SPELLING REFORM.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1437, 11 May 1912, Page 6

SPELLING REFORM.

[ - ■*- A CHRISTCHTIRCa rBOFESSOR'3 (Br Teleera-ph.—Boeclal OonrenroEdcnt.V '. Christchurch, May 9. i A good deal. has been hoard lately • i about projects of tho simplification oi the i very chaotic spelling of the Lnghsli lanBUBRe. Numerous schemes have been prof posed to meet, the difficulty, but without j much effect. The International Phonoho . Association provides an alphabet with a , special individual symbol for every known • simple sound and capable of accurately ; representing tho sounds of any language i known to tho smallest nuances ot the i ..pronunciation. The adoption of, such a b scheme would, of course, necessitate the . entire recasting of the language. Theii there aro various systems of simpliueo > spelling which do not aim at such a clean : Bweop as that of tho Phonetic Association, merely proposing a number ot alteration! . and eliminations of letters which are no - longer pronounced, and tho adoption of I certain fixed letters for each sound. Asked by a "Press" representative for his views on this vexed question, Profe*> Bor Arnold Wall said that in tho first 'place the reformers could not agree as totheir system. A onrrcspondonco which had • been taking piece latch- in tho "Academy" en simplified spelling revealed the 1 fact that there wore four or five different systems in use. Ono of the arguments for simplification was tho time rt saved childron iu learning tu road, but it ' w. : t3 not realised that where a new system > was brought into use children would then • iiavc to learn not one, but two, styles, ■ einco all the books hitherto written nro in ' the old style, thus leading to groat con- ' fusion. Again, the work of translating the ■ whole vast bulk of English literature inlo .. 1 tho new script was so colossal that tho 1 most hopeful reformer might well shrink from it, ' and how could tho works of writers in past centuries, when, pronunciation was widely different ! from what it is now, bo rendered. i Schemes of spelling reform were by no " moans new, Professor Wall remarked. Tho • first known proposal as regards English s dotes from 1549 and since then scarcely i 30 consecutive years have, elapsed without • somo similar scheme being put forward. , None of Hwso schemes hod ever come to I anything and yet in the year 1549 In« - scholars formed a smaller class than now, > and them.wore far less peopie to reckon f with. To-day tho adoption oi such ft - Kchemo would involve "tho conversion of > millions of people. There was a tiino— 1 during . the " Elizabethan. i>eriod-«'hen. •. - Knglish spelling, being « slate ot llni, , might have been moulded m a certain - fixed form. Germany seized upon a proi pitious moment, the Eeformalinn, to re- : form her spelling, but England iet tho l i opportunity pass by, and English speil- > ing formerly free, became fixed m its present form between 1030 and 1700. "The system of the International Plionptic Association," continued Professor Wall, p "has at least the merits of' accuracy and. perfection in representing all tho shades of sound but Hie simplified spelling by tho adoption of certain letters for certain j sounds would have the effect of a huge convulsion in tho language. For instance if 'w , wero chosen. to express the eouno V accented ns in 'veil,' words lite 'ro- . ceive' would have to change their vowo! , and so forth. Again, suppose that, as ii proposed, only a few alterations were tc bo introduced. At tho end of 10 years oi KO mere alterations would bo needed, Rnct . the language would not get (o a logical \ state for a thousand years or m. 1 "I do think, however, that alteration* . ! might be introducod with advantage in J isolated cases of false etymology; such.M . " 'rhyme,' which as most authorities now 1 reoignise phonld bo spelled 'rime.' Whol*- ' tale alteration I am Etrongly cigainsk."