[Pg242]toc
§ 1
Typical Forms—Some of the salient differences between American and English spelling are shown in the following list of common words:
§ 2
General Tendencies—This list is by no means exhaustive. According to a recent writer upon the subject, "there are 812 words in which the prevailing American spelling differs from the English."[2]But enough examples are given to reveal a number of definite tendencies. American, in general, moves toward simplified forms of spelling more rapidly than English, and has got much further along the road. Redundant and unnecessary letters have been dropped from whole groups of words—theufrom the group of nouns in-our, with the sole exception ofSaviour, and from such words asmouldandbaulk; theefromannexe,asphalte,axe,forme,pease,storey, etc.; the duplicate consonant fromwaggon,nett,faggot,woollen,jeweller,councillor, etc., and the silent foreign suffixes fromtoilette,epaulette,programme,verandah, etc. In addition, simple vowels have been substituted for degenerated diphthongs in such words asanaemia,[Pg246]oesophagus,diarrhoeaandmediaeval, most of them from the Greek.
Further attempts in the same direction are to be seen in the substitution of simple consonants for compound consonants, as inplow,bark,check,vialanddraft; in the substitution ofiforyto bring words into harmony with analogues, as intire,ciderandbaritone(cf.wire,rider,merriment), and in the general tendency to get rid of the somewhat uneuphoniousy, as inataxiaandpajamas. Clarity and simplicity are also served by substitutingctforxin such words asconnectionandinflection, andsforcin words of thedefensegroup. The superiority ofjailtogaolis made manifest by the common mispronunciation of the latter, making it rhyme withcoal. The substitution ofiforein such words asindorse,incloseandjimmyis of less patent utility, but even here there is probably a slight gain in euphony. Of more obscure origin is what seems to be a tendency to avoid theo-sound, so that the Englishslogbecomesslug,podgybecomespudgy,noughtbecomesnaught,sloshbecomesslush,toffybecomestaffy, and so on. Other changes carry their own justification.Hostleris obviously better American thanostler, though it may be worse English.Showis more logical thanshew.[3]Cozyis more nearly phonetic thancosy.Curbhas analogues incurtain,curdle,curfew,curl,currant,curry,curve,curtsey,curse,currency,cursory,curtail,cur,curtand many other common words:kerbhas very few, and of them onlykerchiefandkernelare in general use. Moreover, the English themselves usecurbas a verb and in all noun senses save that shown inkerbstone.
But a number of anomalies remain. The American substitution ofaforeingrayis not easily explained, nor is the substitution ofkforcinskepticandmollusk, nor the retention ofeinforego, nor the unphonetic substitution ofsforzinfuse,[Pg247]nor the persistence of the firstyinpygmy. Here we have plain vagaries, surviving in spite of attack by orthographers. Webster, in one of his earlier books, denounced thekinskepticas "a mere pedantry," but later on he adopted it. In the same waypygmy,grayandmolluskhave been attacked, but they still remain sound American. The English themselves have many more such illogical forms to account for. In the midst of theour-words they cling to a small number inor, among them,stupor. Moreover, they drop theuin many derivatives, for example, inarboreal,armory,clamorously,clangorous,odoriferous,humorist,laboriousandrigorism. If it were dropped in all derivatives the rule would be easy to remember, but it is retained in some of them, for example,colourable,favourite,misdemeanour,colouredandlabourer. The derivatives ofhonourexhibit the confusion clearly.Honorary,honorariumandhonorificdrop theu, buthonourableretains it. Furthermore, the English make a distinction between two senses ofrigor. When used in its pathological sense (not only in the Latin form ofrigor mortis, but as an English word) it drops theu; in all other senses it retains theu. The one American anomaly in this field isSaviour. In its theological sense it retains theu; but in that sense only. A sailor who saves his ship is itssavior, not itssaviour.
§ 3
The Influence of Webster—At the time of the first settlement of America the rules of English orthography were beautifully vague, and so we find the early documents full of spellings that would give an English lexicographer much pain today. Now and then a curious foreshadowing of later American usage is encountered. On July 4, 1631, for example, John Winthrop wrote in his journal that "the governour built abarkat Mistick, which was launched this day." But during the eighteenth century, and especially after the publication of Johnson's dictionary, there was a general movement in England toward a more inflexible orthography, and many hard and fast rules, still surviving, were then laid down. It was Johnson himself who[Pg248]established the position of theuin theourwords. Bailey, Dyche and the other lexicographers before him were divided and uncertain; Johnson declared for theu, and though his reasons were very shaky[4]and he often neglected his own precept, his authority was sufficient to set up a usage which still defies attack in England. Even in America this usage was not often brought into question until the last quarter of the eighteenth century. True enough,honorappears in the Declaration of Independence, but it seems to have got there rather by accident than by design. In Jefferson's original draft it is spelledhonour. So early as 1768 Benjamin Franklin had published his "Scheme for a New Alphabet and a Reformed Mode of Spelling, with Remarks and Examples Concerning the Same, and an Enquiry Into its Uses" and induced a Philadelphia typefounder to cut type for it, but this scheme was too extravagant to be adopted anywhere, or to have any appreciable influence upon spelling.[5]
It was Noah Webster who finally achieved the divorce between English example and American practise. He struck the first blow in his "Grammatical Institute of the English Language," published at Hartford in 1783. Attached to this work was an appendix bearing the formidable title of "An Essay on the Necessity, Advantages and Practicability of Reforming the Mode of Spelling, and of Rendering the Orthography of Words Correspondent to the Pronunciation," and during the same year, at Boston, he set forth his ideas a second time in the first edition of his "American Spelling Book." The influence of this spelling book was immediate and profound. It took the place in the schools of Dilworth's "Aby-sel-pha," the favorite of the generation preceding, and maintained its authority for fully a century. Until Lyman Cobb entered the lists with his "New Spelling Book," in 1842, its innumerable editions scarcely had[Pg249]any rivalry, and even then it held its own. I have a New York edition, dated 1848, which contains an advertisement stating that the annual sale at that time was more than a million copies, and that more than 30,000,000 copies had been sold since 1783. In the late 40's the publishers, George F. Cooledge & Bro., devoted the whole capacity of the fastest steam press in the United States to the printing of it. This press turned out 525 copies an hour, or 5,250 a day. It was "constructed expressly for printing Webster's Elementary Spelling Book [the name had been changed in 1829] at an expense of $5,000." Down to 1889, 62,000,000 copies of the book had been sold.
The appearance of Webster's first dictionary, in 1806, greatly strengthened his influence. The best dictionary available to Americans before this was Johnson's in its various incarnations, but against Johnson's stood a good deal of animosity to its compiler, whose implacable hatred of all things American was well known to the citizens of the new republic. John Walker's dictionary, issued in London in 1791, was also in use, but not extensively. A home-made school dictionary, issued at New Haven in 1798 or 1799 by one Samuel Johnson, Jr.—apparently no relative of the great Sam—and a larger work published a year later by Johnson and the Rev. John Elliott, pastor in East Guilford, Conn., seem to have made no impression, despite the fact that the latter was commended by Simeon Baldwin, Chauncey Goodrich and other magnificoes of the time and place, and even by Webster himself. The field was thus open to the laborious and truculent Noah. He was already the acknowledged magister of lexicography in America, and there was an active public demand for a dictionary that should be wholly American. The appearance of his first duodecimo, according to Williams,[6]thereby took on something of the character of a national event. It was received, not critically, but patriotically, and its imperfections were swallowed as eagerly as its merits. Later on Webster had to meet formidable critics, at home as well as abroad, but for nearly a quarter of a century he reigned almost unchallenged. Edition after edition of his dictionary was published,[Pg250]each new one showing additions and improvements. Finally, in 1828, he printed his great "AmericanDictionary of the English Language," in two large octavo volumes. It held the field for half a century, not only against Worcester and the other American lexicographers who followed him, but also against the best dictionaries produced in England. Until very lately, indeed, America remained ahead of England in practical dictionary making.
Webster had declared boldly for simpler spellings in his early spelling books; in his dictionary of 1806 he made an assault at all arms upon some of the dearest prejudices of English lexicographers. Grounding his wholesale reforms upon a saying by Franklin, that "those people spell best who do not know how to spell"—i. e., who spell phonetically and logically—he made an almost complete sweep of whole classes of silent letters—theuin the-ourwords, the finaleindetermineandrequisite, the silentainthread,featherandsteady, the silentbinthumb, thesinisland, theoinleopard, and the redundant consonants intraveler,wagon,jeweler, etc. (English:traveller,waggon,jeweller). More, he lopped the finalkfromfrolick,physickand their analogues. Yet more, he transposed theeand therin all words ending inre, such astheatre,lustre,centreandcalibre. Yet more, he changed thecin all words of thedefenceclass tos. Yet more, he changedphtofin words of thephantomclass,outoooin words of thegroupclass,owtoouincrowd,porpoisetoporpess,acretoaker,sewtosoe,woetowo,soottosut,gaoltojail, andploughtoplow. Finally, he antedated the simplified spellers by inventing a long list of boldly phonetic spellings, ranging fromtungfortonguetowimmenforwomen, and fromhainousforheinoustocagforkeg.
A good many of these new spellings, of course, were not actually Webster's inventions. For example, the change from-ourto-orin words of thehonorclass was a mere echo of an earlier English usage, or, more accurately, of an earlier English uncertainty. In the first three folios of Shakespeare, 1623, 1632 and 1663-6,honorandhonourwere used indiscriminately and in almost equal proportions; English spelling was still fluid, and[Pg251]the-our-form was not consistently adopted until the fourth folio of 1685. Moreover, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, is authority for the statement that the-or-form was "a fashionable impropriety" in England in 1791. But the great authority of Johnson stood against it, and Webster was surely not one to imitate fashionable improprieties. He deleted theufor purely etymological reasons, going back to the Latinhonor,favorandodorwithout taking account of the intermediate Frenchhonneur,faveurandodeur. And where no etymological reasons presented themselves, he made his changes by analogy and for the sake of uniformity, or for euphony or simplicity, or because it pleased him, one guesses, to stir up the academic animals. Webster, in fact, delighted in controversy, and was anything but free from the national yearning to make a sensation.
A great many of his innovations, of course, failed to take root, and in the course of time he abandoned some of them himself. In his early "Essay on the Necessity, Advantage and Practicability of Reforming the Mode of Spelling" he advocated reforms which were already discarded by the time he published the first edition of his dictionary. Among them were the dropping of the silent letter in such words ashead,give,builtandrealm, making themhed,giv,biltandrelm; the substitution of doubled vowels for decayed diphthongs in such words asmean,zealandnear, making themmeen,zeelandneer; and the substitution ofshforchin such French loan-words asmachineandchevalier, making themmasheenandshevaleer. He also declared forstilein place ofstyle, and for many other such changes, and then quietly abandoned them. The successive editions of his dictionary show still further concessions.Croud,fether,groop,gillotin,iland,insted,leperd,soe,sut,steddy,thret,thred,thumandwimmenappear only in the 1806 edition. In 1828 he went back tocrowd,feather,group,island,instead,leopard,sew,soot,steady,thread,threat,thumbandwomen, and changedgillotintoguillotin. In addition, he restored the finaleindetermine,discipline,requisite,imagine, etc. In 1838, revising his dictionary, he abandoned a good many spellings that had appeared in either the 1806 or the 1828 edition, notablymaizformaize,[Pg252]suveranforsovereignandguillotinforguillotine. But he stuck manfully to a number that were quite as revolutionary—for example,akerforacre,cagforkeg,groteskforgrotesque,hainousforheinous,porpessforporpoiseandtungfortongue—and they did not begin to disappear until the edition of 1854, issued by other hands and eleven years after his death. Three of his favorites,chimistforchemist,negerfornegroandzeberforzebra, are incidentally interesting as showing changes in American pronunciation. He abandonedzeberin 1828, but remained faithful tochimistandnegerto the last.
But though he was thus forced to give occasional ground, and in more than one case held out in vain, Webster lived to see the majority of his reforms adopted by his countrymen. He left the ending in-ortriumphant over the ending in-our, he shook the security of the ending in-re, he rid American spelling of a great many doubled consonants, he established thesin words of thedefensegroup, and he gave currency to many characteristic American spellings, notablyjail,wagon,plow,moldandax. These spellings still survive, and are practically universal in the United States today; their use constitutes one of the most obvious differences between written English and written American. Moreover, they have founded a general tendency, the effects of which reach far beyond the field actually traversed by Webster himself. New words, and particularly loan-words, are simplified, and hence naturalized in American much more quickly than in English.Employéhas long since becomeemployeein our newspapers, andasphaltehas lost its finale, andmanoeuvrehas becomemaneuver, andpyjamashas becomepajamas. Even the terminology of science is simplified and Americanized. In medicine, for example, the highest American usage countenances many forms which would seem barbarisms to an English medical man if he encountered them in theLancet. In derivatives of the Greekhaimait is the almost invariable American custom to spell the root syllablehem, but the more conservative English make ithaem—e. g., inhaemorrhageandhaemiplegia. In an exhaustive list of diseases issued by the United States Public Health[Pg253]Service[7]thehaem-form does not appear once. In the same way American usage prefersesophagus,diarrheaandgonorrheato the Englishoesophagus,diarrhoeaandgonorrhoea. In the style-book of theJournalof the American Medical Association[8]I find many other spellings that would shock an English medical author, among themcuretforcurette,cocainforcocaine,gageforgauge,internforinterne,lacrimalforlachrymal, and a whole group of words ending in-erinstead of in-re.
Webster's reforms, it goes without saying, have not passed unchallenged by the guardians of tradition. A glance at the literature of the first years of the nineteenth century shows that most of the serious authors of the time ignored his new spellings, though they were quickly adopted by the newspapers. Bancroft's "Life of Washington" contains-ourendings in all such words ashonor,ardorandfavor. Washington Irving also threw his influence against the-orending, and so did Bryant and most of the other literary big-wigs of that day. After the appearance of "An American Dictionary of the English Language," in 1828, a formal battle was joined, with Lyman Cobb and Joseph E. Worcester as the chief opponents of the reformer. Cobb and Worcester, in the end, accepted the-orending and so surrendered on the main issue, but various other champions arose to carry on the war. Edward S. Gould, in a once famous essay,[9]denounced the whole Websterian orthography with the utmost fury, and Bryant, reprinting this philippic in theEvening Post, said that on account of Webster "the English language has been undergoing a process of corruption for the last quarter of a century," and offered to contribute to a fund to have Gould's denunciation "read twice a year in every school-house in the United States, until every trace of Websterian spelling disappears from the land." But Bryant was forced to admit that, even in 1856, the chief novelties of the Connecticut school-master "who taught millions to read but not one to sin" were[Pg254]"adopted and propagated by the largest publishing house, through the columns of the most widely circulated monthly magazine, and through one of the ablest and most widely circulated newspapers in the United States"—which is to say, theTribuneunder Greeley. The last academic attack was delivered by Bishop Coxe in 1886, and he contented himself with the resigned statement that "Webster has corrupted our spelling sadly." Lounsbury, with his active interest in spelling reform, ranged himself on the side of Webster, and effectively disposed of the controversy by showing that the great majority of his spellings were supported by precedents quite as respectable as those behind the fashionable English spellings. In Lounsbury's opinion, a good deal of the opposition to them was no more than a symptom of antipathy to all things American among certain Englishmen and of subservience to all things English among certain Americans.[10]
Webster's inconsistency gave his opponents a formidable weapon for use against him—until it began to be noticed that the orthodox English spelling was quite as inconsistent. He sought to changeacretoaker, but leftlucreunchanged. He removed the finalffrombailiff,mastiff,plaintiffandpontiff, but left it indistaff. He changedctosin words of theoffenseclass, but left thecinfence. He changed theckinfrolick,physick, etc., into a simplec, but restored it in such derivatives asfrolicksome. He deleted the silentuinmould, but left it incourt. These slips were made the most of by Cobb in a pamphlet printed in 1831.[11]He also detected Webster in the frequentfaux pasof using spellings in his definitions and explanations that conflicted with the spellings he advocated. Various other purists joined in the attack, and it was renewed with great fury after the appearance of Worcester's dictionary, in 1846. Worcester, who had begun his lexicographical labors by editing Johnson's dictionary, was a good deal more conservative than Webster, and so the partisans of conformity rallied around him, and for[Pg255]a while the controversy took on all the rancor of a personal quarrel. Even the editions of Webster printed after his death, though they gave way on many points, were violently arraigned. Gould, in 1867, belabored the editions of 1854 and 1866,[12]and complained that "for the past twenty-five years the Websterian replies have uniformly been bitter in tone, and very free in the imputation of personal motives, or interested or improper motives, on the part of opposing critics." At this time Webster himself had been dead for twenty-two years. Schele de Vere, during the same year, denounced the publishers of the Webster dictionaries for applying "immense capital and a large stock of energy and perseverance" to the propagation of his "new and arbitrarily imposed orthography."[13]
§ 4
Exchanges—As in vocabulary and in idiom, there are constant exchanges between English and American in the department of orthography. Here the influence of English usage is almost uniformly toward conservatism, and that of American usage is as steadily in the other direction. The logical superiority of American spelling is well exhibited by its persistent advance in the face of the utmost hostility. The English objection to our simplifications, as Brander Matthews points out, is not wholly or even chiefly etymological; its roots lie, to borrow James Russell Lowell's phrase, in an esthetic hatred burning "with as fierce a flame as ever did theological hatred." There is something inordinately offensive to English purists in the very thought of taking lessons from this side of the water, particularly in the mother tongue. The opposition, transcending the academic, takes on the character of the patriotic. "Any American," continues Matthews, "who chances to note the force and the fervor and the frequency of the objurgations against American spelling in the columns of theSaturday Review, for example, and of theAthenaeum, may find himself wondering as to the date of the[Pg256]papal bull which declared the infallibility of contemporary British orthography, and as to the place where the council of the Church was held at which it was made an article of faith."[14]This was written more than a quarter of a century ago. Since then there has been a lessening of violence, but the opposition still continues. No self-respecting English author would yield up the-ourending for an instant, or writecheckforcheque, or transpose the last letters in the-rewords.
Nevertheless, American spelling makes constant gains across the water, and they more than offset the occasional fashions for English spellings on this side. Schele de Vere, in 1867, consoled himself for Webster's "arbitrarily imposed orthography" by predicting that it could be "only temporary"—that, in the long run, "North America depends exclusively on the mother-country for its models of literature." But the event has blasted this prophecy and confidence, for the English, despite their furious reluctance, have succumbed to Webster more than once. The New English Dictionary, a monumental work, shows many silent concessions, and quite as many open yieldings—for example, in the case ofax, which is admitted to be "better thanaxeon every ground." Moreover, English usage tends to march ahead of it, outstripping the liberalism of its editor, Sir James A. H. Murray. In 1914, for example, Sir James was still protesting against dropping the firstefromjudgement, a characteristic Americanism, but during the same year the Fowlers, in their Concise Oxford Dictionary, putjudgmentahead ofjudgement; and two years earlier the Authors' and Printers' Dictionary, edited by Horace Hart,[15]had droppedjudgementaltogether. Hart is Controller of the Oxford University Press, and the Authors' and Printers' Dictionary is an authority accepted by nearly all of the great English book publishers and newspapers. Its last edition shows a great many American spellings. For example, it recommends the use ofjailandjailerin place[Pg257]of the Englishgaolandgaoler, says thataxis better thanaxe, drops the finalefromasphalteandforme, changes theytoiincyder,cypherandsyrenand advocates the same change intyre, drops the redundanttfromnett, changesburthentoburden, spellswagonwith oneg, prefersfusetofuze, and takes theeout ofstorey. "Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford," also edited by Hart (with the advice of Sir James Murray and Dr. Henry Bradley), is another very influential English authority.[16]It gives its imprimatur tobark(a ship),cipher,siren,jail,story,tireandwagon, and even advocateskilogramandomelet. Finally, there is Cassell's English Dictionary.[17]It clings to the-ourand-reendings and toannexe,waggonandcheque, but it prefersjailtogaol,nettonett,asphalttoasphalteandstorytostorey, and comes out flatly forjudgment,fuseandsiren.
Current English spelling, like our own, shows a number of uncertainties and inconsistencies, and some of them are undoubtedly the result of American influences that have not yet become fully effective. The lack of harmony in the-ourwords, leading to such discrepancies ashonoraryandhonourable, I have already mentioned. The British Board of Trade, in attempting to fix the spelling of various scientific terms, has often come to grief. Thus it detaches the final-mefromgrammein such compounds askilogramandmilligram, but insists upongrammewhen the word stands alone. In American usagegramis now common, and scarcely challenged. All the English authorities that I have consulted prefermetreandcalibreto the Americanmeterandcaliber.[18]They also support theaein such words asaetiology,aesthetics,mediaevalandanaemia, and theoeinoesophagus,[Pg258]manoeuvreanddiarrhoea. They also cling to such forms asmollusc,kerb,pyjamasandostler, and to the use ofxinstead ofctinconnexionandinflexion. The Authors' and Printers' Dictionary admits the Americancurb, but says that the Englishkerbis more common. It givesbarque,ploughandfount, but grants thatbark,plowandfontare good in America. As betweeninquiryandenquiry, it prefers the Americaninquiryto the Englishenquiry, but it rejects the Americanincloseandindorsein favor of the Englishencloseandendorse.[19]Here American spelling has driven in a salient, but has yet to take the whole position. A number of spellings, nearly all American, are trembling on the brink of acceptance in both countries. Among them isrime(forrhyme). This spelling was correct in England until about 1530, but its recent revival was of American origin. It is accepted by the Oxford Dictionary and by the editors of the Cambridge History of English Literature, but it seldom appears in an English journal. The same may be said ofgrewsome. It has got a footing in both countries, but the weight of English opinion is still against it.Develop(instead ofdevelope) has gone further in both countries. So hasengulf, forengulph. So hasgipsyforgypsy.
American imitation of English orthography has two impulses behind it. First, there is the colonial spirit, the desire to pass as English—in brief, mere affectation. Secondly, there is the wish among printers, chiefly of books and periodicals, to reach a compromise spelling acceptable in both countries, thus avoiding expensive revisions in case of republication in England.[20][Pg259]The first influence need not detain us. It is chiefly visible among folk of fashionable pretensions, and is not widespread. At Bar Harbor, in Maine, some of the summer residents are at great pains to putharbourinstead ofharboron their stationery, but the local postmaster still continues to stamp all mailBar Harbor, the legal name of the place. In the same way American haberdashers sometimes advertisepyjamasinstead ofpajamas, just as they advertisebracesinstead ofsuspendersandvestsinstead ofundershirts. But this benign folly does not go very far. Beyond occasionally clinging to the-reending in words of thetheatregroup, all American newspapers and magazines employ the native orthography, and it would be quite as startling to encounterhonourorjewelleryin one of them as it would be to encountergaolorwaggon. Even the most fashionable jewelers in Fifth avenue still deal injewelry, not injewellery.
The second influence is of more effect and importance. In the days before the copyright treaty between England and the United States, one of the standing arguments against it among the English was based upon the fear that it would flood England with books set up in America, and so work a corruption of English spelling.[21]This fear, as we have seen, had a certain plausibility; there is not the slightest doubt that American books and American magazines have done valiant missionary service for American orthography. But English conservatism still holds out stoutly enough to force American printers to certain compromises. When a book is designed for circulation in both countries it is common for the publisher to instruct the printer to employ "English spelling." This English spelling, at the Riverside Press,[22]embraces all the-ourendings and the following further forms:
[Pg260]
chequechequeredconnexiondreamtfaggotforgatherforgogreyinflexionjewelleryleaptpremises (in logic)waggon
cheque
chequered
connexion
dreamt
faggot
forgather
forgo
grey
inflexion
jewellery
leapt
premises (in logic)
waggon
It will be noted thatgaol,tyre,storey,kerb,asphalte,annexe,ostler,molluscandpyjamasare not listed, nor are the words ending in-re. These and their like constitute the English contribution to the compromise. Two other great American book presses, that of the Macmillan Company[23]and that of the J. S. Cushing Company,[24]addgaolandstoreyto the list, and alsobehove,briar,drily,enquire,gaiety,gipsy,instal,judgement,lacquey,moustache,nought,pigmy,postillion,reflexion,shily,slily,staunchandverandah. Here they go too far, for, as we have seen, the English themselves have begun to abandonbriar,enquireandjudgement. Moreover,lacqueyis going out over there, andgipsyis not English, but American. The Riverside Press, even in books intended only for America, prefers certain English forms, among them,anaemia,axe,mediaeval,mould,plough,programmeandquartette, but in compensation it stands by such typical Americanisms ascaliber,calk,center,cozy,defense,foregather,gray,hemorrhage,luster,maneuver,mustache,theaterandwoolen. The Government Printing Office at Washington follows Webster's New International Dictionary,[25]which supports most of the innovations of Webster himself. This dictionary is the authority in perhaps a majority of American printing offices, with the Standard and the Century supporting it. The latter two also follow Webster, notably in his-er[Pg261]endings and in his substitution ofsforcin words of thedefenseclass. The Worcester Dictionary is the sole exponent of English spelling in general circulation in the United States. It remains faithful to most of the-reendings, and tomanoeuvre,gramme,plough,sceptic,woollen,axeand many other English forms. But even Worcester favors such characteristic American spellings asbehoove,brier,caliber,checkered,dryly,jailandwagon.
§ 5
Simplified Spelling—The current movement toward a general reform of English-American spelling is of American origin, and its chief supporters are Americans today. Its actual father was Webster, for it was the long controversy over his simplified spellings that brought the dons of the American Philological Association to a serious investigation of the subject. In 1875 they appointed a committee to inquire into the possibility of reform, and in 1876 this committee reported favorably. During the same year there was an International Convention for the Amendment of English Orthography at Philadelphia, with several delegates from England present, and out of it grew the Spelling Reform Association.[26]In 1878 a committee of American philologists began preparing a list of proposed new spellings, and two years later the Philological Society of England joined in the work. In 1883 a joint manifesto was issued, recommending various general simplifications. In 1886 the American Philological Association issued independently a list of recommendations affecting about 3,500 words, and falling under ten headings. Practically all of the changes proposed had been put forward 80 years before by Webster, and some of them had entered into unquestioned American usage in the meantime,e. g., the deletion of theufrom the-ourwords, the substitution of[Pg262]erforreat the end of words, the reduction oftravellertotraveler, and the substitution ofzforswherever phonetically demanded, as inadvertizeandcozy.
The trouble with the others was that they were either too uncouth to be adopted without a struggle or likely to cause errors in pronunciation. To the first class belongedtungfortongue,rufforrough,batlforbattleandabuvforabove, and to the second such forms ascachforcatchandtroblefortrouble. The result was that the whole reform received a set-back: the public dismissed the industrious professors as a pack of dreamers. Twelve years later the National Education Association revived the movement with a proposal that a beginning be made with a very short list of reformed spellings, and nominated the following by way of experiment:tho,altho,thru,thruout,thoro,thoroly,thorofare,program,prolog,catalog,pedagoganddecalog. This scheme of gradual changes was sound in principle, and in a short time at least two of the recommended spellings,programandcatalog, were in general use. Then, in 1906, came the organization of the Simplified Spelling Board, with an endowment of $15,000 a year from Andrew Carnegie, and a formidable membership of pundits. The board at once issued a list of 300 revised spellings, new and old, and in August, 1906, President Roosevelt ordered their adoption by the Government Printing Office. But this unwise effort to hasten matters, combined with the buffoonery characteristically thrown about the matter by Roosevelt, served only to raise up enemies, and since then, though it has prudently gone back to more discreet endeavors and now lays main stress upon the original 12 words of the National Education Association, the Board has not made a great deal of progress.[27]From time to time it issues impressive lists of newspapers and periodicals that are using some, at least, of its revised spellings and of colleges that have made them optional, but an inspection of these lists shows that very few[Pg263]publications of any importance have been converted[28]and that most of the great universities still hesitate. It has, however, greatly reinforced the authority behind many of Webster's spellings, and it has done much to reform scientific orthography. Such forms asgram,cocain,chlorid,anemiaandanilinare the products of its influence.
Despite the large admixture of failure in this success there is good reason to believe that at least two of the spellings on the National Education Association list,thoandthru, are making not a little quiet progress. I read a great many manuscripts by American authors, and find in them an increasing use of both forms, with the occasional addition ofaltho,thoroandthoroly. The spirit of American spelling is on their side. They promise to come in ashonor,bark,check,wagonandstorycame in many years ago, astire,[29]esophagusandtheatercame in later on, asprogram,catalogandcyclopediacame in only yesterday, and asairplane(foraëroplane)[30]is coming in today. A constant tendency toward logic and simplicity is visible; if the spelling of English and American does not grow farther and farther apart it is only because American drags English along. There is incessant experimentalization. New forms appear, are tested, and then either gain general acceptance or disappear. One such, now struggling for recognition, isalright, a compound ofallandright, made by analogy withalreadyandalmost. I find it in American manuscripts every day, and it not infrequently gets into print.[31]So far no dictionary supports it, but[Pg264]it has already migrated to England.[32]Meanwhile, one often encounters, in American advertising matter, such experimental forms asburlesk,foto,fonograph,kandy,kar,holsum,kumfortandQ-room, not to mentionsulfur.Segarhas been more or less in use for half a century, and at one time it threatened to displacecigar. At least one American professor of English predicts that such forms will eventually prevail. Evenfosfateandfotograph, he says, "are bound to be the spellings of the future."[33]
§ 6