Ther remainz, therefor, this w[u]n objekshon onli, that hwotever the praktikal, and hwotever the [t]eoretikal advantejez ov the fonetik sistem may be, it wud [u]terli destroi the historikal or etimolojikal karakter ov the I[n]glish la[n]gwej. S[u]poze it did; hwot then? The Reformashon iz s[u]pozed tu hav destroid the historikal karakter ov the I[n]glish Ch[u]rch, and that sentimental grievans iz stil felt bei s[u]m stiudents ov ekleziastikal antikwitiz. B[u]t did I[n]gland, did all the reali progresiv nashonz ov Europe, alou this sentimental grievans tu outweigh the praktikal and [t]eoretikal advantejez ov Protestant Reform? La[n]gwej iz not made for skolarz and etimolojists; and if the hole rase ov I[n]glish etimolojists wer reali tu be swept away bei the introd[u]kshon ov a Speli[n] Reform, ei hope they wud be the ferst tu rejois in sakrifeizi[n] themselvz in so gud a kauz. B[u]t iz it reali the kase that the historikal kontiniúiti ov the I[n]glish la[n]gwej wud bei broken bei the adopshon ov fonetik speli[n], and that the profeshon ov the etimolojist wud be gon for ever? Ei say No, most emfatikali, tu bo[t] propozishonz. If the seiens ov la[n]gwej haz proved eni[t]i[n], it haz proved that all la[n]gwejez chanje akordi[n] tu law, and with konsiderabel uniformiti. If, therefor, the reiti[n] folowd _pari passu_, on the chanjez in pron[u]nsiashon, hwot iz kalld the etimolojikal konsh[u]snes ov the speakerz and the readerz—ei speak, ov kourse, ov ediukated peopel onli—wud not s[u]fer in the least. If we retain the feeli[n] ov an etimolojikal konekshon between _gentlemanly_ and _gentlemanlike_, we shud shureli retain it hwether we reit _gentlemanly_ or _gentelmanli_. If we feel that _think_ and _thought_, _bring_ and _brought_, buy and _bought_, _freight_ and _fraught_, belo[n] tugether, shud we feel it les if we rote _t[w]t_, _br[w]t_, _b[w]t_, _fr[w]t_? If, in speaki[n], thoze who no Latin retain the feeli[n] that w[u]rdz endin in -_ation_ korespond tu Latin w[u]rdz in -_atio_, wud they looz the feeli[n] if they saw the same w[u]rdz speld with _[e][sh]on_, or even “-e[sh][u]n?” Do they not rekogneiz Latin -_itia_, in -_ice_; or -_ilis_ in -_le_, az in -_able_ (Latin _abilis_)? If the skolar noz, at w[u]ns, that s[u]ch w[u]rdz az _barbarous_, _anxious_, _circus_, _genius_, ar ov Latin oriji[n], wud he hezitate if the last silabel in all ov them wer uniformli riten “[u]s?” Nay, iz not the prezent speli[n] ov _barbarous_ and _anxious_ enteirli misleadi[n], bei konfoundi[n] w[u]rdz endi[n] in _-osus_, s[u]ch az _famous_ (_famosus_) with w[u]rdz endi[n] in _-us_, leik _barbarous_, _anxious_, ets.? Bekauz the Italianz reit _filosofo_, ar they les aware than the I[n]glish, who reit _philosopher_, and the French, who reit _philosophe_, that they hav before them the Latin _philosophus_, the Greek φιλόσοφος? If we reit _f_ in _fansi_, hwei not in _phantom_? If in _frenzy_ and _frantic_, hwei not in _phrenology_? A la[n]gwej hwich