferens. The
m[i]r fakt ov hiz treii[n] tu pronoúns wel wud give tu hiz
pron[u]nsi[e]shon a konsh[u]s and emfatik karakter. The prepozishon _of_
iz pronoúnst bei m[o]st p[i]pel _or_, b[u]t if kros-ekzamind, meni wil
s[e] that th[e] pronoúns _ov_, b[u]t the _o_ not ekzaktli leik _off_.
The konfiu[z]on bek[u]mz gr[e]test hwen it iz atempted tu eidentifei the
pron[u]nsi[e]shon, s[e] ov a vouel in Jerman with a vouel in I[n]glish.
N[o] t[úe] I[n]glishmen and n[o] t[úe] Jermanz s[i]md tu b[i] [e]bel tu
agr[i] on hwot th[e] herd with th[e]r [i]rz, or hwot th[e] sed with th[e]r
t[u][n]z; and the rez[u]lt in the end iz that n[o] vouel in Jernran woz
r[i]ali the s[e]m az eni [u]ther vouel in I[n]glish. Tu t[e]k w[u]n or
t[ú] instansez, from Mr. Ellis’z k[i] tu Palioteip (Palœtype), ei kan
h[i]r n[o] diferens betw[i]n the _a_ in Italian _mano_, I[n]glish
_father_, and Jerman _mahnen_, [u]nles ei restrikt mei obzerv[e]shonz tu
the [u]terans ov serten individiualz; hw[e]raz ei d[ue] h[i]r a veri
deseided, and jenerali adopted, diferens betw[i]n the vouelz in Jerman
_böcke_ and French _jeune_. Mr. Ellis, t[u]chi[n] on the s[e]m
difik[u]lti, remarks, “Mr. Bell’s pron[u]nsi[e]shon, in meni instansez,
diferz from thát hwich ei am ak[u]stomd tu giv, espeshali in foren
w[u]rdz. B[o][t] ov [u]s m[e] b[i] ro[n].” Mr. Sweet remarks, p. 10, “Mr.
Ellis insists stro[n]li on the monof[t]o[n]gal karakter ov hiz [o]n _eez_
and _ooz_. Ei h[i]r hiz _ee_ and _oo_ az disti[n]kt dif[t]o[n]z, not
[o]nli in hiz I[n]glish pron[u]nsi[e]shon, b[u]t [w]ls[o] in hiz
pron[u]nsi[e]shon ov French, Jerman, and Latin.” If f[o]netik reiti[n]
ment this miniút f[o]tografi ov sp[o]ken soundz, in hwich Mes. Bell and
Ellis eksél; if eni atempt had ever b[i]n m[e]d tu emploi this
h[e]r-spliti[n] mash[i]neri for a praktikal reform ov I[n]glish speli[n],
the objekshonz r[e]zd bei Archbishop Trench wud b[i] kweit [u]nanserabel.
Ther wud b[i] fifti diferent w[e]z ov speli[n] I[n]glish, and the
konfiu[z]on wud b[i] gr[e]ter than it iz nou. Not [i]ven Mr. Bell’z
[t]erti-siks kategoriz ov vouel sound wud b[i] s[u]fishent tu render everi
pekiuliariti ov vouel kwoliti, pich and kwontiti, with perfekt akiurasi.
(S[i] H. Sweet, “Histori ov I[n]glish Soundz,” pp. 58, 68.) B[u]t this woz
never intended, and hweil kons[i]di[n] m[u]ch tu the Archbishop’s
argiuments, ei m[u]st not kons[i]d t[ue] m[u]ch.
Hwot ei leik in Mr. Pitman’z sistem ov speli[n] iz ekzaktli hwot ei nó haz
b[i]n found f[w]lt with bei [u]therz n[e]mli that h[i] d[u]z not atempt tu
refein t[ue] m[u]ch, and tu ekspres in reiti[n] th[o]z endles sh[e]dz ov
pron[u]nsi[e]shon, hwich m[e] b[i] ov the gr[e]test interest tu the
stiudent ov akoustiks, or ov f[o]netiks, az apleid tu the st[u]di ov
livi[n] deialekts, b[u]t hwich, for praktikal az well az for seientifik
filolojikal p[u]rposez, m[u]st b[i] enteirli ign[o]rd. Reiti[n] woz never
intended tu f[o]tograf sp[o]ken la[n]gwejez: it woz ment tu indik[e]t, not
tu p[e]nt soundz. If Voltaire sez, “L’écriture c’est la peinture de la
voix,” h[i] iz reit; b[u]t hwen h[i] g[o]z on tu s[e], “plus elle est
ressemblante, meilleur elle est,” ei am not serten that, az in a piktiur
ov a landsk[e]p, s[o] in a piktiur ov the vois, pr[i]-R[e]if[e]leit
miniútnes m[e] not destroi the veri objekt ov the piktiur. La[n]gwej
d[i]lz in br[w]d k[u]lorz, and reiti[n] [w]t tu fol[o] the ekzampel ov
la[n]gwej, hwich th[o] it alouz an endles vareiti ov pron[u]nsi[e]shon,
restrikts itself for its [o]n p[u]rpos, for the p[u]rpos ov ekspresi[n]
[t][w]t in [w]l its modifik[e]shonz, tu a veri limited n[u]mber ov tipikal
vouelz and konsonants. Out ov the larj n[u]mber ov soundz, for instans,
hwich hav b[i]n katalogd from the v[e]ri[u]s I[n]glish deialekts, thoz
onli kan b[i] rekogneizd az konstitiuent elements ov the la[n]gwej hwich
in, and bei, th[e]r diferens from [i]ch [u]ther, konv[e] a diferens ov
m[i]ni[n]. Ov s[u]ch pregnant and [t][w]t-konv[e]i[n] vouelz, I[n]glish
pozésez n[o] m[o]r than twelv. Hwotever the meinor sh[e]dz ov vouel soundz
in I[n]glish deialekts m[e] b[i], th[e] d[ue] not enrich the la[n]gwej, az
s[u]ch, thát iz, th[e] d[ue] not en[e]bel the sp[i]ker tu konv[e] m[o]r
miniút sh[e]dz ov [t][w]t than the twelv tipikal si[n]gel vouelz. Beseidz,
ther jenerali iz hwot the French meit k[w]l a f[o]netik solidariti in
[i]ch deialekt. If w[u]n vouel ch[e]njez, the [u]therz ar apt tu fol[o],
and the m[e]n objekt ov la[n]gwej rem[e]nz the s[e]m [t]r[ue]out, n[e]mli,
tu prevent w[u]n w[u]rd from r[u]ni[n] intu an[u]ther, and yet tu abst[e]n
from t[ue], miniút fonetik disti[n]kshonz, hwich an ordinari [i]r meit
feind it difik[u]lt tu grasp. This prinsipel ov f[o]netik solidariti iz ov
gr[e]t importans, not onli in ekspl[e]ni[n] the gradiual ch[e]njez ov
vouelz, b[u]t [w]ls[o] s[u]ch jeneral ch[e]njez ov konsonants az w[i]
s[i], for instans, in the Jerman _Lautverschiebung_. Az s[ue]m az w[u]n
pl[e]s iz left v[e]kant, ther iz preshur tu fil it, or s[o] m[u]ch ov it
az iz left v[e]kant, b[u]t n[o] m[o]r.
Ther ar, in fakt, t[úe] branchez, or at [w]l events, t[úe] kweit
disti[n]kt praktikal aplik[e]shonz ov the seiens ov F[o]netiks, hwich for
wont ov beter n[e]mz, ei design[e]t az _filolojikal_ and _deialektikal_.
Ther iz hwot m[e] b[i] k[w]ld a filolojikal st[u]di ov F[o]netiks, hwich
iz an esenshal part ov the Seiens ov La[n]gwej, and haz for its objekt tu
giv a kl[i]r eid[i]a ov the alfabet, not az riten, b[u]t az sp[o]ken. It
tr[i]ts ov the mat[i]rialz out ov hwich, the instruments with hwich, and
the proses bei hwich, vouelz and konsonants ar formd; and after
ekspl[e]ni[n] hou serten leterz agr[i], and difer, in th[e]r mat[i]rial,
in the instruments with hwich, and the proses bei hwich th[e] ar prodiúst,
it en[e]belz [u]s tu [u]nderstand the k[w]zez and rez[u]lts ov hwot iz
k[w]ld F[o]netik Ch[e]nj. In meni respekts the most instr[u]ktiv
tr[i]tment ov the jeneral [t][i]ori ov F[o]netiks iz tu b[i] found in the
Prâti_s_âkhyas; partikiularli in the [o]ldest (400 B.K.), thát atacht tu
the Rig V[e]da.(71) Th[o] the n[u]mber ov posibel soundz m[e] s[i]m
infinit the n[u]mber ov r[i]al soundz y[ue]zd in Sanskrit or eni [u]ther
given la[n]gwej for the p[u]rpos ov ekspresi[n] diferent sh[e]dz ov
m[i]ni[n], iz veri limited. It iz with th[i]z br[w]d kategoriz ov sound
al[o]n that the Prâti_s_âkhyas d[i]l; and it iz for a proper
[u]nderstandi[n] ov th[i]z the Seiens ov La[n]jgwej haz tu inkl[ue]d
within its sf[i]r a k[e]rful st[u]di ov F[o]netiks.
The deialektikal st[u]di ov F[o]netiks haz larjer objekts. It wishez tu
ekz[w]st [w]l posibel soundz hwich kan b[i] prodiúst bei the v[o]kal
organz, litel konsernd az tu hwether th[i]z soundz ok[u]r in eni r[i]al
la[n]gwej or not. It iz partikiularli y[ue]sful for the p[u]rpos ov
p[e]nti[n], with the [u]tm[o]st akiurasi, the aktiual pron[u]nsi[e]shon ov
individiualz, and ov fiksi[n] the f[e]ntest sh[e]dz ov deialektik
vareieti. The m[o]st marvel[u]s ach[i]vment in this branch ov apleid
f[o]netiks m[e] b[i] s[i]n in Mr. Bell’z “Vizibel Sp[i]ch.”
Th[i]z t[úe] branchez ov f[o]netik seiens, houever, shud b[i] kept
k[e]rfuli disti[n]kt. Az the found[e]shon ov a praktikal alfabet, leikweiz
az the onli s[e]f found[e]shon for the Seiens ov La[n]gwej, w[i] wont
filolojikal or [t][i][o]retik F[o]netiks. W[i] wont an [u]nderstandi[n] ov
thez jeneral prinsipelz and thez br[w]d kategoriz ov sound hwich ar
tr[i]ted in the Prâtisâkhyas; w[i] d[ue] not wont eni ov the miniút
deialektikal disti[n]kshonz hwich hav no gramatikal p[u]rpos and ar
th[e]rfor outseid the p[e]l ov gramatikal seiens. T[ue], miniút
disti[n]kshon prodi[ue]sez konfiu[z]on, and hw[e]r it kan b[i] avoided,
without a sakrifeiz ov akiurasi, it [w]t tu b[i] avoided. Hw[e]r v[e]gnes
ekzists in r[i]aliti, and hwer n[e]tiur alouz a br[w]d marjin on either
seid, it wud b[i] ro[n] tu ignor thát latitiud. Akiurasi itself wud h[i]r
bek[u]m inakiurasi.
B[u]t hwen w[i] wont tu ekz[w]st [w]l posibel sh[e]dz ov sound, hwen w[i]
wont tu fotograf the pekiuliaritiz ov serten deialekts, or me[z]ur the
d[i]vi[e]shonz in the pron[u]nsi[e]shon ov individiualz bei the m[o]st
miniút degr[i]z, w[i] then m[u]st av[e]l ourselvz ov thát ekskwizit
artistik mash[i]neri konstr[u]kted bei Mr. Bell, and handeld with s[o]
m[u]ch skil bei Mr. A. J. Ellis, the fiu onli wil b[i] [e]bel tu y[ue]z it
with r[i]al s[u]kses.
S[u]m p[i]pel s[i]m tu imajin that the pouer ov disti[n]gwishi[n] miniút
diferensez ov soundz iz a natiural gift, and kanot b[i] akweird. It m[e]
b[i] so in kweit eksepshonal k[e]sez, b[u]t ei no az a fakt that a cheild
that had, az p[i]pel s[e], no [i]r for miuzik, and kud not si[n] “God
s[e]v the Kw[i]n,” gradiuali akweird the pouer ov disti[n]gwishi[n] the
ordinari nots, and ov si[n]i[n] a tiun. Sp[i]ki[n] from mei on
eksp[i]riens ei shud s[e] that a gud [i]r k[u]mz bei inheritans, for, az
lo[n] az ei kan remember, a fols not, or, az w[i] y[ue]st tu k[w]l it, an
impiur (_unrein_) n[o]t, woz tu m[i] fizikali p[e]nful.
B[u]t this apleiz tu miuzik [o]nli, and it iz bei n[o] m[i]nz jenerali
tr[ue], that p[i]pel h[ue] hav a gud miuzikal [i]r, hav [w]ls[o] a gud
[i]r for la[n]gwej. Ei hav non p[i]pel kweit [u]nmiuzikal, pozést ov a
veri gud [i]r for la[n]gwej, and _vice versâ_. The t[´[ue]] natiural
gifts, th[e]rfor, if natiural gifts th[e] ar, ov disti[n]gwishi[n] miniút
degr[i]z ov pich and kwoliti ov sound d[u] not s[i]m tu b[i] the s[e]m.
The r[i]al difik[u]lti, houever, hwich m[e]ks itself felt in disk[ú]si[n]
miniút sh[e]dz ov sound, areizez from the ins[u]fishensi ov our
nomenklatiur, from the [w]lm[o]st irrezistibel influens ov imajin[e]shon,
and in the end, from the wont ov a f[o]nometer. A gud miuzishan kan
disti[n]gwish betw[i]n _C sharp_ and _D flat_, a gud f[o]netishan betw[i]n
a “l[o]-bak-nar[o]” and a “l[o]-mikst-nar[o]” vouel. B[u]t th[e] kanot
[w]lw[e]z transl[e]t th[e]r sentiments intu definit la[n]gwej, and if
th[e] trei bei aktiual eksperiment tu imit[e]t th[i]z t[ú] soundz or
vouelz, the imperfekshonz ov the [i]r and t[u][n], b[o][t] in the sp[i]ker
and the lisener, fr[i]kwentli render [w]l atempts at a miutiual
[u]nderstandi[n] imposibel. W[i] shal never areiv at seientifik presi[z]on
til w[i] hav a f[o]nometer for kwoliti ov sound, nor d[ue] ei s[i] hwei
s[u]ch an instrument shud b[i] imposibel. Ei wel remember Wheatstone
teli[n] m[i], that h[i] wud [u]ndert[e]k tu r[i]prodiús bei m[i]nz ov an
instrument everi sh[e]d ov vouel in eni la[n]gw[e]j ov the w[u]rld, and ei
shud [t]i[n]k that Willis’z and Helmholtz’z eksperiments wud s[u]plei the
elements from hwich s[u]ch a f[o]nometer meit b[i] konstitiuted. Az s[ur]n
az w[i] kan me[z]ur, defein, and r[i]prodiús, at ple[z]ur, hwot at prezent
w[i] kan [o]nli deskreib in aproksim[r]t termz, the seiens ov f[o]netiks
wil bek[u]m m[o]st fr[ue]tful, and asiúm its lejitimet pl[e]s az a _sine
quâ non_ tu the stiudent ov la[n]gwej.
Ei hav s[u]mteimz b[i]n bl[e]md for havi[n] insisted on F[o]netiks
b[i]i[n] rekogneizd az the found[e]shon ov the Seiens ov La[n]gwej. Prof.
Benfey and [u]ther skolarz protested agenst the chapter ei hav dev[o]ted
tu F[o]netiks in the Sekond S[i]r[i]z ov mei “Lektiurz,” az an
[u]nnesesari inov[e]shon, and thoz protests hav bek[u]m stil stro[n]ger ov
l[e]t. B[u]t h[i]r, t[ue], w[i] m[u]st disti[n]gwish betw[i]n t[´[ue]]
[t]i[n]z. Filolojikal or jeneral F[o]netiks, ar, ei h[o]ld, az stro[n]li
az ever, an integral part ov the Seiens ov La[n]gwej; deialektik
F[o]netiks m[e] b[i] y[ue]sful h[i]r and th[e]r, b[u]t th[e] shud b[i]
kept within th[e]r proper sf[i]r; [u]therweiz, ei admit az redili az
eniw[u]n els, th[e] obskiúr rather than rev[i]l the br[w]d and masiv
k[u]lorz ov sound hwich la[n]gwej y[ue]zez for its ordinari w[u]rk.
If w[i] reflekt a litel, w[i] shal s[i] that the filolojikal konsepshon ov
a vouel iz s[u]m[t]i[n] t[o]tali diferent from its piurli akoustik or
deialektik konsepshon. The former iz ch[i]fli konsernd with the sf[i]r ov
posibel v[e]ri[e]shon, and the later with the piurli fenomenal
individiualiti ov [i]ch vouel. Tu the filolojist, the [t]rj[i] vouelz in
_septimus_, for instans, hwotever th[e]r ekzakt pron[u]nsi[e]shonz m[e]
hav b[i]n at diferent teimz, and in diferent provinsez ov the R[o]man
Empeir, ar p[o]tenshali w[u]n and the s[e]m. W[i] luk on _septimus_ and
ἕβύοώος az on Sanskrit _saptamas_, and [o]nli bei n[o]i[n] that _e_, _i_,
and _u_ in _septimus_ ar [w]l reprezentativz ov a short _a_, or that
_optimus_ standz for the m[o]r [e]nshent _optumus_ and _optomos_, d[ue]
w[i] t[e]k in at w[u]n glans the h[o]l histori and posibel v[e]ri[e]shon
ov th[i]z vouelz in diferent la[n]gwejez and deialekts. [I]ven hw[e]r a
vouel disap[i]rz kompl[i]tli, az in _gigno_ for _gigeno_, in πίπτω for
πιπευω the mentl ei ov the filolojist disérnz and w[e]z hwot n[o] [i]r kan
h[i]r. And hweil in th[i]z k[e]sez the etimolojist, disregardi[n] the
kl[i]rest vareieti ov pron[u]nsi[e]shon, tr[i]ts s[u]ch vouelz az _a_,
_e_, _i_, _o_, _u_ az w[u]n and the s[e]m, in [u]therz hw[e]r t[úe] vouelz
s[i]m tu hav ekzaktli the s[e]m sound tu the deialektishan, the filolojist
on hiz part pers[i]vz diferensez ov the gr[e]test importans. The _i_ in
_fides_ and _cliens_ m[e] hav the s[e]m sound az the _i_ in _gigno_ or
_septimus_, the _u_ ov _luo_ m[e] not difer from the _u_ in _optumus_ or
_lubens_, b[u]t th[e]r intrinsik valiu, th[e]r k[e]pabilitiz ov gr[o][t]
and dek[é], ar to t[o]tali diferent in [i]ch. W[i] shal never b[i] [e]bel
tu sp[i]k with eni[t]i[n] leik r[i]al seientifik akiurasi ov the
pron[u]nsi[e]shon ov [e]nshent la[n]gwejez, b[u]t [i]ven if w[i] luk tu
th[e]r riten ap[i]rans [o]nli, w[i] s[i] agén and agén hou vouelz, riten
aleik, ar historikali t[o]tali disti[n]kt. Grimm introdiúst the
disti[n]kshon betw[i]n _ái_ and _aí_, betw[i]n _áu_ and _aú_, not bek[w]z
it iz bei eni m[i]nz serten that the pron[u]nsi[e]shon ov th[i]z
dif[t]o[n]z v[e]rid, b[u]t bek[w]z h[i] wisht tu indik[e]t that the
antes[i]dents ov _ái_ and _áu_ wer diferent from th[o]z ov _aí_ and _aú_.
In Go[t]ik _faíhu_, (Sk. pa_s_u, pecu), _aí_ iz _a_ shortend tu _i_, and
br[o]ken bef[o]r _h_ tu _ái_; in Go[t]ik _váit_ (Sk. veda, οἶδα), _ai_, iz
radikal _i_ stre[n][t]end tu _ái_. In Go[t]ik _daúhtar_ (Sk. duhitar
θυγάτηρ), _aú_ iz radikal _u_ br[o]ken tu _aú_; in _aúhna_ [u]ven (Sk.
a_s_na, ἰπνο=ἰκνο=ἀκνο), the _au_ iz _a_, darkend tu _u_, and br[o]ken tu
_áu_; hweil in Go[t]ik _báug_ (πέφευγα), _áu_ iz orijinal _u_
stre[n][t]end tu _áu_. Hwen w[i] h[i]r _ê_ and _ô_ in Go[t]ik w[i] s[i]
_â_, j[u]st az w[i] s[i] Dorik _ā_ beheind Eionik η. Hwen w[i] h[i]r _c_
in _canis_, w[i] s[i] Sanskrit _s_; hwen w[i] h[i]r _c_ in _cruor_, w[i]
s[i] Sanskrit _k_. Hwen w[i] h[i]r γ in γένος, w[i] s[i] [A]rian _g_; hwen
w[i] h[i]r γ in φλέγω w[i] s[i] [A]rian _z_.
Th[i]z fiu il[u]str[e]shonz wil ekspl[e]n, ei h[o]p the esenshal diferens
in the aplik[e]shon ov f[o]netiks tu filoloji and deialektoloji, and wil
sh[o] that in the former our br[u]sh m[u]st ov nesesiti be br[w]d, hweil
in the later it m[u]st b[i] fein. It iz bei miksi[n] [u]p t[úe] separ[e]t
leinz ov reserch, [i]ch heili important in itself, that s[o] m[u]ch
konfiu[z]on haz ov l[e]t b[i]n ok[e][z]ond. The valiu ov piurli f[o]netik
obzerv[e]shonz shud on no akount b[i] [u]nderr[e]ted; b[u]t it iz
nesesari, for thát veri r[i]zon, that deialektikal az wel az filolojikal
f[o]netiks shud b[i] konfeind tu th[e]r proper sf[i]r. The filolojist haz
m[u]ch tu lern from the f[o]netishan, b[u]t h[i] shud never forget that
h[i]r, az elshw[e]r, hwot iz br[w]d and tipikal iz az important and az
seientifikali akiuret az hwot iz miniút and speshal.
Hwot iz br[w]d and tipikal iz often m[o]r akiuret [i]ven than hwot iz
miniút and speshal. It meit b[i] posibel, for instans, bei a f[o]tografik
proses, tu reprezent the ekzakt pozishon ov the t[u][n] and the inseid
w[w]lz ov the mou[t] hweil w[i] pronoúns the Italian vouel _i_. B[u]t it
wud b[i] the gr[e]test mist[e]k tu s[u]p[o]z that this imej givz [u]s the
[o]nli w[e] in hwich thát vouel iz, and kan b[i], pronoúnst. Th[o] [i]ch
individiual m[e] hav hiz [o]n w[e] ov plesi[n] the t[u][n] in pronoúnsi[n]
_i_, w[i] hav [o]nli tu trei the experiment in order tu konvins ourselvz
that, with s[u]m efort, w[i] m[e] v[e]ri that pozishon in meni w[e]z and
yet prodiús the sound ov. _i_. Hwen, th[e]rfor, in mei “Lektiurz on the
Seiens ov La[n]gwej,” ei g[e]v piktiurz ov the pozishonz ov the vokal
organz rekweird for pronounsi[n] the tipikal leterz ov the alfabet, ei tuk
gr[e]t k[e]r tu m[e]k them tipikal, thát iz, tu l[i]v them r[u]f skechez
rather than miniút f[o]tografs. Ei kanot beter ekspres hwot ei f[i]l on
this point than bei kw[o]ti[n] the w[u]rdz ov Hæckel:—
“For didaktik p[u]rposez, simpel sk[i]matik figiurz ar far m[o]r y[ue]sful
than piktiurz prezervi[n] the gr[e]test f[e][t]fulnes tu n[e]tiur and
karid out with the gr[e]test akiurasi.” (“Ziele und Wege,” p. 37.)
[The following three letters, now introduced, will complete the Phonetic
Alphabet—
[dh] [ch] [sh]
for the sounds heard in—_the_n, _ch_eap, _sh_e.]
Tu ret[u]rn, after [dh]is digre[sh]en, tu Mr. Pitman’z alfabet, ei rep[i]t
[dh]at it rekomendz itself tu mei meind bei hwot [u][dh]erz k[w]l its
inakiurasi. It [sh]ez its r[i]al and praktikal wizdom bei not atempti[n]
tu fiks eni disti[n]k[sh]onz hwi[ch] ar not absol[ue]tli nesesari. If, for
instans, w[i] t[e]k [dh]e g[u]t[u]ral teniuis, w[i] feind that I[n]gli[sh]
rekogneizez w[u]n _k_ [o]nli, [w]l[dh]e its pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on v[e]riz
konsiderabli. It iz s[u]mteimz pronoúnst s[o] az tu prodiús [w]lmost a
[sh]arp krak; s[u]mteimz it haz a d[i]p, hol[o] sound; and s[u]mteimz a
soft, l[e]zi, _mouillé_ karakter. It v[e]riz konsiderabli akordi[n] tu
[dh]e vouelz hwi[ch] fol[o] it, az enibodi m[e] h[i]r, n[e] f[i]l, if h[i]
pronoúnsez in s[u]kse[sh]on, _kot_, _k[ue]l_, _kar_, _kat_, _kit_. B[u]t
az I[n]gli[sh] d[u]z not y[ue]z [dh][i]z diferent _kz_ for the p[u]rpos ov
disti[n]gwi[sh]i[n] w[u]rdz or gramatikal formz, w[u]n br[w]d kategori
[o]nli ov voisles g[u]t[u]ral [ch]eks haz tu b[i] admited in reiti[n]
I[n]gli[sh]. In [dh]e Semitik la[n]gwejez [dh]e k[e]s iz diferent; not
[o]nli ar _kaf_ and _kof_ diferent in sound, b[u]t [dh]is diforens iz
y[ue]zd tu disti[n]gwi[sh] diferent m[i]ni[n]z.
Or if w[i] t[e]k [dh]e vouel _a_ in its orijinal, piur
pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on, leik Italian _a_, w[i] kan [i]zili pers[i]v [dh]at it
haz diferent k[u]lorz in diferent kountiz ov I[n]gland. Yet in reiti[n] it
m[e] b[i] tr[i]ted az w[u]n, bek[w]z it haz b[u]t w[u]n and [dh]e s[e]m
gramatikal inten[sh]on, and d[u]z not konv[é] a niu m[i]ni[n] til it
eks[i]dz its weidest limits. Gud sp[i]kerz in I[n]gland pronoúns [dh]e _a_
in _last_ leik [dh]e piur Italian _a_; wi[dh] [u][dh]erz it bek[u]mz
br[w]d, wi[dh] [u][dh]erz [t]in. B[u]t [dh]e it m[e] [dh][u]s osil[e]t
konsiderabli, it m[u]st not enkr[o][ch]; on [dh]e provins ov _e_, hwi[ch]
wud [ch][e]nj its m[i]ni[n] tu _lest_; nor on [dh]e provins ov _o_,
hwk[ch] wud [ch]enj it tu _lost_; nor on [dh]e provins ov _u_, hwi[ch] wud
[ch]enj it tu _lust_.
[Dh]e difik[u]lti, [dh]erfor, hwi[ch] Ar[ch]bi[sh]op Trench haz pointed
out iz r[i]ali restrikted tu [dh][o]z k[e]sez hwer [dh]e
pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on ov vouelz—for it iz wi[dh] vouelz [ch][i]fli [dh]at
w[i] ar tr[u]beld—v[e]riz s[o] m[u][ch] az tu [o]verstep [dh]e br[w]dest
limits ov w[u]n ov [dh]e rekogneizd kategoriz ov sound, and tu enkr[o][ch]
on an[u][dh]er. If w[i] t[e]k [dh]e w[u]rd _fast_, hwi[ch] iz pronoúnst
veri diferentli [i]ven bei ediuk[e]ted p[i]pel, [dh]er wud b[i] no
nesesiti for indiketi[n] in reiti[n] [dh]e diferent [sh][e]dz ov
pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on hwi[ch] lei betw[i]n [dh]e sound ov [dh]e [sh]ort
Italian _a_ and [dh]e lo[n] _a_ herd in _father_. B[u]t hwen [dh]e _a_ in
_fast_ iz pronoúnst leik [dh]e _a_ in _fat_, [dh]en [dh]e nesesiti ov a
niu grafik eksp[o]nent wud areiz, and Ar[ch]bi[sh]op Trench wud b[i] reit
in twiti[n] f[o]netik reformerz wi[dh] sa[n]k[sh]oni[n] t[úe] speli[n]z
for [dh]e s[e]m w[u]rd.
Ei kud men[sh]on [dh]e n[e]mz ov [t]r[i] bi[sh]ops, w[u]n ov h[ue]m
pronoúnst [dh]e vouel in _God_ leik _G[w]d_, an[u][dh]er leik _rod_, a
[t]erd leik _gad_. [Dh]e last pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on wud probabli b[i]
kondemd bei everibodi, b[u]t [dh]e [u][dh]er t[ú] wud rem[e]n
sa[n]k[sh]ond bei [dh]e heiest [w][t]oriti, and [dh]erfor ret[e]nd in
fonetik reiti[n].
S[o] far, [dh]en, ei admit [dh]at Ar[ch]bi[sh]op Trench haz pointed out a
r[i]al difik[u]lti inh[i]rent in f[o]netik reiti[n]; b[u]t hwot iz [dh]at
w[u]n difik[u]lti komp[e]rd wi[dh] [dh]e difik[u]ltiz ov [dh]e prezent
sistem ov I[n]gli[sh] speli[n]? It wud not b[i] onest tu trei tu ev[e]d
hiz [ch]arj, bei s[e]i[n] [dh]at [dh]er iz b[u]t w[u]n pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on
rekogneizd bei [dh]e y[ue]zej ov ediuk[e]ted p[i]pel. [Dh]át iz not so,
and [dh][o]z h[ue] n[o] best [dh]e beioloji ov la[n]gwej, no [dh]at it
kan[o]t b[i] s[o]. [Dh]e veri leif ov la[n]gwej konsists in a konstant
fri[sh]on betw[i]n [dh]e sentripetal f[o]rs ov k[u]stom and [dh]e
sentrifiugal fors ov individiual fr[i]dom. Agenst [dh]at difik[u]lti
[dh][e]rfor, [dh]er iz n[o] remedi. [O]nli h[i]r agen [dh]e Ar[ch]bi[sh]op
s[i]mz tu hav overlukt [dh]e fakt [dh]at [dh]e difik[u]lti belo[n]z tu
[dh]e prezent sistem ov speli[n] n[i]rli az m[u][ch] az tu [dh]e fonetik
sistem. [Dh]er iz b[u]t w[u]n rekogneizd w[e] ov speli[n], b[u]t everibodi
pronoúnsez akordi[n] tu hiz [o]n idiosinkrasiz. It wud b[i] [dh]e s[e]m
wi[dh] f[o]netik speli[n]. W[u]n pron[u]nsie[sh]on, [dh]e best rekogneizd,
wud hav tu b[i] adopted az a standard in fonetik reiti[n], l[i]vi[n] tu
everi Ingli[sh]man hiz fr[i]dom tu pronoúns az s[i]me[t] gud tu him. W[i]
[sh]ud l[ue]z n[u][t]i[n] ov hwot w[i] nou pozés, and [w]l [dh]e
advantejez ov f[o]netik reiti[n] wud rem[e]n [u]nimp[e]rd. [Dh]e r[i]al
st[e]t ov [dh]e k[e]s iz, [dh][e]rfor, [dh]is—N[o]w[u]n defendz [dh]e
prezent sistem ov speli[n]; everiw[u]n admits [dh]e s[i]ri[u]s injuri
hwi[ch] it inflikts on na[sh]onal ediuk[e][sh]on. Everibodi admits [dh]e
praktikal advantejez ov fonetik speli[n], b[u]t after [dh]át, [w]l eksklem
[dh]at a reform ov speli[n], hw[o]der par[sh]al or kompl[i]t, iz
imposibel. Hwe[dh]er it iz imposibel or not, ei gladli l[i]v tu men ov de
w[u]rld tu deseid. Az a skolar, az a stiudent ov [dh]e histori ov
la[n]gwej, ei simpli m[e]nten [dh]at in everi riten la[n]gwej a reform ov
speli[n] iz, s[ue]nler or l[e]ter, inevitabel. N[o] dout [dh]e [i]vil d[e]
m[e] b[i] put of. Ei hav litel dout [dh]at it wil b[i] put of for meni
jener[e][sh]onz, and [dh]at a r[i]al reform wil probabli not b[i] karid
eksept konk[u]rentli wi[dh] a veiolent so[sh]al konv[u]l[sh]on. Onli let
[dh]e kwestion b[i] argiud f[e]rli. Let fakts hav s[u]m w[e]t, and let it
not b[i] s[u]p[o]zd bei men ov [dh]e w[u]rld [dh]at [dh]oz h[ue] defend
[dh]e prinsipelz ov [dh]e _Fonetik Niuz_ ar [o]nli t[i]totalerz and
vejet[e]rianz, h[ue] hav never lernd hou tu spel.
If ei hav sp[o]ken stro[n]li in s[u]port ov Mr. Pitman’z sistem, it iz not
bek[w]z on [w]l points ei konsider it siup[i]rior tu [dh]e sistemz
prep[e]rd bei [u][dh]er reformerz, h[ue] ar d[e]li inkr[i]si[n] in
n[u]mber, b[u]t [ch][i]fli bek[w]z it haz b[i]n tested so larjli, and haz
stud [dh]e test wel. Mr. Pitman’z _F[o]netik J[u]rnal_ haz nou [1880]
b[i]n p[u]bli[sh]t [t]erti-[e]t y[i]rz, and if it iz non [dh]at it iz
p[u]bli[sh]t w[i]kli in 12,000 kopiz, [i][ch] kopi reprezenti[n] at l[i]st
for or feiv r[i]derz, it m[e] not s[i]m so veri f[ue]li[sh], after [w]l,
if w[i] imajin [dh]at [dh]er iz s[u]m veital pouer in [dh]át insiguifikant
jerm.]