Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-01-28
Opinion of DR.. Ramsay of Johns
Hopkins University.
A HEIROGLYPHIC LANGUAGE
No chronological Authority for Pres"
ent photographic Forms.
PARTLY DUE TO DIR. JOHNSON
How French and German Scholars
Won Their Fight for Ra-
tional Spelling.

BALTIMORE, Md. January 2S.-The agi-
tation for simpli1ed spelling, which has
been connected with the names Of President
Roosevelt, Brander Matthews and Andrew
Carnegie, continues, in spite of its over
whelming rejection at the hands of Con-
gress. Apparently the reformers refuse to
accept this decision, which many have re-
garded as authoritative and final.
Within the last few days the simplified
spelling board has sent out a large number
of letters, each containing some of its lit
erature and the famous postal-card pledge
by which the signer agrees to use in my
correspondence, so far as may be practical
BILE, the simpler spellings." Only a week ago
1t was announced that President Roosevelt
and several leading philologists of England
had accepted membership in their body. In
that connection 1t may be Of interest to
learn the views Of local adherent of the
new system. DR.. Robert L. Ramsay of the
English department Of Hopkins University,
whose work has been directly concerned
with the English language. as it has devel-
new system, said:
Few events Of contemporary history have
been more interesting to the observer than
the movement for simplified spelling and
public. When the French and German schol-
ars determined to remove the defects COM
paratively slight as they were, in the or
biography of their languages, they had one
battle to fight and the cause was won. The
French reformers had to capture their ma
tional academy; the Germans. to convert
the Prussian department of education.
When once the simpler French words were
admitted to the sacred Dictionaire de
academic, every loyal Frenchman consid-
cred his right of private judgment at an
end. When the order went forth to use the
simpiifed German spe.lings in the schools,
every schoolmaster in the empire bowed his
head and knew that protest was useless.
But the French have always had and
the Germans have now. a monarchy and
not republic of letters, whereas English
men have always been democratic in re-
spect to their language. whatever views
they have held about political government
No academy on the French plan has ever
been feasible in England, and now that
England Is only one of many nations each
with an equal right in the common tongue
centralized rule is more than ever out
of the question. To a hasty judgment this
might seem to make reform IMPOSSIBLE; but
1t only means that, as always in a republic,
reform must be accomplished by educa ton.
If our method is slower. it is certainly
safer. If the present reformers can per-
suade their fellow-users Of the language
that their changes are worth adopting,
their motion will be carried but If there are
any flaws in their program an amendment
will probably eliminate these errors before
usage votes 1t through.
Wider Attention Secured.
so far the proposals made by a group of
men who represent, though they by no
means include all, the best scholarship of
the country, have at least secured a wider
attention than has ever before been given
to the subject of spelling reform. Whether
they will succeed in doing more depends
not on Congress- but on the English reader
and writer. who Is very much disposed to
decide such questions for himself. He be-
longs to a constituency in which education
is -eminently a condition for the fran
chise, and very properly he is inclined to
be conservative in his use of it. When the
reformer comes to him he Is apt to ask
number of pertinent questions.
rs it really true that our present SPELL
ing is seriously defective? If it is, has it
not always been so. and would not a
phonetic spelling be contrary to the spirit
of the language and the practice of it's
greatest writer's? And If reform is wanted,
is this new proposal the one we ought to
adopt? Unless satisfactory answers can
be made to such demands. 1t is not likely
that the new bill will pass, for no system
of graft has yet been devised to corrupt
the ballot of the Independent reader.
"A perfect spelling should obey two very
simple rules. First, 1t should have a sepa-
rate sign for every sound; that is no let
have a separate sound for every sign; that
is. no superfuous letters. No human in
stitution is perfect; but just how imperfect
English spelling Is can easily be seen by
comparing it's performance with this ideal.
Not only do its letters do double duty, but
treble, quadruple and sextuple- For ex-
ample, has eight different values to rep
resent in the eight words-fate, fat, care,
father, all, senate, what and any; g has
four different values in see. as, sugar, leis
ure. And yet, as if to show that we have no
poverty Of signs to distinguish these differ
ent sounds If we would. we have eight
given-pain, day, veil. whey. break gauge,
gaol and aye: and six other ways for the
first value of s-hiss. psalm, scene, schism,
sword, cell. Manifestly. all but one Of these
ways in each case are superfluous.
"Such confusion affects vastly larger
number of words than the more commonly
cited difficulty Of Ell and lie. for which no
rule has ever been framed to cover all
cases. and the ugly ough. with its eight
tough, cough, hiccough,
hough. plough. though and through. For
the last five Of these the simplfied spelling
It has been computed that the word scis-
sors might be spelled using only combina-
tons actually found in other English words,
in nearly 5000 different ways. And Of them
all our present way is one of the most I'M
reasonable, for 1t rests on a false etymol-
ogy. The word does not come from Latin
scissor. as the inventor of the spelling must
have thought. but is Identical in derivation
with the last part Of incisor.
Language Of Hieroglyphics."
Indeed our modern English has gone
far to becoming a language of hero
glyphics. or picture writing like ancient
Egyptian or modern Chinese We are
taught that our letters came originally
from these Egyptian hieroglyphics, and we
read with admiration Of the wonderful in
vention Of the alphabet the product Of
many centuries. which only required its
fortunate possessors to learn twenty-four
symbols symbols instead OF eight hundred. IKE the
nese. But the unfortunate English child
has little reason to be grateful to 'Cadmus,
or whoever 1t was that invented letters.