The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1906-09-05
SIlfPLIFIED SPELLING.
Professor Brander Matthews, Of Co
lulnbia University, Tells How to Get
SinlpIified Spelling in the Schools.

In the plain spoken paper on the
Problem of Spelling Reform which
Professor Skeat read before the Brit
ish Academy last May and which has
been published by the Oxford Univer-
sity Press that ardent and accom-
plisl. d student of English con-
temptuously brushed away all the ig-
norant objections to the progressive
simplifcation Of ouF spelling and
urged a number Of Of further onis-
sions of needless letters. Prof. Skeat,
it may be we'll to note, has accepted
membership in the Simplifed Spelling
Board, and so has Mr.. Henry Bradley,
the co-editor with DR.. Murray of
the monumental Oxford Dictionary.
But Prof. Skeat's proposed reforms
are far more radical than the practice
of the editors of the Oxford Dicti0n-
ary and even than the recommended
tons of the Simplifed Spelling Board.
In fact, these recommendations seem
verv conservative, indeed, when set
alongside those suggested by the ed
itor of the '.Etym mological Dictionary. ;"
The distinguished British scholar
makes it clear that he desires imme-
dlate photographic Improvement for
certain scientific reasons for the
sake of the English language itself,
and in order to make OR noble
tongue a filter instrument for the
work that les before it. But he also
gives two practical reas rs why Eng,
,ish orthography ought to be bettered
as soon as possible. The first Of
these reasons is that a simplifcation
of our spelling would save both time
and money: Every one would gain
by it; the writer would have fewer
letters to write, the printer would
have fewer letters to print, and the
reader would have fewer to spell and
to read And then Prof. Skeat SUD-
ports this practical argument with
another which is strictly scien-
tihc Many antiquities would dis
appear, and the written record would
exhibit a closer approximation to the
sounds which it processes to repre-
sent"
Then he brings forward second
practical reason for adopting these
provements "that the tasks Of
learning to read would be considera-
bly, simplifed, and the time taken to
achieve that task would be considera-
bly, shortened to the equal delight and
profit both Of teacher and pupil. In
this case there can be no doubt at all
that the sums thus saved to the ma
ton would be very considerable"
Even more important than the saving
of money would be the saving effected
in the plastic period Of childhood
when every minute is NEEDED to supply
the young with the training that will
best equip them for life. That more
or less of this precious time must be
wasted in mastering the misleading
intricacies of English spelling is OBJ
vious to all of us. But just how great
this waste is no one can say with
certainty DR.. Harris, relying on GER
tain experiments in the st. Louis
schools, concluded that it amounted
to a year or So Prof. Calvin Thom-
as, in his Presidential address to the
Modern Language Association, made
a rough-and-ready calculation and
arrived at the conclusion that more
than a year and half of child's
time was spent unproftably in learn
ing how to spell.
Unfortunate as is the loss of time,
our pitiful orthography has another
and even more serious disadvantage,
known to all teachers. It ccntradicts
the spirit Of moern education, which
is based on training the pupil to see
things for himself and to make his
own deductions from what he has
seen. The aim is to lead the child to
observe, and then to generalize the
result Of his observations into a rule.
But our present spelling runs counter
to this effort. Observation will not
help the child; and he must inces-
sanity disregard analog:es, because
there are often many different sym
sbols for single sound and many diff
ferent sounds for single symbol.
Prof. Lounsbury has pointed out that
one sound, that of "e'' in let, is rep
resented in at least seven different
ways-"e'' in let, "ea' in head, Ell
in heifer, "eo' in leopard, lay" in
says, al" in said, and by "a in