Spelling Reform by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Apr 29, 1913

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 40, No. 17.

Spelling Reform.

By Editor

Generally the suggestions of spelling reform have been in the right lines, and in a conservative way the SIGNS OF THE TIMES has adopted some of these. Certainly 'tho' is better than 'though,' and 'plow' is a great deal better than 'plough.' There has been a new pamphlet issued by the Simplified Spelling Board, some of the suggestions of which are extreme, and to us they seem utterly inconsistent. H is dropped from such words as 'chameleon,' 'chaos,' 'character,' 'chasm,' etc., but retained before e, i, and y, as in 'chemist,' 'architect,' and 'monarchy.'

The board suggests the dropping of k in words like 'barrack,' 'bullock,' 'derrick,' 'haddock,' 'hammock,' etc. It is right here where it seems to us that the board is utterly inconsistent. We have k with a clear, distinct sound of its own. There can be no question regarding it. Why drop the k and leave the c? If there is a useless letter in the whole English alphabet, it is c. It is either stealing the place of k or that of s. Why not drop c entirely wherever it takes the place in a word which could be more properly spelled with s or k, and use it for the sound of ch alone, as in 'chamber,' 'chess,' 'church,' etc.? We would have no ch hard then in the language at all. K would take its place.

There could be no question about the spelling of b-a-k ('back'), or p-i-k ('pick'); but think of b-a-c for 'back,' p-i-c for 'pick,' and b-a-c-i-n-g for 'backing,' and b-l-a-c-i-n-g for 'blacking.' According to all our education of the past, why wouldn't b-l-a-c-i-n-g be 'blasing,' and b-a-c-i-n-g 'basing'? There could be no question if k were there, but c is misleading. We agree with the Springfield Republican that 'small and inadequate reforms merely prolong the agony, bringing new things to learn with no guarantee that the changes will bring permanence.'