tolerates _vial_ for _phial_, need not shiver at _filosofer_. Everi eidiukated speaker nóz that s[u]ch w[u]rdz az _honour_, _ardour_, _colour_, _odour_, _labour_, _vigour_, _error_, _emperor_, hav past from Latin tu French, and from French tu I[n]glish. Wud he nó it les if all wer speld aleik, s[u]ch az _onor_ (_onorable_), _ardor_, _vigor_ (_vigorous_), _labor_ (_laborious_), or even “on[u]r, ard[u]r, vig[u]r?” The old speli[n] ov _emperor_, _doctor_, _governor_, and _error_, woz _emperour_, _doctour_, _governour_, and _errour_. If theze kud be chanjed, hwei not the rest? Spenser haz _neibor_ for _neighbor_, and it iz difik[u]lt tu say hwot woz gaind bei chanji[n] _-bor_ intu _-bour_ in s[u]ch piurli Sakson w[u]rdz az _neighbor_, _harbor_. No dout if we see _laugh_ riten with _gh_ at the end, thoze who nó Jerman ar at w[u]ns remeinded ov its etimolojikal konekshon with the Jerman _lachen_; b[u]t we shud soon nó the same bei analoji, if we found not onli “laf,” b[u]t “kof” for _cough_ (Jerman, _keuchen_), en[u]f for _enough_ (Jerman, _genug_), ets. In “draft,” fonetik speli[n] haz nearli s[u]planted the so-kalld historikal speli[n] _draught_; in “dwarf” (_dwergh_, _thweorh_) and in “ruff” (_rough_), altugether. Hwot peopel kall the etimolojikal konsh[u]snes ov the speaker iz striktli a mater ov oratorikal sentiment onli, and it wud remain nearli az stro[n] az it iz nou, hwotever speli[n] be adopted. B[u]t even if it shud s[u]fer here and there, we ought tu bear in meind that, eksept for oratorikal p[u]rposez, that konsh[u]snes, konfeind az it iz tu a veri fiu ediukated peopel, iz ov veri small importans, [u]nles it haz ferst been korekted bei a strikt etimolojikal disiplin. Without that, it often dejenerates intu hwot iz kalld “popiular etimoloji,” and aktiuali tendz, in s[u]m kasez, tu vishiate the korekt speli[n] ov w[u]rdz. Ei hav frekwentli dwelt on this before, in order tu show hou, hwot iz nou kalld the etimolojikal or historikal speli[n] ov w[u]rdz iz, in meni kasez, [u]terli [u]netimolojikal and [u]nhistorikal. We spel to _delight_, and th[u]s indiús meni peopel tu believ that this w[u]rd iz s[u]mhou konekted with _light_ [lux], or _light_ [levis]; hwereaz the old speli[n] woz _to delyt_ or to _delite_ (Tyndale), reprezenti[n] the old French _deleiter_. On the [u]ther hand, we feind for _quite_ and _smite_, the old speli[n] _quight_, _smight_, hwich may be old and historikal, b[u]t iz deseidedli [u]netimolojikal.