Part 26

Webster's reforms, it goes without saying, have not passed unchallenged by the guardians of tradition. A glance at the literature of the first years of the nineteenth century shows that most of the serious authors of the time ignored his new spellings, though they were quickly adopted by the newspapers. Bancroft's "Life of Washington" contains /-our/ endings in all such words as /honor/, /ardor/ and /favor/. Washington Irving also threw his influence against the /-or/ ending, and so did Bryant and most of the other literary big-wigs of that day. After the appearance of "An American Dictionary of the English Language," in 1828, a formal battle was joined, with Lyman Cobb and Joseph E. Worcester as the chief opponents of the reformer. Cobb and Worcester, in the end, accepted the /-or/ ending and so surrendered on the main issue, but various other champions arose to carry on the war. Edward S. Gould, in a once famous essay,[9] denounced the whole Websterian orthography with the utmost fury, and Bryant, reprinting this philippic in the /Evening Post/, said that on account of Webster "the English language has been undergoing a process of corruption for the last quarter of a century," and offered to contribute to a fund to have Gould's denunciation "read twice a year in every school-house in the United States, until every trace of Websterian spelling disappears from the land." But Bryant was forced to admit that, even in 1856, the chief novelties of the Connecticut school-master "who taught millions to read but not one to sin" were [Pg254] "adopted and propagated by the largest publishing house, through the columns of the most widely circulated monthly magazine, and through one of the ablest and most widely circulated newspapers in the United States"--which is to say, the /Tribune/ under Greeley. The last academic attack was delivered by Bishop Coxe in 1886, and he contented himself with the resigned statement that "Webster has corrupted our spelling sadly." Lounsbury, with his active interest in spelling reform, ranged himself on the side of Webster, and effectively disposed of the controversy by showing that the great majority of his spellings were supported by precedents quite as respectable as those behind the fashionable English spellings. In Lounsbury's opinion, a good deal of the opposition to them was no more than a symptom of antipathy to all things American among certain Englishmen and of subservience to all things English among certain Americans.[10]

Webster's inconsistency gave his opponents a formidable weapon for use against him--until it began to be noticed that the orthodox English spelling was quite as inconsistent. He sought to change /acre/ to /aker/, but left /lucre/ unchanged. He removed the final /f/ from /bailiff/, /mastiff/, /plaintiff/ and /pontiff/, but left it in /distaff/. He changed /c/ to /s/ in words of the /offense/ class, but left the /c/ in /fence/. He changed the /ck/ in /frolick/, /physick/, etc., into a simple /c/, but restored it in such derivatives as /frolicksome/. He deleted the silent /u/ in /mould/, but left it in /court/. These slips were made the most of by Cobb in a pamphlet printed in 1831.[11] He also detected Webster in the frequent /faux pas/ of using spellings in his definitions and explanations that conflicted with the spellings he advocated. Various other purists joined in the attack, and it was renewed with great fury after the appearance of Worcester's dictionary, in 1846. Worcester, who had begun his lexicographical labors by editing Johnson's dictionary, was a good deal more conservative than Webster, and so the partisans of conformity rallied around him, and for [Pg255] a while the controversy took on all the rancor of a personal quarrel. Even the editions of Webster printed after his death, though they gave way on many points, were violently arraigned. Gould, in 1867, belabored the editions of 1854 and 1866,[12] and complained that "for the past twenty-five years the Websterian replies have uniformly been bitter in tone, and very free in the imputation of personal motives, or interested or improper motives, on the part of opposing critics." At this time Webster himself had been dead for twenty-two years. Schele de Vere, during the same year, denounced the publishers of the Webster dictionaries for applying "immense capital and a large stock of energy and perseverance" to the propagation of his "new and arbitrarily imposed orthography."[13]

§ 4

/Exchanges/--As in vocabulary and in idiom, there are constant exchanges between English and American in the department of orthography. Here the influence of English usage is almost uniformly toward conservatism, and that of American usage is as steadily in the other direction. The logical superiority of American spelling is well exhibited by its persistent advance in the face of the utmost hostility. The English objection to our simplifications, as Brander Matthews points out, is not wholly or even chiefly etymological; its roots lie, to borrow James Russell Lowell's phrase, in an esthetic hatred burning "with as fierce a flame as ever did theological hatred." There is something inordinately offensive to English purists in the very thought of taking lessons from this side of the water, particularly in the mother tongue. The opposition, transcending the academic, takes on the character of the patriotic. "Any American," continues Matthews, "who chances to note the force and the fervor and the frequency of the objurgations against American spelling in the columns of the /Saturday Review/, for example, and of the /Athenaeum/, may find himself wondering as to the date of the [Pg256] papal bull which declared the infallibility of contemporary British orthography, and as to the place where the council of the Church was held at which it was made an article of faith."[14] This was written more than a quarter of a century ago. Since then there has been a lessening of violence, but the opposition still continues. No self-respecting English author would yield up the /-our/ ending for an instant, or write /check/ for /cheque/, or transpose the last letters in the /-re/ words.

Nevertheless, American spelling makes constant gains across the water, and they more than offset the occasional fashions for English spellings on this side. Schele de Vere, in 1867, consoled himself for Webster's "arbitrarily imposed orthography" by predicting that it could be "only temporary"--that, in the long run, "North America depends exclusively on the mother-country for its models of literature." But the event has blasted this prophecy and confidence, for the English, despite their furious reluctance, have succumbed to Webster more than once. The New English Dictionary, a monumental work, shows many silent concessions, and quite as many open yieldings--for example, in the case of /ax/, which is admitted to be "better than /axe/ on every ground." Moreover, English usage tends to march ahead of it, outstripping the liberalism of its editor, Sir James A. H. Murray. In 1914, for example, Sir James was still protesting against dropping the first /e/ from /judgement/, a characteristic Americanism, but during the same year the Fowlers, in their Concise Oxford Dictionary, put /judgment/ ahead of /judgement/; and two years earlier the Authors' and Printers' Dictionary, edited by Horace Hart,[15] had dropped /judgement/ altogether. Hart is Controller of the Oxford University Press, and the Authors' and Printers' Dictionary is an authority accepted by nearly all of the great English book publishers and newspapers. Its last edition shows a great many American spellings. For example, it recommends the use of /jail/ and /jailer/ in place [Pg257] of the English /gaol/ and /gaoler/, says that /ax/ is better than /axe/, drops the final /e/ from /asphalte/ and /forme/, changes the /y/ to /i/ in /cyder/, /cypher/ and /syren/ and advocates the same change in /tyre/, drops the redundant /t/ from /nett/, changes /burthen/ to /burden/, spells /wagon/ with one /g/, prefers /fuse/ to /fuze/, and takes the /e/ out of /storey/. "Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford," also edited by Hart (with the advice of Sir James Murray and Dr. Henry Bradley), is another very influential English authority.[16] It gives its imprimatur to /bark/ (a ship), /cipher/, /siren/, /jail/, /story/, /tire/ and /wagon/, and even advocates /kilogram/ and /omelet/. Finally, there is Cassell's English Dictionary.[17] It clings to the /-our/ and /-re/ endings and to /annexe/, /waggon/ and /cheque/, but it prefers /jail/ to /gaol/, /net/ to /nett/, /asphalt/ to /asphalte/ and /story/ to /storey/, and comes out flatly for /judgment/, /fuse/ and /siren/.

Current English spelling, like our own, shows a number of uncertainties and inconsistencies, and some of them are undoubtedly the result of American influences that have not yet become fully effective. The lack of harmony in the /-our/ words, leading to such discrepancies as /honorary/ and /honourable/, I have already mentioned. The British Board of Trade, in attempting to fix the spelling of various scientific terms, has often come to grief. Thus it detaches the final /-me/ from /gramme/ in such compounds as /kilogram/ and /milligram/, but insists upon /gramme/ when the word stands alone. In American usage /gram/ is now common, and scarcely challenged. All the English authorities that I have consulted prefer /metre/ and /calibre/ to the American /meter/ and /caliber/.[18] They also support the /ae/ in such words as /aetiology/, /aesthetics/, /mediaeval/ and /anaemia/, and the /oe/ in /oesophagus/, [Pg258] /manoeuvre/ and /diarrhoea/. They also cling to such forms as /mollusc/, /kerb/, /pyjamas/ and /ostler/, and to the use of /x/ instead of /ct/ in /connexion/ and /inflexion/. The Authors' and Printers' Dictionary admits the American /curb/, but says that the English /kerb/ is more common. It gives /barque/, /plough/ and /fount/, but grants that /bark/, /plow/ and /font/ are good in America. As between /inquiry/ and /enquiry/, it prefers the American /inquiry/ to the English /enquiry/, but it rejects the American /inclose/ and /indorse/ in favor of the English /enclose/ and /endorse/.[19] Here American spelling has driven in a salient, but has yet to take the whole position. A number of spellings, nearly all American, are trembling on the brink of acceptance in both countries. Among them is /rime/ (for /rhyme/). This spelling was correct in England until about 1530, but its recent revival was of American origin. It is accepted by the Oxford Dictionary and by the editors of the Cambridge History of English Literature, but it seldom appears in an English journal. The same may be said of /grewsome/. It has got a footing in both countries, but the weight of English opinion is still against it. /Develop/ (instead of /develope/) has gone further in both countries. So has /engulf/, for /engulph/. So has /gipsy/ for /gypsy/.

American imitation of English orthography has two impulses behind it. First, there is the colonial spirit, the desire to pass as English--in brief, mere affectation. Secondly, there is the wish among printers, chiefly of books and periodicals, to reach a compromise spelling acceptable in both countries, thus avoiding expensive revisions in case of republication in England.[20] [Pg259] The first influence need not detain us. It is chiefly visible among folk of fashionable pretensions, and is not widespread. At Bar Harbor, in Maine, some of the summer residents are at great pains to put /harbour/ instead of /harbor/ on their stationery, but the local postmaster still continues to stamp all mail /Bar Harbor/, the legal name of the place. In the same way American haberdashers sometimes advertise /pyjamas/ instead of /pajamas/, just as they advertise /braces/ instead of /suspenders/ and /vests/ instead of /undershirts/. But this benign folly does not go very far. Beyond occasionally clinging to the /-re/ ending in words of the /theatre/ group, all American newspapers and magazines employ the native orthography, and it would be quite as startling to encounter /honour/ or /jewellery/ in one of them as it would be to encounter /gaol/ or /waggon/. Even the most fashionable jewelers in Fifth avenue still deal in /jewelry/, not in /jewellery/.

The second influence is of more effect and importance. In the days before the copyright treaty between England and the United States, one of the standing arguments against it among the English was based upon the fear that it would flood England with books set up in America, and so work a corruption of English spelling.[21] This fear, as we have seen, had a certain plausibility; there is not the slightest doubt that American books and American magazines have done valiant missionary service for American orthography. But English conservatism still holds out stoutly enough to force American printers to certain compromises. When a book is designed for circulation in both countries it is common for the publisher to instruct the printer to employ "English spelling." This English spelling, at the Riverside Press,[22] embraces all the /-our/ endings and the following further forms:

cheque chequered connexion dreamt faggot forgather forgo grey inflexion jewellery leapt premises (in logic) waggon

It will be noted that /gaol/, /tyre/, /storey/, /kerb/, /asphalte/, /annexe/, /ostler/, /mollusc/ and /pyjamas/ are not listed, nor are the words ending in /-re/. These and their like constitute the English contribution to the compromise. Two other great American book presses, that of the Macmillan Company[23] and that of the J. S. Cushing Company,[24] add /gaol/ and /storey/ to the list, and also /behove/, /briar/, /drily/, /enquire/, /gaiety/, /gipsy/, /instal/, /judgement/, /lacquey/, /moustache/, /nought/, /pigmy/, /postillion/, /reflexion/, /shily/, /slily/, /staunch/ and /verandah/. Here they go too far, for, as we have seen, the English themselves have begun to abandon /briar/, /enquire/ and /judgement/. Moreover, /lacquey/ is going out over there, and /gipsy/ is not English, but American. The Riverside Press, even in books intended only for America, prefers certain English forms, among them, /anaemia/, /axe/, /mediaeval/, /mould/, /plough/, /programme/ and /quartette/, but in compensation it stands by such typical Americanisms as /caliber/, /calk/, /center/, /cozy/, /defense/, /foregather/, /gray/, /hemorrhage/, /luster/, /maneuver/, /mustache/, /theater/ and /woolen/. The Government Printing Office at Washington follows Webster's New International Dictionary,[25] which supports most of the innovations of Webster himself. This dictionary is the authority in perhaps a majority of American printing offices, with the Standard and the Century supporting it. The latter two also follow Webster, notably in his /-er/ [Pg261] endings and in his substitution of /s/ for /c/ in words of the /defense/ class. The Worcester Dictionary is the sole exponent of English spelling in general circulation in the United States. It remains faithful to most of the /-re/ endings, and to /manoeuvre/, /gramme/, /plough/, /sceptic/, /woollen/, /axe/ and many other English forms. But even Worcester favors such characteristic American spellings as /behoove/, /brier/, /caliber/, /checkered/, /dryly/, /jail/ and /wagon/.

§ 5

/Simplified Spelling/--The current movement toward a general reform of English-American spelling is of American origin, and its chief supporters are Americans today. Its actual father was Webster, for it was the long controversy over his simplified spellings that brought the dons of the American Philological Association to a serious investigation of the subject. In 1875 they appointed a committee to inquire into the possibility of reform, and in 1876 this committee reported favorably. During the same year there was an International Convention for the Amendment of English Orthography at Philadelphia, with several delegates from England present, and out of it grew the Spelling Reform Association.[26] In 1878 a committee of American philologists began preparing a list of proposed new spellings, and two years later the Philological Society of England joined in the work. In 1883 a joint manifesto was issued, recommending various general simplifications. In 1886 the American Philological Association issued independently a list of recommendations affecting about 3,500 words, and falling under ten headings. Practically all of the changes proposed had been put forward 80 years before by Webster, and some of them had entered into unquestioned American usage in the meantime, /e. g./, the deletion of the /u/ from the /-our/ words, the substitution of [Pg262] /er/ for /re/ at the end of words, the reduction of /traveller/ to /traveler/, and the substitution of /z/ for /s/ wherever phonetically demanded, as in /advertize/ and /cozy/.

The trouble with the others was that they were either too uncouth to be adopted without a struggle or likely to cause errors in pronunciation. To the first class belonged /tung/ for /tongue/, /ruf/ for /rough/, /batl/ for /battle/ and /abuv/ for /above/, and to the second such forms as /cach/ for /catch/ and /troble/ for /trouble/. The result was that the whole reform received a set-back: the public dismissed the industrious professors as a pack of dreamers. Twelve years later the National Education Association revived the movement with a proposal that a beginning be made with a very short list of reformed spellings, and nominated the following by way of experiment: /tho/, /altho/, /thru/, /thruout/, /thoro/, /thoroly/, /thorofare/, /program/, /prolog/, /catalog/, /pedagog/ and /decalog/. This scheme of gradual changes was sound in principle, and in a short time at least two of the recommended spellings, /program/ and /catalog/, were in general use. Then, in 1906, came the organization of the Simplified Spelling Board, with an endowment of $15,000 a year from Andrew Carnegie, and a formidable membership of pundits. The board at once issued a list of 300 revised spellings, new and old, and in August, 1906, President Roosevelt ordered their adoption by the Government Printing Office. But this unwise effort to hasten matters, combined with the buffoonery characteristically thrown about the matter by Roosevelt, served only to raise up enemies, and since then, though it has prudently gone back to more discreet endeavors and now lays main stress upon the original 12 words of the National Education Association, the Board has not made a great deal of progress.[27] From time to time it issues impressive lists of newspapers and periodicals that are using some, at least, of its revised spellings and of colleges that have made them optional, but an inspection of these lists shows that very few [Pg263] publications of any importance have been converted[28] and that most of the great universities still hesitate. It has, however, greatly reinforced the authority behind many of Webster's spellings, and it has done much to reform scientific orthography. Such forms as /gram/, /cocain/, /chlorid/, /anemia/ and /anilin/ are the products of its influence.

Despite the large admixture of failure in this success there is good reason to believe that at least two of the spellings on the National Education Association list, /tho/ and /thru/, are making not a little quiet progress. I read a great many manuscripts by American authors, and find in them an increasing use of both forms, with the occasional addition of /altho/, /thoro/ and /thoroly/. The spirit of American spelling is on their side. They promise to come in as /honor/, /bark/, /check/, /wagon/ and /story/ came in many years ago, as /tire/,[29] /esophagus/ and /theater/ came in later on, as /program/, /catalog/ and /cyclopedia/ came in only yesterday, and as /airplane/ (for /aëroplane/)[30] is coming in today. A constant tendency toward logic and simplicity is visible; if the spelling of English and American does not grow farther and farther apart it is only because American drags English along. There is incessant experimentalization. New forms appear, are tested, and then either gain general acceptance or disappear. One such, now struggling for recognition, is /alright/, a compound of /all/ and /right/, made by analogy with /already/ and /almost/. I find it in American manuscripts every day, and it not infrequently gets into print.[31] So far no dictionary supports it, but [Pg264] it has already migrated to England.[32] Meanwhile, one often encounters, in American advertising matter, such experimental forms as /burlesk/, /foto/, /fonograph/, /kandy/, /kar/, /holsum/, /kumfort/ and /Q-room/, not to mention /sulfur/. /Segar/ has been more or less in use for half a century, and at one time it threatened to displace /cigar/. At least one American professor of English predicts that such forms will eventually prevail. Even /fosfate/ and /fotograph/, he says, "are bound to be the spellings of the future."[33]

§ 6

/Minor Differences/--Various minor differences remain to be noticed. One is a divergence in orthography due to differences in pronunciation. /Specialty/, /aluminum/ and /alarm/ offer examples. In English they are /speciality/, /aluminium/ and /alarum/, though /alarm/ is also an alternative form. /Specialty/, in America, is always accented on the first syllable; /speciality/, in England, on the third. The result is two distinct words, though their meaning is identical. How /aluminium/, in America, lost its fourth syllable I have been unable to determine, but all American authorities now make it /aluminum/ and all English authorities stick to /aluminium/.

Another difference in usage is revealed in the spelling and pluralization of foreign words. Such words, when they appear in an English publication, even a newspaper, almost invariably bear the correct accents, but in the United States it is almost as invariably the rule to omit these accents, save in publications of considerable pretensions. This is notably the case with /café/, /crêpe/, /début/, /débutante/, /portière/, /levée/, /éclat/, /fête/, /régime/, /rôle/, /soirée/, /protégé/, /élite/, /mêlée/, /tête-à-tête/ and /répertoire/. It is rare to encounter any of them with its proper accents in an American newspaper; it is rare to encounter them unaccented in an English [Pg265] newspaper. This slaughter of the accents, it must be obvious, greatly aids the rapid naturalization of a newcomer. It loses much of its foreignness at once, and is thus easier to absorb. /Dépôt/ would have been a long time working its way into American had it remained /dépôt/, but immediately it became plain /depot/ it got in. The process is constantly going on. I often encounter /naïveté/ without its accents, and even /déshabille/, /hofbräu/, /señor/ and /résumé/. /Cañon/ was changed to /canyon/ years ago, and the cases of /exposé/, /divorcée/, /schmierkäse/, /employé/ and /matinée/ are familiar. At least one American dignitary of learning, Brander Matthews, has openly defended and even advocated this clipping of accents. In speaking of /naïf/ and /naïveté/, which he welcomes because "we have no exact equivalent for either word," he says: "But they will need to shed their accents and to adapt themselves somehow to the traditions of our orthography."[34] He goes on: "After we have decided that the foreign word we find knocking at the doors of English [he really means American, as the context shows] is likely to be useful, we must fit it for naturalization by insisting that it shall shed its accents, if it has any; that it shall change its spelling, if this is necessary; that it shall modify its pronunciation, if this is not easy for us to compass; and that it shall conform to all our speech-habits, especially in the formation of the plural."[35]