of his own aphorism; and says, "It is certainly to be feared that, if this pruning of our words of all the superfluous letters, as they are called, should be much farther indulged, we shall quickly antiquate our most respectable authors, and irreparably maim our language."--Walker's Rhyming Dict., p. xvii.
OBS. 27.--No attempt to subject our orthography to a system of phonetics, seems likely to meet with general favour, or to be free from objection, if it should. For words are not mere sounds, and in their orthography more is implied than in phonetics, or phonography. Ideographic forms have, in general, the advantage of preserving the identity, history, and lineage of words; and these are important matters in respect to which phonetic writing is very liable to be deficient. Dr. Johnson, about a century ago, observed, "There have been many schemes offered for the emendation and settlement of our orthography, which, like that of other nations, being formed by chance, or according to the fancy of the earliest writers in rude ages, was at first very various and uncertain, and [is] as yet sufficiently irregular. Of these reformers some have endeavoured to accommodate orthography better to the pronunciation, without considering that this is to measure by a shadow, to take that for a model or standard which is changing while they apply it. Others, less absurdly indeed, but with equal unlikelihood of success, have endeavoured to proportion the number of letters to that of sounds, that every sound may have its own character, and every character a single sound. Such would be the orthography of a new language to be formed by a synod of grammarians upon principles of science. But who can hope to prevail on nations to change their practice, and make all their old books useless? or what advantage would a new orthography procure equivalent to the confusion and perplexity of such an alteration?"--Johnson's Grammar before Quarto Dict., p. 4.
OBS. 28.--Among these reformers of our alphabet and orthography, of whose schemes he gives examples, the Doctor mentions, first, "Sir Thomas Smith, secretary of state to Queen Elizabeth, a man of real learning, and much practised in grammatical disquisitions;" who died in 1597;--next, "Dr. Gill, the celebrated master of St. Paul's School in London;" who died in 1635;--then, "Charles Butler, a man who did not want an understanding which might have qualified him for better employment;" who died in 1647;--and, lastly, "Bishop Wilkins, of Chester, a learned and ingenious critic, who is said to have proposed his scheme, without expecting to be followed;" he died in 1672.
OBS. 29.--From this time, there was, so far as I know, no noticeable renewal of such efforts, till about the year 1790, when, as it is shown above on page 134 of my Introduction, Dr. Webster, (who was then only "Noah Webster, Jun., attorney at law,") attempted to spell all words as they are spoken, without revising the alphabet--a scheme which his subsequent experience before many years led him to abandon. Such a reformation was again attempted, about forty years after, by an other young lawyer, the late lamented Thomas S. Grimke, of South Carolina, but with no more success. More recently, phonography, or phonetic writing, has been revived, and to some extent spread, by the publications of Isaac Pitman, of Bath, England, and of Dr. Andrew Comstock, of Philadelphia. The system of the former has been made known in America chiefly by the lectures and other efforts of Andrews and Boyle, of Dr. Stone, a citizen of Boston, and of E. Webster, a publisher in Philadelphia.
OBS. 30.--The pronunciation of words being evidently as deficient in regularity, in uniformity, and in stability, as is their orthography, if not more so, cannot be conveniently made the measure of their written expression. Concerning the principle of writing and printing by sounds alone, a recent writer delivers his opinion thus: "Let me here observe, as something not remote from our subject, but, on the contrary, directly bearing upon it, that I can conceive no [other] method of so effectually defacing and barbarizing our English tongue, no [other] scheme that would go so far to empty it, practically at least and for us, of all the hoarded wit, wisdom, imagination, and history which it contains, to cut the vital nerve which connects its present with the past, as the introduction of the scheme of 'phonetic spelling,' which some have lately been zealously advocating among us; the principle of which is, that all words should be spelt according as they are sounded, that the writing should be, in every case, subordinated to the speaking. The tacit assumption that it ought so to be, is the pervading error running through the whole system."--R. C. Trench, on the Study of Words, p. 177.
OBS. 31.--The phonographic system of stenography, tachygraphy, or short-hand writing, is, I incline to believe, a very great improvement upon the earlier methods. It is perhaps the most reliable mode of taking down speeches, sermons, or arguments, during their delivery, and reporting them for the press; though I cannot pronounce upon this from any experience of my own in the practice of the art. And it seems highly probable, if it has not been fully proved, that children may at first be taught to read more readily, and with better articulation, from phonetic print, or phonotypy, as it has been called, than from books that exhibit words in their current or established orthography. But still it is questionable whether it is not best for them to learn each word at first by its peculiar or ideographic form--the form in which they must ultimately learn to read it, and which indeed constitutes its only orthography.
