Chapter 11

Ei giv Mr. Pitman’z alfabet, hwich komprehendz the therti-siks broad tipikal soundz ov the Inglish langwej, and aseinz tu each a definit sein. With theze therti-siks seinz, Inglish kan be riten rashonali and red eazili; and, hwot iz most important, it haz been proved bei an eksperiens ov meni yearz, bei niumer[p]s p[p]blikashonz, and bei praktikal eksperiments in teaching both children and ad[p]lts, that such a sistem az Mr. Pitman’z iz perfektli praktikal.

THE PHONETIC ALPHABET.

The phonetic letters in the first column are pronounced like the italic letters in the words that follow. The last column contains the _names_ of the letters.

CONSONANTS.

_Mutes._

P p ro_p_e p[i] B b ro_b_e b[i] T t fa_t_e t[i] D d fa_d_e d[i] [Ch] [ch] e_tch_ [ch][e] J j e_dg_e j[e] K k lee_k_ k[e] G g le_ag_ue g[e]

_Continuants._

F f sa_f_e ef V v sa_v_e v[i] [T] [t] wrea_th_ i[t] [Dh] [dh] wrea_th_e [dh][i] S s hi_ss_ es Z z hi_s_ z[i] [Sh] [sh] vi_ci_ous i[sh] [Z] [Z] vi_si_on [z][i]

_Nasals._

M m see_m_ em N n see_n_ en [N] [n] si_ng_ i[n]

_Liquids._

L l fa_ll_ el R r _r_a_r_e ar

_Coalescents._

W w _w_et w[e] Y y _y_et y[e]

_Aspirate._

H h _h_ay [e][ch]

VOWELS.

_Guttural._

A a _a_m at [A] [a] _al_ms [a] E e _e_ll et [E] [e] _a_le [e] I i _i_ll it [I] [i] _ee_l [i]

_Labial._

O o _o_n ot [W] [w] _a_ll [w] [U] [u] _u_p [u]t [O] [o] _o_pe [o] U u f_u_ll ut [Ue] [ue] f_oo_d [ue]

DIPHTHONGS: Ei ei, IU iu, OU ou, AI ai, OI oi, as heard in b_y_, ne_w_, no_w_, K_ai_ser, b_oy_.

[In the next fourteen pages, five of the new letters will be employed, viz., [a], [u], [t], [z], [n], for the sounds represented by the italic letters in f_a_ther, _s_on, b_u_t, _th_in, vi_si_on, si_ng_.]

Nou ei ask eni intelijent reader who d[u]z not [t]i[n]k that everi[t]i[n] niu and stranje iz, _ipso facto_, ridikiul[u]s and abs[u]rd, hwether after a fiu dayz’ praktis, he or she wud not read and reit I[n]glish, akordi[n] tu Mr. Pitman’z sistem, with perfekt eaze? Ov kourse it takes more than feiv minits tu master it, and more than feiv minits tu form an opinion ov its merits. B[u]t admiti[n] even that peopel ov a serten aje shud feind this niu alfabet tr[u]bels[u]m, we m[u]st not forget that no reform kan be karid out without a jenerashon or two ov marterz; and hwot true reformerz hav tu [t]i[n]k ov iz not themselvz, b[u]t thoze who k[u]m after them—thoze, in fakt, who ar nou growi[n] [u]p tu inherit hereafter, hwether they leik it or not, all the gud and all the evil hwich we chooz tu leav tu them.

It meit be sed, houever, that Mr. Pitman’z sistem, bei[n] enteirli fonetik, iz too radikal a reform, and that meni and the w[u]rst irregiularitiz in I[n]glish speli[n] kud be removed without goï[n] kweit so far. The prinsipel that haf a loaf iz beter than no bred iz not without s[u]m tru[t], and in meni kasez we nó that a polisi ov kompromeiz haz been prod[u]ktiv ov veri gud rez[u]lts. B[u]t, on the [u]ther hand, this haf-harted polisi haz often retarded a real and komplete reform ov ekzisti[n] abiúsez; and in the kase ov a reform ov speli[n], ei almost dout hwether the difik[u]ltiz inherent in haf-me[z]urz ar not az great az the difik[u]ltiz ov karii[n] a komplete reform. If the w[u]rld iz not redi for reform, let [u]s wait. It seemz far beter, and at all events far more onest, tu wait til it iz redi than tu kari the rel[u]ktant wurld with you a litel way, and then tu feind that all the impulsiv forse iz spent, and the greater part ov the abiúsez establisht on fermer ground than ever.

Mr. Jones,(70) who reprezents the konsiliatori reformerz ov speli[n], wud be satisfeid with a moderet skeme ov speli[n] reform, in hwich, bei obzervi[n] analoji and folowi[n] presedent in olteri[n] a komparativli small n[u]mber ov w[u]rdz, it wud be posibel tu simplifei ortografi tu a konsiderabel ekstent without apleii[n] eni niu prinsipel, or introdiúsi[n] niu leterz, and yet tu rediús the teim and labor in teachi[n] readi[n] and speli[n] bei at least w[u]n-haf. It meit at all events be posibel tu setel the speli[n] ov thoze two or three touzand w[u]rdz hwich at prezent ar speld diferentli bei diferent au[t]oritiz. This skeme, advokated bei Mr. Jones, iz sertenli veri klever; and if it had a chans ov s[u]kses, ei meiself shud konsider it a great step in adváns. Mei onli dout iz hwether, in a kase leik this, a small me[z]ur ov reform wud be karid more eazili than a komplete reform. It iz diferent in Jerman, hwere the diseaz haz not spred so far. Here the Komíti apointed bei G[u]vernment tu konsider the kwestion ov a reform ov speli[n] haz deklared in favor ov s[u]m s[u]ch moderet prinsipelz az Mr. Jones advokates for I[n]glish. In I[n]glish, houever, the difik[u]ti leiz in chanji[n] eni[t]i[n]; and if the prinsipel ov eni chanje iz w[u]ns admited, it wud reali be eazier, ei believ, tu begin _de novo_ than tu chanje s[u]m[t]i[n], and leav the rest [u]nchanjed.

Let [u]s nou see hou Mr. Pitman’z or eni similar sistem ov fonetik reiti[n] haz w[u]rkt hwere it haz been put tu the test.

Mr. William White reits: “Ei speak from eksperiens. Ei hav taught poor children in Glasgow tu read the Sermon on the Mount after a kourse ov ekserseizez ekstendi[n] over no more than siks ourz.”

The folowi[n] iz an ekstrakt from a leter riten s[u]m teim ago bei the late Mr. William Colbourne, manajer ov the Dorset Ba[n]k at St[u]rminster, tu a frend ov hiz a skoolmaster. He sez:—

“Mei litel Sidney, who iz nou a fiu m[u]n[t]s more than four yearz old, wil read eni fonetik buk without the sleitest hezitashon; the hardest namez or the lo[n]gest w[u]rdz in the Old or Niu Testament form no obstakel tu him. And hou lo[n] do you [t]ink it tuk me (for ei am hiz teacher) tu impart tu him this pouer? Hwei s[u]m[t]i[n] les than eight ourz! You may believ it or not, az you leik, b[u]t ei am konfident that not more than that amount ov teim woz spent on him, and that woz in snachez ov feiv minits at a teim, hweil tea woz geti[n] redi. Ei no you wil be inkleind tu say, ‘All that iz veri wel, b[u]t hwot iz the use ov readi[n] fonetik buks? he iz stil az far of, and may be farther, from readi[n] romanik buks.’ B[u]t in this you ar mistaken. Take an[u]ther ekzampel. Hiz nekst elder br[u]ther, a boi ov siks yearz, haz had a fonetik ediukashon so far. Hwot iz the konsekwens? Hwei, readin in the ferst staje woz so deleitful and eazi a [t]i[n] tu him that he taught himself tu read romanikali, and it wud be a difik[u]lt mater tu feind w[u]n boi in twenti, ov a korespondi[n] aje, that kud read haf so wel az he kan in eni buk. Agen, mei oldest boi haz riten more fonetik shorthand and lo[n]hand, perhaps, than eni boi ov hiz aje (eleven yearz) in the ki[n]dom; and now[u]n ei daresay haz had les tu do with that abs[u]rditi ov abs[u]rditiz, the speli[n]-buk! He iz nou at a ferst-rate skool in Wiltshire, and in the haf-year presedi[n] Kristmas, he karid of the preiz for or[t]ografi in a kontest with boiz s[u]m ov them hiz seniorz bei yearz!”

Bei the adopshon ov the fonetik alfabet, the difik[u]ltiz that lei in the way ov forenerz lerni[n] I[n]glish, also wud be d[u]n away with. The Rev. Newman Hall reits, “Ei met with a Danish jentelman the [u]ther day who heili preizd the I[n]glish fonotipik Niu Testament. It had been ov great use tu him, and _enabeld him tu read [buks in the komon speli[n]] without an instr[u]kter_, removi[n] the greatest obstakel in akweiri[n] I[n]glish, the monstr[u]s anomali[z] ov pron[u]nsiashon.” Ekzampelz leik theze go a lo[n] way.

Mr. A. J. Ellis, than whom now[u]n haz labord more devotidli for a reform ov speli[n], az a ferst step in a reform ov nashonal ediukashon, and who haz himself elaborated several most injeni[u]s sistemz ov fonetik reiti[n], givz [u]s the folowi[n] az the rez[u]ltz ov hiz praktikal eksperiens:

“With the fonetik sistem ov speli[n], the Primer iz masterd within tree m[u]n[t]s at most. The children then proseed tu praktis this fonetik readi[n] for s[u]m teim, til they kan read with fluensi from the jeneral luk ov the w[u]rd, and not from konsideri[n] the pouerz ov its leterz. [T]ree m[u]n[t]s more, at most, ar rekweird for this staje.

“Hwen this pouer ov fluent readi[n] in fonetik print iz akweird, buks in the ordinari print, suited tu their kapasitiz, ar tu be put intu the children’z handz and they ar told tu read them. Each w[u]rd hwich they fail tu ges iz told them immedietli; but it iz found that children ar mostli abel tu read the ordinari print without eni f[u]rther instr[u]kshon. The teim nesesari for kompleti[n] this step may be taken, at the lo[n]gest, az two m[u]n[t]s, so that the hole teim ov lerni[n] tu read in the ordinari print, on the Readi[n] Reform sistem, may be rekond az feiv ourz a week for eight m[u]n[t]s. The hole task haz, in meni kasez, been akomplisht in les teim, even in [t]ree m[u]n[t]s. On the [u]ther hand, in w[u]n skool hwere it iz uzed, eleven m[u]nts ar okupeid, az the master feindz it advantaj[u]s in [u]ther respekts tu keep the piupil lo[n]ger at fonetik readi[n] B[u]t onli w[u]n our a day iz rekweired.” Mr. Ellis s[u]mz [u]p az folowz:

“Kareful eksperiments in teachi[n] children ov vari[u]s ajez and ra[n]ks, and even pauperz and kriminal ad[u]lts, hav establisht—

“1. That piupilz may be taught tu read buks in fonetik print, slowli b[u]t shureli, in from ten tu forti ourz, and will atain konsiderabel fluensi after a fiu weeks’ praktis.

“2. That hwen the piupilz hav ataind fluensi in readi[n] from fonetik print, a veri fiu ourz wil s[u]feis tu giv them the same fluensi in readi[n] ordinari print.

“3. That the hole teim nesesari for imparti[n] a nolej ov bo[t] fonetik and ordinari readi[n] d[u]z not ekseed eight m[u]nts for children ov averaj intelijens, between four and feiv yearz ov aje, taught in klas, at skool, not more than haf-an-our tu an our each day; and that in this teim an abiliti tu read iz akweird siuperior tu that u[z]uali ataind in two or [t]ree teimz the period on the old plan; hweil the pron[u]nsiashion ov the piupil iz m[u]ch improved, hiz interest in hiz st[u]diz iz kept aleiv, and a lojikal traini[n] ov endiuri[n] valiu iz given tu hiz meind bei the habitual analisis and sin[t]ensis ov spoken soundz.

“4. That thoze taught tu read in this maner akweir the art ov ordinari speli[n] more redili than thoze instr[u]kted on the old me[t]od.”

Tu all who no Mr. A. J. Ellis, this evidens wil be be s[u]fishent az tu the praktikal usefulnes ov the Fonetik Sistem ov speli[n]. Tu thoze who wish for more evidens ei rekomend a pamflet bei Mr. G. Withers, “The I[n]glish La[n]gwej Speld az Pronounst,” 1874; and w[u]n bei Dr. J. W. Martin, “The Gordian Not K[u]t,” 1875, hwere they wil feind the konk[u]rent testimoni ov praktikal teacherz in I[n]gland, Skotland, Eirland, and Amerika, all agreei[n] that, bo[t] az a praktikal and a lojikal traini[n], the Fonetik Sistem haz proved the greatest s[u]kses.

Ther remainz, therefor, this w[u]n objekshon onli, that hwotever the praktikal, and hwotever the [t]eoretikal advantejez ov the fonetik sistem may be, it wud [u]terli destroi the historikal or etimolojikal karakter ov the I[n]glish la[n]gwej.

S[u]poze it did; hwot then? The Reformashon iz s[u]pozed tu hav destroid the historikal karakter ov the I[n]glish Ch[u]rch, and that sentimental grievans iz stil felt bei s[u]m stiudents ov ekleziastikal antikwitiz. B[u]t did I[n]gland, did all the reali progresiv nashonz ov Europe, alou this sentimental grievans tu outweigh the praktikal and [t]eoretikal advantejez ov Protestant Reform? La[n]gwej iz not made for skolarz and etimolojists; and if the hole rase ov I[n]glish etimolojists wer reali tu be swept away bei the introd[u]kshon ov a Speli[n] Reform, ei hope they wud be the ferst tu rejois in sakrifeizi[n] themselvz in so gud a kauz.

B[u]t iz it reali the kase that the historikal kontiniúiti ov the I[n]glish la[n]gwej wud bei broken bei the adopshon ov fonetik speli[n], and that the profeshon ov the etimolojist wud be gon for ever? Ei say No, most emfatikali, tu bo[t] propozishonz. If the seiens ov la[n]gwej haz proved eni[t]i[n], it haz proved that all la[n]gwejez chanje akordi[n] tu law, and with konsiderabel uniformiti. If, therefor, the reiti[n] folowd _pari passu_, on the chanjez in pron[u]nsiashon, hwot iz kalld the etimolojikal konsh[u]snes ov the speakerz and the readerz—ei speak, ov kourse, ov ediukated peopel onli—wud not s[u]fer in the least. If we retain the feeli[n] ov an etimolojikal konekshon between _gentlemanly_ and _gentlemanlike_, we shud shureli retain it hwether we reit _gentlemanly_ or _gentelmanli_. If we feel that _think_ and _thought_, _bring_ and _brought_, buy and _bought_, _freight_ and _fraught_, belo[n] tugether, shud we feel it les if we rote _t[w]t_, _br[w]t_, _b[w]t_, _fr[w]t_? If, in speaki[n], thoze who no Latin retain the feeli[n] that w[u]rdz endin in -_ation_ korespond tu Latin w[u]rdz in -_atio_, wud they looz the feeli[n] if they saw the same w[u]rdz speld with _[e][sh]on_, or even “-e[sh][u]n?” Do they not rekogneiz Latin -_itia_, in -_ice_; or -_ilis_ in -_le_, az in -_able_ (Latin _abilis_)? If the skolar noz, at w[u]ns, that s[u]ch w[u]rdz az _barbarous_, _anxious_, _circus_, _genius_, ar ov Latin oriji[n], wud he hezitate if the last silabel in all ov them wer uniformli riten “[u]s?” Nay, iz not the prezent speli[n] ov _barbarous_ and _anxious_ enteirli misleadi[n], bei konfoundi[n] w[u]rdz endi[n] in _-osus_, s[u]ch az _famous_ (_famosus_) with w[u]rdz endi[n] in _-us_, leik _barbarous_, _anxious_, ets.? Bekauz the Italianz reit _filosofo_, ar they les aware than the I[n]glish, who reit _philosopher_, and the French, who reit _philosophe_, that they hav before them the Latin _philosophus_, the Greek φιλόσοφος? If we reit _f_ in _fansi_, hwei not in _phantom_? If in _frenzy_ and _frantic_, hwei not in _phrenology_? A la[n]gwej hwich tolerates _vial_ for _phial_, need not shiver at _filosofer_. Everi eidiukated speaker nóz that s[u]ch w[u]rdz az _honour_, _ardour_, _colour_, _odour_, _labour_, _vigour_, _error_, _emperor_, hav past from Latin tu French, and from French tu I[n]glish. Wud he nó it les if all wer speld aleik, s[u]ch az _onor_ (_onorable_), _ardor_, _vigor_ (_vigorous_), _labor_ (_laborious_), or even “on[u]r, ard[u]r, vig[u]r?” The old speli[n] ov _emperor_, _doctor_, _governor_, and _error_, woz _emperour_, _doctour_, _governour_, and _errour_. If theze kud be chanjed, hwei not the rest? Spenser haz _neibor_ for _neighbor_, and it iz difik[u]lt tu say hwot woz gaind bei chanji[n] _-bor_ intu _-bour_ in s[u]ch piurli Sakson w[u]rdz az _neighbor_, _harbor_. No dout if we see _laugh_ riten with _gh_ at the end, thoze who nó Jerman ar at w[u]ns remeinded ov its etimolojikal konekshon with the Jerman _lachen_; b[u]t we shud soon nó the same bei analoji, if we found not onli “laf,” b[u]t “kof” for _cough_ (Jerman, _keuchen_), en[u]f for _enough_ (Jerman, _genug_), ets. In “draft,” fonetik speli[n] haz nearli s[u]planted the so-kalld historikal speli[n] _draught_; in “dwarf” (_dwergh_, _thweorh_) and in “ruff” (_rough_), altugether.

Hwot peopel kall the etimolojikal konsh[u]snes ov the speaker iz striktli a mater ov oratorikal sentiment onli, and it wud remain nearli az stro[n] az it iz nou, hwotever speli[n] be adopted. B[u]t even if it shud s[u]fer here and there, we ought tu bear in meind that, eksept for oratorikal p[u]rposez, that konsh[u]snes, konfeind az it iz tu a veri fiu ediukated peopel, iz ov veri small importans, [u]nles it haz ferst been korekted bei a strikt etimolojikal disiplin. Without that, it often dejenerates intu hwot iz kalld “popiular etimoloji,” and aktiuali tendz, in s[u]m kasez, tu vishiate the korekt speli[n] ov w[u]rdz.

Ei hav frekwentli dwelt on this before, in order tu show hou, hwot iz nou kalld the etimolojikal or historikal speli[n] ov w[u]rdz iz, in meni kasez, [u]terli [u]netimolojikal and [u]nhistorikal. We spel to _delight_, and th[u]s indiús meni peopel tu believ that this w[u]rd iz s[u]mhou konekted with _light_ [lux], or _light_ [levis]; hwereaz the old speli[n] woz _to delyt_ or to _delite_ (Tyndale), reprezenti[n] the old French _deleiter_. On the [u]ther hand, we feind for _quite_ and _smite_, the old speli[n] _quight_, _smight_, hwich may be old and historikal, b[u]t iz deseidedli [u]netimolojikal.

_Sovereign_ and _foreign_ ar speld az if they wer konekted with _reign_, _regnum_; the true etimoloji ov the former beï[n] _superanus_, Old French, _sovrain_, Old I[n]glish, _soveraine_; hweil _foreign_ iz the late Latin _foraneus_; Old French _forain_; Old I[n]glish _forein_. And hwei du we reit _to feign_? Archbishop Trench (“I[n]glish Past and Prezent,” p. 238) [t]i[n]ks the _g_ in _feign_ iz elokwent tu the eí; b[u]t its elokwens iz misleadi[n]. _Feign_ iz not taken from Latin _fingo_, az litel az _honour_ iz taken from Latin _honor_. _Feign_ k[u]mz from the Old French _faindre_; it woz in Old I[n]glish _faynen_ and _feynen_, and it woz therefor a mere etimolojikal feint tu insert the _g_ ov the Latin _fingo_, and the French _feignant_. The Old I[n]glish _shammfasst_ (Orm.), formd leik _stedefasst_ (stedfast), iz nou speld _shamefaced_, az if it had s[u]m[t]i[n] tu do with a bl[u]shi[n] fase. _Aghast_, insted ov Old I[n]glish _agast_, iz s[u]pozed tu luk more freitful bekauz it remeindz [u]s ov _ghost_. The French _lanterne_ woz riten _lant-horn_, az if it had been so kalld from the transparent sheets ov horn that enklozed the leit. The _s_ in _island_ owez its orijin tu a mistaken belief that the w[u]rd iz konekted with _isle_ (_insula_), hwereaz it iz the A[n]glo-Sakson _eáland_ (Jerman _eiland_), that iz, water-land. The speli[n] _iland_ woz stil k[u]rent in Shakspere’z teim. In _aisle_, too, the _s_ iz [u]netimolojikal, though it iz historikal, az havi[n] been taken over from the Old French _aisle_.

This tendensi tu olter the speli[n] in order tu impart tu a w[u]rd, at all hazardz, an etimolojikal karakter, beginz even in Latin, hwere _postumus_, a siuperlativ ov _post_, woz s[u]mteimz riten _posthumus_, az if, hwen apleid tu a late-born s[u]n, it woz dereivd from _humus_. In I[n]glish, this fols speli[n] iz retaind in _posthumous_. _Cena_ woz speld bei peopel who wonted tu show their nolej ov Greek _cœna_, az if konekted with κοινή, hwich it iz not.

B[u]t nou let [u]s luk more karefuli intu the far more important statement, that the I[n]glish la[n]gwej, if riten fonetikali, wud reali looz its historikal and etimolojikal karakter. The ferst kwestion iz, in hwot sens kan the prezent speli[n] ov I[n]glish be kalld historikal? We hav onli tu go bak a veri short way in order tu see the modern [u]pstart karakter ov hwot iz kalld historikal speli[n]. We nou reit _pleasure_, _measure_, and _feather_, b[u]t not veri lo[n] ago, in Spenser’z teim, theze w[u]rdz wer speld _plesure_, _mesure_, _fether_. Tyndale rote _frute_; the _i_ in _fruit_ iz a mere restorashon ov the French speli[n]. For _debt_, on the kontrari, we feind, b[u]t [t]ree or four h[u]ndred yearz ago, _dett_. This iz more historikal therefor than _debt_, bekauz in French, from hwich the w[u]rd woz borowd, the _b_ had disapeard, and it woz a piurli etimolojikal fansi tu restore it. The _b_ woz leikweiz re-introdiúst in _doubt_, b[u]t the _p_ woz not restored in _tu kount_ (French _compter_, Latin _computare_), hwere _p_ had at least the same reit az _b_ in _doute_. Th[u]s _receipt_ reziúmz the Latin _p_, b[u]t _deceit_ d[u]z without it. Tu _deign_ keeps the _g_, tu _disdain_ d[u]z without it. Ther iz an[u]ther _b_ hwich haz a serten historikal air in s[u]m I[n]glish w[u]rdz, b[u]t hwich woz orijinali piurli fonetik, and iz nou simpli siupérflu[u]s. The old w[u]rd for _member_ woz _lim_. In s[u]ch kompoundz az _lim-lama_, lim(b)-lame; _lim-leas_, lim(b)-less; it woz imposibel tu avoid the interkalashon ov a _b_ in pron[u]nsiashon. In this maner the _b_ krept in, and we hav nou tu teach that in _limb_, _crumb_ (crume), _thumb_ (thuma), the _b_ m[u]st be riten, b[u]t not pronoúnst. Agen, _tung_ (Jerman _zunge_), _yung_ (Jerman _jung_), az speld bei Spenser, hav a far more historikal aspekt than _tongue_ and _young_.

If we wisht tu reit historikali, we ought tu reit _salm_ insted ov _psalm_, for the inishal _p_, beï[n] lost in pron[u]nsiashon, woz dropt in reiti[n] at a veri erli teim (A[n]glo-Sakson _sealm_), and woz re-introdiúst simpli tu pleaz s[u]m ekleziastikal etimolojists; also _nevew_ (French _neveu_) insted ov _nephew_, hwich iz both [u]netimolojikal and [u]nfonetik.

In hwot sens kan it be kalld historikal speli[n] if the old pluralz ov _mouse_ and _louse_, hwich wer _mys_ and _lys_, ar nou speld _mice_ and _lice_? The plural ov _goose_ iz not speld _geece_ b[u]t _geese_, yet everibodi nóz hou tu pronoúns it. The same mistaken atempt at an okazhonal fonetik speli[n] haz separated _dice_ from _die_, and _pence_ from _pens_, thát iz, _penyes_; hweil in _nurse_, hwere the speli[n] _nurce_ wud hav been useful az remeindi[n] [u]s ov its true etimon _nourrice_, the _c_ haz been replast bei _s_.

Ther ar, in fakt, meni speli[n]z hwich wud be at the same teim more historikal and more fonetik. Hwei reit _little_, hwen now[u]n pronoúnsez _little_, and hwen the old speli[n] woz _lytel_? Hwei _girdle_, hwen the old speli[n] woz _girdel_? The same rule apleiz tu nearli all w[u]rdz endi[n] in _le_, s[u]ch az _sickle_, _ladle_, _apple_, ets., hwere the etimoloji iz kompleteli obskiúrd bei the prezent or[t]ografi. Hwei _scent_, b[u]t _dissent_, hwen even Milton stil rote _sent_? Hwei _ache_, insted ov the Shaksperian _ake_? Hwei _cat_, b[u]t _kitten_; hwei cow, b[u]t _kine_? Hwei _accede_, _precede_, _secede_, b[u]t _exceed_, _proceed_, _succeed_? Hwei, indeed, eksept tu waste the presh[u]s teim ov children?

And if it iz difik[u]lt tu say hwot konstitiuts historikal speli[n], it iz ekwali perpleksi[n] tu defein the real meani[n] ov etimolojikal speli[n]. For hwere ar we tu stop? It wud be konsiderd veri [u]netimolojikal wer we tu reit _nee_ insted ov _knee_, _now_ insted ov _know_, _night_ insted ov _knight_; yet now[u]n komplainz about the los ov the inishal _h_, the reprezentativ ov an orijinal _k_, in _loaf_, A. S. hlâf (cf. κλίβανος), in _ring_ (A. S. _hring_); in _lade_, _ladder_, _neck_, ets.

If we ar tu reit etimolojikali, then hwei not ret[u]rn tu _loverd_, or _hlaford_, insted ov _lord_? tu _nosethrill_, or _nosethirle_ insted ov _nostril_; tu _swister_ insted ov _sister_; hwich wud not be more tr[u]bels[u]m than _sword_. _Wifmann_ shureli wud be beter than _woman_; _meadwife_ beter than _midwife_; _godspel_ beter than _gospel_, _ortyard_ beter than _orchard_, _puisne_ beter than _puny_. Frekwentli the prezent rekogneizd speli[n] luks etimolojikal, b[u]t iz [u]terli [u]netimolojikal. _Righteous_ luks leik an ajektiv in _-eous_, s[u]ch az _plenteous_, b[u]t it iz reali a Sakson w[u]rd, _rightwis_, thát iz _rightwise_, formd leik _otherwise_, ets.