The Richmond palladium. (Richmond, Ind.) 1906-1907, 1906-10-06
BERNARD SHAW FOR
ENLARGED ALPHABET
Method to Reform Spelling
Urged by Irish Critic.
PRESENT PLAN ONLY sHoRTENs
Phonetics Are Inevitable, He Claims
but Correct Phonetfcs Need More
Letters-Declares Reform Cannot BE
Effected by Shortened Spelling
Which Looks Uneducated.

Effected by Shortened Spelling
| Which Looks Uneducated.
atist and critic has set forth his views
| on spelling reform in the following ex-
tract from characteristic letter to the
editor of the London Times:
1t is to be regretted that the scheme
Of the simplified spelling board so ener-
getically and wisely forced on our at
tention by President Ruzvelt Of he will
allow me to simplify him to that ex-
tent has been received not only with
the outburst of ignorance and folly
which any sensible proposal may now
adays count on. but with a false deli
cacy which has led genuine phonetic
experts to withhold serious technical
criticism. 1t is bad enough to have
men of letters passionately defending
such a recent absurd and transient
alteration as our pseudo-etymologica
spelling on the ground that it is the
spelling of the Bible and Shakespeare
"a libel gross enough to make Tyndaie
and Shakespeare turn in their graves),
of the scheme passed over In polite
silence by the people who know au-
thoritatively that, though the president
does not overrate the enormous impor-
lance of spelling reforms, his methods
cannot be regarded as an advance on
those of Artemus Ward and Josh Bill
ings.
/ tried to express this myself by COM
pairing his action to the reform calen-
dar by Mohammed, who divided the
year into twelve lunar months, with
results on the caravan season arrange
ments from which Arabian commerce
has not recovered to this day but l
find that most of your contemporaries
regard Mohammed's arrangement as an
excellent one and accordingly report
me as enthusiastically in favor Of the
presidential scheme.
Pending some really authoritative
comment by Henry Sweet, whose pro-
posals of 1881 are hardly to the point
today, or by home expert of his
school, let me point out few obvious
shortcomings in the scheme. To begin
with, it is not really simplified spelling.
1t is shortened spelling, which is quite
a different matter, as the short spelling
may leave q foreigner or a child quite
as much in the dark as to the sound of
a word as the long one, and it anxious
ly disclaims any pretense to be phonet-
ic. Now, 1t is doubtless wise when a
reform is introduced to try to persuade
the British public that it is not a re-
form at all, but appearances must be
kept up to some-extent at least, and
the fact is that board which dis
claims phonetic spelling puts itself out
of court
Unphonetic spelling is as impossible
Pigment as secular education. Unless
we adopt the system of Chinese ideo-
graphs and learn by heart a separate
arbitrary symbol for every word in the
dictionary we must spell phonetically
We may corrupt and confuse our spell
ing by etymologic fads, spelling "det"
with "b'' and loren" with an zig"
just as we might spell man" 'mapn"
or "mkyan," to show that we are de-
scended from the apes or monkeys.
But we shall not spell man" APE nor
shall we ever spell "cat' dog" If we
did the only result would be that we
should presumably spell dogma" cat
ma" We cannot get away from pho
netic spelling because spelling is as
necessarily and inevitably phonetic as
moisture is damp.
To say that English and French
spelling are not phonetic is absurd. All
that it means is that the French and
English spell much worse than the
Germans and Italians, being relatively
conceited and inhibitive people who
take an uppish delight in making
.-=--'zs a.aac,-It not TO mention
their love of excuses for Furnishing
children.
But in the long run phonetics have
their revenge. When we begin by re-
fusing to spell as we pronounce we end
by having to pronounce as we spell.
Etymologists, to show the French orr
gin of the word "oblige," refused to
spell it phonetically. end generation
OF superior persons despised those who
did not say "obleege" and were them
selves despised by the still more select
circle who said "obleezh." But who
dares say 'obleege' now except Joseph
Surface on the stage?
The history Of the word envelope"
"annvelope" have had their day. We
spelled it envelope" and now we have
to pronounce it envelope" The Amer
lean reformers want us to spell ''cata-
logue' "catalog." The word is in such
common use that its pronunciation has
been additionally maintained in spite
of the spelling. But what Of 4epilog"
and "prolog"? These two words. which
most Englishmen never utter or hear
uttered in their lives and the rest use
perhaps once in twenty years. are on
those rare occasions mispronounced
nine times out Of ten as "epiloag" and
s'proloag."
AS the working classes become more
literate and please themselves by drag
ging into ordinary conversation more
and more long words that they have
never heard pronounced they introduce
ways of their own OF pronouncing
them. founded necessarily on spelling
Programme" a vulgarism which of
tends the eye as Paris pronounced
''Paree" In English offends the ear. has
been in my hearing pronounced 30 as
- -. ~ t.