i74
APPENDIX.
The imperfections of the Roman alphabet may be
remedied in various ways, but the fundamental considera¬
tion is whether to confine ourselves to the existing letters
or to form new ones. The objections to the second
alternative are evident. New types are costly; they dis¬
turb and complicate the existing founts ; and there is often
a difficulty in providing suitable script forms. If, on the
other hand, we keep to the old types, we can reform
our orthography without expense or disturbance of the
existing machinery of the printing-offices, and what is of
extreme importance, we are provided with a script al¬
phabet of a thoroughly practical character. The practical
experience of Mr. Ellis is important on this point. After
expending much time and money in elaborating a new-
type alphabet—the ‘ phonotypy ’ of Mr. Pitman—he has
entirely abandoned the new-type principle as impractic¬
able. He excludes even letters with accents and diacritics,
which, being only cast for a few founts, act practically as
new letters.
If then we exclude new letters as impracticable, we
are obliged to fall back on digraphs, which are already
largely employed in English and most other languages.
The obvious objection to them is that they violate the
natural principle of denoting every simple sound by a
simple sign. In a rational alphabet such as Visible
Speech, this principle is carried out consistently, the con¬
sonants of she and the, for instance, being denoted by
single letters just as that of see is. But with the Roman
alphabet, which does not claim to be rational and con¬
sistent, this principle cannot be carried out : our business
is to make the best use of the materials we have, and if
we can make a convenient and unambiguous symbol for