COMPARISON OF GLOSS IC AND ROMIC. 203
simple vowel-symbols, whereas the learner of Glossic
has to master more than twenty, which are not only
totally disconnected and arbitrary, but also suggest all
kinds of puzzling cross-associations. Of course, even
this is an enormous improvement on Nomic, in which
there are more than two hundred combinations, many
of which are employed almost at random.
The weakest part of Glossic is its treatment of r.
r in Glossic is used both for the consonant and for the
vocalised r ( = 3), as in peer (piio), and hence must be
doubled in peerring (=piieriq), the first r indicating the
9, the second the true r. 99 in ‘ err/ ‘ burn/ &c., is
written er: er=‘e rr/ bern — ‘ burn.5 Hence deterring =
Romic ditoeriq, on the analogy of peerring. But er before
a vowel has the totally distinct value of Romic er, as in
the word ering—c erring ' (eriq).
Again, the 'conventional ar and or are retained to
represent the same sounds as aa and au, faadher and
fardher, for instance, being kept distinct, although their
pronunciation is identical.
Here the phonetic character of Glossic entirely breaks
down, for such distinctions as those last mentioned can
only be taught by spelling lessons. This is equally the
case with such spellings as those of the final vowels in
faadher and soafa (‘ sofa ’), where the same sound is
represented in two distinct ways. Before the learner
can decide whether to write soafa or soafer, he must
stop and consider whether a following vowel would bring
out the r or not.
These considerations show clearly at what a sacrifice
of the most essential principles of phonetic writing Glossic
retains its similarity to the existing spelling. Any attempt