THE LIVING KEY TO SPELLING

REFORM.

BY F. G. FLEAY, M.A.

(Read November 24, 1880.)

BEFORE entering on the systematic exposition of the method, by which I propose to extricate spelling reformers from the dead-lock to which Dr. Ingleby reduced them in the valuable paper to which I was privileged to listen in this room, I think it desirable to lay before you a few considerations as to the reasons of the general rejection by the Press, and, indeed, by the public, of all schemes of reform hitherto proposed; especially of Mr. Pitman's Phonetic, Mr. Ellis' Glossic, Mr. Sweet's Broad Romic, and Professor March's American Notation. In doing this I shall have to notice various objections to such schemes, which I, in common with other objectors, hold to be valid against them, but which I, unlike the majority of these objectors, do not hold to be valid against spelling reform generally. I shall thus prepare the way for the exposition of my own plan and if you find it open to similar objections, I must retire with the consolation that better men than myself have been equally foiled in this difficult problem; if, however, I am not thus vanquished, I shall still have to acknowledge that, had not the gentlemen I have named preceded me, I should not have been able to produce a solution, in which at

every step I have had occasion to refer to their publications on this and kindred matters. I am not aware of any further obligations on my part to my predecessors, except of course to Mr. A. Melville Bell's great work on Visible Speech. It must also be distinctly understood, that on this occasion, whatever I say is to be taken as simply my own, and that I in no way represent the English Spelling Reform Association; indeed I am not aware that even a single member of that body would endorse my views.

I would then propose the following general maxims for our guidance in forming a reformed alphabet :

1. That no new principle should be involved in it, unless it be previously shown that those already recognised in our present spelling are insufficient for the purpose; thus, until it has been proved that such digraphs as ch, th, ng, sh, wh, are inefficient, Messrs. Pitman's and March's new-letter schemes are not to be admitted: until it has been proved that digraphs are ambiguous or misleading, we must not reject them for the representation of long vowels in favour of either new types or types with diacritical marks.

one.

2. Our new notation must lead up to our present Children will be taught the new notation, if one be adopted, and for a generation at least will have to learn the old one afterwards, for reading purposes, though not for writing. Any system then which gives, as Messrs. Sweet's and Pitman's do give, un-English sounds to the fundamental vowels, which base a new notation on the Continental sounds of a, e, i, o, u, instead of on the sounds which have

historically become attached to those signs in our tongue, will entail unnecessary labour on the learner, re-introduce a pronunciation which has been absolutely however gradually rejected, and create a very wide etymological gap between the reformed and unreformed spellings: so wide indeed as to be impassable by the ordinary mind, if untrained in etymology and philology. The difference between the two spellings would indeed be analogous to that between Chaucer's pronunciation and our own; and I ask you, an audience of trained intellects, very different from the average newspaper reader, how many of you can say that in reading Chaucer you consciously reproduce his pronunciation, and how many of you, if his works were accessible only in a notation which should reproduce his pronunciation on 19th century principles, would ever read him at all.

3. A new notation should, in whatever changes it introduces, continue and extend changes already at work, in preference to instituting other changes of a nature previously unknown: in other words it should start by utilizing old methods as far as possible. This is not a mere repetition of my first principle; that refers merely to the spelling that exists, this to the changes which are actually now taking place in the spelling.

4. All writings in new notation ought to be legible at sight by any one who can read our existing books. Hence, if new letters are introduced at all, they should be so differentiated from present forms as at once to explain themselves; if accents are introduced, they should to the existing reader seem

merely to emphasize as it were the existing spellings;

if any new mark of any kind is used, it should when omitted simply lead us back to the ordinary unreformed words, so that a child who passes from one system to the other should have nothing to unlearn. Here I feel sure lies the principal defect of alphabets hitherto proposed. Not only the new letters of Mr. Pitman, but digraphs like Mr. Ellis' uo in puol (pull) or Mr. Sweet's yiw for you are open to this objection, and are of themselves sufficient to prevent the adoption of their schemes by the public.

5. It is not advisable to attempt to introduce a spelling that shall be phonetic for writing purposes: nor if it were advisable would it be practicable. We have in our language at least two main systems of spelling long vowels and diphthongs. a. The simple a e io u scheme which prevails mostly in words derived from the classical languages. b. The digraph notation which obtains specially in purely English words. c. We have also a small number of words based on the Continental pronunciation. Each of these has its advocates among leading reformers, there is no chance of compromise among them on this point. Reform is impossible, except provisionally by retaining each of these principles so far as it actually exists. I believe they would all consent to this. I only differ from them in maintaining that this provisional arrangement ought to be permanent, and that by this means we could retain really valuable etymological indications contained in our present spelling, viz., information whether a word is of Latin, or Greek, or English origin; or

whether it has had originally a different sound' from other words with which it is now levelled. Such information is desirable. The present etymological information, on the other hand, conveyed by silent letters is nearly always misleading on account of its irregularity, and should be abandoned. The existence of numerous homonyms in our speech also favours this view. I am very unwilling to give up the means of distinguishing them by differences in spelling. The main point, however, is this: that having these three different systems co-existing, no reduction of them to one system is satisfactory. Yet this is what all reformers have attempted except a few, who have produced schemes that are not phonetic for reading purposes, and are therefore next to useless for educational reform. The result has been that no consistent scheme has been printed, which does not at once strike the eye as strangely un-English and unsatisfactory. I may point out here that it is not the amount so much as the kind of difference that gives the impression of strangeness one such notation as w for u or an e upside down, gives a more unfamiliar appearance to a scheme of spelling than an entirely new alphabet. Compare Mr. Sweet's Romic, for instance, with Greek words written in English letters or conversely. This is felt so strongly by the leading reformers, that they are now advocating partial schemes such as Mr. Ellis' Dimidian or Mr. Pitman's Semi-Phonography. Mine is also a partial scheme in one sense, viz., that

Thus oa and oo, once levelled in the fourteenth century are now quite distinct. So ei, ai, and ea, ee, now levelled, may possibly become distinct again. At any rate they should not be heedlessly given up.