>  In conclusion, it may be observed that it is mainly among the
>   class of half-taught dabblers in philology that etymological
>   spelling has found its supporters.  All true philologists and
>   philological bodies have uniformly denounced it as a monstrous
>   absurdity both from a practical and a scientific point of
>   view."

Can't you recognize this as pure rhetoric? Look at that characterization
of people with different opinions than this author's as "half-taught
dabblers in philology".  What kind of argument is that?

My point in preserving the etymological spelling (much as it is in any
English dictionary) is that it serves to prevent confusion in reading
among words with different meanings that would end up otherwise with
the same spelling.  I would certainly resist professional phonenticists
like Sweet from imposing their narrow views on the way we write English.

Now, I'd be more interested to learn why it was in Latin that the
Greek words were spelled with ph, th, ch, -y-, etc. rather than according
to Latin phonetics and orthography.  Do you have any sources on that?

Stan Mulaik