If we reali atempted tu reit etimolojikali, we shud hav tu reit _bridegroom_ without the _r_, bekauz _groom_ iz a mere kor[u]pshon ov _guma_, man, A[n]glo-Sakson _bryd-guma_. We shud hav tu reit _burse_ insted ov _purse_, az in _disburse_. In fakt, it iz difik[u]lt tu say hwere we shud stop. Hwei do we not reit _metal_ insted ov _mettle_, _worthship_ insted ov _worship_, _chirurgeon_ insted ov _surgeon_, _furhlong_ (thát iz, f[u]row lo[n]) insted ov _furlong_, _feordhing_ (thát iz four[t] part) insted of _farthing_? If we reit piuni _puisne_, we meit az wel reit _post-natus_. We meit spel koi, _quietus_; pert, _apertus_; priest, _presbyter_; master, _magister_; sekston, _sacristan_; alms, _eleemosyne_, ets. If enibodi wil tel me at hwot date etimolojikal speli[n] iz tu begin, hwether at 1,500 A. D. or at 1,000 A. D., or 500 A. D., ei am wili[n] tu disk[ú]s the kwestion. Til then, ei beg leav tu say that etimolojikal speli[n] wud play greater havok in I[n]glish than fonetik speli[n], even if we wer tu draw a lein not more than feiv h[u]ndred yearz ago. The two stro[n]gest argiuments, therefor, agenst fonetik speli[n], nameli, that it wud destroi the historikal and etimolojikal karakter ov the I[n]glish la[n]gwej, ar, after all, b[u]t veri parshali true. Here and there, no dout, the etimoloji and histori ov an I[n]glish w[u]rd meit be obskiúrd bei fonetik speli[n]; az if, for instans, we rote “Y[ue][o]p” insted ov _Europe_. B[u]t even then analoji wud help [u]s, and teach thoze who nó Greek, ov whom ther ar not meni, that “Y[ue]r” in s[u]ch w[u]rdz az _Europe_, _Eurydice_, reprezented the Greek εὐρύς. The real anser, houever, iz, that now[u]n kud onestli kall the prezent sistem ov speli[n] either historikal or etimolojikal; and, ei believ, that, taken az a hole, the los oka[z]ond bei konsistent fonetik speli[n] wud not be greater than the gain.