Chapter 84

ORTHOGRAPHY.

§ 142. _Orthoepy_, a word derived from the Greek _orthon_ (_upright_), and _epos_ (_a word_), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy determines words, and deals with a language as it is _spoken_; _orthography_ determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a language as it is _written_. This latter term is derived from the Greek words _orthos_ (_upright_), and _graphé_, or _grafæ_ (_writing_). Orthography is less essential to language than orthoepy; since all languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are written. Orthography presupposes orthoepy. Orthography addresses itself to the eye, orthoepy to the ear. Orthoepy deals with the articulate sounds that constitute syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by which such articulate sounds are expressed in writing. A _letter_ is the sign of an articulate (and, in the case of h, of an inarticulate) sound.

§ 143. A full and perfect system of orthography consists in two things:--1. The possession of a sufficient and consistent alphabet. 2. The right application of such an alphabet. This position may be illustrated more fully.

§ 144. First, in respect to a sufficient and consistent alphabet--Let there be in a certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the number of forty, whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of them, amount to no more than _thirty_. In this case the alphabet is insufficient. It is not full enough: since ten of the simple single articulate sounds have no corresponding signs whereby they may be expressed. In our own language, the sounds (amongst others) of th in _thin_, and of th in _thine_, are simple and single, whilst there is no sign equally simple and single to spell them with.

§ 145. An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a given language two simple single sounds, (for instance) the p in _pate_, and the f in _fate_. Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a given sign, for instance, [Hebrew: P] (as is actually the case in Hebrew), stand for the p in _pate_; and let a second sign be required for the f in _fate_. Concerning the nature of this latter sign, two views may be taken. One framer of the alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere modifications of each other, may argue that no new sign (or letter) is at all necessary, but that the sound of f in _fate_ may be expressed by a mere modification of the sign (or letter) [Hebrew: P], and may be written thus [Hebrew: P·], or thus [Hebrew: P'] or [Hebrew: P`], &c.; upon the principle that like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The other framer of the alphabet, contemplating the difference between the two sounds, rather than the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of the sign [Hebrew: P], but a letter altogether new, such as f, or [Greek: ph], &c., upon the principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude should be expressed by signs of a different degree of dissimilitude.

Hitherto the expression of the sounds in point is a matter of convenience only. No question has been raised as to its consistency or inconsistency. This begins under conditions like the following:--Let there be in the language in point the sounds of the t in _tin_, and of the th in _thin_; which (it may be remembered) are precisely in the same relation to each other as the p in _pate_ and the f in _fate_. Let each of these sounds have a sign or letter expressive of it. Upon the nature of these signs, or letters, will depend the nature of the sign or letter required for the f in _fate_. If the letter expressing the th in _thin_ be a mere modification of the letter expressing the t in _tin_, then must the letter expressive of the f in _fate_ be a mere modification of the letter expressing the p in _pate_, and _vice versâ_. If this be not the case, the alphabet is inconsistent.

In the English alphabet we have (amongst others) the following inconsistency:--The sound of the f in _fate_, in a certain relation to the sound of the p in _pate_, is expressed by a totally distinct sign; whereas, the sound of the th in _thin_ (similarly related to the t in _tin_) is expressed by no new sign, but by a mere modification of t; viz., th.

§ 146. A third element in the faultiness of an alphabet is the fault of erroneous representation. The best illustration of this we get from the Hebrew alphabet, where the sounds of [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T`], mere _varieties_ of each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar signs, whilst [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T], sounds _specifically_ distinct, are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter.

§ 147. _The right application of an alphabet._--An alphabet may be both sufficient and consistent, accurate in its representation of the alliances between articulate sounds, and in no wise redundant; and yet, withal, it may be so wrongly applied as to be defective. Of defect in the use or application of the letters of an alphabet, the three main causes are the following:--

a. _Unsteadiness in the power of letters._--Of this there are two kinds. In the first, there is one sound with two (or more) ways of expressing it. Such is the sound of the letter f in English. In words of Anglo-Saxon origin it is spelt with a single simple sign, as in _fill_; whilst in Greek words it is denoted by a combination, as in _Philip_. The reverse of this takes place with the letter g; here a single sign has a double power; in _gibbet_ it is sounded as j, and in _gibberish_ as g in _got_.

b. _The aim at secondary objects._--The natural aim of orthography, of spelling, or of writing, is to express the _sounds_ of a language. Syllables and words it takes as they meet the ear, it translates them by appropriate signs, and so paints them, as it were, to the eye. That this is the natural and primary object is self-evident; but beyond this natural and primary object there is, with the orthographical systems of most languages, a secondary one, viz., the attempt to combine with the representation of the sound of a given word, the representation of its history and origin.

The sound of the c, in _city_, is the sound that we naturally spell with the letter s, and if the expression of this sound was the _only_ object of our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (_sity_). The following facts, however, traverse this simple view of the matter. The word is a derived word; it is transplanted into our own language from the Latin, where it is spelt with a c (_civitas_); and to change this c into s conceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason the c is retained, although, as far as the mere expression of sounds (the primary object in orthography) is concerned, the letter is a superfluity. In cases like the one adduced the orthography is bent to a secondary end, and is traversed by the etymology.

c. _Obsoleteness._--It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one time may have been correct, may, by a change of pronunciation, become incorrect; so that orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling.

§ 148. From the foregoing sections we arrive at the theory of a full and perfect alphabet and orthography, of which a few (amongst many others) of the chief conditions are as follow:--

1. That for every simple single sound, incapable of being represented by a combination of letters, there be a simple single sign.

2. That sounds within a determined degree of likeness be represented by signs within a determined degree of likeness; whilst sounds beyond a certain degree of likeness be represented by distinct and different signs, _and that uniformly_.

3. That no sound have more than one sign to express it.

4. That no sign express more than one sound.

5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words, and not their histories.

6. That changes of speech be followed by corresponding changes of spelling.

With these principles in our mind we may measure the imperfections of our own and of other alphabets.

§ 149. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate sounds of the language. The vowels belonging to the English language are the following _twelve_:--

1. That of a in _father_. 7. That of e -- _bed_. 2. -- a -- _fat_. 8. -- i -- _pit_. 3. -- a -- _fate_. 9. -- ee -- _feet_. 4. -- aw -- _bawl_. 10. -- u -- _bull_. 5. -- o -- _not_. 11. -- oo -- _fool_. 6. -- o -- _note_. 12. -- u -- _duck_.

The diphthongal sounds are _four_.

1. That of ou in _house_. 2. -- ew -- _new_. 3. -- oi -- _oil_. 4. -- i -- _bite_.

This last sound being most incorrectly expressed by the single letter i.

The consonantal sounds are, 1. the two semivowels; 2. the four liquids; 3. fourteen out of the sixteen mutes; 4. ch in _chest_, and j in _jest_, compound sibilants; 5. ng, as in _king_; 6. the aspirate h. In all, twenty-four.

1. w as in _wet_. 13. th as in _thin_. 2. y -- _yet_. 14. th -- _thine_. 3. m -- _man_. 15. g -- _gun_. 4. n -- _not_. 16. k -- _kind_. 5. l -- _let_. 17. s -- _sin_. 6. r -- _run_. 18. z -- _zeal_. 7. p -- _pate_. 19. sh -- _shine_. 8. b -- _ban_. 20. z -- _azure, glazier_. 9. f -- _fan_. 21. ch -- _chest_. 10. v -- _van_. 22. j -- _jest_. 11. t -- _tin_. 23. ng -- _king_. 12. d -- _din_. 24. h -- _hot_.

§ 150. Some writers would add to these the additional sound of the _é fermé_ of the French; believing that the vowel in words like _their_ and _vein_ has a different sound from the vowel in words like _there_ and _vain_. For my own part I cannot detect such a difference either in my own speech or that of my neighbours; although I am far from denying that in certain _dialects_ of our language such may have been the case. The following is an extract from the "Danish Grammar for Englishmen," by Professor Rask, whose eye, in the matter in question, seems to have misled his ear; "The _é fermé_, or _close é_, is very frequent in Danish, but scarcely perceptible in English; unless in such words as _their_, _vein_, _veil_, which appear to sound a little different from _there_, _vain_, _vale_."

§ 151. The vowels being twelve, the diphthongs four, and the consonantal sounds twenty-four, we have altogether as many as forty sounds, some being so closely allied to each other as to be mere modifications, and others being combinations rather than simple sounds; all, however, agreeing in requiring to be expressed by letters or by combinations of letters, and to be distinguished from each other. This enables us to appreciate--

§ 152. _The insufficiency of the English alphabet._--

a. _In respect to the vowels._--Notwithstanding the fact that the sounds of the a in _father_, _fate_, and _fat_, and of the o and the aw in _note_, _not_, and _bawl_, are modifications of a and o respectively, we have still _six_ vowel sounds specifically distinct, for which (y being a consonant rather than a vowel) we have but _five_ signs. The u in _duck_, specifically distinct from the u in _bull_, has no specifically distinct sign to represent it.

b. _In respect to the consonants_.--The th in _thin_, the th in _thine_, the sh in _shine_, the z in _azure_, and the ng in _king_, five sounds specifically distinct, and five sounds perfectly simple require corresponding signs, which they have not.

§ 153. _Its inconsistency._--The f in _fan_, and the v in _van_, sounds in a certain degree of relationship to p and b, are expressed by sounds as unlike as f is unlike p, and as v is unlike b. The sound of the th in _thin_, the th in _thine_, the sh in _shine_, similarly related to t, d, and s, are expressed by signs as like t, d, and s, respectively, as th and sh.

The compound sibilant sound of j in _jest_ is spelt with the single sign j, whilst the compound sibilant sound in _chest_ is spelt with the combination ch.

§ 154. _Erroneousness._--The sound of the ee in _feet_ is considered the long (independent) sound of the e in _bed_; whereas it is the long (independent) sound of the i in _pit_.

The i in _bite_ is considered as the long (independent) sound of the i in _pit_; whereas it is a diphthongal sound.

The u in _duck_ is looked upon as a modification of the u in _bull_; whereas it is a specifically distinct sound.

The ou in _house_ and the oi in _oil_ are looked upon as the compounds of o and i and of o and u respectively; whereas the latter element of them is not i and u, but y and w.

The th in _thin_ and the th in _thine_ are dealt with as one and the same sound; whereas they are sounds specifically distinct.

The ch in _chest_ is dealt with as a modification of c (either with the power of k or of s); whereas its elements are t and sh.

§ 155. _Redundancy._--As far as the representation of sounds is concerned the letter c is superfluous. In words like _citizen_ it may be replaced by s; in words like _cat_ by k. In ch, as in _chest_, it has no proper place. In ch, as in _mechanical_, it may be replaced by k.

Q is superfluous, cw or kw being its equivalent.

X also is superfluous, ks, gz, or z, being equivalent to it.

The diphthongal forms æ and oe, as in _Æneas_ and _Croesus_, except in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.

§ 156. _Unsteadiness._--Here we have (amongst many other examples), 1. The consonant c with the double power of s and k; 2. g with its sound in _gun_ and also with its sound in _gin_; 3. x with its sounds in _Alexander_, _apoplexy_, _Xenophon_.

In the foregoing examples a single sign has a double power; in the words _Philip_ and _filip_, &c.; a single sound has a double sign.

In respect to the degree wherein the English orthography is made subservient to etymology, it is sufficient to repeat the statement that as many as three letters c, æ, and oe are retained in the alphabet for _etymological purposes only_.

§ 157. The defects noticed in the preceding sections are _absolute_ defects, and would exist, as they do at present, were there no language in the world except the English. This is not the case with those that are now about to be noticed; for them, indeed, the word _defect_ is somewhat too strong a term. They may more properly be termed inconveniences.

Compared with the languages of the rest of the world the use of many letters in the English alphabet is _singular_. The letter i (when long or independent) is, with the exception of England, generally sounded as ee. With Englishmen it has a diphthongal power. The inconvenience of this is the necessity that it imposes upon us, in studying foreign languages, of unlearning the sound which we give it in our own, and of learning the sound which it bears in the language studied. So it is (amongst many others) with the letter j. In English this has the sound of _dzh_, in French of zh, and in German of y. From singularity in the use of letters arises inconvenience in the study of foreign tongues.

In using j as dzh there is a second objection. It is not only inconvenient, but it is theoretically incorrect. The letter j was originally a modification of the vowel i. The Germans, who used it as the semivowel y, have perverted it from its original power less than the English have done, who sound it dzh.

With these views we may appreciate in the English alphabet and orthography--

_Its convenience or inconvenience in respect to learning foreign tongues._--The sound given to the a in _fate_ is singular. Other nations sound it as a in _father_.

The sound given to the e, long (or independent), is singular. Other nations sound it either as a in _fate_, or as _é fermé_.

The sound given to the i in _bite_ is singular. Other nations sound it as ee in _feet_.

The sound given to the oo in _fool_ is singular. Other nations sound it as the o in _note_, or as the _ó chiuso_.

The sound given to the u in _duck_ is singular. Other nations sound it as the u in _bull_.

The sound given to the ou in _house_ is singular. Other nations, more correctly, represent it by au or aw.

The sound given to the w in _wet_ is somewhat singular, but is also correct and convenient. With many nations it is not found at all, whilst with those where it occurs it has the sound (there or thereabouts) of v.

The sound given to y is somewhat singular. In Danish it has a vowel power. In German the semivowel sound is spelt with j.

The sound given to z is not the sound which it has in German and Italian, but its power in English is convenient and correct.

The sound given to ch in _chest_ is singular. In other languages it has generally a guttural sound; in French that of sh. The English usage is more correct than the French, but less correct than the German.

The sound given to j (as said before) is singular.

§ 158. _The historical propriety or impropriety of certain letters._--The use of i with a diphthongal power is not only singular and inconvenient, but also _historically incorrect_. The Greek _iota_, from whence it originates, has the sound of i and ee, as in _pit_ and _feet_.

The y, sounded as in _yet_, is historically incorrect. It grew out of the Greek [upsilon], a vowel, and no semivowel. The Danes still use it as such, that is, with the power of the German ü.

The use of j for dzh is historically incorrect.

The use of c for k in words derived from the Greek as _mechanical_, _ascetic_, &c., is historically incorrect. The form c is the representative of [gamma] and [sigma] and not of the Greek _kappa_.

§ 159. _On certain conventional modes of spelling._--In the Greek language the sounds of o in _not_ and of o in _note_ (although allied) are expressed by the unlike signs (or letters) [omicron] and [omega], respectively. In most other languages the difference between the sounds is considered too slight to require for its expression signs so distinct and dissimilar. In some languages the difference is neglected altogether. In many, however, it is expressed, and that by some modification of the original letter.

Let the sign (-) denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or independent, whilst the sign (U) indicates shortness, or dependence. In such a case, instead of writing _not_ and _n[omega]t_, like the Greeks, we may write _n[)o]t_ and _n[=o]t_, the sign serving for a fresh letter. Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the natural use of (-) and (U) is to express length or shortness, dependence or independence. Now, supposing the broad sound of o to be already represented, it is very evident that, of the other two sounds of o, the one must be long (independent), and the other short (dependent); and as it is only necessary to express one of these conditions, we may, if we choose, use the sign (-) alone; its presence denoting length, and its absence shortness (independence or dependence).

As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of (-) we may, if we chose, substitute such a mark as (') and write _nót_ = _n[=o]t_ = _n[omega]t_ = _n[=o]te_; provided only that the sign (') expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark ('), as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long (independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (') natural? For a reason that the reader has anticipated, it is not natural, but conventional. Neither is it convenient. It is used elsewhere not as the sign of _quantity_, but as the sign of _accent_; consequently, being placed over a letter, and being interpreted according to its natural meaning, it gives the idea, not that the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or accented. Its use as a sign of quantity then, would be an orthographical expedient, or an inconvenient conventional mode of spelling.

The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the modes of expressing the quantity of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin with these:--

The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllable (as in _feet_, _cool_), is an orthographical expedient. It merely means that the syllable is long (or independent).

The juxtaposition of two different vowels, where there is but one syllable (as in _plain_, _moan_), is an orthographical expedient. It generally means the same as the reduplication of a vowel, i.e., that the syllable is long (independent).

The addition of the e mute, as in _plane_, _whale_ (whatever may have been its origin), is, at present, but an orthographical expedient. It denotes the lengthening of the syllable.

The reduplication of the consonant after a vowel, as in _spotted_, _torrent_, is in most cases but an orthographical expedient. It merely denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent).

The use of ph for f in _Philip_, is an orthographical expedient, founded upon etymological reasons.

The use of th for the simple sound of the first consonant in _thin_ and _thine_, is an orthographical expedient. The combination must be dealt with as a single letter.

_Caution._--The letters x and q are not orthographical expedients. They are orthographical _compendiums_, x = ks, and q = kw.

* * * * *