We all know the spelling reform satire that was "written by Mark Twain" -- the one that starts:
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling by Mark Twain
| For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be | dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would | no longer be part of the alphabet.
And most of us have seen the "EU" take-off on this, which begins:
| The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby | English will be the official language of the EU rather than German, | which was the other possibility. | As part of the negotiations Her Majesty's Government | conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has | accepted a 5 year phase-in plan of modifications that will lead to | 'Euro-English' as the language will be known. | In the first year, 's' will replace the soft 'c'. Sertainly, | this will make the sivil servants jump with joy.
But actually, from everything I can turn up, *Mark Twain didn't write "the original"!* As far as I can ascertain, the "original" was actually written in the 1940s. The writer was W.K. Lessing, who wrote the piece under the pseudonym of Dolton Edwards. It was first published in an American magazine "Astounding Science Fiction" (now "Analog...") in 1946, entitled "Meihem in Ce Klasrum." (And thanks to David Wolff who posted something on this in early February 1998 to soc.culture.esperanto .) The first several paragraphs of the "actual" original:
MEIHEM IN CE KLASRUM
by Dolton Edwards (pseudonym of W. K. Lessing)
Reprinted from Astounding Science Fiction, Street and Smith Publications, Inc (now "Analog Science Fiction and Fact"). l946.
Because we are still bearing some of the scars of our brief skirmish with II-B English, it is natural that we should be enchanted with Mr. George Bernard Shaw's proposal for a simplified alphabet.
Obviously, as Mr. Shaw points out, English spelling is in much need of a general overhauling and streamlining. However, our resistance to any changes requiring a large expenditure of mental effort in the near future would cause us to view with some apprehension the possibility of some day receiving a morning paper printed in -- to us -- Greek.
Our own plan would achieve the same end as the legislation proposed by Mr. Shaw, but in a less shocking manner, as it consists merely of an acceleration of the normal processes by which the language is continually modernized.
As a catalytic agent, we would suggest that a "National Easy Language Week" be proclaimed, which the President would inaugurate, outlining some short cut to concentrate on during the week, and to be adopted during the ensuing year. All school children would be given a holiday, the lost time being the equivalent of that gained by the spelling short cut.
In l972, for example, we would urge the elimination of the soft "c," for which we would substitute "s." Sertainly, such an improvement would be selebrated in all sivic-minded sircles as being suffisiently worth the trouble, and students in all sities in the land would be reseptive toward any change eliminating the nesessity of learning the differense between the two letters.
This piece was also reprinted in "Torch," a Smithsonian Institution publication, and was reprinted in the U.S. magazine "Life" on May 6, 1957.
Why do I not believe that Mark Twain did write the original and that W.K. Lessing plagiarized it? For one, Mark Twain's works are very well known. Could anyone plagiarize something and have it published in national magazines *without "getting caught"*?
Secondly is the fact that Mark Twain is on record *as favoring spelling reform*. (Perhaps not outrageous phonetic schemes, but in this case, the simplification of a few hundred English spellings.) Twain lent his support to the Simplified Spelling Board, an organization founded in 1906 to promote a limited spelling reform (a few hundred words). Twain also gave a speech, backing this, to an Associated Press dinner in September 1906. Two places this speech can be found on the Web:
The New York Times, September 20, 1906 SPELLING AND PICTURES AND TWAIN AT DINNER The Associated Press Men Hear a Plea for Phonetic Forms.
[....] [T]he annual dinner of The Associated Press in the Astor Gallery of the Waldorf-Astoria last night. [....] There were about 150 members present and about a dozen guests, including Gen. Horace Porter and Mark Twain
[....]
The band played "For he's a jolly good fellow" when Mr. Clemens rose, and the people at the tables took up the song.
MARK TWAIN'S SPEECH.
"I am here to make," said Mr. Clemens, "to make an appeal to the nations in behalf of the simplified spelling. I have come here because they cannot all be reached except through you. There are only two forces that can carry light to all the corners of the globe - only two - the sun in the heavens and the Associated Press down here. I may seem to be flattering the sun, but I do not mean it so; I am meaning only to be just and fair all around. You speak with a million voices; no one can reach so many races, so many hearts and intellects, as you - except Rudyard Kipling, and he cannot do it without your help.
To a third point, read some short Mark Twain pieces, then read the "Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling." Sure, it has the irony of a Twain piece, but it still doesn't read quite like one. For one point, the "Plan for..." piece *has no build up*. Mark Twain knew the value of (and used!) a good build up. (It is possible that all we're seeing is some editor's later truncated version, but then why?)
And to a fourth point, I've looked in many collected works of Mark Twain, and... no where to be found in any of them is a work called "A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling."
Why then this "Internet Urban Legend," if you will, that Mark Twain wrote this is a good question. I can't even begin to guess why anyone would want to have taken the Dolton Edwards "Meihem" piece and claimed that Mark Twain had written it instead. Or perhaps someone came across an uncredited version, assumed "it must be Twain," ascribed it as such and.... Well we can theorize until the bovines come home.
And it *is* possible that Twain did write the piece which is credited to him (I haven't searched *every* compendium of his works), but from what I've uncovered it seems quite unlikely.
--------------------------- Cornell Kimball Los Angeles corn...@spambgon.pacificnet.net ---------------------------
Cornell Kimball wrote in message <36D78C93.2...@spambgon.pacificnet.net>... >We all know the spelling reform satire that was "written by Mark >Twain" -- the one that starts:
> A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling > by Mark Twain
>| For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be >| dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would >| no longer be part of the alphabet.
> And most of us have seen the "EU" take-off on this, which begins:
>| The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby >| English will be the official language of the EU rather than German, >| which was the other possibility. >| As part of the negotiations Her Majesty's Government >| conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has >| accepted a 5 year phase-in plan of modifications that will lead to >| 'Euro-English' as the language will be known. >| In the first year, 's' will replace the soft 'c'. Sertainly, >| this will make the sivil servants jump with joy.
> But actually, from everything I can turn up, *Mark Twain didn't >write "the original"!* As far as I can ascertain, the "original" was >actually written in the 1940s. The writer was W.K. Lessing, who wrote >the piece under the pseudonym of Dolton Edwards. It was first >published in an American magazine "Astounding Science Fiction" (now >"Analog...") in 1946, entitled "Meihem in Ce Klasrum." (And thanks to >David Wolff who posted something on this in early February 1998 to >soc.culture.esperanto .) The first several paragraphs of the "actual" >original:
Cornell Kimball <corn...@spambgon.pacificnet.net> wrote: > We all know the spelling reform satire that was "written by Mark > Twain" -- the one that starts:
[snip lengthy discussion]
For those who wish to compare the two originals, the addresses are found in the "Intro E: Mini-FAQ on Spelling." They are:
> Why do I not believe that Mark Twain did write the original and that > W.K. Lessing plagiarized it? For one, Mark Twain's works are very well > known.
They are also voluminous. I've wished for years I could find an anecdote I swear he wrote, about finding a job by first volunteering to work for free, but I never could. Three paragraphs could easily disappear in his enormous collected work, and indeed has everythinng *been* collected?
>Could anyone plagiarize something and have it published in > national magazines *without "getting caught"*?
To use "plagiarized" and "caught" here is strong, as if the only explanation is deliberate fraud. I can think of several alternate scenarios. Like, Dolton Edwards had once heard or read the idea somewhere but developed it anew himself/herself. The idea of introducing spelling changes slowly, year by year, is not all that rare. Also readily understandable is the humor in seeing those changes made within the space of a few paragraphs.
> Secondly is the fact that Mark Twain is on record *as favoring > spelling reform*. \
What on earth makes you think that Mark Twain's piece is anti-spelling reform? Funny, yes. Memorable, yes. But if you think the point of either article is that spelling reform is impossible, then you miss the point.
> Why then this "Internet Urban Legend," if you will, that Mark Twain > wrote this is a good question. I can't even begin to guess why anyone > would want to have taken the Dolton Edwards "Meihem" piece and claimed > that Mark Twain had written it instead. Or perhaps someone came across an > uncredited version, assumed "it must be Twain," ascribed it as such > and.... Well we can theorize until the bovines come home.
> And it *is* possible that Twain did write the piece which is > credited to him (I haven't searched *every* compendium of his works), > but from what I've uncovered it seems quite unlikely.
I have no ax to grind here. I knew of the MEIHUM IN CE KLASRUM piece thirty years before I ever heard that anything on the subject was attributed to Twain, and that was here on the Internet. So I'm willing to believe your claim. Trying to construct a plausible scenario, I come up with this: some unnamed person wrote down what they remembered of the Dalton Edwards idea, and circulated it among friends. Someone else for some reason attached Mark Twain's name to it. Well, it could have happened. But I don't think that is on the face of it any likelier than the fact that somewhere, for three paragraphs in the middle of a completely different essay, Mark Twain actually did speculate about spelling reform in a humorous manner.
Please note, the Mark Twain piece begins with the words "For example." The only way this could possibly make sense is that these three paragraphs are an excerpt from a longer piece. I don't know what form your exhaustive search took, but if it was on titles and indexed material only, I think that's a problem.
Also please note that the pieces are not at all similar in the fine details. This doesn't prove anything, but if there were exact similarities in the order of recommended changes and characters, for example, then you could easily suspect plagiarism.
Grumble, grumble -- people wonder why other people get so uptight sometimes about crediting authors fully. If only someone had thought to keep with that Twain piece, the year, title, and publication it was in! This kind of doubt is only going to multiply as we advance into the digital age and move farther away from paper and ink.
>> Why do I not believe that Mark Twain did write the original and that >> W.K. Lessing plagiarized it? For one, Mark Twain's works are very well >> known.
I'm really rather confused here. If the Lessing piece was published in the mid '50s or so (and yes I recall reading it several times in various publications) and Sam Clemens was long dead by then (having managed, in 1910, to make true the rumours he had disparaged for so long) how could He have plagiarised from Lessing?
tbt -- | Bruce Tober, <octobers...@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> | | Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106). Freelance | |Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my website| | *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* | | My New Domain will be online very soon at <http://www.star-dot-star.co.uk>|
> >> We all know the spelling reform satire that was "written by Mark > >> Twain" -- the one that starts:
[snip snip]
> I'm really rather confused here. If the Lessing piece was published in > the mid '50s or so (and yes I recall reading it several times in various > publications) and Sam Clemens was long dead by then (having managed, in > 1910, to make true the rumours he had disparaged for so long) how could > He have plagiarised from Lessing?
No one said he did. As I understand it, Kimball is saying that no matter who did write those three paragraphs floating around the Internet, they have been *falsely attributed* to Twain.
The word plagiarism came up in the other direction, saying that if the Twain piece had existed when the Edward/Lessing piece was written, someone would have yelled plagiarism. No one did yell plagiarism (at least as far as Mr. Kimball knows) so he says this proves the Twain piece didn't exist. I don't find this argument convincing. The Twain bit may simply have been forgotten or never very well known.
To summarize what I understand Mr. Kimball's other arguments to be, with my comments in parentheses. He says that Twain could not have written that piece because:
(1) Mr. Kimball cannot find it in any collected work. (But it would be hard to find three unlabelled paragraphs in Twain's voluminous work, and it may not even be collected.)
(2) It conflicts with Twain's pro-spelling-reform attitude (I say that the piece is not anti-spelling reform.)
(3) It doesn't "sound" like Twain's style (I don't agree, and how much can you tell by three paragraphs anyway?)
No, I believe that someone lifted three paragraphs out of the middle of one of Twain's many essays, which is why Kimball's search did not turn up anything with "Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling" in the title. That title is a modern creation.
The most compelling thing to me is that opening phrase "For example." Why in tarnation would anyone begin a piece with "For example"? They wouldn't, neither now nor a hundred years ago.
>> 1910, to make true the rumours he had disparaged for so long) how could >> He have plagiarised from Lessing?
>No one said he did.
I thought someone did, but perhaps misread the meaning.
>As I understand it, Kimball is saying that no matter >who did write those three paragraphs floating around the Internet, they >have been *falsely attributed* to Twain.
I'm not sure I buy that. I have vague recollections from very long ago, long before my experience of the Net, of having heard SC was in favour of alternate spelling/alphabet etc
>The word plagiarism came up in the other direction, saying that if the >Twain piece had existed when the Edward/Lessing piece was written, >someone would have yelled plagiarism.
Not necessarily. I see the two pieces as related in their call for alternates, but not at all similar enuf to make a charge of plagiarism.
>piece didn't exist. I don't find this argument convincing. The Twain bit >may simply have been forgotten or never very well known.
Yep, that too.
>(1) Mr. Kimball cannot find it in any collected work. (But it would be >hard to find three unlabelled paragraphs in Twain's voluminous work, and >it may not even be collected.)
Yep.
>(2) It conflicts with Twain's pro-spelling-reform attitude (I say that >the piece is not anti-spelling reform.)
Agreed.
>(3) It doesn't "sound" like Twain's style (I don't agree, and how much >can you tell by three paragraphs anyway?)
I've seen lots of SC's work that doesn't "sound" like his work either.
>No, I believe that someone lifted three paragraphs out of the middle of >one of Twain's many essays,
Very possible. Like most of us, he wrote widely and was published in everything from nationals to the most local or parochial of publications. And he wrote under one pseudonym, it is therefore possible, nay likely, he wrote under one or more others. There are probably plenty more of his writings to be found and many more which will never be found and still more which will be found, but not provable as his. Just as with many other artists.
>The most compelling thing to me is that opening phrase "For example." >Why in tarnation would anyone begin a piece with "For example"? They >wouldn't, neither now nor a hundred years ago.
Point well taken.
tbt -- | Bruce Tober, <octobers...@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> | | Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106). Freelance | |Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my website| | *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* | | My New Domain will be online very soon at <http://www.star-dot-star.co.uk>|
t...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) writes: > The word plagiarism came up in the other direction, saying that if the > Twain piece had existed when the Edward/Lessing piece was written, > someone would have yelled plagiarism. No one did yell plagiarism (at > least as far as Mr. Kimball knows) so he says this proves the Twain > piece didn't exist. I don't find this argument convincing. The Twain bit > may simply have been forgotten or never very well known.
I think this is the case. I'm going to go dig through my library when I get home, but I'm quite sure this essay was printed in a collection of Twain's more obscure works, entitled "Letters from the Earth", which was printed posthumously. The full piece is about the replacement of heiroglyphs in ancient Egypt with a phonetic alphabet.
> To summarize what I understand Mr. Kimball's other arguments to be, with > my comments in parentheses. He says that Twain could not have written > that piece because:
> (1) Mr. Kimball cannot find it in any collected work. (But it would be > hard to find three unlabelled paragraphs in Twain's voluminous work, and > it may not even be collected.)
It is collected, in the aforementioned volume.
> (2) It conflicts with Twain's pro-spelling-reform attitude (I say that > the piece is not anti-spelling reform.)
It's satire. And Twain wasn't above satirizing himself, on occasion. But I agree, I think spelling reform is, at best, a pretext for Twain to write about people who can't see why improvements really are improvements (and also about people who think things are improvements which really aren't).
> (3) It doesn't "sound" like Twain's style (I don't agree, and how much > can you tell by three paragraphs anyway?)
It resonates quite well with his deconstruction of James Fenimore Cooper (an essay I was quite happy to lift freely from when I had to write a book report on "The Last of the Mohicans"). I think, as you point out, that one would be hard-pressed to prove it's not his style.
> No, I believe that someone lifted three paragraphs out of the middle of > one of Twain's many essays, which is why Kimball's search did not turn > up anything with "Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling" in the > title. That title is a modern creation.
It's very close to Twain's title, though-- I really will have to look for that book, so I can give you the real title.
In article <xkf3e3mlb15....@valdemar.col.hp.com>, Eric The Read <emsch...@mail.uccs.edu> writes
>I think this is the case. I'm going to go dig through my library when I >get home, but I'm quite sure this essay was printed in a collection of >Twain's more obscure works, entitled "Letters from the Earth", which was >printed posthumously. The full piece is about the replacement of >heiroglyphs in ancient Egypt with a phonetic alphabet.
That sounds very familiar. I think you're on to something.
tbt -- | Bruce Tober, <octobers...@reporters.net>, <http://www.crecon.demon.co.uk> | | Birmingham, UK, EU +44-121-242-3832 (mobile - 07979-521-106). Freelance | |Journalist & Website consultancy and development. PGP details at my website| | *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* | | My New Domain will be online very soon at <http://www.star-dot-star.co.uk>|
> [...] I'm quite sure this essay was printed in a collection of > Twain's more obscure works, entitled "Letters from the Earth", which was > printed posthumously. The full piece is about the replacement of > heiroglyphs in ancient Egypt with a phonetic alphabet. >....
Let me save you some time. The piece, only four pages in length, is titled "Spelling Reform" and reports the arguments made by Uncle Cadmus before the Simplified Committee. He first demonstrated how much time could be saved by writing in "Italian script" instead of hieroglyphics. But the real trouble, he insists, is not with the spelling but with the *alphabet*. We need an alphabet whose letters are absolutely fixed in sound, he says; any changes will be indicated by adding extra marks. The Germans have such an alphabet.
"But the English alphabet is pure insanity. It can hardly spell any word in the language with any large degree of certainty. [...] The sillinesses of the English alphabet are quite beyond enumeration. That alphabet consists of nothing whatever except sillinesses. I venture to repeat that whereas the English orthography needs reforming and simplifying, the English alphabet needs it two or three million times more."
