B[u]t nou let [u]s luk more karefuli intu the far more important statement, that the I[n]glish la[n]gwej, if riten fonetikali, wud reali looz its historikal and etimolojikal karakter. The ferst kwestion iz, in hwot sens kan the prezent speli[n] ov I[n]glish be kalld historikal? We hav onli tu go bak a veri short way in order tu see the modern [u]pstart karakter ov hwot iz kalld historikal speli[n]. We nou reit _pleasure_, _measure_, and _feather_, b[u]t not veri lo[n] ago, in Spenser’z teim, theze w[u]rdz wer speld _plesure_, _mesure_, _fether_. Tyndale rote _frute_; the _i_ in _fruit_ iz a mere restorashon ov the French speli[n]. For _debt_, on the kontrari, we feind, b[u]t [t]ree or four h[u]ndred yearz ago, _dett_. This iz more historikal therefor than _debt_, bekauz in French, from hwich the w[u]rd woz borowd, the _b_ had disapeard, and it woz a piurli etimolojikal fansi tu restore it. The _b_ woz leikweiz re-introdiúst in _doubt_, b[u]t the _p_ woz not restored in _tu kount_ (French _compter_, Latin _computare_), hwere _p_ had at least the same reit az _b_ in _doute_. Th[u]s _receipt_ reziúmz the Latin _p_, b[u]t _deceit_ d[u]z without it. Tu _deign_ keeps the _g_, tu _disdain_ d[u]z without it. Ther iz an[u]ther _b_ hwich haz a serten historikal air in s[u]m I[n]glish w[u]rdz, b[u]t hwich woz orijinali piurli fonetik, and iz nou simpli siupérflu[u]s. The old w[u]rd for _member_ woz _lim_. In s[u]ch kompoundz az _lim-lama_, lim(b)-lame; _lim-leas_, lim(b)-less; it woz imposibel tu avoid the interkalashon ov a _b_ in pron[u]nsiashon. In this maner the _b_ krept in, and we hav nou tu teach that in _limb_, _crumb_ (crume), _thumb_ (thuma), the _b_ m[u]st be riten, b[u]t not pronoúnst. Agen, _tung_ (Jerman _zunge_), _yung_ (Jerman _jung_), az speld bei Spenser, hav a far more historikal aspekt than _tongue_ and _young_. If we wisht tu reit historikali, we ought tu reit _salm_ insted ov _psalm_, for the inishal _p_, beï[n] lost in pron[u]nsiashon, woz dropt in reiti[n] at a veri erli teim (A[n]glo-Sakson _sealm_), and woz re-introdiúst simpli tu pleaz s[u]m ekleziastikal etimolojists; also _nevew_ (French _neveu_) insted ov _nephew_, hwich iz both [u]netimolojikal and [u]nfonetik. In hwot sens kan it be kalld historikal speli[n] if the old pluralz ov _mouse_ and _louse_, hwich wer _mys_ and _lys_, ar nou speld _mice_ and _lice_? The plural ov _goose_ iz not speld _geece_ b[u]t _geese_, yet everibodi nóz hou tu pronoúns it. The same mistaken atempt at an okazhonal fonetik speli[n] haz separated _dice_ from _die_, and _pence_ from _pens_, thát iz, _penyes_; hweil in _nurse_, hwere the speli[n] _nurce_ wud hav been useful az remeindi[n] [u]s ov its true etimon _nourrice_, the _c_ haz been replast bei _s_.