New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-10-02
MORE LANGUAGE TIEFERTVG

Another language tinkering project is afoot.
Labor saving and condensation are its object
1t will not do TO incur the labor of writing two
letters when one will suffice, and space must
not be wasted by printing two when one will
serve the purpose. Therefore it is proposed to
Introduce into the alphabet two new characters
One is to represent the sound Of TIL and the
other that of "sh"-the latter being now repre-
sented in some words by various other combina-
tons Of two or three letters. Then, to avoid in
creaSng the alphabet TO twenty-eight letters
the single letters and Y are to be dropped, and
their work is TO be done by the combinations
''cw' and 'cs" respectively. The introduction
into the language of the very same evil that in
the former case is To be eliminated from it
seems inconsistent; but II is argued that "th"
and "sh" and it's kindred combinations occur
much more frequently than and Y. so that
there will be a net gain in substituting the
lesser evil for the greater.
This proposal aims, of course at making the
alphabet more purely phonetic thar it now is
Theoretically. that aim may be a good one
Practically, it is unattainable. and is of doubt
full value. If our alphabet were made phonetic
there would be no combining ii to tWenty-six let
tiers. II would have 10 be expanded TO several
times twenty-sy That would be intolerably
cumbersome The alternative would be to abol-
ish the majority of our vowel and consonant
sounds and 60 back 10 more primitive form Of
speech. which also would be ntolerable The
fact is. a highly developed and cultivated Ian
guage cannot have a purely phonetic alphabet
1t must represent several sounds by the same
letter or combination Of letters lust as it must
the same word to express different ideas
Those conditions are made necessary bv the
multiplicity and complexity of sounds and ideas
among highly civilized people Some COM
paratively primitive alphabetS have been more
nearly phonetic than ours. But no civilized
language to-day has, in the strict sense, a pho
netlc alphabet. or anything like it.
As for these two proposed phonetic charac-
tiers. it is to he observed that one of them is
merely revival of an old one which long ago
was pretty generally abandoned. The Pbup-
nicians, the Greeks and the Hebrews had each
letter corresponding TO our "th" But the
LatinS rejected ii. The Anglo Saxons had such
letter. the memory of which survived until
comparatively recent times in the affected and
ignorant we" for ''the" But il was dronned
when Anglo-Saxon was developed into English.
1t does not seem unreasonable to suppose that
il was thus dropped because it was found to
be on the whole Improbable and undesirab BILE
If it had been a really good thing it would have
been retained The law Of the survival of the
fttest prevails in philolOgy as well as in biology
Despite the proveTbal inclination of news
papers toward brevity and condensation. we
cannot approve such changes in the language
as these which are proposed. The saving of
space is a good thing. no doubt: but II is NOT
the best thing. Accuracy is better We sboul1
he not gamers, but great losers If. I'm remod-
cling words for the sake of brevity. we dis
guised their derivation and etymology and de-
stroyed their individual characteristics. and so
made the correct use of them less easv and loss
certain There is a fable Of London firm
which saved some thousands of pounds sterling
a year in ink just by emitting to dot the is and
cross the is In correspondence We have no,
heard Of that alleged example being widely