|
|
|
THE
PRINCIPLES OF
SPELLING REFORM
by the author of History of English Sounds (Trübner), Henry Sweet GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Henry Sweet (1845 -1910) was the greatest authority on historical phonetics of his day. His books on Anglo Saxon pronunciation are still in print. His work on a new orthography for English influenced the defvelopment of the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) and G.B. Shaw's vision for a new alphabet. Sweet's ideas live on in the orthographies of present day spelling reformers but their source is now forgotten. This particular work, digitized below, should be required reading for any amateur orthographer.  Sweet's
publication comes after the pioneering work of Isaac Pitman and Alexander
Ellis. Sweet critiques Ellis' Glossic notation. Glossic
evolved into New Spelling and is the basis of countless new orthographies
for English that are based on the most frequent English spelling patterns.
Sweet argues that this agreement with Nomic (the traditional orthography
(TO)) is obtained at a great sacrifice of phonetic consistency. Sweet favored
International
spelling patterns and a return to the original Saxon augmented Latin G-P
correspondences . He called his augmented Roman notation with Latin
sound correspondents Romic.
Sweet favors using the Roman alphabet and the original Latin sound values. For the sounds in English speech that are not represented, Sweet recommends augmenting the Roman characters with 2 Anglo Saxon symbols (ash and eth), 1 greek character (theta), and 2 turned letters ( THE absolute necessity of phonetic reform is now almost universally recognised, not only by practical teachers but also by scientific philologists. All the objections that prejudice and irrational conservatism have been able to devise have been successfully met, and the only question now is, What system shall we adopt? The great difficulty of arriving at any agreement is the multiplicity of possible systems. Any system, however clumsy and arbitrary, which clears away only a portion of the irregularities of the existing spelling, is an improvement on it. Any one, for instance, if he likes, can drop the silent w in such words as write, and make night into nite, thus getting rid of a large number of irregularities at one stroke. In fact, given a hundred human beings of average intellect who can read and write, it would be perfectly easy to turn out a hundred different systems of spelling, all of them more or less an improvement on the existing one. This was until lately the state of things - every man did what was right in his own eyes. But in the thirty years that have elapsed since Messrs. Ellis and Pitman first began to work on a phonetic alphabet, practically everything has been changed, especially within the last ten years. The labours of Messrs. Bell and Ellis have given us a thorough analysis of the sounds of English, the history of English pronunciation has been fully investigated by Mr. Ellis, and a variety of spellings have been practically tested. It is now possible from an examination of these various systems to deduce certain general principles, by which all reform must be guided. If there were no such principles, the problem would be a hopeless one. Nothing can be done without unanimity, and until the majority of the community are convinced of the superiority of some one system, unanimity is impossible. No one is qualified to give an opinion on spelling reform who has not studied these general principles, and has at least an elementary knowledge of the formation of the sounds of the English language and their relations to one another. The present remarks are intended to supply the necessary information in as clear and untechnical a form as possible, so as to enable the general reader to form an independent judgement without having to search through an indefinite number of scattered publications. THE object of an alphabet being to represent to the eye the sounds of a language by means of written symbols, it follows that in a rational alphabet - (1) Every simple sound must have a distinct symbol, andThe Roman alphabet, on the other hand, is quite independent of the scientific analysis of sounds. It has also been thoroughly tested in practice. Long experience and many experiments have selected the most legible and distinct types, and a script alphabet of the most practical character has been formed. In fact the difficulty of our present English spelling lies not so much in any of the inherent defects of the Roman alphabet as in our irrational use of it. The immediate practical question of Spelling Reform resolves itself therefore into this - By what arrangement of the existing alphabet can the sounds of the English language be best represented? If then we exclude new letters as impracticable, we are obliged to fall back on digraphs, which are already largely employed in English and most other languages. The obvious objection to them is that they violate the natural principle of denoting every simple sound by a simple sign. In a rational alphabet such as Visible Speech, this principle is carried out consistently, the consonants of she and the, for instance, being denoted by single letters just as that of see is. But with the Roman alphabet, which does not claim to be rational and consistent, this principle cannot be carried out: our business is to make the best use of the materials we have, and if we can make a convenient and unambiguous symbol for a simple sound by joining two letters together, we are clearly right in doing so. In fact we may consider the h in sh and th simply as a diacritic written for convenience on a line with the letter it modifies. It would be possible to write and print the h above the s and t, or to make some kind of tag, but the expense of casting new types and trouble of writing the new letters would not be repaid by any gain of ease or certainty in reading. There is, however, one simple method of forming new letters without casting new types, which is very often convenient. This is by turning the letters, thus - . These new letters are perfectly distinct in shape, and are easily written. The was first employed by Schmeller to denote the obscure e-sound in the German gabe, &c. Mr. Ellis, in his "Palæotype," uses it to denote the allied English sound in but. Caps serve no useful purpose A great improvement would be to do away with capitals entirely. They greatly add to the difficulty of learning the alphabet, have a disfiguring and incongruous effect among the lower-case letters, and serve no useful purpose whatever. Proper names are always recognised in speech by the context, and do not require to be marked in writing either, whose exclusive function is to give a faithful representation of the sounds of language. Whenever general distinctions are required, they can be indicated by the use of a larger or smaller fount, or by thick (Clarendon) or thin type. We thus arrive at the general conclusion that a reformed alphabet must consist of the existing lower-case types, supplemented by digraphs, and, if necessary, by turned letters. Employment of Letters. This problem may also be stated thus - What values must be assigned to the letters that they may be most easily learnt, read, and written? The obvious requisites are unambiguity and consistency, and that system which combines them in the highest degree (as far as the radical defects of the Roman alphabet will allow), while observing the practical considerations stated in the previous section, is the best. It is clear that the defects of our present orthography are mainly due to its disregard of these fundamental principles. Ambiguity is shown in the use of one symbol for several distinct sounds, as in man, lane, ask, salt, or of different symbols for one sound, as in why, wine, eye, lie. This fault is a violation of the fundamental principle of all rational spelling, viz. that of representing every sound by an invariable symbol (which may, however, be either a single letter or a digraph). An alphabet is inconsistent when it fails to construct and apply its symbols on definite and uniform principles. It is, for instance, self-evident that a rational alphabet will indicate diphthongs by the juxtaposition of their elements, as in the oi of oil, which is really composed of o and i. But in English this simple principle is not carried out with the other diphthongs. In out, for instance, there is not a trace of an o, nor does its second element in the slightest degree resemble the u of but. Again, au, which would be the proper symbol of the ou in out, does not denote a diphthong at all. The practical effect of inconsistency is not only greatly to increase the number of arbitrary symbols, but also to make their acquisition more difficult, because of the conflicting associations of ideas thus engendered. Before going any further it will be worth while to stop and consider what are the causes of the ambiguity, inconsistency and complexity of the present English spelling. When we have a definite idea of the cause, we shall be better able to devise a cure. Old and Middle English were highly phonemic until 1500
Up to the sixteenth century English spelling was mainly phonetic, like the present German. At that time the words man, lane, care, father, water, were all written with the same vowel because their vowels all had the same pronunciation, viz. that of the Italian a in father. Similarly wine was written with an i because its vowel really was the long sound of the i in win, wine being pronounced as ween is now, which last, again, had a pronunciation agreeing with its spelling. However, as literature developed, and the printing-press began to assert its authority, the spelling became more and more fixed, till at last it became entirely stationary, while the pronunciation went on changing without intermission, so that the ee of ween came to be the long sound of the i in win, while wine itself changed its long vowel into a diphthong, as in the present English. The a in man, &c. changed also in various ways without any corresponding change being made in the spelling. In short we may say that our present spelling does not represent the English we actually speak, but rather the language of the sixteenth century. In other words, the present confusion in our spelling is due to the abandonment of the original Roman values of the letters, chiefly in the long vowelsª. The only way of curing these evils is evidently to return to the original Roman values of the letters. If the beginner has once learnt to pronounce a, e, i, o, u, as in glass, bet, bit, not, full, he simply has to remember that long vowels are doubled, as in biit = "beat," and fuul = "fool," and diphthongs formed by the juxtaposition of their elements, as in boi = "boy" and hai = "high," to be able to read at once the majority of the vowel symbols. Of the consonants, whose original values have been mostly preserved, little need be said at present. Of course, the Roman alphabet requires to be supplemented, and this is a problem that requires much thought, in order to attain the maximum of consistency and simplicity, so that the new symbols may, if possible, suggest any relationship they may bear to other known ones. Thus æ as the symbol of the a in man at once suggests a sound intermediate between the true a in father and the e in bet, which the a in man really is. Further details must be reserved till we come to the analysis of the sounds of English, for, until we know what the elementary sounds really are, it is impossible to symbolise them intelligently. ª For a general sketch of the changes of English pronunciation and spelling, see my "History of English Sounds" (Trübner).
We have hitherto considered the question of spelling reform solely from
the point of view of those who learn to read for the first time. But we
have also to consider the question of the transition from and to the present
orthography. The two points of view may be contrasted thus:-
The first of these two alternatives is, as we have seen, fully met by the simple principle of returning to the original Roman values of the letters. The second, on the other hand, requires that our new spelling should be based not on the original values of the letters but on some one of their present values. We may, then, distinguish two main classes of reformed spellings, (1) the Roman-value system, and (2) the English-value system. The only consistent and practical alphabet on the English-value system that has yet been produced is the "Glossic" of Mr. Ellis. Glossic evolved into New Spelling. Glossic is based on the principle of retaining the traditional means of expressing the sounds of English, but selecting one among the many symbols of each sound, and using it invariably to express that sound, rejecting, of course, all silent letters. Thus ee is taken as the sole representation of the sound of long i, being written not only in feel, but also in reed, skeem, = "read" and "scheme", peek ="pique", &c. ai is written not only in fail but also in naim = "name", rain = "reign", &c. It cannot be denied that from its own point of view this system has considerable advantages. It would certainly cause the adults of the present generation less trouble than any Roman-value spelling, for any one who has learnt to read on the present system can read Glossic at sight. Mr. Ellis also thinks that those who had learnt Glossic would easily acquire the ordinary or "Nomic" spelling, as he calls it. Before attempting to settle the relative merits of the Roman- and English-value systems, as regards ease of transition to and from the "Nomic" spelling, it will be well to weigh the following considerations. (1) In both systems a large number of words will retain their spellings entirely or almost unchanged. The following words, for instance, remain unchanged in both: best, bend, desk, fed, let, men; if, hit, fish, wish, in, gift; on, hot, god, dog, pot; oil, boil, loin, and many others. (2) Many, indeed most of the remaining words, will undergo great
alterations under both systems. Let us consider, for instance, that most
of our written words are practically hieroglyphs, which we recognise individually
by the consonant skeletons without thinking of the sounds they represent.
Thus, if we substitute a (-) for the vowels in such words as kn-ght,
wr-ck, -n-gh, we still recognise them without any difficulty, which
would not be materially increased even by the introduction of different
vowels. Now, on any system whatever of phonetic spelling, these words,
which all contain silent consonants, entirely alter the shape of their
skeletons, so that whether we write nite, neit or
nait, rec
or rek, inuf or en (3) Again, the very resemblance of Glossic to Nomic often causes very puzzling confusions. Thus "latter," "ridding," "supper," become later, riding, super, while the Nomic "later," "riding," "super(fine)," are represented by laiter, reiding, seuperfein. The Roman-value system, being more remote from Nomic, is much less liable to such cross-associations. In fact, the relation of Glossic to Nomic is very like that of two closely allied languages, such as Danish and Swedish, or Spanish and Portuguese. Although Danes and Swedes soon learn to understand one another's languages, they hardly ever, even after years of study, succeed in speaking each other's languages with real accuracy, the very nearness of the two languages, with their constant deviations from one another in matters of detail, causing constant confusion and cross-association. There is one more alternative - Saxon-Spanglish
and spelling pronunciation
A. VOWELS.
B. DROPPED CONSONANTS.
C. VARYING CONSONANTS.
The results of a detailed study of this table may be conveniently, though
somewhat roughly, summed up in the following lists, in which, however,
only the commonest groups are given, each represented by its typical word:-
We see that out of a total of thirty-three typical words more than a half either remain unchanged or else undergo equally violent changes under any possible scheme of reform. Also that only a third of the whole thirty-three remain unchanged in Glossic, from which the two in parentheses ought, strictly speaking, to be excluded, as their agreement with Nomic is obtained at a great sacrifice of phonetic consistency. Any scheme
of consistent phonetic spelling will change over half of the nomic spellings
One very important result of a return to the Roman values of the letters would be the restoration of the original harmony of the English with the Continental values of the letters, which would much facilitate the acquisition of English by foreigners, and vice versa. At present, English people and foreigners have to learn each other's languages almost entirely by eye, unless thoroughly taught by a native, and consequently are utterly at a loss when brought face to face with the spoken language - in fact, they have to learn the same language twice over. Thus when a German sees the English written word right he easily associates it with his own recht, as also the English name with the German name, but when he hears the genuine rait and neim, he is thrown completely off the scent. Conversely, when an Englishman comes across the German knie for the first time, he at once thinks of his own knee, and naturally drops the k in the German word as well as in the English: if he were used to see the English word spelt nii, he would never think of dropping the k in German. It will, of course, be urged by the advocates of historical spelling that the silent letters in right and knee are really valuable helps in acquiring the language. All this really amounts to is, that sixteenth century English bears a much closer resemblance to German than nineteenth-century English does, consequently that a German will learn the former more easily than the latter, and that an Englishman who knows sixteenth-century English will thereby learn German more easily. The practical result is, of course, that English has to be learnt twice over both by the English themselves and by foreigners. The worst of it is, that instead of learning the older stage of our language on an intelligent and systematic plan, we have it forced on us - whether we really want it or not - in the shape of a garbled and imperfect orthography, which, instead of giving us clear ideas of the language of the period it represents, only serves to hopelessly confuse our notions of our present language. Of course the orthographies of most of the Continental languages require reform as well as English; French, especially, most urgently demands a thorough change. Indeed, there is no reason why foreigners should not learn French on a phonetic system, leaving the present French spelling to be acquired afterwards, even if the French themselves do not inaugurate a reform. There are many significant facts in the pronunciation and spelling of English which show that the return to the Roman values of the vowels would not be by any means so violent a change as is generally supposed. Even without going beyond the commonest words in our vocabulary we have whole classes of words like machine, marine, oblique, antique, &c., in which long i retains its Roman value. In geographical names, such as Alabama, Chicago, Granada, Medina, Messina, the accented vowels all have the Roman values. In such names as Isaiah, Achaia, Cairo, the diphthong also has its strict analytical value. Indeed, the tendency is becoming stronger and stronger to retain as much as possible the native pronunciation of foreign names. The definite adoption of the Romic principle by the Indian government, and the reformed pronunciation of Latin, are all most important moves in the same direction. International Intelligibility. One very important result of a return to the Roman values of the letters would be the restoration of the original harmony of the English with the Continental values of the letters, which would much facilitate the acquisition of English by foreigners, and vice versa. At present, English people and foreigners have to learn each other's languages almost entirely by eye, unless thoroughly taught by a native, and consequently are utterly at a loss when brought face to face with the spoken language - in fact, they have to learn the same language twice over. Thus when a German sees the English written word right he easily associates it with his own recht, as also the English name with the German name, but when he hears the genuine rait and neim, he is thrown completely off the scent. Conversely, when an Englishman comes across the German knie for the first time, he at once thinks of his own knee, and naturally drops the k in the German word as well as in the English: if he were used to see the English word spelt nii, he would never think of dropping the k in German. It will, of course, be urged by the advocates of historical spelling that the silent letters in right and knee are really valuable helps in acquiring the language. All this really amounts to is, that sixteenth century English bears a much closer resemblance to German than nineteenth-century English does, consequently that a German will learn the former more easily than the latter, and that an Englishman who knows sixteenth-century English will thereby learn German more easily. The practical result is, of course, that English has to be learnt twice over both by the English themselves and by foreigners. The worst of it is, that instead of learning the older stage of our language on an intelligent and systematic plan, we have it forced on us - whether we really want it or not - in the shape of a garbled and imperfect orthography, which, instead of giving us clear ideas of the language of the period it represents, only serves to hopelessly confuse our notions of our present language. Of course the orthographies of most of the Continental languages require reform as well as English; French, especially, most urgently demands a thorough change. Indeed, there is no reason why foreigners should not learn French on a phonetic system, leaving the present French spelling to be acquired afterwards, even if the French themselves do not inaugurate a reform. There are many significant facts in the pronunciation and spelling
of English which show that the return to the Roman values of the vowels
would not be by any means so violent a change as is generally supposed.
Even without going beyond the commonest words in our vocabulary we have
whole classes of words like machine, marine, oblique, antique, &c.,
in which long i retains its Roman value. In geographical names,
such as Alabama, Chicago, Granada, Medina, Messina, the accented vowels
all have the Roman values. In such names as Isaiah, Achaia, Cairo,
the diphthong also has its strict analytical value. Indeed, the tendency
is becoming stronger and stronger to retain as much as possible the native
pronunciation of foreign names. The definite adoption of the Romic principle
by the Indian government, and the reformed pronunciation of Latin, are
all most important moves in the same direction.
Sweet's system is without caps. Altho caps are used for Z (zh) and S (sh). Sweet experimented with several notations. This one is a compromise notation which uses ü for up and oo for /u:/. ' dispyoot wüns 'roaz bitween dh' wind 'nd dh' sün, wich w'z dh' strongg'r 'v dh' too, 'nd dhai 'greed t' put dh' point on dhis ishoo, dh't wichev' soonist maid ' trävl' taik of hiz kloak, shud bee 'kountid dh' mau pou'ful. dh' wind bigän, 'nd bloo widh aul hiz meit 'nd main' blast, koald 'nd fi's'z' thraish'n staum; b't dh' strongg' hee bloo dh' kloas' dh' trävl' räpt hiz kloak 'round him, 'nd dh' teit' hee graspt it widh hiz händz. dhen broak out dh' sün: widh hiz welk'm beemz hee dispoest dh' vaip'r 'nd dh' koald; dh' trävl' felt dh' jeeny'l waumth, 'nd 'z dh' sün shon breit'r 'nd breit', hee sät doun, oav'küm widh dh' heet, 'nd kast hiz kloak on dh' ground. (Spanglish-A) A dispiut wans arowz bitwin the wind and the sun, which was the stronger ov the tu, and they agrid tu put the point on this ishu, that whichever sunist meid the travler teik of hiz cloak, shud bi acounted the mor paurful. The wind bigan, and blu with ol hiz mait and meid a blast, coald and fiers as a threishen storm; but the stronger hi blu, the clowsr the travler rapt hiz clowk araund him, and the taiter hi graspt it with hiz handz. Then browk aut the svn: with hiz welcam bimz hi dispowzd the vapor and the cowld; the travler felt the jinyal warmth and az the svn shown braiter and braiter, hi sat daun, overcam with the hit, and kast hiz cloak on the graund. [Spanglish A is ambiguous] (Spanglish-F) A dispiut wans arowz bitwin tha wind and tha san, wich waz tha strongr av tha tu, aend they agrid tu pwt tha point on this ishu, thatt whichevr sunist meyd tha travlr teyk aof hizz clowk, shwd bi acaunted tha mor paurfwl. The winnd bigan, and blu with ol hiz mait and meid a blaest, cowld and fiers az a threyshan storm; bat tha strongr hi blu, tha clowsr tha travlr rapt hiz clowk araund him, and tha taitr hi graspt it witth hiz haendz. Then browk aut tha san: with hiz welcam bimz hi dispowzd tha vapor and tha cowld; tha travlr felt tha jinyal waarmth and aez tha san shown braiter and braiter, hi saet daun, overcam witth tha hit, and kaest hiz clowk on tha graund.
Old and Middle English Spellings
http://www.egroups.com/files/saundspel/saxon-spanglish.html |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
and
). Sweet employs q for /ng/ and c for /tsh/. He uses
two base pronunciations for Romic, RP and American. He wants the
notation to be elastic enough to accomodate both.
f,
the results are equally disguised to the eye, and can only be made out
by an effort. Any possible superiority of one alphabet over another is
thus very considerably reduced. To this may be added that, although in
most cases where any superiority in point of resemblance to Nomic can be
claimed by one system over the other, the advantage is naturally on the
side of Glossic, yet the Roman-value system often has the advantage on
its side. Thus the u in "full," "pull," "put," &c., and the
i
in "pique," "machine," "marine," &c., are preserved unchanged in the
Roman-value system, while in Glossic
u being used to represent the
vowel in "but" cannot be retained in "full," and the i of "pique,"
&c. must of course be written
ee.
r
]
