FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[181]Wontis strictly a contraction ofwoll 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 wordsnumber,chamber, and many others in English are from the Frenchnombre,chambre, &c. Why was the spelling changed? or rather why is the spelling oflustre,metre,theatre,notchanged? The cases are precisely similar. The Englishman who first wrotenumberfornombre, had no greater authority to make the change, than any modern writer has to spelllustre,metrein 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 inluster,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 findmoveandprovespelt almost correctly,mooveandproove.[187]In the Roman languageliberhad four or five different meanings; it signifiedfree,the inward bark of a tree,a book, sometimesan epistle, and alsogenerous.[188]Thus most people suppose the present mode of spelling to be really theeasiestandbest. 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 nounsabuseandusewould be distinguished from the verbs, which would be speltabuze,yuze; and so in many instances. See the answer below.[192]This remark of the Doctor is very just and obvious. A countryman writesakerorakurforacre; yet the countryman isright, as the wordoughtto be spelt; and we laugh at him only becauseweare accustomed to bewrong.[193]This is a fact of vast consequence.[194]That is, if the language had retained the oldRomanspelling, and been pronounced as the modernItalian. 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, aswewrite,rough,still,neighbor,wrong,tongue,true,rhetoric, &c. and yet pronounce the words,ruf,stil,nabur,rong,tung,tru,retoric.

[181]Wontis strictly a contraction ofwoll 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 wordsnumber,chamber, and many others in English are from the Frenchnombre,chambre, &c. Why was the spelling changed? or rather why is the spelling oflustre,metre,theatre,notchanged? The cases are precisely similar. The Englishman who first wrotenumberfornombre, had no greater authority to make the change, than any modern writer has to spelllustre,metrein 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 inluster,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 findmoveandprovespelt almost correctly,mooveandproove.

[187]In the Roman languageliberhad four or five different meanings; it signifiedfree,the inward bark of a tree,a book, sometimesan epistle, and alsogenerous.

[188]Thus most people suppose the present mode of spelling to be really theeasiestandbest. 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 nounsabuseandusewould be distinguished from the verbs, which would be speltabuze,yuze; and so in many instances. See the answer below.

[192]This remark of the Doctor is very just and obvious. A countryman writesakerorakurforacre; yet the countryman isright, as the wordoughtto be spelt; and we laugh at him only becauseweare accustomed to bewrong.

[193]This is a fact of vast consequence.

[194]That is, if the language had retained the oldRomanspelling, and been pronounced as the modernItalian. 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, aswewrite,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.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.Numbers used as diacritical marks were changed to superscripts.

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.

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.

Numbers used as diacritical marks were changed to superscripts.

Back to Index Next