The movement inaugurated by Professor March and his associates contemplates the displacement of the _k_ or guttural sound from _know_ and _knowledge_, both in writing and speaking. They say, in effect, if not in so many words, that because there is no guttural sound in the pronunciation, therefore there is none in the word. Some people say _again_, pronouncing the word as it is spelled: others say _agen_, as, I believe, Professor March does. These two classes mean the same thing, but it is quite evident that they do not say the same thing. _Ai_ cannot be the equivalent of _e_. To so hold would be to make "confusion worse confounded" in English orthography. By one class of literary people _neither_ is pronounced as though the _e_ were absent, and by another class as though the _i_ were not present. No one, I think, will contend for the identity, or even equivalence, of _i_ and _e_. If not identical or equivalent, they must be different. If _ai_ is different from _e_, then _again_ and _agen_ cannot be the same word, and if _i_ and _e_ are neither identical nor equivalent, _nither_ and _neether_ are two different words. The logic of the "reformers" would bring the utmost confusion into the language. It would make two separate words identical in significance. It would make into one word with four different meanings the four words _right, rite, write, wright._ The words _signet_ and _signature_ are formed from the stem _sign_, and yet the stem when standing alone has a different vocalization from what it has when used in the derivative words. By the logic of the "reformers" the word _sign_ when used alone is not the same as the same letters, arranged in the same order, when used in _signature, signet, resignation_ and the like. The word is changed, but the original significance remains. When a person responds, even in writing, "It is me," grammarians say he is incorrect--that he ought to say "I." But he means the person and thing he would mean if he said "I." He simply spells "I" in a different way. Is he not just as correct as he who writes _no_ when he means _know_? or he who writes _filosofer_ when he means _philosopher_?