New-York tribune., 1909-10-03
NOVELTY IN SPELLING REFORM

The correspondent who, in letter to the
editor which we print to-day, takes exception to
our remark that 1.-The advocates Of simplifed
spelling lack even the dubious merit of nov
"elty in their aims and methods" appears to
suffer some little misrepresentation. We GER
tainly did not mean to imply that lack of nov
city was the only or the chief ground for our
disapprOval of ''simpliied" spelling, or indeed,
that novelty in itself was an important quality
The suggestion which we wished to convey was
that the spelling refOrmers of our time were
merely aiming at something which had often
been aimed at before. and-most TO the point
We're doing il by method which had often been
employed, but which had invariably been un-
successful.
Many Of the "simplifed" forms which are
now put forward as if they were new inven-
tions are, in fact, very old. Dictionaries of
JohnsOn's time-and his bi-centenary has just
been commemorated-gav "era," "ether," "eti-
ology" and the like. simplifying the initial
diphthong to a single letter They similarly
gave ''phenix" and frenzy" and Tho " and
"thro'." and innumerable other forms which
are now proposed as novelties. They also gave
"soder" for solder and 'swop" for swap"
and "skaIn" for "sken" and hoop for
''whoop." Some OF those forms have cOntinu-
ouSly been used ever since that time. Some have
been abandoned. Some have been dropped for
n time and then taken UP again. We have no
doubt that there will be similar changes in the
future. But the point which we wish to re-em-
phasize, for the hundredth time is that these
changes have been effected gradually by COM
mon consent, through usage. and have not been
arbitrarily and artifcially dictated, after the
manner which is now employed
But this present method is by no means new.
radical and artificial revision of English spell
ing, but he himself had presently to abandon
a large proportion of the changes which he at
first tried to make. Nor was he the first We
recalled the other day a remark Of AddisOn's
two centuries old about attempts to simplify
English spelling and 10 adjust the spelling
TO the pronunciation, which" said Addison
would have confounded all our etymologes." b"
Now. the "simpllfed speller' which the author
of The Spectator" had most in mind Sir
Roger LEstrange, the noted pamphleteer of
! Charles IFS reign So there was movement
much like the present away back in the seven
tcenth century, which came TO grief just as
Websters did and as we think the present Will
We do not, as our correspondent seems to
think hold that no progress has been made in
orthography. Much progress has been made
and Will doubtless continue TO be made, though
We nope II VIII never lnclude some or the de-
tcstable forms which are now proposed. What
we do hold is that such progress must be made
by natural development and not by artificial
revolution. The failure Of all attempts to
establish an artifcially constructed and scien-
tfc universal language should suggest the
futility of trying artlfcially and arbitrarily
no matter how "scientifcally"-to remodel an
existing language. Mans speech is too init
mate n part of his own very self to be subject
even in spelling-tO the dctations of alien
artifice 10 any direction which is not at least
much subjective as objective.