The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-08-29
or a. WARp.
More Opinions or the PhiloloGert On
Centralized sDeninG,

NeutfuiDto bpeuiiAB' i
To THE EpIToR or THR sUS-Sir: Preal-
dent Roosevelt, In sanctioning cert7in re-
forms IN spelling, has made prominent q
hitherto unimportant auestion--a question
that has been but the hobby OF @ few. Does
q person display q lack Of true Americsnism
II he eFitlelsss the work u the gentlemen
who have attempted photographed reform?
May not an admircr OF President Roosevelt's
good sense and great ability suggest thst he
may be a trine too prone to reform-a little
anxious to leave an impressf May not q
sincere admifer of the President make this
l~nsipuation and still be consistent in regard
ing the vituperative sarcasm OF the English
press as unjustihsble9
III we are TO have q commission similar to
the French Academy. which determines
mooted questions 60 TO propriety In the use
OF language. let us have II. But let IL be q
permanent body. regularly organized and
composed Of representative authorities: let
II, in altering our language. first and last
follow the will Of the English speaking people
OF this continent. Does the cry OF the people
demand that though and through be
spelled tho and thru? Does one Of q
hundred dgnoront. moderately educated
or highly enllshtenedl write tho" and thru
in his correspondence? Why do not the gen.
tlemen who are applying the axe TO words
change dough" into do and rough into
ruff Why not lea ve 'gh" out Of might
might. right. sight" ard like wordsf The
answer b simple. Such changes are too pro-
nounced. too sudden. would tend 10 confusion.
Some people may think that the changes
already suggested are too pronounced. too
sudden. too confusing.
Where 10 the great advantage of most OF
these chansesf More printers ink In wasted
daily in scare headlines than in repetition Of
ugh" The children Of foreign born par
entage are learning our language pretty fast
and are In a fair way toward becoming good
citizens. They would learn no moro slowly
and would become no poorer citizens were our
angus &c kept clear Of the operating table.
Glance briefly at the technical sid Of the
question. 1t Is no Ion ger "abashed," 'cashed. .
dashed missed mixed. &c. The new
method commands -abasht. '"casht. 'dasht. .
mist mkt" &c. T commission has
literary authority for this change. but seems
to have lost sight Of the purpose Of reform
sim plicity: Are not the past lenses and
past participles Of regular verbs formed by
adding the SUNK ed to the present indica-
tive2 Has not usage been tending 10 reeu-
larize verbs? Does not this alteration AXE
many verbs out Of the regular class and place
them In the irregular class? II the purpose
Of the gentlemen of the commission Ii TO
render our spelling more simple and more
uniform, IL would seem to be the wiser course
on their part TO keep their hands OF our verbs.
Spelling Is already a serious business.
We must applaud their work. though. In
going through the dictionary and dispens-
ing with the less used OF alternate forms.
like AK" "a~cknowled gment" and labor
Their advice here IL good. h time may
come when usage will demand other changes
no doubt some Of the changes they suggest
now. Until that time comes let us keep the
age honored spelling under which our language
has thrived.
Language is not built in q day. with noisy
stone saw and powerful steam derrick; 1t
takes year upon year. century upon CEN
tury Of midget cutting here and fitting there.
Myriads OF men and women are engaged in
the mighty work. orators. authors. poets.
teachers. historians. more than all the every
day rank and Ale Of the people.> The past
tells US how our language has been raised
to its eminence Of dignity and beauty. Why
loosen a single stone In the lofty structure
until we have q better one for Its place?
EUGENE H. FELLOWS.
SCRANTON. Pa, August q.