rijinali piurli fonetik, and iz
nou simpli siuperflu[u]s. The old w[u]rd for _member_ woz _lim_. In s[u]ch
kompoundz az _lim-lama_, lim(b)-lame; _lim-leas_, lim(b)-less; it woz
imposibel tu avoid the interkalashon ov a _b_ in pron[u]nsiashon. In this
maner the _b_ krept in, and we hav nou tu teach that in _limb_, _crumb_
(crume), _thumb_ (thuma), the _b_ m[u]st be riten, b[u]t not pronounst.
Agen, _tung_ (Jerman _zunge_), _yung_ (Jerman _jung_), az speld bei
Spenser, hav a far more historikal aspekt than _tongue_ and _young_.

If we wisht tu reit historikali, we ought tu reit _salm_ insted ov
_psalm_, for the inishal _p_, bei[n] lost in pron[u]nsiashon, woz dropt in
reiti[n] at a veri erli teim (A[n]glo-Sakson _sealm_), and woz
re-introdiust simpli tu pleaz s[u]m ekleziastikal etimolojists; also
_nevew_ (French _neveu_) insted ov _nephew_, hwich iz both
[u]netimolojikal and [u]nfonetik.

In hwot sens kan it be kalld historikal speli[n] if the old pluralz ov
_mouse_ and _louse_, hwich wer _mys_ and _lys_, ar nou speld _mice_ and
_lice_? The plural ov _goose_ iz not speld _geece_ b[u]t _geese_, yet
everibodi noz hou tu pronouns it. The same mistaken atempt at an okazhonal
fonetik speli[n] haz separated _dice_ from _die_, and _pence_ from _pens_,
that iz, _penyes_; hweil in _nurse_, hwere the speli[n] _nurce_ wud hav
been useful az remeindi[n] [u]s ov its true etimon _nourrice_, the _c_ haz
been replast bei _s_.

Ther ar, in fakt, meni speli[n]z hwich wud be at the same teim more
historikal and more fonetik. Hwei reit _little_, hwen now[u]n pronounsez
_little_, and hwen the old speli[n] woz _lytel_? Hwei _girdle_, hwen the
old speli[n] woz _girdel_? The same rule apleiz tu nearli all w[u]rdz
endi[n] in _le_, s[u]ch az _sickle_, _ladle_, _apple_, ets., hwere the
etimoloji iz kompleteli obskiurd bei the prezent or[t]ografi. Hwei
_scent_, b[u]t _dissent_, hwen even Milton stil rote _sent_? Hwei _ache_,
insted ov the Shaksperian _ake_? Hwei _cat_, b[u]t _kitten_; hwei cow,
b[u]t _kine_? Hwei _accede_, _precede_, _secede_, b[u]t _exceed_,
_proceed_, _succeed_? Hwei, indeed, eksept tu waste the presh[u]s teim ov
children?

And if it iz difik[u]lt tu say hwot konstitiuts historikal speli[n], it iz
ekwali perpleksi[n] tu defein the real meani[n] ov etimolojikal speli[n].
For hwere ar we tu stop? It wud be konsiderd veri [u]netimolojikal wer we
tu reit _nee_ insted ov _knee_, _now_ insted ov _know_, _night_ insted ov
_knight_;