There are many words in our language which, with the _same orthography_, have _two_ or more _distinct meanings_. The word _wind_, whether it signifies _to move round_, or _air in motion_, has the _same spelling_; it exhibits no distinction to the _eye_ of a silent reader; and yet its meaning is never mistaken. The construction shows at sight in which sense the word is to be understood. _Hail_ is used as an expression of joy, or to signify frozen drops of water, falling from the clouds. _Rear_ is to raise up, or it signifies the hinder part of an army. _Lot_ signifies fortune or destiny; a plat of ground; or a certain proportion or share; and yet does this diversity, this contrariety of meanings ever occasion the least difficulty in the ordinary language of books? It cannot be maintained. This diversity is found in all languages;[187] and altho it may be considered as a defect, and occasion some trouble for foreign learners, yet to natives it produces no sensible inconvenience. 5. "It is idle to conform the orthography of words to the pronunciation, because the latter is continually changing." This is one of Dr. Johnson's objections, and it is very unworthy of his judgement. So far is this circumstance from being a real objection, that it is alone a sufficient reason for the change of spelling. On his principle of _fixing the orthography_, while the _pronunciation is changing_, any _spoken language_ must, in time, lose all relation to the _written language_; that is, the sounds of words would have no affinity with the letters that compose them. In some instances, this is now the case; and no mortal would suspect from the spelling, that _neighbour_, _wrought_, are pronounced _nabur_, _rawt_. On this principle, Dr. Johnson ought to have gone back some centuries, and given us, in his dictionary, the primitive Saxon orthography, _wol_ for _will_; _ydilnesse_ for _idleness_; _eyen_ for _eyes_; _eche_ for _each_, &c. Nay, he should have gone as far as possible into antiquity, and, regardless of the changes of pronunciation, given us the primitive radical language in its purity. Happily for the language, that doctrine did not prevail till his time; the spelling of words changed with the pronunciation; to these changes we are indebted for numberless improvements; and it is hoped that the progress of them, in conformity with the national practice of speaking, will not be obstructed by the erroneous opinion, even of Dr. Johnson. How much more rational is the opinion of Dr. Franklin, who says, "the orthography of our language began to be fixed too soon." If the pronunciation must vary, from age to age, (and some trifling changes of language will always be taking place) common sense would dictate a correspondent change of spelling. Admit Johnson's principles; take his pedantic orthography for the standard; let it be closely adhered to in future; and the slow changes in the pronunciation of our national tongue, will in time make as