Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-07-09
Authorities in Spelling.

In commenting the other day upon the
list of three hundred words which the SIM
plifed spelling board and the board of
school superintendent recommended to the
board of education TO be spelled hereafter
in the schools according to the 'slmplifed'
method, we remarked that a large number
of the so-called '-simplifed" forms were
Identical with those which have been in
practically universal use in this country for
d long time. a careful analysis of the list
more than confirms our original estimate
OF the 800 "smplified' spellings, los, or al
most two-thirds. are spellings sanctioned
by Webster's the Century and the Standard
dictionaries. Beyond doubt. then. the sim
pliGed spelling board, as it says in it's cir
cuiars, has not yet proposed any innova-
items of its own, certainly not among
these l@S words, at any rate Rather has
it incurred the whimsical reproach of the
poet upon that "testy little dogmatist," the
katydid-
Thou sayest undisputed thing in such a solemn
As for the other 1o2 words. some of them
are credited in their ''sinplified forms to
satisfactory authorities and, indeed, those
forms are Very widely employed. Other
forms. however, which we must consider
undesirable are credited to authorities
whom We are not prepared TO regard as of
material weight in photography. Some, for
example, are credited to Shakespeare. The
regular or frequent use of a spelling On
itself entirely correct ~sd reelllar1 bv
standard authors like Shakespeare, Spen-
ser, Whittier, Lowell" saws the
simplified spelling board in It's official circu-
lar No. .. 1ustifies its acceptance or re-
sumption by present writer's even If the die
tionaries and spelling books neglect or ig-
more It. Now, what does the board mean
or what does the author of the circular
think 1t means, by that? Is any of Shakes
peares manuscript In existence from which
to determine how he snailai 90 Is
thing known about his spelling save that
he was an eccentric speller, even In the
spelling of his own name? What trifiing
IL Is TO cite The name of the great poet as
authority for the photography of the type
settlers or proofreaders of the time, More
over, are we to understand that no regular
or frequent use of a spelling by standard
authors would commend II to this board
unless 1t were 'in itself entirely correct
and regular And by what other rules
than those of standard authors, diction-
aries and spelling books does this board
determine correctness and regularity?
Most of the other authorities" are as
unsatisfactory. The Bible is one Is that
an mtimation of belief in plenary, even or
biographical, inspiration? If not ii is
merely reference to the transIators re-
visers or latter-day proofreaders as au-
thority. Most of the authorities cited are
poets, who-oecause of their proneness to
poetic hcense"-are obviously unconvtnc-
ms authorities, and some OF them are old
time poets, whose writings abounded in
spellings which would not now be tolerat ed
fof moment. The same may be said Of
some of the prose authorities To cite
Raleigh. Spenser, Dryden Ben Jonson,
Pope, Milton, Fuller. De Foe and EVELYN
as authorities for spelling In the twentieth
century Is simply TO trife with the matter
II we are TO spell Crushed "crusht' be-
cause they did, why not spell Labor"
"labour" because they did? If we are to
spell distressed "distrest" on the mn
thority OF Raleigh. why not spell FISH
tysshe' ana 'civil' ''ciutlI' and bat
bate" as he also did? The fact that
poets, prose writer's and even Eramma-
rians OF two: or three centuries ago SPELL
ed words IN a certain way may prove that
II is not new thing, but does not prove
II Is a good thing. TO spell them In that way
now.
In many cases there is positive evidence
that such revival OF antiquated forms
would not promote the Simplicity which
spelling reformers affect to seek. but
would actually cause more compIexity and
confusion than we now suffer from. Note.
for example. such forms as "blest." dis
trest. ''curst' and others. 1t Is often
and not only In poetry-absolutely neces-
sary TO pronounce those words with an ex-
ira syllable for the participial termination.
as blessed. distress g." Cursed" etc,
Now. If they are spelled with ed they
may reasonably be pronounced either way,
as many OF them are at present But, If
| they are spelled with a st" we must
| either spell word "biest' and pronounce
| It blessed which would be absurd. as
| the spelling reformers themselves will tell
| us or else have two WAYS OF smelling a
| word. according TO whether we want 10
| pronounce It. In one syllable or In two.
which would certainly not conduce IN The
| much desired simplicity"