| OCR Text |
Show IMPROVEMENTS IN ENGLISH. snfCitoiM Atuitt Warvla Tliat MT V lmprarl I'j tiiuistsr SptU(. AVo need not go the Ictigth of tho far-atii- of phoueticiam (who would spell I wife yf, knee nee, and write eye in tho I same manner as tho personal pronoun I) to desire a change in thospeliingof many Knglish words which are a stumbling j block to foreigners as well a to native. : The instancea of "plough," though," " enough," borough," rough, "dough." "ought," in which soven word tho Ii iters ought to have seven different sounds, are mora than sufficient to prova that a reformation in spelling ia highly desirable, and that plough out to be written writ-ten and printed plow; through, thru of throo; enough, emif ; borvmgh, burrow or burro; cough, cawf; dough, dot', and ought, an t or nrt with the r quiescent. In like manner the erl "to do" ought to ho written "to du" or "t- di," and the past tense of "lo read" ought Hot to lie spelled in exactly the same manner a tho present tens,) of the sain verb; but I did read (pronounced I ndd! should bo written phonetically; and 1 did rat (pnv I nouneod I etl, or I ate) should follow the same rule, Why the double I should nrcwiarily lie employed in tho words spell, well, IkII, smell, fell, and many 01 here, w hile ono I it considered snilH-eirnt snilH-eirnt in reM, propel, eptl, rd, expel, etc., ia not apparent to ordinary intelligence, intelli-gence, or explicable by any philological and etymological reasons. Why Knglisli wriUra, talker and printers should persist in ignoring the past tenses of so many verlw in daily use passes comprehension, so tieedla and so anomalous is the U.y and incorrect habit into which some good writers, as well as the vulgar, have permitted themselves them-selves to fll. "I bid him do it now," is com'ct, but "I bid him do it yesterday," in which tha present tense ia used instead in-stead of bade in the past, is an indefensible indefens-ible corruption. Among the verbs which have been deprived of their past tense and their prnteritea may be spavitliMt tc bet, to beat, to let, to spread, to shed, tc cut, to put and to shut. Tliero are no grammatical or any other reasous why they should not have been among the verbs which have inflections inflec-tions iu other languages, but never had in F.nglip.b, though they ought to hnv had it intelligent graiutnariatia hail had tho original ordering of tho language. "Can" and "must" have not even the infinitive in-finitive "lo can" and "to must." "Can" has a past tense ("could"), but no future, which can only lie rendered by the para phrase "I shall be able" or "it will be in my power." "Must" has neither a past nor a future "I must do It today" ha to be put Into the )at tense, by the roundabout locution, "I was obliged ti do it," or "It was necessary that I should do it;" while tho future of the verb fal-loir, fal-loir, which, in the corresponding case, in tho mora precise huiguat" f Uk French, is il faut, benoining it fundi a in the future, Is. ia Kngllsh only to be expressed ex-pressed by a paraphrase, esprrwxive both of compulsion and obligation in futurity. Nineteenth Century, |
