10 S. VII. MARCH 2, 1907.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
171
pronounced in the same way as the current
English of the same period. That is all.
It follows that Latin was pronounced in Anglo-Saxon and Early English times nearly as in the old classical way, for the plain reason that the Old English vowels were pronounced (roughly speaking) in the modern Italian manner. And these sounds lasted, many of them, down to the time of Erasmus and later ; so that Latin in those days, if pronounced in the same way as the English of the period, would be reasonably intelligible to a foreigner. Most of the violent changes in the sounds of English vowels are quite late. The subject of phonetics is very unsuitable for general discussion ; let those who wish to know more consult Sweet's 4 History of English Sounds ' or the valuable new book by Wyld entitled ' The Historical Study of the Mother Tongue.'
WALTER W. SKEAT.
I can state positively that in my Eton days fifty-five or more years ago the pronunciation of Latin was English-wise, not Italian ; e.g., amo would be " eh-mo," musa would be " mew (moo)-sa," and so on.
I have, however, been told since that this has been changed.
EDWARD P. WOLFERSTAN.
45, Lincoln's Inn Fields.
To the views of Coryat and Milton on this subject, adduced by MR. STRONG, may be added that of Sir Walter Scott, who wrote thereon, with his characteristic good sense, in his ' Journal,' under date 25 Jan., 1827 :
"Thought during the watches of the night and a part of the morning about the question of Latin pronunciation, and came to the following conclu- sions : That the mode of ]jronunciation approved by Buchanan and by Milton, and practised by all nations, excepting the English, assimilated in sound, too, to the (Spanish, Italian, and other languages derived from the Latin, is certainly the best, and is likewise useful as facilitating the acquisition of sounds which the Englishman attempts in vain. Accordingly I wish the cockneyfied pedant who first disturbed it by reading emo for amo, and quy for qui, had choked in the attempt. But the ques- tion is, whether a youth who has been taught in a manner different from that used all over England will be heard, if he presumes to use his Latin at the bar or the senate ; and if he is to be unin- telligible or ludicrous, the question [arises] whether his education in not imperfect under one important view. I am very unwilling to sacrifice our sump- sinm* to their old mtonpximm still more to humble ourselves before the Saxons while we can keep an inch of the Scottish flag flying. But this is a ques- tion which must be decided not on partialities or prejudices."
But what is the correct pronunciation ? I had been five years at a public school when, with the advent of a new head master,
came the " new " pronunciation ; and I
found a year of this exceedingly trouble-
some, after having learnt Latin for eight
or nine years in the older way. We were
taught to pronounce the c and g hard, and
the v as w, &c., and this was certainly not
the pronunciation I heard lately at a Catholic
funeral, where the priest pronounced the
c and g as in Italian. R. L. MORETON.
SPELLING CHANGES (10 S. vi. 403, 450,
493 ; vii. 51). There is urgent need of
reform. There are signs that a divergence
between the language of England and
America is to be feared. For English and
American to become as different as Spanish
and Portuguese would be a real calamity to
the world, a real check to civilization.
The philologists all agree that spelling reform would be a great benefit. The philologists of the future will want to know, not our rather vain speculation as to the origin or etymology of our words, but how the best-educated people of our time pro- nounced them.
As far as I know, all reasonable persons who have given at all careful attention to this subject admit that spelling reform is desirable. But I think most of these are deterred from putting this opinion, into action from the contemplation of the vast difficulties in the way. I admit that the difficulties are vast, but I incline to think that the greatest difficulty of all has now been overcome by President Roosevelt, viz., the want of an authoritative start.
I have had difficulty in getting the list of 300 simplified spellings suggested by his learned council. The pamphlet of 57 pages (very readable), the booklet, and the card can, I believe, be got by any one who will apply for copies to the Simplified Spelling Board, 1, Madison Avenue, New York City.
At first I was inclined to reject this board's suggestion to write theater, specter, center, meter, &c., for theatre, spectre, centre, metre. Meter, for gas meter, e.g., is by far the commoner spelling in the current English of the mother country. I see Prof. Skeat in the last edition of his ' Concise English Etymological Dictionary ' has metre, meter, as alternative. This raises the very difficult question of homophones. I, with trembling, advocate the distinction of homophones ; e.g., cheq, to denote one special kind of check, seems to me certainly useful. So I think we should make the reading of English more difficult if we confused to, too, and two. English is so much more complex than any
