Dr. Franklin’s Answer to Miss S ——
DEAR MADAM,
The objection you make to rectifying our alphabet, “that it will be attended with inconveniences and difficulties,” is a very natural one; for it always occurs when any reformation is proposed, whether in religion, government, laws, and even down as low as roads and wheel carriages. The true question then is not, whether there will be no difficulties or inconveniences; but whether the difficulties may not be surmounted; and whether the conveniences will not, on the whole, be greater than the inconveniences. In this case, the difficulties are only in the beginning of the practice; when they are once overcome, the advantages are lasting. To either you or me, who spell well in the present mode, I imagine the difficulty of changing that mode for the new, is not so great, but that we might perfectly get over it in a week’s writing. As to those who do not spell well, if the two difficulties are compared, viz. that of teaching them true spelling in the present mode, and that of teaching them the new alphabet and the new spelling according to it, I am confident that the latter would be by far the least. They naturally fall into the new method already, as much as the imperfection of their alphabet will admit of; their present bad spelling is only bad, because contrary to the present bad rules; under the new rules it would be good.192 The difficulty of learning to spell well in the old way is so great, that few attain it; thousands and thousands writing on to old age, without ever being able to acquire it. It is besides, a difficulty continually increasing;193 as the sound gradually varies more and more from the spelling; and to foreigners it makes the learning to pronounce our language, as written in our books, almost impossible.
Now as to the inconveniences you mention: The first is, “that all our etymologies would be lost; consequently we could not ascertain the meaning of many words.” Etymologies are at present very uncertain; but such as they are, the old books still preserve them, and etymologists would there find them. Words in the course of time, change their meaning, as well as their spelling and pronunciation; and we do not look to etymologies for their present meanings. If I should call a man a knave and a villain, he would hardly be satisfied with my telling him, that one of the words originally signified a lad or servant, and the other an under plowman, or the inhabitant of a village. It is from present usage only, the meaning of words is to be determined.
Your second inconvenience is, “the distinction between words of different meaning and similar sound would be destroyed.” That distinction is already destroyed in pronouncing them; and we rely on the sense alone of the sentence to ascertain which of the several words, similar in sound, we intend. If this is sufficient in the rapidity of discourse, it will be much more so in written sentences, which may be read leisurely, and attended to more particularly in case of difficulty, than we can attend to a past sentence, while the speaker is hurrying us along with new ones.
Your third inconvenience is, “that all the books already written would be useless.” This inconvenience would only come on gradually in a course of ages. I and you and other now living readers would hardly forget the use of them. People would long learn to read the old writing, tho they practised the new. And the inconvenience is not greater than what has actually happened in a similar case in Italy. Formerly its inhabitants all spoke and wrote Latin; as the language changed, the spelling followed it. It is true that at present, a mere unlearned Italian cannot read the Latin books, tho they are still read and understood by many. But if the spelling had never been changed, he would now have found it much more difficult to read and write his own language;194 for written words would have had no relation to sounds; they would only have stood for things; so that if he would express in writing the idea he has when he sounds the word Vescovo, he must use the letters Episcopus.195
In short, whatever the difficulties and inconveniences now are, they will be more easily surmounted now, than hereafter; and some time or other it must be done, or our writing will become the same with the Chinese, as to the difficulty of learning and using it. And it would already have been such, if we had continued the Saxon spelling and writing used by our forefathers.
I am, my dear friend,
Your’s affectionately,
B. FRANKLIN.
London, Craven Street, Sept. 28, 1768.
The End
Footnotes
181 Wont is strictly a contraction of woll not, as the word was anciently pronounced.
182 “Ta-ke, ma-ke, o-ne, bo-ne, sto-ne, wil-le, &c. dissyllaba olim fuerunt, quæ nunc habenter pro monosyllabis.”——Wallis.
183 The words number, chamber, and many others in English are from the French nombre, chambre, &c. Why was the spelling changed? or rather why is the spelling of lustre, metre, theatre, not changed? The cases are precisely similar. The Englishman who first wrote number for nombre, had no greater authority to make the change, than any modern writer has to spell lustre, metre in a similar manner, luster, meter. The change in the first instance was a valuable one; it conformed the spelling to the pronunciation, and I have taken the liberty, in all my writings, to pursue the principle in luster, meter, miser, theater, sepulcher, &c.
184 The first by Sir Thomas Smith, secretary of state to Queen Elizabeth: Another by Dr. Gill, a celebrated master of St. Paul’s school in London: Another by Mr. Charles Butler, who went so far as to print his book in his proposed orthography: Several in the time of Charles the first; and in the present age, Mr. Elphinstone has published a treatise in a very ridiculous orthography.
185 I once heard Dr. Franklin remark, “that those people spell best, who do not know how to spell;” that is, they spell as their ears dictate, without being guided by rules, and thus fall into a regular orthography.
186 In Chaucer’s life, prefixed to the edition of his works 1602, I find move and prove spelt almost correctly, moove and proove.
187 In the Roman language liber had four or five different meanings; it signified free, the inward bark of a tree, a book, sometimes an epistle, and also generous.
188 Thus most people suppose the present mode of spelling to be really the easiest and best. This opinion is derived from habit; the new mode of spelling proposed would save three fourths of the labor now bestowed in learning to write our language. A child would learn to spell as well in one year, as he can now in four. This is not a supposition—it is an assertion capable of proof; and yet people, never knowing, or having forgot the labor of learning, suppose the present mode to be the easiest. No person, but one who has taught children, has any idea of the difficulty of learning to spell and pronounce our language in its present form.
189 See his Miscellaneous Works, p. 470. Ed. Lond. 1779.
190 This indefatigable gentleman, amidst all his other employments, public and private, has compiled a Dictionary on his scheme of a Reform, and procured types to be cast for printing it. He thinks himself too old to pursue the plan; but has honored me with the offer of the manuscript and types, and expressed a strong desire that I should undertake the task. Whether this project, so deeply interesting to this country, will ever be effected; or whether it will be defeated by indolence and prejudice, remains for my countrymen to determine.
191 This lady overlooked the other side of the question; viz. that by a reform of the spelling, words now spelt alike and pronounced differently, would be distinguished by their letters; for the nouns abuse and use would be distinguished from the verbs, which would be spelt abuze, yuze; and so in many instances. See the answer below.
192 This remark of the Doctor is very just and obvious. A countryman writes aker or akur for acre; yet the countryman is right, as the word ought to be spelt; and we laugh at him only because we are accustomed to be wrong.
193 This is a fact of vast consequence.
194 That is, if the language had retained the old Roman spelling, and been pronounced as the modern Italian. This is a fair state of facts, and a complete answer, to all objections to a reform of spelling.
195 In the same ridiculous manner, as we write, rough, still, neighbor, wrong, tongue, true, rhetoric, &c. and yet pronounce the words, ruf, stil, nabur, rong, tung, tru, retoric.