most stem vowels followed by a single consonant are long and give as an example to our pupils the words heil and Span which he no doubt will find simple enough, but the trouble is, that the very next day he might stumble upon words like Theil and Wakn with exactly the same pronunciation. He will then naturally ask the use of the h in these words and perhaps in the first one account for it by pronouncing the th like his own aspirate. But we tell him that besides the general rules regarding the indication of a long vowel the German very often employs one of the three others mentioned above in addition, thus, as it were, indicating the long vowel twice and that before the liquids l, m, n, r, the inorganic his generally used for this purpose. This he will understand in Theil and Wahn, but why asks he do we not write Spahn as well. He now is told that besides other exceptions, long vowels when preceded by two or more consonants (with some exceptions also) do not take this h. Our friend might now demur at the position of the hin Theil. He would like to see it in its proper position, that is after the vowel which it is to lengthen, but that he learns he must not always expect. The h is not separated from the t and must always stand after it. Thus That and Thun, Drath and Nath (with the h organic in the last named) not Taht, tuhn, Draht, Naht (cf. HEYSE, Schulgram. p. 37). This at the very next occasion, he sees contradicted in the two last and other words of the kind, which as often have the h before the t (cf. GRIMM, WEIGAND, SANDERS, BECKER Schulgram, p. 631). We perhaps now mention for his special elucidation, that with precisely the same pronunciation we spell words like roth, rothe with an h, but Bot, Bote without it and that Thurm and Wirth with a decidedly short vowel have nevertheless an inorganic h.

From this erratic use of the inorganic h it is liable to be sometimes mistaken by the pupil for the h historically belonging to the word. The rule to prevent this seems by no means clear even to the advanced pupil, although perhaps the best that could be given under the circumstances. It says: The h before liquids may generally be looked upon as an indication of a long vowel, but where it seems to conflict with this, it is commonly an original, organic letter belonging to the stem (cf. HEYSE).

But is the pupil aware of the contraction or elimination that certain words or letters have experienced in the course of time? For instance in Zähre, Aehre, Mohn, Dohle, zehn, etc., that have the h organic followed by a liquid. This requires in some cases a knowledge of the earlier stages of the language, a knowledge out of the question with him, when very good teachers of German do not always have it.

The geminating of a vowel to lengthen it is only used with the a, e, o. Their respective modifications and the vowels i and u are never doubled, require therefore some other sign (mute e or h) when lengthened. A great many inroads have been made into the sanctity of this spelling, for words like Schaf, Schale, Samen, and others were not long ago written with the radical doubled, while some like the adjective bar or baar, etc., are in a state of transition and the pupil may choose either (cf. HEYSE, BECKER, GRIMM, WEIGAND, SANDERS). The long i is indicated in some cases by an h but more generally by a succeeding mute e, in this position according to our present pronunciation in all cases but an orthographical help to dis

tinguish the long quantity of the former. Even this method shows inconsistencies in number, thus we write ihr but mir, Igel but Siegel, etc. After due consideration of the important condition that the new orthography should show clearly and unmistakably the correct and customary pronunciation, the conference recommended:

To drop under all circumstances the indication of a long vowel by any special letter in all syllables containing the vowels a, o, u, and their respective modifications* with the exception of the words der, Ahn, fahnden, das Boot, die Uhr, der Ruhm to distinguish them from an, fanden, das Bot (summons), der Ur, the prefix ur and der Rum. In the words, allmählig, Bühl, Ohm, nahm; Ausnahme, Masznahme, stahl, stiehlt, Diebstahl, befahl, befiehlt, empfahl, mahlen, Mühle, Mahd, Draht, Naht, the h was retained to show their relation to gemach, Bühel, Oheim, nehmen, stehlen, Befehl, Mehl, mähen, drehen, nähen, that have the h.

Really a number of these exceptions might have been dispensed with, for in several analogous cases the conference apparently did not hesitate the least to abolish all distinction to the eye, e. g., Tor (fool), Tor (gate), Ton (sound), Ton (clay), Tau (rope), Tau (dew), etc. The tendency to drop such orthographical distinctions had shown itself long before the meeting of the conference. Nobody writes at present seyn (to be) to distinguish it from sein (his), besides we do not seem to be disturbed by such similarity of words in other languages, Latin frons (forehead), frons (leaf of a tree); French son (sound), son (bran), etc., where their connection in the sentence readily gives the explanation (cf. GRIMM). To understand the steps of the conference in this direction, let us look at the rules that governed them.

Syllables are either accented or unaccented. Thus in Hochzeiten we have Hoch with the full, zeit with the demi-accent and en unaccented. With few exceptions, the stem syllable in simple German words has the full accent and nearly all inflexions are unaccented. In compound words each component keeps its accent, the first as the modifier has the full accent. Thus in Blumengarten, Blum has the full accent, en as an inflexion is unaccented and Garten has the demi-accent. In the present High German accented syllables are long, unaccented short, the length of the former occurring either in a long vowel or if that be short in a doubled' consonant following the short vowel, e. g., Blumen, summen. The vowels a, o, u, and their modifications occur with very few exceptions only in accented syllables and are long when followed by a single, short when followed by a double consonant.

The few words conflicting with this we find among monosyllables like was, das, and the particles an, von, ab, um, etc., nevertheless there are certainly not many grammatical dicta of such magnitude that show as few exceptions (cf. RAUMER, Regeln).

The vowels i and e occurring frequently in unaccented syllables (inflexions, etc.) as short vowels, it was maintained that the same sweeping rule could not be given, the conference retained therefore with these two vow

In the words Schuhe, Kuche, Floche, Strohes, Viehe, Geweihe, zache,nahe, froher, frueher, roher, rauher, floche (flichen) the h is no indication of the length of the vowel but a sound distinctly pronounced and this his retained when it ends the word, viz: Schuh, Kuh, Floh, Stroh, Vieh, Geweih, zach, nah, froh, frueh, roh, rauh, floh.

els the customary indications of length. Words like Semmelmel (Semmelmehl), ererbietig (ehrerbietig), etc., were quoted to show the necessity of the h for the long and accented syllable. In the words Kamel, Lorber, quer, Schere, scheren, bescheren, Schmer, Werwolf, Wergeld, Feme, helen, verhehlen, Hel, the conference decided in favor of the dropping of the indication of length, on the ground that these words have for some time shown an uncertain spelling. Even in the above recommendations of the conference we might question the positive necessity for an indication of length, at least in the majority of cases with the vowel e. As long as we have spelled leben, wesen, legen, ergeben, erregen, verbeten, ererben, elend, bisherig, etc., without a doubt as to their proper pronunciation it would not be so wonderful to do the same with stelen, nemen, empfelen, bestelen, ererbietig, etc.

The distinction in orthography between the adverb wieder and the preposition wider, being actually the same word, was given up and wider recommended for both. LUTHER in his last edition of the Bible writes everywhere wider, and only in the 17th century writers begin to make this distinction, which in compounds very often cannot at all be strictly made, for instance in wiederhallen and widerhallen, wiederspiegeln and widerspiegeln, etc. The spelling of the forms gibst, gibt, gib of geben instead of giebst, etc., (our text-books generally give both) was preferred. Their pronunciation varies. Nearly all North and Middle Germany give them the short vowel nevertheless most poets rhyme gieb, giebst, giebt, with words that have the organic ie. * In ergiebig, nachgiebig, ausgiebig, the syllable gieb is long, therefore written ie.

The spelling Mine from the French mine was declared the proper one in the sense of mine as well as mien. They are in reality the same word and only since ADELUNG's time have they begun to differ in orthography (cf. DIEZ, Woerterbuch der Romanischen Spr., vol. I., p. 277.)

Diphthongs by general rule already long, need no indication of length, the conference therefore recommended the abolishing of such orthography as Theil, Thier, theuer, Thau, etc., and with it in all German words the inorganic h in the combination th which represents no different sound from the simple t. Certain words from older Germanic dialects and foreign languages were expected, e. g., Theoderich, Theobald, Than, Theologie, Thee, etc. This praiseworthy step banishes from all German words a combination historically and phonetically wrong and useless. At the conclusion of the discussion on the indication of short and long vowels, the conference found no special objections to the use of the circumflex to show a long vowel and the acute to indicate the accent.

Some movement in the direction of conservatism in the indication of

Rhymes like

* "Wenn ein edles Herz es giebt,

Das uneigennützig liebt "

(Rückert)

"Seht, wie die Biene von dem Honig nippt,
Den freudig ihr die holde Blume gibt"

are perhaps not the best.

long vowels is certainly necessary for our school books, and to use the words of one of the most prudent and practical Germanists and teachers: "It is not merely a matter of getting rid of some superfluous letters, but a very great relief and help in the teaching of German orthography." The language has thrown out such letters ever since LUTHER'S time, and LUTHER himself did so, notwithstanding the objections that no doubt were raised then as they are now (cf. LUTHER's earlier and later works).

Words that formerly doubled the vowel or inserted an h (cf. KURZ, Literatur-Geschichte, vol. 2, FLEMMING, ZINKREFF. GÖDEKE, 11 BUECHER, vol. I) have dropped those indications-our eyes certainly do not miss them now-which makes the number of German syllables that according to present orthography show no indication of a long vowel, four times greater than those that do.

The question would now arise who are the grammarians outside of those gentlemen of the conference that are in favor of a restriction in the use of these unnecessary indications of a lengthened vowel. The grammars of F. BAUER and K. A. HOFFMANN (the former in its 14th edition, the latter in its 9th) go in this respect entirely with the conference (BAUER, p. 171, Hoffmann, p. 22) and among many other works that advocate reform are those of F. BALLIN, M. Berndt, E. Götzinger, K. KLAUNIG, R. RISSMANN, H. B. RUMPELT, G. STIER, TH. VERNALEKEN, J. ZACHER, etc. The dictionaries of GRIMM and WEIGAND which as to their authority need no comment (cf. VON RAUMER, Geschichte d. Germ. Philologie, Bauer, Gram.) give the recommended spelling in every case as the better one, in fact, the feeling among prominent and practical schoolmen in Germany that a restriction in these premises is necessary, seems to be general.

In the choice between the letters that have the same or a similar sound as ä, and e, äu and eu, ƒ and v, etc., the conference followed with little variance the customary spelling. They rejected the use of the ph in German words-the word Epheu excepted, which surely might have gone with the rest, notwithstanding its supposed derivation (O. H. G. ebi [Lat. apium] and Heu). The ph represents only the sound of f and is not entitled to a position in German words; our standard dictionaries therefore write Adolf, Rudolf, Westfalen, etc., however Philosophie, Phosphor, etc. (cf. GRIMM, WEIGAND, etc.) HEYSE gives both but the simple ƒ as the more correct (cf. Fremdwoerterbuch.) In the use of the similar sounding letters, d, t and dt at the end of a word, the conference retained the orthography as given by our best lexicons that write Schmied, Versand, but Brot, Ernte, gescheit, Schwert, etc. The dt in the adjective todt was declared a monstrum, phonetically and etymologically wrong, the vowel being long and the d in no way historically connected with it. They recommended the spelling tot (töten, der Tote) which furthermore would make it much more distinct from the noun der Tod (Todsünde, todkrank). It is a pity that the dt in Stadt was not thrown out in the same way, it has no right there whatsoever (cf. WEIGAND, Statt, Stätte).

The next point debated and adopted by the conference that affects the orthography of our school books is the use of the sz and ss. The consonantal combination sz and the double letter ss in our text-books have their place in most cases according to the orthography of ADELUNG and GOTT

SCHED, in Germany that of HEYSE (father and son) is preferred by many. To some extent they all agree upon the general rule which says: sz after a long vowel (Fusz, Grusz), ss after a short one (Gasse, Kresse), but the ADELUNG-GOTTSCHED spelling restricts the ss to a position between two vowels and places the sz as the final letter or before a consonant regardless of the length or shortness of the vowel preceding, while HEYSE in his last editions consistently carries through the general rule and puts the ss (ss when final) after a short vowel no matter whether between two vowels or before a consonant. The sign ss for ss employed by HEYSE at the end of a word is merely a graphical difference. Thus HEYSE Guss (Güsse), Fluss (flüsse), hasst (hasse), etc., but according to ADELUNG and GOTTSCHED and most of our American text-books, Gusz (Güsse), Flusz (Flüsse), haszt, (hasse), etc., which makes the use of the sz representing as it does, only one consonant not analogous to our present New-High-German orthography that requires after a short, accented vowel a double consonant even before an inflexional consonant as for instance in schafft, etc. (cf. BECKER, Schulgram, p. 652). Such orthography is surely calculated to complicate matters and make it difficult to pronounce correctly not only for the American but also for the German and leads to mistakes in reading and writing without giving the slightest advantage in return. The reason given why the sz should be taken at the end of the word instead of ss, because the latter does not look well there, is trivial and shows great inconsistency, since no objection is made in the use of ff in the very same position (cf. HEYSE, Lehrbuch, vol. I). In many instances there might be some objection to the use of ss for sz, on etymological grounds but then ADELUNG and GOTTSCHED as well as HEYSE use them without the slightest regard to derivation. The length and shortness of the vowel according to the choice of sz or ss has historically of course no weight whatever, but to return now to an historical spelling when for the last century our schoolmasters have taught us differently would be a vain attempt, no one would like to spell at present Wasser, lassen, essen, etc., with an sz, yet it would be etymologically the correct letter in these words. v. RAUMER says on this subject: "The attempt to introduce the so-called historical spelling which in every case puts the etymologically correct letter must be looked upon as a failure, since it would introduce an entirely different principle in our orthography" (cf. Sprachwiss. Schriften, II., III., IV.) JACOB GRIMM, the father of the historical school abandoned that idea (cf. GRIMM, Dictionary).

The conference adopted the HEYSE Spelling with the slight change of not alone using the ss at the end of the word but also before a consonant. We write therefore Guss (Güsse), Fluss (Flüsse), hasst (hasse), musst (müsse), etc. Whether this change in the HEYSE orthography is an improvement, may be doubted, the combination sst is surely uncommon. The conference seems to have been guided in this matter by unaccountable aversion to the ss at the end of a word. With the single s (s) the usual mode of spelling was retained and for the expression of the signs sz, ss, 8 (s) with Latin letters the conference agreed upon is for sz; ss for ss and ss; s or f for 8 (s). These signs are by no means new for they occur as early as 1772. Later we find them among other works, in SCHILLER'S celebrated five Musen-Almanache (1796-1800) (cf. Verhandlungen der Conferenz). HEYSE