Ther ar, in fakt, meni speli[n]z hwich wud be at the same teim more historikal and more fonetik. Hwei reit _little_, hwen now[u]n pronoúnsez _little_, and hwen the old speli[n] woz _lytel_? Hwei _girdle_, hwen the old speli[n] woz _girdel_? The same rule apleiz tu nearli all w[u]rdz endi[n] in _le_, s[u]ch az _sickle_, _ladle_, _apple_, ets., hwere the etimoloji iz kompleteli obskiúrd bei the prezent or[t]ografi. Hwei _scent_, b[u]t _dissent_, hwen even Milton stil rote _sent_? Hwei _ache_, insted ov the Shaksperian _ake_? Hwei _cat_, b[u]t _kitten_; hwei cow, b[u]t _kine_? Hwei _accede_, _precede_, _secede_, b[u]t _exceed_, _proceed_, _succeed_? Hwei, indeed, eksept tu waste the presh[u]s teim ov children? And if it iz difik[u]lt tu say hwot konstitiuts historikal speli[n], it iz ekwali perpleksi[n] tu defein the real meani[n] ov etimolojikal speli[n]. For hwere ar we tu stop? It wud be konsiderd veri [u]netimolojikal wer we tu reit _nee_ insted ov _knee_, _now_ insted ov _know_, _night_ insted ov _knight_; yet now[u]n komplainz about the los ov the inishal _h_, the reprezentativ ov an orijinal _k_, in _loaf_, A. S. hlâf (cf. κλίβανος), in _ring_ (A. S. _hring_); in _lade_, _ladder_, _neck_, ets. If we ar tu reit etimolojikali, then hwei not ret[u]rn tu _loverd_, or _hlaford_, insted ov _lord_? tu _nosethrill_, or _nosethirle_ insted ov _nostril_; tu _swister_ insted ov _sister_; hwich wud not be more tr[u]bels[u]m than _sword_. _Wifmann_ shureli wud be beter than _woman_; _meadwife_ beter than _midwife_; _godspel_ beter than _gospel_, _ortyard_ beter than _orchard_, _puisne_ beter than _puny_. Frekwentli the prezent rekogneizd speli[n] luks etimolojikal, b[u]t iz [u]terli [u]netimolojikal. _Righteous_ luks leik an ajektiv in _-eous_, s[u]ch az _plenteous_, b[u]t it iz reali a Sakson w[u]rd, _rightwis_, thát iz _rightwise_, formd leik _otherwise_, ets. _Could_ iz riten with an _l_ in analoji tu _would_, b[u]t hweil the _l_ iz j[u]stifeid in _would_ from _will_, and _should_ from _shall_ we feind the Old I[n]glish imperfekt ov _can_ riten _cuthe_, then _couthe_, _coude_. The _l_, therefor, iz neither fonetik nor etimolojikal. N[u][t]i[n], agen, kan be more misleadi[n] tu an etimolojist than the prezent speli[n] ov _whole_ and _hale_. Both k[u]m from the same sourse, the Go[t]ik _hail-s_, Sanskrit _kalya-s_, meani[n] orijinali, _fit_, _redi_; then _sound_, _complete_, _whole_. In A[n]glo-Sakson we hav _hæl_, hole; and _hal_, hel[t]i, without eni trase ov a _w_, either before or after. The Old I[n]glish _halsum_, holes[u]m, iz the Jerman _hailsam_. _Whole_, therefor, iz a mere mis-speli[n] the _w_ havi[n] probabli been aded in analoji tu _who_, _which_, ets. From a piurli etimolojikal point ov viu, the _w_ iz ro[n]li left out before _h_ in _hou_; for az A[n]glo-Sakson _hwy_ bekame _why_, A[n]glo-Sakson _hwa_ shud hav bek[u]m _whow_.