SIMPLIFIED SPELLING.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2473, 12 April 1909, Page 2

SIMPLIFIED SPELLING.

VIEWS AT CAMBRIDGE. A new spelling book with abbreviated words, for .all the English-speaking nations of the world is to be compiled by an international assembly of Scholars, who will meet during the present year. This announcement was made recently by Mr. William Archer at the Woman’s Institute. He is secretary of the Simplified Spelling Society, of which Professor Skeat is president, and which is now actively co-operating in the work of spelling reform with the Simplified Spelling Board of the United States. Both organisations are pledged to cut out all unnecessary .letters from 1 the spelling of our words. Their curtailments would be made in the following fashion:— Asked—askt. Early—erJy. Through—tho. Friend—frend. Drill—dril. Could—coud. Doubt—dout. Impelled—impeled. Will—wii. ; Alphabet—’alfabet. ADVANTAGES OF THE SYSTEM. Because so many people hated change in any form, they opposed this movement, said Mr. Archer. They shudder to see programme spelt “program”-—for-getting such words as “epigram” and “anagram.” But gradually spelling changes were always being made; The word' -public,” for. instance, once had been “belt “publicke,” then it became “publick,” arid ultimately found its present form. Three spellings “traps” in our' present system were mentioned by Mr. Archer: Believe. Receive. Seize. Siege. Deceit. Receipt. I There were, Mr. Archer added, three ! outstanding advantages in a system of spelling reform : (1) A saving of time and material., both of which meant money to writers and printers. (2) A priceless saving of time for children and teachers. (3) An immense advantage to foreigners learning our language. Opinions favorable to the Simplified Spelling Society’s campaign were expressed at Cambridge University. “I.do not think,” said Professor J. E. B. Mayor, “that the movement will meet with much opposition in the University, but it is absolutely necessary that it should proceed gradually. A purely phonetic system, however, .is very undesirable, for the greatest care must always be taken to differentiate between the spelling of words of a different root. Take, for instance, the words beau and bow (the weapon). Under a purely phonetic spelling these words would both be spelt bo. Again, bread would, if spelt pronetically, be indistinguishable from the past participle bred, ts would red, the color, from read, the verb. HELP TO TEACHERS. “It is bad enough that the pronunciation of such words should be the same ,and the adoption for them of an identical spelling would lead to the worst possible confusion. “In the case of many of the words which need alteration, however, it is necessary merely to go back to their spelling in the fifteenth or sixteenth century.” , Dr. \V. H. D. Rouse, headmaster of the Perse School, Cambridge, who is editor of a well-known school series of English classics, said the introduction of a reformed system of English spelling, if officially recognised, would certainly be a great help to teachers. ‘ At present much time is wasted in boys learning to spell, with no proportion of educational gain as a result. I am of the opinion that modern spelling is the cause of a great deal of mispronunciation and vulgarisation of English.”