Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

IT

James Hadley.

BORN in Fairfield, Herkimer Co., N. Y., 1821. DIED at New Haven, Conn., 1872.

ENGLISH ORTHOGRAPHY,

[Essays Philological and Critical. 1873.]

T cannot be denied that the English language is shockingly spelled. The original difficulty lay in the mixture of different languages, Saxon and Norman French, out of which came English; the confusion of different systems, varying and conflicting analogies, is everywhere to be seen in our orthography.

Besides, the French, which makes one element of English, does itself enjoy, next to the English and perhaps the Gaelic, the honor of being the worst spelt language of Europe. Franklin used to say that what we call false spelling of the vulgar was really true spelling. I do not know that I should say that, for vulgar spelling is sometimes most ingeniously absurd. But I certainly feel a good deal of hesitation about saying in regard to any man that he spells badly: I say that he does not spell like most of us; he spells singularly, peculiarly; but I do not see, on the whole, that he spells worse than the spelling-books and newspapers.

It is very unfortunate that Johnson's Dictionary should have come to be such a standard of spelling. For the consequence has been that the processes which were going on before-gradual progressive processes, to root out anomalies and bring in greater regularity, processes which went on naturally and almost without notice-were at once arrested, and the system which had before been somewhat flexible became at once a castiron affair. That such processes were going on, to the great advantage of the system, will be plain enough to any one who takes a book printed in the Elizabethan age-say one of the earlier translations of the Bibleand compares it with the books printed in the first part of the last century. That such processes were arrested by the appearance of Johnson's Dictionary is evident from the outcry which is raised against any spelling that departs from the prescription of that autocratic lexicographer. No philologist needs to be reminded that Johnson had little fitness for the work of legislation in orthography. This would be evident enough from his famous dictum that it is absurd to regulate your spelling by your pronunciation, for pronunciation changes all the time, and your standard is therefore variable and fluctuating. He did not see that this is one of the strongest reasons for regulating spelling by pronunciation; for if pronunciation changes all the time while spelling remains fixed,

the two will diverge more and more widely from each other, until they cease to have any relation, and we shall write in hieroglyphics. Most evidently the proper aim and object, the ideal of alphabetic writing, is to furnish an exact reflection of the spoken language, a faithful repre sentation of what we hear in daily utterance. In its most advanced perfection, every elementary sound will be represented by a special character, and each character will be used in every case to represent the same sound. There is no great objection, however, to a combination of characters used to represent a sound different from either-as, for instance, ch in church, provided always that it is used with perfect consistency. The reform recently attempted has taken high ground, avoiding such combinations of characters, and representing the same sound always by the same alphabetic sign. Perhaps this is the best course, though I have always felt that the introduction of new letters, which this plan requires, might operate pretty strongly to prevent its adoption.

The objections commonly urged against a new system of phonography have in my view very little weight. It is often said that, if this plan were adopted, all books printed hitherto would be useless. It is certain that people would not read them quite so readily as now; but only for this reason, that they would spend less time in acquiring the power. It would be really as easy as ever for people to learn the old system, or rather, far easier; for then it would be necessary only that they should learn to read, to recognize the words when they see them; and not to learn what is far harder, to spell, to reproduce the words when you do not see them. Another objection, which has considerable influence, is that a new system would obscure the etymology of words, which is now shown in many cases by the spelling. But as regards this, the etymology of words is of little practical value except to scholars, who could always get it out of books of lexicography; it is not worth while for their benefit to impose a heavy burden upon the world at large. But our common spelling is often an untrustworthy guide to etymology. Take the word sovereign: the people who first spelt it so supposed no doubt that it had something to do with reign; but it most certainly has not. It comes from Latin super, through Italian sovrano, etc. But I will go further, and say that the wants of the philologist require a different system. What is important for him is that he should know the condition of a language at any given period of the past, that he may be able to trace it through its successive changes to its latest form. Now in doing this he must depend mainly on the spelling, the writing; if this be maintained. invariable from age to age amid all mutations of spoken words, the philologist is deprived of his most serviceable guide. I would give a good deal to get a Fonetic Nuz of Chaucer's time, that I might know how far some important phenomena of the modern language-as for

instance the change of a to ē, of è to i, and of i to ai-had established themselves five centuries ago.

You will see from what I have said that I recognize fully the evils of our present orthography (as men sarcastically term it), and that I sympathize in the objects of a phonographic revolution. But in regard to the feasibility of such a revolution I am far from being sanguine; a political revolution, I suspect, would be a much easier undertaking. Yet I have no desire to damp the ardor of those who are more sanguine than myself; on the contrary, I wish them all success in their work, being sure at least of this-that, whatever imperfections may belong to their systems, they cannot be so bad as ordinary good spelling.

Charles Taber Congdon.

BORN in New Bedford, Mass., 1821.

ALICE.

OMETIMES in my motley dream I see
You, Alice,

Standing 'neath the old ancestral tree,
Waiting like a flower of flowers for me,
For me-Alice.

Yes, I dream with spirit quenched and hoary
Of you, Alice:

Trysting trees tell aye the self-same story,
You flew off-my guide and grace and glory—
From me, Alice.

We were very wise and constant then,

Both we, Alice:

How we laughed at old proverbial men!
How the merry meadows echoed when
You, Alice . . . !

I'd not live that summer day, again,
For you, Alice!

Would the Gods had spared to me the pain
Of knowing how a love could wax and wane,
Like yours, Alice.

Yet I'd something give, an old man's whim,

If I, Alice,

With these eyes, a little bleared and dim,
Could see you waiting like a flower for him-
Not me, Alice.

TWELVE LITTLE DIRTY QUESTIONS

[Tribune Essays. 1869.]

WE should very much like to know what in the opinion of the Rev.

Dr. Hawks constitutes a large and clean question. In the Protestant Episcopal Convention last Monday, Dr. Hawks, arguing that the Church must treat its rebellious children with "lenity, courtesy, and affection," used the following language: "We must not lug in all the little dirty questions of the day which will be buried with their agitation."

To the Protestant Episcopal Church is unquestionably due the reverence of some of us and the respect of others; but Heaven knows there is nothing in its history, nothing in its present position, which justifies this sublime scorn of political affairs which Dr. Hawks professes.

Shall the United States of America be deprived of an immense territory acquired at a cost of blood and treasure absolutely incomputable? This is Dr. Hawks's Little Dirty Question, No. One.

Shall the Constitution of the United States be overthrown by the perjuries of its sworn defenders? This is Dr. Hawks's Little Dirty Question, No. Two.

Shall the Loyal States see the rolls of their citizens decimated, the flower of their youth slain in battle, the homes only a little while ago the happiest in the world made desolate, the honest accumulations of industry scattered, the enterprises of benevolence arrested-and all without hope of indemnity or of security? This is Dr. Hawks's Little Dirty Question, No. Three.

Shall the wildest and wickedest perjury, the most Satanic defiance of the Majesty of Heaven, the clearest and least defensible of crimes, flourish and bloom in the establishment of a great empire, and out of the dissolution of society secure the prosperous fortunes of the turbulent and the ambitious? This is Dr. Hawks's Little Dirty Question, No. Four.

Shall the great experiment of political self-government utterly fail, while we, crouching and crawling through the vicissitudes of anarchy, find refuge at last in blind obedience to the edicts of an autocrat? This is Dr. Hawks's Little Dirty Question, No. Five.

Shall a system of labor be perpetuated which, without regard to its abstract equity, without consideration of its injustice to the employed, has so demoralized the employer, that treason, robbery, and murder seem to him to be Christian virtues? This is Dr. Hawks's Little Dirty Question, No. Six.

Shall a system of labor be perpetuated which so utterly degrades the spiritual nature of the enslaved as to expose it in its very yearning for sacred culture to a fanaticism analogous to idolatry? This is Dr. Hawks's Little Dirty Question, No. Seven.

Shall a system of labor be perpetuated the very essence of which is a denial of the fundamental principle of Christian ethics-that the laborer is worthy of his hire? This is Dr. Hawks's Little Dirty Question, No. Eight.

Shall these acts be considered by the Church mere peccadilloes, when perpetrated by its Southern slaveholding members, which in its Northern communicants it would at once visit with its censure and even its excommunication? This is Dr. Hawks's Little Dirty Question, No.

Nine.

Shall a Church which every Sunday prays the Good Lord to deliver us "from all sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion," and "to give to all nations unity, peace, and concord," still hold communion with a Church which is full of sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion against the unity, peace, and concord of the land? This is Dr. Hawks's Little Dirty Question, No. Ten.

Shall a Church which every Sunday prays for "the President of the United States, and all others in authority"-not merely as fellow-men, but because they are "in authority"-shall the Church withhold its censure of those of its members who in contempt of authority are waging a felonious war against law and order? This is Dr. Hawks's Little Dirty Question, No. Eleven.

Whether, finally, these communicants of the Church in the rebel States who have been so disregardful of its discipline and so false to its teachings as to avowedly violate all laws Divine and human are entitled to anything more than Christian pity, are at all entitled in their double tort to Christian Fellowship, is a Little Dirty Question well worth the consideration of every Christian Patriot; and is Dr. Hawks's No. Twelve.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »