New-York tribune., 1901-08-21
ENGLISH SPELLING.
A CORRESPONDENT SAYS IT IS FIT ONLY
FOR SAVAGEs AND APES.


To the Editor of The Tribune
Sir: Your recent editorial English spelling
contains statements and implications which should
not go unchalenged. Our spelling is not in any
proper sense natural growth; II is a series OF
plumbers and anomalies created and maintained by
artisans Of single trade. namely. the compositors
and proofreaders Of the printing trade which still
profits by i'll gotten gain OF 10 per from It's
continuance
In addition to the trade interest. conventional
spelling has the support of certain literary men OF
perverted tastes Thus The Spectator in The Out
look smacks his lips over words like honour
and 'puhIick." and says they have "havour' not
possessed by modern forms. They have a flavor.
assuredIy but it is the putrd flavor OF corrupt
antiquity. and taste for it marks its otherwise
genial and admirable possessor a sort OF lit
erary hyena in this particular department.
1t has been demonstrated in public schools In 81.
Louis and elsewhere that children save a whole
year or their school life by learning the reformed
spelling nrst and then the conventional spelling
nIITT~aIG ,t IS Wh!ca shows what an unnatural IN
oecome
Langrage is tool and it is no reasonable
II would be TO insist that every lever OF a modern
the fact that the first lever used by a savage was
a SICK. SLick o. wood At any rate, If the false ETY.
were eorrscted. it would be changed, nearly as
Ali other cviiizsd ianguagess baTe sSreadv re-
formed their sPellinEs on the lines advocated by
In Germany is so recent thar the spelling taught
ne "len az school IN Germany IN 1864 is wholly
out or date and English is thus left unique among
al civilized languages in retaining 70 the present
day 2 spelling invented BY half civilized artisans
eTsct only for saVases and raRes
ov.edo. Fla. Aug. 10 1901.
lOur correspondent doth protest too much
II. as he says. English spelling OF to-day is "a
series OF blunders and anomalies created and
maintained by compositors and proofreaders. :"
we must surely find the spelling os old, before
the invention OF this pestiferous printing trade.
with its 'iu gotten gain" thing OF beauty and
a Joy, quite free from bluuders and anomalies
But is It so? Does our correspondent or doe.
any spelling reforner' want TO go back to the
orthography OF the author OF Piers Plough
man" and Oc Wyckliffe, Chaucer. Cover Bar
hour and Sir Thomas Mallory? Would he have
us spell thick "thykke" and high "heyghe" and
prize 'pryss''? OF a truth. that way madness
lies" Yet such was English spelling before the
wicked "compositors and proofreaders OF the
printing trade" got IN their evil work We
would not tmpugn our correspondents entire
ingenuousness. but surely II is unfair 10 i'm
ply as he seems to do. that the opponents OF
antiquated forms colour" 'publick" and the
like It IS not so. They fully recognize the fact
that languages change in spelling as IN other re-
spects. and that IL IS we'll that they should do
So But II Is one thing 10 improve the technical
details Of a language through the gradual proc
esses agreed upon by the common sense OF
most" and quite another to turn the whole
language at once topsy turvy in accordance wifi
the arbitrary dictates Of some artificial fad
Ed