The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-04-27
STMPLIFIED SPELLING NOT Pho
NETIC REFORM.
Reply to MIR. Munson by the Editor OF the
Century Dictionary.

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUN-Sir; VIII you
kindly give me space for q reply to the letter
on "phonetics" which you printed this morn
ing? Mr., Munson's argument rests upon the
perfectly sound proposition that no phonetic
reform Of English spelling is possible without
a reconstruction of the English alphabet
This is we'll understood by all who have
looked into the matter intelligently, but he
certainly misses the mark when he uses TINS
fact as the ground Of a criticism OF the pro.
posals Of the Simpllfed Spelling Board; ana
this for the simple reason that the board mas
not proposed and does not Intend to propose
phonetic reform of our orthography. IL IL
perfectly true that the simpliication whloh
the board does propose would, In most cases.
bring our spelling nearer to phonetic accuracy
but In many cases 1t would not, ana 10 any
case the principles by which 1t Is chiehy gov
erned are not phonetic but OF a distinctly
different character. The board certainly mas
a right to demand that In this particular
its position shall be understood In 80 far as
it has stated 1t clearly.
II II is said-and this ls perhaps more pre-
cisely what Mr.. Munson m~eans-that nothing
but a phonetic reoonstructlon Is desirable,
the reply, in the opinion Of the board, Is OBJ"
vious, namely. that If this is true the whole
matter may as well be dropped. for the rea-
son that q phonetic constitution Is an
impossibllity, or at least o possibility 30 re-
mote as to DO out Of the range OF practically.
This Is the key to the whole situation. Has
it ever, been shown that agreement can be
OF. phonetic REFORM. Has u ever been shown
by accomplished faots-that IL this agree
%ePt tS y reached ssSIIs o there Re + iOd ths s5if e 3 scce gaaf tSe
overwhelming photographic revolution which
a corrected elphabet,wit5 The Roman oman, v1 m"
think that these things are possible, but the
board does not. and thousands OF soholarly
and practical men share its opinion on this
Furthermore. the board fatty denies that
we are forced to the alternativeI,whlch Mr..
upon facts In. tie history Of In gllsh orthog-
raphy 50 well known that. 1t is unnecessary
times for the better, sometimes Tor the worse.
has constantly been going on. and II VIII e9n.
s a Sns sG 60 &c ca Ga, ss ss H. T. a sRi Sos Mf. & SGss eS' n M
s ssssIt % $hS sa,? I E + fli H!% s5LRSs set 4 E'' IT,; q I
so. what Is there unreasonable In seeking
to guide l. h IN the direction apS 81 greater snd af &c
world9 This Is ali that the board proposes;
of s shs;n ssss MI MI iS MgesSn thu fs's ss eis DS O co msnaon
prodieiousiy. Whyf Even in the past. when
Il has been wholly unregulated and has been
produced any serious trouble Of this kind.
If each step-as 1t may well be. under roper
guidance-ls In the direction OF greater sim
plicity and regularity. how can confusion
resultP By the multiplication OF spelllngsr
But thousands of cases OF this sort exist now.
and the first step taken by the board was to
confusion by abolishing more than three hun
dred of these useless variants. In short, is
the proposition that our existing spelling,
which Is admitted to be u monstrosity. is In,
capable of being bettered by the normal
methods Of linguistic change one upon which
1t Is possible for any one to stand?.
One other point in Mr.. Mnnson's letter may
briefly be noticed. Simpliication by the
omission Of silent letters Is not a principle
out discrimination. 1t obviously cannot be
SO applied, especially in the cases cited by
Mr.. Munson. where the silent letter indicates
the quantity or quality OF a preceding vowel.
II IL the useless silent letters that can go, but
not necessarily all of these.
Finally. no one believes that all the anoma-
lies of English spelling can be eliminated In q
year or a decade. Probably a residuum of
guage is written. The board is not ignorant
OF the difficulties Of the problem, 1t Is for
this reason that 1t intends to make haste
slowly. At any rate, 1t should be criticised
or supported for the recommendations 1t
makes. and not. FOR those which some one
lima gines that 1t has made or intends TO make.
BENJAMIN Il. SMITH.
NEW YORK. April 25.