Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1890-01-22
TWO USELESS LETTERS.
@ and @ Represent No Sound Not Better
Represented by and 5.

u and ~ represent NO SOunO MOI beCC0f
Represented by X and 5.
/ There are two letters in the English
alphabet which are entirely useless in
their present form, as they represent no
sound which Is not as we'll or better rep
resented by another letter. They are
and q. The letter has no sound of its
own, under any conceivable circum-
stances. 1t is either or k, depending
upon it's combination with avowel and
it's position in a word. For instance,
take the word used few lines above
conceivable. Here are two cs, the sound
of the first being that of k, and the sound
Cf the second being that of S. If the
word were spelled conceivable" the
pronunciation would be exactly the
same, and the spelling would be logical.
If it be objected that the letter has
two sounds, the answer is that substitute
ing it for would not make matters any
worse. If the kissing sound of is rep
resented by c, the sound would be re-
tanned if S were put in the place of c.
We learn to read by the ear quite
as much as by the eye, and
giving the correct sound of s
/ is feat Of the memory, nothing more.
! Some one will say, however: what is
to be done with the great number of
words in which is found in combina-
ton with h? How shall we spell
charity, 'arch,' and all the other words
of that kind?" The reply to this criti-
cism is that there should be new let
ter to represent the soft sound of CHI,
while the letter k may be substituted
for the hard sound. Perhaps the letter
might be left on condition that it be
given the Italian sound, which is very
near to our sound of Oh, but by itself
is utterly useless and valueless, and a
source of constant confusion and annoy
ance. When it is remembered that all
the many ''shun" examinations there are
but two words in the language which
end in 'cion," it will be seen how read
lily the could be spared. The letter q
is worse than useless. 1t has to have
another letter with it, and that always
the same letter, before it can be used at
all in English. The French use il as a
| terminal letter, but we do not, and
wherever it is found in English, whether
at the beginning or in the middle of
word, it must be accompanied by
its Siamese twin, the letter u. OF
course it is obvious that the real let
ter, that is, the real representative of a
sound, is not q, but gu, and there is no
sound of gu which can not just as we'll
be expressed by two other letters, k and
w. If we make this arrangement of let
tiers, ''kwick," it spells exactly the same
as ''quick," and eliminates the entire
~ from the alphabet. 1t is not attempt
ed in this article to advocate spelling
reform in general. The subject is a
very extensive one, and is being con-
stantly brought up by such journals as
the Fonetik Nuz and similar publica-
tions. Every theoretical consideration
! is in favor of the reform, but the SPELL
/ ing-book and dictionary still hold their
own, and the children learn to spell not
merely as their parents did, but because
] they did. Some time there may come a
wave of public interest in the subject
and a general uprising in favor of pho
netic spelling and then the language
will certainly be simpliied; but in the
meantime there can be no harm in get
ting rid of and q, of which it may be
truly said that their room would be better
! than their company.-San Francisco
Chronicle.