gave us our _shan't_, _don't_, _won't,_ &c. Dr. Johnson held the _not_
to be too important a qualification to leave unaccented. Again, where
prepositions made a pronoun enclitic, the old accent is perishing.
_For it_, which used to be pronounced _forrit_ as one word, is now
generally spoken _faw it_, as two. The result of such conscious
pedantries is not only a great damage to the rhythmic beauty of our
older literature, actually teaching the folk to misread the admirable
prose of our Bible, but it is a bungling interference with the natural
evolution of our sentences, as we mould them to our convenience. We
would trust the general ear in such questions of syllabic rhythm, and
would protect as far as possible the old harmonious cadences of our
traditional speech.

We have no present intention of engaging in the vexed question of the
illogical and often absurd orthography of English. Members of the
Society would perhaps desire some relaxation of these bonds, but we
think it better to concentrate on other profounder modifications of
the language which, though of first importance, are receiving no
special attention. We are aware that proposals for violent change
often defeat their own end, and make all reform impossible. We shall
therefore not insist on any doubtful or disputable detail as a rule of
correctness; but we shall rely on suggestion, believing that we shall
attain the best results by causing those who lead the fashion to
consider the problems and think them out for themselves. We are
convinced that by this means an ideal of self-harmonized speech will
be gradually approved, and will spontaneously create a better standard
of national taste, to which the future developments of the language
may be safely entrusted.

These proposals will be distributed and privately circulated from hand