Still more pedantic are the practices of making the fourth letter of quidquid a c to avoid the appearance of repeating a question, and of writing quotidie instead of colidie to show that it stands for quot diebus. But such practices have disappeared into the limbo of absurdities.

It is often debated whether in our spelling of prepositions we should be guided by their sound when compounded, or separate. For instance when I say optinuit, logic demands that the second letter should be a b, while to the ear the sound is rather that of p: or again take the case of immunis:

the letter n, which is required by strict adherence to fact, is forced by the sound of the m. which follows to change into another m.

We must also note when analysing compound words, whether the middle consonant adheres to the preceding syllable or to that which follows. For example since the latter part of haruspex is from spectare, the s must be assigned to the third syllable. In abstemius on the other hand it will go with the first syllable since the word is derived from abstinentia temeti, abstention from wine.

As for k my view is that it should not be used at all except in such words as may be indicated by the letter standing alone as an abbreviation. K may stand for Kalendae, Kaeso, Karthago, Kalumnia, Kaput. I mention the fact because some hold that k should be used whenever the next letter is an a, despite the existence of the letter c which maintains its force in conjunction with all the vowels. Orthography, however,