The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1896-11-07

Some months ago we referred to
the persistent attempts now being
made, by certain advanced philologers,
to defaee and disfigure written and
printed English by 'sreform" in
spelling, the foundation motive of
which is alleged to be an economy of
time in writing and type-setting. We
then expressed our dislike of this
projected reform, as dictated, in fact,
more by restlessness for change than
by solid desire for improvement.
We see no reason to correct our view,
then expressed, although we do not
wish TO include in this somewhat
sweeping affirmation all those who
give it their support. We are now in
receipt of new reminder that this
reform is still upward and onward-a
circular letter, with list of weighty
names accompanying; among which
we remark that OF distinguished
citizen of Newark, William Hayes
Ward of the Independent. We are
sorry to differ with DIR. Ward in this
matter-but even with DIR. Ward and
Max Muller, Professor Sayce and a
committee of the Pennsylvania legis-
lature- admittedly body of scholars
of high pathological attachments and
against us, we feel that
this reform is one to be resisted. We
are accustomed to spell after the man.
ner of the century, and expect to con-
tinue in that way.
We are aware, of course. that there
have been some changes in spelling
since 1900; not very many, however,
and involving but limited number
of words, and with two or three small
exceptions, none upon what may be
called a system. One of these was the
dropping of the SUP from favour, hon
our and the like. But great many
scholars and literary men did not like
this change when made, and do not
like it now. The best usage in Eng
land is to retain the ssu, ~ and some
Americans retain it. Sidney Smith.
who once lost some money in Penn
sylyania investment, was very sarcas-
tic about this dropping of the "u."
He said that the Americans were so
fond of robbing the English, that they
not only robbed their English credit
ors, but robbed also the English Ian
guage.
We attach good deal of import
anee to the historical argument; that
is to say, to the proposition that it is
desirable to retain the historical forms
Of the written and printed words of
the language, so far as that is posi-
BILE; the historic FORMS, we mean,
since the printing art gave them fixity.
Moreover, there is great deal to be
said on the artistic side of the ques-
tion. A skeleton is not beautiful
object, no matter of what it may be,
and the general result of the reformed
spelling would soon be, if logically APP
piled, system of word skeletons of a
hideous kind.
We first have launched, then
'lanched.r and now ''lancht." We
do not think much of tpuncht;'' nor
of ''winkt"-still less of "fust," and
less still of "bust" for "bussed"-to
kiss or touch with the mouth; really
beautiful word, UNANIMOUSLY profaned
by the proposed new spelling. We
have no liking whatever for ''colleag.
"Gazetn looks poverty stricken;
''trechry" is an abomination and
''deth' more hateful than ever.
Dropping the sc" from ''missive,"
''captive, NERVE and two o. three
hundred words of like kind, does not
commend itself to us; but what shall
be said Of so shameless proposition
as change of Glove" into '1uv %
We might extensively multiply in
stances, but it is not worth while.
We concede, of course, that in some
cases-in very few, however-slight
changes might, perhaps, be profitably
made, but we will not be party to the
systematic mutilations, involving
hundreds OF familiar words, proposed
in the circular letter referred to-
Ne,cdrk Advertiser,