Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1906-10-05
BERNARD SHAW FOR
ENLARGED ALPHABET
Method to Reform Spelling
Urged by Irish Critic.
PRESENT PLAN ONLY sHORTBNs

Phonetics Are Inevitable, He Claims
bnt Correct Phonetfcs Need More
Letters-DecIares Reform Cannon BE
Effected by Shortened SpeIIins
Which Looks Uneducated.
George Bernard Shaw, the Irish dram.
atist and critic, has set forth his views
| on spelling reform in the following ex-
| tract from a 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-
tenD 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 chronological
spelling on the ground that it is the
spelling of the Bible and Shak espeare
Ga libel gross enough to make Tyndale
and Shakespeare turn in their graves),
but it IS far worse to have the defects
of the scheme passed over in polite
silence by the people who know au-
horitatively 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 /
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
school. let me point out a 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 n foreigner or child quite
as much in the dark as 70 the sound of
Il word as the long one, and il anxious
~ disclaims any pretense to be phonet
ic. Now. it is doubtless wise when Il
reform is introduced TO try to persuade
the British public that it is not 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 rs impossible
a figment 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 Diet
with a ''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 |
lid the only result would be that we |
should presumably spell dogma" ''cat- |
ma" We cannot get away from pho |
letic spelling because spelling is as |
and inevitably phonetic as
moisture is damp.
tn Snu that ENDoIiSh and French
spelling are not phonetic is absurd. All
hat Ii means is that the French and
english spell much worse than the
Germans and Italians, being relatively
and inhibitive people who
axe an uppish delight in making
difficult, not to mention
heir love of excuses for Furnishing
But in the long run phonetics have
heir revenge. When we begin by re-
using to spell as we pronounce we end
" having to pronounce. as we spell.
Itymologists, to show the French ORR
,ir of the word "oblige," refused to
pell it Theoretically, and generation
f superior persons despised those who
i'd not say ''obIeege' and were them
elves despised by the still more select
ircle who said "obleeZh." But who
ares say "obleege'' now except Joseph
surface on the stage?
The history of the word envelope
ellis the same story. "Ongvelope" and
have had their day. We
PEELED IL envelope" and now we have
0 pronounce it envelope" The Amer
IAN reformers want us to spell "cata-
,gue" "catalog." The word is in such
ommon use that it's pronunciation has
cen additionally maintained in spite
f the spelling But what of "epilog'
nd ..prolog"? These two words, which
lost Englishmen never utter or hear
tered in their lives and the rest use