11-a simplified alphabet- 第1部分

A　SIMPLIFIED　ALPHABET





（This　article；　written　during　the　autumn　of　1899；　was　about

the　last　writing　done　by　Mark　Twain　on　any　impersonal　subject。）





I　have　had　a　kindly　feeling；　a　friendly　feeling；　a　cousinly

feeling　toward　Simplified　Spelling；　from　the　beginning　of　the

movement　three　years　ago；　but　nothing　more　inflamed　than　that。

It　seemed　to　me　to　merely　propose　to　substitute　one　inadequacy

for　another；　a　sort　of　patching　and　plugging　poor　old　dental

relics　with　cement　and　gold　and　porcelain　paste；　what　was　really

needed　was　a　new　set　of　teeth。　　That　is　to　say；　a　new　ALPHABET。



The　heart　of　our　trouble　is　with　our　foolish　alphabet。　　It

doesn't　know　how　to　spell；　and　can't　be　taught。　　In　this　it　is

like　all　other　alphabets　except　onethe　phonographic。　　This　is

the　only　competent　alphabet　in　the　world。　　It　can　spell　and

correctly　pronounce　any　word　in　our　language。



That　admirable　alphabet；　that　brilliant　alphabet；　that

inspired　alphabet；　can　be　learned　in　an　hour　or　two。　　In　a　week

the　student　can　learn　to　write　it　with　some　little　facility；　and

to　read　it　with　considerable　ease。　　I　know；　for　I　saw　it　tried　in

a　public　school　in　Nevada　forty…five　years　ago；　and　was　so

impressed　by　the　incident　that　it　has　remained　in　my　memory　ever

since。



I　wish　we　could　adopt　it　in　place　of　our　present　written

（and　printed）　character。　　I　mean　SIMPLY　the　alphabet；　simply　the

consonants　and　the　vowelsI　don't　mean　any　REDUCTIONS　or

abbreviations　of　them；　such　as　the　shorthand　writer　uses　in　order

to　get　compression　and　speed。　　No；　I　would　SPELL　EVERY　WORD　OUT。



I　will　insert　the　alphabet　here　as　I　find　it　in　Burnz's

PHONIC　SHORTHAND。　　＇Figure　1＇　　It　is　arranged　on　the　basis　of

Isaac　Pitman's　PHONOGRAPHY。　　Isaac　Pitman　was　the　originator　and

father　of　scientific　phonography。　　It　is　used　throughout　the

globe。　　It　was　a　memorable　invention。　　He　made　it　public　seventy…

three　years　ago。　　The　firm　of　Isaac　Pitman　&　Sons；　New　York；

still　exists；　and　they　continue　the　master's　work。



What　should　we　gain？



First　of　all；　we　could　spell　DEFINITELYand　correctlyany

word　you　please；　just　by　the　SOUND　of　it。　　We　can't　do　that　with

our　present　alphabet。　　For　instance；　take　a　simple；　every…day

word　PHTHISIS。　　If　we　tried　to　spell　it　by　the　sound　of　it；　we

should　make　it　TYSIS；　and　be　laughed　at　by　every　educated　person。



Secondly；　we　should　gain　in　REDUCTION　OF　LABOR　in　writing。



Simplified　Spelling　makes　valuable　reductions　in　the　case　of

several　hundred　words；　but　the　new　spelling　must　be　LEARNED。　　You

can't　spell　them　by　the　sound；　you　must　get　them　out　of　the　book。



But　even　if　we　knew　the　simplified　form　for　every　word　in

the　language；　the　phonographic　alphabet　would　still　beat　the

Simplified　Speller　〃hands　down〃　in　the　important　matter　of

economy　of　labor。　　I　will　illustrate：



PRESENT　FORM：　　through；　laugh；　highland。



SIMPLIFIED　FORM：　　thru；　laff；　hyland。



PHONOGRAPHIC　FORM：　　＇Figure　2＇



To　write　the　word　〃through；〃　the　pen　has　to　make　twenty…one　strokes。



To　write　the　word　〃thru；〃　then　pen　has　to　make　twelve　strokes

a　good　saving。



To　write　that　same　word　with　the　phonographic　alphabet；　the

pen　has　to　make　only　THREE　strokes。



To　write　the　word　〃laugh；〃　the　pen　has　to　make　FOURTEEN

strokes。



To　write　〃laff；〃　the　pen　has　to　make　the　SAME　NUMBER　of

strokesno　labor　is　saved　to　the　penman。



To　write　the　same　word　with　the　phonographic　alphabet；　the

pen　has　to　make　only　THREE　strokes。



To　write　the　word　〃highland；〃　the　pen　has　to　make　twenty…two

strokes。



To　write　〃hyland；〃　the　pen　has　to　make　eighteen　strokes。



To　write　that　word　with　the　phonographic　alphabet；　the　pen

has　to　make　only　FIVE　strokes。　　＇Figure　3＇



To　write　the　words　〃phonographic　alphabet；〃　the　pen　has　to　

make　fifty…three　strokes。



To　write　〃fonografic　alfabet；〃　the　pen　has　to　make　fifty　strokes。

To　the　penman；　the　saving　in　labor　is　insignificant。



To　write　that　word　（with　vowels）　with　the　phonographic

alphabet；　the　pen　has　to　make　only　SEVENTEEN　strokes。



Without　the　vowels；　only　THIRTEEN　strokes。　＇Figure　4＇　　The

vowels　are　hardly　necessary；　this　time。



We　make　five　pen…strokes　in　writing　an　m。　　Thus：　　＇Figure　5＇

a　stroke　down；　a　stroke　up；　a　second　stroke　down；　a　second　stroke

up；　a　final　stroke　down。　　Total；　five。　　The　phonographic　alphabet

accomplishes　the　m　with　a　single　strokea　curve；　like　a

parenthesis　that　has　come　home　drunk　and　has　fallen　face　down

right　at　the　front　door　where　everybody　that　goes　along　will　see

him　and　say；　Alas！



When　our　written　m　is　not　the　end　of　a　word；　but　is

otherwise　located；　it　has　to　be　connected　with　the　next　letter；

and　that　requires　another　pen…stroke；　making　six　in　all；　before

you　get　rid　of　that　m。　　But　never　mind　about　the　connecting

strokeslet　them　go。　　Without　counting　them；　the　twenty…six

letters　of　our　alphabet　consumed　about　eighty　pen…strokes　for

their　constructionabout　three　pen…strokes　per　letter。



It　is　THREE　TIMES　THE　NUMBER　required　by　the　phonographic

alphabet。　　It　requires　but　ONE　stroke　for　each　letter。



My　writing…gait　iswell；　I　don't　know　what　it　is；　but　I

will　time　myself　and　see。　　Result：　　it　is　twenty…four　words　per

minute。　　I　don't　mean　composing；　I　mean　COPYING。　　There　isn't　any

definite　composing…gait。



Very　well；　my　copying…gait　is　1；440　words　per　hoursay

1；500。　　If　I　could　use　the　phonographic　character　with　facility　I

could　do　the　1；500　in　twenty　minutes。　　I　could　do　nine　hours'

copying　in　three　hours；　I　could　do　three　years'　copying　in　one

year。　　Also；　if　I　had　a　typewriting　machine　with　the　phonographic

alphabet　on　itoh；　the　miracles　I　could　do！



I　am　not　pretending　to　write　that　character　well。　　I　have

never　had　a　lesson；　and　I　am　copying　the　letters　from　the　book。

But　I　can　accomplish　my　desire；　at　any　rate；　which　is；　to　make

the　reader　get　a　good　and　clear　idea　of　the　advantage　it　would　be

to　us　if　we　could　discard　our　present　alphabet　and　put　this

better　one　in　its　placeusing　it　in　books；　newspapers；　with　the

typewriter；　and　with　the　pen。



＇Figure　6＇　MAN　DOG　HORSE。　　I　think　it　is　graceful　and

would　look　comely　in　print。　　And　consideronce　more；　I　begwhat

a　labor…saver　it　is！　　Ten　pen…strokes　with　the　one　system　to

convey　those　three　words　above；　and　thirty…three　by　the　other！

＇Figure　6＇　　I　mean；　in　SOME　ways；　not　in　all。　　I　suppose　I　might

go　so　far　as　to　say　in　most　ways；　and　be　within　the　facts；　but

never　mind；　let　it　go　at　SOME。　　One　of　the　ways　in　which　it

exercises　this　birthright　isas　I　thinkcontinuing　to　use　our

laughable　alphabet　these　seventy…three　years　while　there　was　a

rational　one　at　hand；　to　be　had　for　the　taking。



It　has　taken　five　hundred　years　to　simplify　some　of

Chaucer's　rotten　spellingif　I　may　be　allowed　to　use　to　frank　a

term　as　thatand　it　will　take　five　hundred　years　more　to　get　our

exasperating　new　Simplified　Corruptions　accepted　and　running

smoothly。　And　we　sha'n't　be　any　better　off　then　than　we　are　now；

for　in　that　day　we　shall　still　have　the　privilege　the　Simplifiers

are　exercising　now：　　ANYBODY　can　change　the　spelling　that　wants

to。



BUT　YOU　CAN'T　CHANGE　THE　PHONOGRAPHIC　SPELLING；　THERE　ISN'T

ANY　WAY。　　It　will　always　follow　the　SOUND。　　If　you　want　to　change

the　spelling；　you　have　to　change　the　sound　first。



Mind；　I　myself　am　a　Simplified　Speller；　I　belong　to　that

unhappy　guild　that　is　patiently　and　hopefully　trying　to　reform

our　drunken　old　alphabet　by　reducing　his　whiskey。　　Well；　it　will

improve　him。　　When　they　get　through　and　have　reformed　him　all

they　can　by　their　system　he　will　be　only　HALF　drunk。　　Above　that

condition　their　system　can　never　lift　him。　　There　is　no

competent；　and　lasting；　and　real　reform　for　him　but　to　take　away

his　whiskey　entirely；　and　fill　up　his　jug　with　Pitman's　wholesome

and　undiseased　alphabet。



One　great　drawback　to　Simplified　Spelling　is；　that　in　print

a　simplified　word　looks　so　like　the　very　nation！　and　when　you

bunch　a　whole　squadron　of　the　Simplified　together　the　spectacle

is　very　nearly　unendurable。



The　da　ma　ov　koars　kum　when　the　publik　ma　be　expektd　to　get

rekonsyled　to　the　bezair　asspekt　of　the　Simplified　Kombynashuns；

butif　I　may　be　allowed　the　expressionis　it　worth　the　wasted

time？　＇Figure　7＇



To　see　our　letters　put　together　in　ways　to　which　we　are　not　accustomed

offends　the　eye；　and　also　takes　the　EXPRESSION　out　of　the　words。



La　on；　Makduf；　and　damd　be　he　hoo　furst　krys　hold；　enuf！



It　doesn't　thrill　you　as　it　used　to　do。　　The　simplifications

have　sucked　the　thrill　all　out　of　it。



But　a　written　character　with　which　we　are　NOT　ACQUAINTED

does　not　offend　usGreek；　Hebrew；　Russian；　Arabic；　and　the

othersthey　have　an　interesting　look；　and　we　see　beauty　in　them；

too。　　And　this　is　true　of　hieroglyphics；　as　well。　　There　is

something　pleasant　and　engaging　about　the　mathematical　signs　when

we　do　not　understand　them。　　The　mystery　hidden　in　these　things

has　a　fascination　for　us：　we　can't　come　across　a　printed　page　of

shorthand　without　being　impressed　by　it　and　wishing　we　could　read

it。



Very　well；　what　I　am　offering　for　acceptance　and　adopting　is

not　shorthand；　but　longhand；　written　with　the　SHORTHAND　ALPHABET

UNREACHED。　　You　can　write　three　times　as　many　words　in　a　minute

with　it　as　you　can　write　with　our　alphabet。　　And　so；　in　a　way；　it

IS　properly　a　shorthand。　　It　has　a　pleasant　look；　too；　a

beguiling　look；　an　inviting　look。　　I　will　write　something　in　it；

in　my　rude　and　untaught　way：　　＇Figure　8＇



Even　when　_I_　do　it　it　comes　out　prettier　than　it　does　in

Simplified　Spelling。　　Yes；　and　in　the　Simplified　it　costs　one

hundred　and　twenty…three　pen…strokes　to　write　it；　whereas　in　the

phonographic　it　costs　only　twenty…nine。



＇Figure　9＇　is　probably　＇Figure　10＇。



Let　us　hope　so；　anyway。