Part 21

The first duty of a good newspaper is to the more important routine news. It is a duty that every American journal neglects at times quite scandalously. The old fashion of relegating striking news of the day to an extra had much to commend it. Abuse of the extra by the yellow press has pretty well killed the practice among the conservative papers. Possibly a discreet revival of the legitimate extra might help matters. But what is really needed is a juster sense of proportion and a clearer conception of duty among editors. With a little insight and much courage a managing editor might make himself the controller of the "news of the day," rather than its mere conduit. In the long run his paper would more than gain in steady prestige what it lost in occasional flurries of sensational success.

_Simplified Spelling_

Rather than bother our readers and distract their attention from what we have to say, we print in the orthographic forms we are all accustomed to. But we realize that many of these forms are inconsistent and irrational--more so in English than in any other civilized language--and that the difficulty of learning them wastes the time and tissue of our children, and obstructs among foreigners the spread of English to its natural position of a world language, with the blessings that its attaining that position would bring in peace and commerce.

Our orthography is, of course, an evolution. It began with picture symbols, and some of these were gradually changed into the letters of our alphabet. But the signs have always been later than the sounds, and we never had enough of the former to express the niceties of the latter. Therefore imperfections and inconsistencies in any new system proposed should not be fatal against it, if it is enough of an advance on the existing system, and a better advance than any other proposed. The orthography of the future will undoubtedly be eclectic from many proposals, and probably, like the present orthography, from many involuntary and unreasoned practices.

The English Simplified Spelling Society, which contains the leading British authorities, has gone on the principle that it is not worth while to recommend any changes short of a comprehensive scheme for the whole language, and has recommended an approximate one. Nothing more than approximation is possible.

The American Simplified Spelling Board, sustained by Mr. Carnegie, which corresponds in authority with the English society, has not attempted a comprehensive system, but for the worst extravagances and inconsistencies has simply recommended a number of remedies, especially such forms as _tho_, _thru_, and the following changes in final syllables--saving all silent _e's_, including the one in _ed_; the _me_ in _gramme_, and programme; the _ue_ in final _gue_; the _te_ in final _ette_; also the substitution of _t_ for _d_ final, when so pronounced.

As is well known, several of the remedial forms are already in considerable use, especially in advertising and other writing where no appreciable demands are made on the understanding or emotions.

* * * * *

From here until we giv notis on a later page, we wil uze som of those forms and a few more--all of which may be not too radical for present use in informal riting, as abuv mentioned, and may be regarded as transitional toward an ideal system. It woud undoutedly be easier to teach children a comprehensiv and consistent sistem than the existing caos minus varius uncorrected partial remedies, as illustrated in the present riting. The authoritys ar agreed that children woud lern a consistent sistem years qicker than the present lac of sistem, and having lernd the consistent sistem, woud pic up the forms they find in newspapers and existing bouks without conscius effort. Then of course a generation familiar with a goud sistem woud soon be suppleid with literature in it. But a rising generation cannot be taut such a sistem before the elders ar convinst of its utility.

We wish to promote such a conviction as far as we can, but no won without experience can begin to realize the difficultys, in fact the impossibility, of presenting new forms with absolute consistency. Words really sound differently in som connections than in others; and habit asserts itself in spite of reson. In half a dozen revisions of these paragrafs, inconsistencys hav bin found every time, and som undoutedly remain. But such inconsistencys ar not permanently inherent in the reform, and shoud not prejudis it. Habits of pronunciation disagree, and even if they did not, perfect discrimination coud not be attaind even with an alfabet twice as large as our present one; and if absolute discrimination wer attaind, it woud sune be nullified by an accent in som new popular song, or from som new popular orator. The only way to keep spelling abrest of language is for lexicografers to cut luse from precedent, and closely follo the actual pronunciation of their own times. William D. Whitney used to say that if they had always don that, filological sience woud be much farther advanst.

A special cause of inconsistency is the tendency to preserv what is not very bad, and to make changes as slight as reson wil permit, but when no slight change wil do the tric, to make the change as goud as possibl. But see what somtimes coms. The _w_ in _write_ is utterly useless. Take it off, and we have a fairly good word _rite_. But the _gh_ in _right_ is also useless--not pronounst, as is the _ch_ in the cognate German _recht_. If we get rid of it, however, we have _rit_, which rimes with _fit_. Now take it all in all, the best way to lengthen that _i_ is to dubl it, just as in silabls closed with a consonant we alreddy somtimes dubl the vowel--the _e_ in _seen_, the _o_ in _door_. _This is not necessary in open silabls._ The S. S. S. proposes we shal dubl the _a_ in _faather_, and the _u_ in _tuun_ (_tune_). Then if we dubl the _i_, we hav a uniform sistem with the long vowels. This givs us _riit_. But then the processes we hav just been thru land us with _rite_ and _riit_ for the same sound.

Of course to represent a sound in more than won way brings perplexity to spellers. Yet several ways are resonabl to let stand until a new generation can be educated to the best. This is a not unresonabl concession to habit, and is not nearly so bad as to let a simbol represent more than one sound, as in the two sounds for _tear_, and the vowel sounds in _door_ and _poor_.

But we must also take into account what Skeat rightly says--that the simbol for a sound should not be distributed in two places; and therefore _rite_ is not so good as _riit_. But the _e_ at the end of a closed silabl to lengthen the vowel, is so intrencht in the language that it woud be doutful policy to attack it yet in words fairly fit to stand, e. g., _fate_, _mate_, _bite_, _mote_, _lute_. So the transition policy we recommend is to let all fairly goud forms stand, but where a form is to bad to stand, change it into the best possibl, as _right_ into _riit_, even at the price of such an inconsistency as leaving _rite_ from _write_, because _rite_ is more workabl, tho _riit_ woud be theoretically better. Som such inconsistencys ar inevitabl, as we cannot start fresh, but must evolv from an existing inconsistent--very inconsistent--orthografy.

In spelling, as in matters perhaps more important (tho the importance of rational spelling is vastly grater than generally realized), it is wel to recognize the ideal, but to try to advocate at any time only what is workabl at that time.

* * * * *

Now we proceed tu a much clooser approximashon tu an ideal for owr children, so far az it appeerz practicabl with the prezzent alfabet. It wil at first seem a very funny ideal. All such approximashonz wil differ, and wil hav tu fiit it owt, and this wun wil seem at first tu be caos and oold niit, but allmoost enny wun ov them, tu a miind withowt an alien training--tu a chiild's miind, woud be moor orderly and luminus than owr prezzent sistem, or rathther lac ov sistem.

The rezonz for the niu formz which ar not obvius wil be explaind alfabetically after the text.

Moost ov the formz we giv ar recommended by the S. S. B. and the S. S. S. But thair ar itemz on which theze bodyz ar not yet agreed, even among themselvz; yet thair laborz hav reecht the point whair individualz shoud taak hoold and subject the formz thay beleev in tu the strugl for existens and the survival ov the fittest.

The grait difficultyz ar in indicating the vowelz with owr prezzent alfabet, which givz, for instans, oonly the wun simbol _a_ for at leest ait sowndz, and probably moor not generaly discriminated, and the wun simbol _e_ for at leest fiiv, _i_ for three, _o_ for foor, and dubld for foor moor, and _u_ for fiiv.

The short vowelz ar dispoozd ov with comparativ eez: for in a silabl cloozd with a consonant, the vowel iz uzualy short, e. g., _bad_, _bed_, _did_, _cod_, _cub_, but unfortunaitly not all short vowelz hav thair silablz cloozd. In Saxon dissilablz, owr ancestorz generaly did clooz the first silabl when it woz short, by repeeting the vowel beginning the folloing silabl, e. g., _gabble_, _filling_, _fizzle_. But the practis ov cloozing in this way woz generaly _restricted tu dissilabls_, az the pronunsiashon ov polisilabls iz apt tu indicait itself, and economy iz wurth considering. In wurdz directly from the Latin, az thair iz les differens ov axent between the silabls, the clozing ov the first silabl az abuv descriibd, iz not yuzual. It woud probably be wel tu introduus it, however. If, for instans, the first silabl wer cloozd in _viggor_, we shoud not hav such contradicshonz az _vigor_ and _vizor_ siid by siid.

Az tu the long sowndz, the oonly way tu reprezent them, _whair thay ar not determind by pozishon at the end ov an oopen silabl_, iz (az allreddy illustrated) by combining the letrz with different letrz, az we now combiin in _gain_, _real_, _mine_, _soar_, _rule_: evidently _gan_, _rel_, _min_, _sor_, _rul_, woud not anser the purpus. We hav tu maik theez combinashonz becawz the genius ov owr rais duz not seem tu favor adding letrz tu owr alfabet, inazmuch az we hav allreddy dropt tu valuabl wunz reprezenting respectivly _th_ and _dh_.

It certanly woud be best, az allreddy propoozd, tu dubl eech vowel for its long sownd, az we allreddy du in _deem_ and _door_. But we hav no exampl ov dubl _a_, _i_, or _u_ (except in tu or three forren wurdz liik _bazaar_, and ov coors, owr utterly exentric _w_), but the S. S. S. recommendz _uu_ insted ov the _oo_ in _coon_, and dubl _a_ in _faather_, which we accept. We do not need to dubl the _a_ befoor _r_ final in monosilabls becawz it haz the _ah_ sownd befoor _r_ exept when the _a_ follooz a _w_ sownd, iither in _w_ itself or in _cw_ exprest az _q_, e. g. in _war_ (_wawr_) or _quart_ (_qawrt_). The foorgoing givz dubl vowelz for all but _i_, and we propooz them thair. This iz a compleet sistem baasd on a principl.

Now for sum explanashonz.

abuv = above. The e final propperly maiks the _o_ long, and iz entirely owt ov plais heer and in _love_, _shove_, _etc._ The sownd ov the _o_ iz propperly a _u_ sownd, az in _but_, and iz wun ov several cases whair we absurdly yuuz _o_ tu express _u_ sowndz.

allreddy = already. The silabl _al_ propperly riims with _gal_, _Hal_, _pal_, _Sal_--rather a riotus set ov silabls, but thay ar whot running down the alfabet givz. And the silabl _read_ propperly riims with _bead_, and shoud be spelt here _red_, but _redy_ shoud riim with _needy_, so we proviid an addishonal consonant, in the mood ov owr ancestorz, az allreddy explaind. This iz at the sacrifis ov economy, but the reformd sistemz hav uthther economyz, espeshally in the terminal _ed_, tu compensait. See allso _prezzent_ and _confiuzd_.

allso = also. See _allreddy_.

allwaiz = always. The S. S. S. recommendz _ai_ for the long _a_ sownd az in _pair_. See _allreddy_.

bin = been, which propperly riimz with _seen_.

confiuuzd = confused. Withowt the _i_, propperly pronownst _confoozd_. Moorover we wawnt tu get rid ov the apparent silabl at the end ov such wurdz, not oonly tu economiiz the yuusles _e_, but allso becawz forrenerz tend to pronowns the _ed_ az a silabl.

coors = course and coarse. _oo_ az in _door_ iz the best simbol for long _o_, az _ee_ iz the best simbol for long _e_. The _ou_ simbol we reserv for such wurdz az _coud_, _shoud_, _woud_. The temptashon tu maik coors riim with Boors, iz ov the devvil: for Boors iz abominably spelt. It shoud be Buurz; and furze shoud be spelt withowt the _e_. Thair iz no serius objecshon tu making _coors_ serv for both _course_ and _coarse_: thair ar allreddy menny cases whaar wun wurd meenz several thingz.

determind = determined. _Mined_ can propperly be pronownst oonly with a long _i_, and the silabl or wurd _mind_, with a short _i_. Allso see _confiuuzd_.

devvil = devil, which with dubl propriety riimz with _evil_.

duz = does, which propperly riimz with _goes_.

grait = great, which propperly riimz with _beat_.

havving = having, which propperly riimz with _saving_.

impruuvd = improved. Tu reprezent a _u_ sownd with _o_ iz absurd. Allso see _confiuuzd_.

litl = little. Thair iz so litl vowel sownd in the last silabl ov this and menny uthther wurdz as tu be hardly wurth expressing, and thair ar menny difficultyz in duing it.

maid = made. Thair iz no objecshun to this from owr allreddy havving a wurd _maid_. See _allwaiz_, also _coors_.

menny = many, which propperly and suggestivly riimz with _zany_.

no = know: the S. S. B. touk off the _w_, but after chainging _knock_ into _noc_, bawkt at this _k_. We ar a litl moor venchursum. _The o iz long by pozishon at the end ov an oopen silabl._

nu = knew. See _no_.

oonly = only, which woud propperly riim with _sonly_ if thair wer such a wurd for filial. The S. S. S. recommendz _oe_ for the long _o_ sownd, but _oo_ iz betr, and we rigl it in az an inishal after the manner of _eels_.

owr = our, which propperly riimz with iither _pour_ or _tour_. The vowel sownd in _our_ iz that in _owl_.

practis = practice. In _practiced_ we pronowns the _ed_ az _t_, and thairfor shoud spel it so. But if we maid it _practict_, the _c_ woud be hard. Chainging the _c_ to _s_ in the parent wurd givs us _practist_, which iz wel simboliizd.

prezzent = present, which propperly riimz with _decent_.

pronowns = pronounce. See _practis_.

pronownst = pronounced. See _practis_.

propper = proper, which propperly riimz with _toper_. See _allreddy_, allso _litl_.

purpus = purpose. _Pose_ propperly riimz with _nose_.

reecht = reached. See _practis_.

riit = right. The _gh_ wurdz hav that simbol cognait with the German guttural _ch_ az in _recht_, tho we du not pronowns it. But _rit_ woud riim with _bit_.

scollar = scholar. Booth Societyz omit the _h_ in _ch_ hard. But that woud leev _scolar_, riiming with _molar_. See _allreddy_, allso _litl_.

scuul = school. Dubl _o_ iz abiuuzd in being maid tu reprezent a _u_ sownd. See _oonly_.

silabl = syllable. We du not keep the dubl l, becawz this iz a polisilabl: see p. 221 neer bottom. In spelling, children and forrenerz, and not thay aloon, ar puzzld between _i_ and _y_. The S. S. B. haz wiizly reservd _y_ for terminals, and we beleev in it for inishals allso whair thay ar combiind with uthther vowelz. See yuse and yuzed. Also see _litl_.

simbol = symbol. See _silabl_.

simboliizd = symbolized. See _silabl_. Moorover, if we wer tu drop the _e_ from _simbolized_ tu prevent forrenerz pronownsing the apparent last silabl, thay woud be in dainger of maiking the ending riim with whot we hav spelt az _fizzed_ and woud now spel az _fizd_. For this rezon we need the _iizd_ simbols. See _simplifiid_.

simplifiid = simplified. The _ie_ freequently in English and allwaiz in German haz the long _e_ sownd, and in English iz alwaiz confiuuzd with the long _e_ sownd in _receiv_, etc. Rezerving _ii_ for the long _i_ duz away with that confiuzhon. Tu du away with the confiuzhon between such wurdz az _believe_ and _receive_, the S. S. B. allreddy reservz _ie_, and the S. S. S., _ee_, which we follo.

sownd = sound. See _coors_ and _owr_.

thair = their, see _allwaiz_.

thay = they. Not _thai_ becawz _y_ iz betr than _i_ booth az inishal and terminal.

tu = too, to and two. The absurdity of reprezenting a _u_ sownd by _o_ is obvius. _We don't need tu dubl the u, becauz the silabl iz oopen._

uthther = other. This iz a stumper. The inishal sownd iz the _u_ in _but_. The _th_ propperly reprezents a singl consonant sownd. Owr Saxon ancestorz had a singl letr for it which we did badly in throing away. That letr the Anglo-Saxons freqently yuuzd tu clooz a silabl (see p. 221) az in siððan, _since_, and after thay began tu yuuz _th_ insted ov the ð, thay freqently yuuzd _th_ for the saam purpus, until its cumbrusnes thru it owt. We stil yuuz the ð in filological publicashonz, tho often allso the Greek [Greek: th]. If we must yuuz _th_, for consistency's saak it shoud be repeeted in _uthther_, _bruthther_, _muthther_, etc.

Fortunaitly thair ar oonly a scoor ov such wurdz. We riit of thair spelling partly az a curiosity that may be interesting, and partly tu sho the dezirability ov getting bac owr oold letrz. Macaulay's scuulboy nu, if owrz duzn't, that the Greeks wer ahed ov us over tu thowzand yeerz ago, in havving not oonly a singl simbol for _th_, but a long _e_ and a short _e_, and a long _o_ and a short _o_.

whot = what, which propperly riimz with _bat_.

woz or wuz = was, which propperly riimz with _gas_.

wun = one, which propperly riimz with _tone_.

wurd = word, which propperly riimz with _cord_. Its vowel is pronownst with a _u_ sownd, which it iz absurd tu reprezent by _o_.

wurs = worse, which propperly riimz with _horse_. We woud hardly pronowns _horse_ az we pronowns _hearse_, tho the latter iz allso abominabl: for _ea_ propperly reprezents the sownd in _dear_. The riit way tu spel _hearse_ iz _hurs_, and the riit way tu spel _her's_ iz _hur'z_.

wuz or woz = was, which propperly riimz with _gas_.

yuus or yuuz = use. See _confiuuzd_. _Use_ iz pronownst both _uze_ and _use_. _Uze_ iz a betr way to spel the wurd which we rongly spel _ooze_. Tu yuuz an _o_ for a _u_ sownd iz bad enuf, and tu yuuz tu ov them iz wurs--dubly fit for _fools_.

We may venture upon another (annuthther?) spelling lesson in the next number, especially if owr reederz giv enny siin ov wawnting it; and it may anser sum qeschonz raazd in this lesson. And we may even go so far az tu prezent a fiu miild innovashonz in owr text, az haz bin heroically don by the _Educational Review_, _The Independent_ and sum uthther periodicalz ov standing.

We woud liik to hieer from owr reedrz on the subject.

* * * * *

Press of T. MOREY & SON, Greenfield, Mass.

The Unpopular Review

VOL. 1 APRIL-JUNE, 1914 NO. 2

THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM

I

There is no such thing as capitalism, say the conservatives. It is an empty sound, a curse in the name of a false god, directed by the revolutionaries against the world of things as they are, as they always have been and always shall be. Capitalism is a reality, say the radicals. It is the appropriate designation of the current system--a vulgar, hideous system, a brute mechanism set in motion by the energy of blind greed, a mechanism through which human values and human lives are thrust, to emerge smudged and flat and dead. The soul of capitalism? Pernicious paradox!

Capitalism is no less a reality than was feudalism. The capitalist employer is the most prominent figure in the modern state, just as the knight was the most prominent figure in the mediæval. But the order of knights did not of itself constitute feudalism: equally characteristic was the class of serfs. In a fundamental sense the system consisted in the mutual relation between knight and serf. Capitalism, in like manner, implies a class of employers and a reciprocal and conditioning class of workers, but as a system it consists in the mutual relation of these classes. The conscious existence of the members of both classes is shaped, or at least colored, by the capitalistic relation. Not in the same way, however; for capitalism induces one set of reactions in the minds of the employing class, and another set of reactions in the minds of the employed. But these diverse reactions are equally the product of capitalism, its inevitable concomitants, its psychical essence.

Capitalism is, to be sure, not the whole of modern life; nor was feudalism the whole of the life of the Middle Ages. In the feudal state there were classes that were not, strictly speaking, under feudal law. Such were the clergy, the merchants and artisans of the towns, the freemen of the villages. Moreover, there were individuals who rose superior to the system, such as the great feudatories, who often assumed a regal freedom from the narrow feudal rules. There were also elements that proved incapable of assimilation, aliens, outlaws, mendicants. But the popular mind, with its inveterate bent towards order and uniformity, generalized the relation beyond the range of its proper application. To the worldly bishop, even the Pope was a great feudatory; to the beggar's apprentice, his master was a species of knight. So at the present time there are numerous elements that are incongruous with capitalism. The independent worker and the small merchant, the professional classes, the artists and the politicians, are not properly governed by capitalistic rules. The great magnates of the industrial world have won for themselves a measure of immunity from the laws that govern the conduct of the typical capitalist-employer. But the predominance of the capitalistic system is evidenced by the fact that all these non-assimilable forms are being translated into capitalistic terms. A farm is no longer a "holding," it is an "investment" or a "job." A political magnate is a "boss" and his supporters are "workers"; the political machine itself is "invested capital." The buildings of church or school are, with increasing frequency, described as "plant." We are beginning to hear of "efficiency control" of college curricula; of the "unit costs" of saving souls. Our most exalted dignitary is "the people's hired man"; and the late King Humbert of Italy was wont to speak of assassination as a "trade risk."

With due allowance for the whimsical quality of some of the instances cited above, we must yet admit that they indicate a general tendency to translate all current experience into capitalistic terms. Such instances are but indications of the collective conviction that capitalism is the most significant fact in modern life. Why then do our conservatives insist upon rejecting the term, upon denying the very content of the concept? Chiefly because those who have depicted capitalism have sketched it in black crayon, instead of painting it in the rosy hues of romance.