i bdekn iu meek to rektifii ur alfabet, “at it uil bi atended ui inknviniensiz and difikltiz,” iz e natural un; fr it luaz krz huen eni refrmen iz propozed; huer in rilidn, gvernment, lz, and iven dun az lo az rods and huil karidiz. i tru kuestn en, is nt huer aer uil bi no difikltiz r inknviniensiz; bt hueer i difikltiz mê nt bi srmunted; and huer i knviniensiz uil nt, n i huol, bi grêtr an i inknviniensiz. In is kes, i difikltiz er onli in i bigini v i praktis: huen ê er uns ovrkm, i advantedez er lasti. To ir iu r mi, hu spel uel in i prezent mod, i imadin i difiklti v tendi at mod fr i nu, iz nt so grêt, bt at ui mit prfektli git ovr it in a uiiks riti. Az to oz hu du nt spel uel, if i tu difikltiz er kmpêrd, [viz.] at v titi em tru speli in i prezent mod, and at v titi em i nu alfabet and i nu speli akrdi to it; i am knfident at i latr uuld bi bi far i liist. ê natrali fl into i nu med alredi, az mt az i imperfekn v er alfabet uil admit v; êr prezent bad speli iz onli bad, bikz kntreri to i prezent bad ruls: ndr i nu ruls it uuld bi gud. i difiklti v lrni to spel uel in i old uê iz so grêt, at fiu atên it; uzands and uzands riti n to old ed, uiut ever bii ebil to akuir it. ’Tiz, bisidz, e difiklti kntinuali inkriisi; az i sund graduali veriz mor and mor frm i speli: and to frenrs it mêks i lrni to pronuns ur langued, az riten in ur buks, almost impsibil.

Nu az to “i inknviniensiz” iu menn. i frst iz; at “l ur etimlodiz uuld bi lst, knsikuentli ui kuld nt asrteen i miini v meni urds.” Etimlodiz er at prezent veri ensrten; bt st az ê er, i old buks uuld stil prizrv em, and etim-lodists uuld êr find em. Urds in i kors v tim, tend er miinis, az uel az er speli and pronnsien; nd ui du nt luk to etimlodi fr er prezent miinis, If i uld kl e man e Neev and e Vilen, hi uuld hardli bi satisfid ui mi teli him, at un v i urds oridinali signifid onli e lad r srvant; and i r, an ndr pluman, r i inhabitant v e viled. It iz frm prezent iused onli, i miini v urds iz to bi ditrmined.

Iur seknd inknviniens iz, at “i distinkn bituiin urds v difrent miini and similar sund uuld bi distrid.” at distinkn iz lredi distrid in pronunsi em; and ui rili n i sens alon v i sentens to asrteen, huit v i several urds, similar in sund, ui intend. If is iz sfient in i rapiditi v diskors, it uil bi mut mor so in riten sentenses; huit mê bi red lezurli; and atended to mor partikularli in kes v difiklti, an ui kan atend to e past sentens, huil e spikr iz hrii s al ui nu uns.

Iur rd inknviniens iz, at “l i buks alredi riten uuld bi iusles.” is inknviniens uuld onli km n graduali, in e kors v edes. Iu and i, and r nu livi ridrs, uuld hardli frget i ius v em. Piipil uuld long lrn to riid i old riti, o ê praktist i nu. And i inknviniens iz nt greter, an huat hes aktuali hapend in a similar kes, in Iteli. Frmerli its inhabitants l spok and rot Latin: az i langued tendd, i speli flo’d it. It iz tru at at prezent, e miir nlarn’d Italien kant riid i Latin buks; o e er stil red and ndrstud bi meni. Bt, if i speli had nevr bin tended, hi uuld nu hev fund it mt mor difiklt to riid and rit hiz on languad; fr riten urds uuld hev had no rilên to sunds, e uuld onli hev stud fr is; so at if hi uuld ekspres in riti i idia hi hez, huen hi sunds i urd Vescovo, hi mst iuz i leterz Episcopus. In rt, huatever i difikltiz and inknviniensiz nu er, e uil bi mor iizili srmunted nu, an hiraftr; and sm tim r r, it mst bi dn; r ur riti uil bikm i sêm ui i Tiniiz, as to i difiklti v lrni and iuzi it. And it uuld alredi hev bin st, if ui had kntinud i Saksn speli and riti, iuzed bi our forfaers. i am, mi diir frind, iurs afeknetli,

The objection you make to rectifying our alphabet, “that it will be attended with inconveniences and difficulties,” is a natural one; for it always occurs when any reformation is proposed, whether in religion, government, laws, and even down as low as roads and wheel carriages. The true question then, is not whether there will be no difficulties or inconveniences; but whether the difficulties may not be surmounted; and whether the conveniences will not, on the whole, be greater than the inconveniences. In this case, the difficulties are only in the beginning of the practice; when they are once overcome, the advantages are lasting. To either you or me, who spell well in the present mode, I imagine the difficulty of changing that mode for the new is not so great, but that we might perfectly get over it in a week’s writing.

As to those who do not spell well, if the two difficulties are compared, [viz.] that of teaching them true spelling in the present mode, and that of teaching them the new alphabet and the new spelling according to it; I am confident that the latter would be by far the least. They naturally fall into the new method already, as much as the imperfection of their alphabet will admit of; Their present bad spelling is only bad, because contrary to the present bad rules; under the new rules it would be good. The difficulty of learning to spell well in the old way is so great, that few attain it; thousands and thousands writing on to old age, without ever being able to acquire it. ’Tis, besides, a difficulty continually increasing; as the sound gradually varies more and more from the spelling: and to foreigners it makes the learning to pronounce our language, as written in our books, almost impossible.

Now as to “the inconveniences” you mention—the first is; “that all our etymologies would be lost, consequently we could not ascertain the meaning of many words.” Etymologies are at present very uncertain; but such as they are, the old books would still preserve them, and etymologists would there find them. Words in the course of time, change their meanings, as well as their spelling and pronunciation; and we do not look to etymology for their present meanings. If I should call a man a Knave and a Villain, he would hardly be satisfied with my telling him, that one of the words originally signified only a lad or servant; and the other, an under plowman, or the inhabitant of a village. It is from present usage only, that the meaning of words is to be determined.

Your second inconvenience is, that “the distinction between words of different meaning and similar sound would be destroyed.” That distinction is already destroyed in pronouncing them; and you rely on the sense alone of the sentence to ascertain, which of the several words, similar in sound, we intend. If this is sufficient in the rapidity of discourse, it will be much more so in written sentences; which may be read leisurely; and attended to more particularly in case of difficulty, than you can attend to a past sentence, while a speaker is hurrying us along with new ones.

Your third inconvenience is, that “all the books already written would be useless.” This inconvenience would only come on gradually, in a course of ages. You, and I, and other now living readers, would hardly forget the use of them. People would long learn to read the old writing, though they practised the new. And the inconvenience is not greater, than what has actually happened in a similar case, in Italy. Formerly its inhabitants all spoke and wrote Latin; as the language changed, the spelling follow’d it. It is true that at present, a mere unlearn’d Italian cannot read the Latin books; though they are still read and understood by many. But, if the spelling had never been changed, he would now have found it much more difficult to read and write his own language, for written words would have had no relation to sounds, they would only have stood for things; so that if he would express in writing the idea he has, when he sounds the word Vescovo, he must use the letters Episcopus. In short, whatever the difficulties and inconveniences now are, they will be more easily surmounted now, than hereafter; and some time or other it must be done; or our writing will become the same with the Chinese, as to the difficulty of learning and using it. And it would already have been such, if we had continued the Saxon spelling and writing, used by our forefathers. I am, my dear friend, yours affectionately,