New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-10-17
AS TO oRTHoGRAPH10AL SIMPLICITY
Correspondent Thinks Previous Failures Nor
Ominous to Present Movement.

O'ie+S"' @A444AS IIotlOuS EalluTsS Nor
Omlnous to Present Movement.
To the Editor OF The Tribune
oE: WlI you kindly allow me space for a tzr
words IN reply 70 your late interesting and vsrv
courteous editorial on Novelty in speIir. b
toFn AS an earnest inquirer after ths ,-Irb r
an deeply interested IN this reform nrovi5e5 =
can oe Sno"n 70 De PRACTICAL otherwise have no
use teF II As different peTspsctivss offer z,vs
very dlHerent views. OF truth itssTE ana no5,
OF Us claims TO be inerrant. no enc needs be sus-
prsed to md that he has been mistaken; ana IL IS
q noble characteristic FOR which have AsrAeiaRv
admired The Tribune that it never fsars 10 H. -
oIher Fellow have his say. no matter how much he
may amer nom the views set forth in che psoer
Itself. and. even to encourage him. IL convinced
thar ne is more than half right.
You viii remember that no exception was taken
20 the uuthfuness Of your remark thar The advo-
Gates OF simpliEed spelling lack even the dubious
merit OF novelty in their aims and methods but
only 70 the use to which you put IL as a premise
or ground Of your disapprOyal of the sirnpllded
spelling movement. II seemed 20 me to furnish no
such ground. but rather strong argument in favor
OF the movement inasmuch as it showed that the
tntelhgences OF the past recognized its need and
trled-however fruitlessly-to accomplish IL You
do not quite admit this YOU say that this is not
the only or the chief ground fer your disar-
prevail but as no other ground is given this lack
OF novelty and failure 70 achieve what has been
unsuecessfUlly attempted in the past is the erux
OF the argument all through. and from this you
jump to the conclusion that this movement started
Itself and can progress only BY natural develop
ment as II 1t were a living object Even your con
tenuon which you say is most the point tha.
the simplifying spoilers OF our time are attempting
IT by method which has often been employed.
and Invariably been unsuccessful is along the
same line of reasoning. and can be applied with
equal force IN general way as an argument
against any great undertaking or neral reform
the faaey being not only in the assertion that the
method is exactly the same. with no allowance for
the discovery and avoidance Of the errors made in
DrnN- ~, fTfr-
ton that the conditions and the ability accom-
plish any great undertaking are the same as ta
past ages II this argument is conclusive. we had
better at once give up trying complete the Pan
anna Canal and the Wright brothers may wei
fold their wings and so to farming.
You also say many of the simplIied forms which
are now put forward as IL they were new inven-
lions in fact very old Here Is where the
lack of novelty argument crops out again, and
the trouble with it this time is not only in the
major premise. that novelty is here merit but IN
the minor one Also that these forms now put
forward as new inventions" These forms are old
timers. wrinkled and gray with the dust OF ages
No one can deny that. but the point thar no one
attempts deny it-that is. who has any
right to speak for the board I happen TO have
before me copy OF a circular NO Is. issued %
the Simpnhed spelling Board. November Is. ls0Os n
which these forms are not only admitted 10 BE-
very old but that fact is given a. argument
Why they should replace the longer forms at ms
present day. After several pages o. these oees-
used-ths circular closes with these words.
surely the common or frequent use Of a spelling
Gin itself entirely and rsgular) By nearly
all the standard authors OF English literature Jus
titles It's acceptance or resumption BY present writ
ers even IL the dictionaries and spelling books may
happen to neglect or ignore it, The only reasons
that be given for preferrng a particular spaA-
Ing axe the scientific reason. that Il records the
actual pronunciation. and the literary reason that
IL represents literary usage. when both reasons
apply to a spelling. what reason is there t0F 10
jecting it2'
You are correct in giving dozens OF these shorter
forms which were in partial use centuries ago
The difference between these individual attempts
70 simplify our spelling and the present movensn-
IN its favor BY hundreds o. best scholars.
backed BY a strongly organized society Of ntehgene
and responsible men. Is as wide and great as INC
primitive attempts 10 construct the Panama San1,
centuries ago by individuals with a pick ana Slow
and the present movement. backed BY Uncle 81
with his improved machines for making the an
ny"
In one sense we might say that even IN TINS 80
both the object and the method are the sane
those which have thus far invariably been u.s.
cesseuL" Under the more favorable present eO1~
tiOns the hnal result will be reached nuen $500
and this as understand IL. Is exactly tne 1855 -
the simpHhed spelling people take II the ~
lection 20 this movement q that II mas $50. -
been unsuccessful can we alford much t'ss
refuse It our APPROVAL =
Brooklyn. October IS. 1893.
NEW YORK NEWS VIA MlLWAuN|-
From The Milwaukee Journal
In New Y,orir State vofar has TEL. WNosa~..