CHAPTER IX.

Chapter 1017,145 wordsPublic domain

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOGRAPHY.

s. 247. Orthoepy determines the correct pronunciation of 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_. The term is derived from the Greek words _orthos_ (_upright_), and _graph['e]_, or _grafae_ (_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.

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.

s. 248. First, in respect to a full and perfect 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.

An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a {179} 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 [phi], &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 vers[^a]_. 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_. {180}

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.

s. 249. _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 nowise 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:--

1. _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_.

2. _The aim at secondary objects._--The natural aim of orthography, of spelling, or of writing (for the three terms mean the same thing), 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 {181} 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.

3. _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.

s. 250. _Difference between the change of a sound and the original false expression of a sound._--The letter _u_ is a simple single sign. The sound of _ow_, in _town_, is a diphthongal, or a double, sound. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, the modern word _town_ is spelt _t['u]n_. In this case one of two things must have taken place: either the word must have changed its sound, or the Anglo-Saxons must have expressed it falsely and improperly.

s. 251. 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. {182}

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.

s. 252. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate sounds of the language. The enumeration of these is, strictly speaking, a point, not of orthography, but of orthoepy. It is, however, so intimately connected with the former that the present chapter seems its proper place. The vowels belonging to the English language are the _twelve_ following:--

For the relations of these see Chapter II.

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_ -- _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_. {183} 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_.

Some writers would add to these the additional sound of the _['e] ferm['e]_ 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 _['e] ferm['e]_, or _close ['e]_, 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_."

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.

Now, although every sound specifically distinct should be expressed by a distinct sign, it does not follow that mere modifications or varieties (especially if they be within certain limits) should be so expressed. In the Greek language sounds as like as the _o_ in _not_ and the _o_ in _note_ are expressed by signs as unlike as [omicron] and [omega]; that is, by the letters _omicron_ and _omega_ respectively; and so it is with [epsilon] and [eta]. All that can be said in this case is, that it is the character of the Greek alphabet to represent a difference which the English neglects.

With respect to the diphthongs it is incorrect, uncommon, and inconvenient to represent them by simple single signs, rather than by combinations. In the English language the sounds {184} of _ou_, _ew_, and _oi_, are properly spelt with two letters. Not so, however, of _i_ in _bite_.

The compound sibilants may also be expressed not by single signs, but by the combinations _tsh_ and _dzh_; although, for certain reasons, such a mode of spelling is inconvenient. With these views we may appreciate,

I. _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.

II. _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 signs 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_.

III. _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 {185} 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_.

IV. _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 _ae_ and _oe_, as in _Aeneas_ and _Croesus_, except in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.

V. _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 the _c_, _ae_, and _oe_ are retained in the alphabet for etymological purposes only.

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 {186} 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, of the English alphabet and orthography,

I). _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 _['e] ferm['e]_.

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 _['o] 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 {187} _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.

II.) _The historical propriety 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 _ue_.

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_.

In remodelling alphabets the question of historical propriety should be recognized. Other reasons for the use of a particular letter in a particular sense being equal, the historical propriety should decide the question. The above examples are illustrative, not exhaustive.

s. 253. _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_ {188} 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 choose, substitute such a mark as (') (and write _n['o]t_=_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 ('), _viz._ 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. 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 is an orthographical expedient, or a conventional mode of spelling.

The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the mode 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 juxta-position 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). {189}

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.

_X_, however, and _q_ are not orthographical expedients. They are orthographical compendiums.

The above instances have been adduced as illustrations only. Further details will be found hereafter. For many of them we can give a reason (for instance, for the reduplication of a consonant to express the shortness of the preceding vowel), and of many of them we can give an historical account (see Chapter X.).

s. 254. The mischief of orthographical expedients is this:--When a sign, or letter, is used in a _conventional_, it precludes us from using it (at least without further explanation) in its _natural_ sense: _e.g._, the double _o_ in _mood_ constitutes but one syllable. If in a foreign language we had, immediately succeeding each other, first the syllable _mo_, and next the syllable _od_, we should have to spell it _mo-od_, or _moeod_ or _mo-[o-hook]d_, &c. Again, it is only by our knowledge of the language that the _th_ in _nuthook_, is not pronounced like the _th_ in _burthen_. In the languages of India the true sound of _t_ + _h_ is common. This, however, we cannot spell naturally because the combination _th_ conveys to us another notion. Hence such combinations as _thh_, or _t`_, &c., in writing Hindoo words.

A second mischief of orthographical conventionalities, is the wrong notions that they engender, the eye misleading the ear. That _th_ is really _t_ + _h_, no one would have believed had it not been for the spelling.

s. 255. The present section is the partial application of the preceding observations. It is a running commentary upon the orthographical part of Dr. Johnson's Grammar. Presuming a knowledge of the detail of the English orthography, it attempts an explanation of some of its leading characters. Many of these it possesses in common with other tongues. Several are peculiar to itself. {190}

"_A_, sounded as _aw_, or as a modification of _o_."--_A_, as in _father_, and _o_, as in _note_ (as may be seen in p. 150), form the extremities of the vowel system. Notwithstanding this, the two sounds often interchange. The orthographical systems of most languages bear witness to this. In French the _au_ in _autel_ has the sound of _o_; in Danish _aa_=_o_ (_baade_ being pronounced _bohde_); in Swedish _[oa]_ has the same power. In Old English the forms _hond_, _strond_, &c., occur, instead of _hand_, strand, &c. In Anglo-Saxon, br['a]d, st['a]n, &c., correspond to the English forms _broad_, _stone_. I am not able to say whether _a_ changes oftenest to _o_, or _o_ to a. The form _hond_ is older than the form _hand_. In the word _salt_, however, the _a_ was pronounced as the _a_ in _fat_ before it was pronounced (as at present) like the _o_ in _not_. If this were not the case it would never have been spelt with an a. In the words _launch_ and _haunch_, by some called _lanch_, _hanch_, and by others _lawnch_, _hawnch_, we find a present tendency to interchange these sounds.

The change from _a_ to _o_ takes place most especially before the liquid _l_, _wall_, _call_, _fall_. When the liquid _l_ is followed by another consonant, it (_viz._ _l_) is generally sunk in pronunciation, _falcon_, _salmon_, &c., pronounced _faucon_, _sammon_, or _saumon_. The reason of this lies in the following fact, _viz._, _that syllables wherein there are, at the same time, two final consonants and a long vowel, have a tendency to become shortened by one of two processes, viz., either by ejecting one of the consonants, or by shortening the vowel_. That the _l_ in _falcon_ is affected not by the change of _a_ to _o_, but by the change of a short vowel to a long, or of a slender one to a broad one, is shown in the tendency which the common people have to say _hode_ for _hold_, as well as by the Scotch form _gowd_ for _gold_. This fact bears upon the difficult problem in the Greek (and in other languages), _viz._, whether the _lengthening_ of the vowel in words like _[Greek: odous]_ (compared with _[Greek: odontos]_), is the cause or the effect of the rejection of the consonant.

"_E_ is long, as in _scene_; or short, as in _cellar_."'--_Johnson._ It has been stated before that the (so-called) long sound of _e_ is non-existent, and the _e_ in _scene_, is the (so-called) long sound of the _i_ in _pit_. {191}

For the power of _e_ in _since_ and _once_, see the remarks on _s_.

For the power of _e_ in _hedge_ and _oblige_, see the remarks on _g_.

The power of _e_ mute in words like _cane_, _bane_, _tune_, _robe_, _pope_, _fire_, _cure_, _tube_, has already been noticed. It serves to denote the length of the preceding vowel. For this purpose it is retained; but it was not for this purpose that it was invented. Originally it expressed a sound, and it is only by a change of language that it has come, as it were by accident, to be an orthographical expedient.

Let a word consist of two syllables. Let the latter end in a vowel. Let there be between the vowel of the first and the vowel of the second syllable, one consonant and no more, _e. g._, _namae_. Let the consonant belong to the root of the word; and let the first syllable of the word be the essential and the radical part of it. Let this same syllable (as the essential and radical part of it) have an accent. The chances are that, under such circumstances, the vowel of the first syllable will be long (independent), just as the chances are that a vowel followed by two consonants will be short. Let a change in language affect the _final_ vowel, so that a word which was originally pronounced _nama_, should become, first, _name_, and afterwards _n[=a]m_, _naim_, or _naem_; the vowel being sounded as the _a_ in _fate_. Let the final _e_, although lost in pronunciation, be retained in the spelling. The chances are that, the above conditions being given, such an _e_ (final and mute) shall, whenever it occurs, occur at the end of a long syllable. The next process is for a succeeding generation to mistake a coincidence for a sign, and to imagine that an _e_ mute expresses the length of syllable.

I consider this to be the key to the use of the _e_ mute in all words where it is preceded by one consonant only.

From the circumstance that the French and the English are the only nations wherein the _e_ mute is part and parcel of the orthography, it has been hastily imagined that the employment of it is to be attributed to the Norman Conquest. The truth, however, is, that we find it equally in words of Saxon and of Norman origin.

The fact that, in certain words, an _e_ mute is preceded by {192} two consonants and by a short vowel, does not militate against the view given above.

"_I_ has a sound, long, as in _fine_, and short, as in _fin_. That is eminently observable in _i_, which may be likewise remarked in other letters, that the short sound is not the long sound contracted, but a sound wholly different."--_Johnson._ This extract has been made in order to add the authority of Johnson to the statement so often repeated already; _viz._, that the _i_ in _bite_ is not the long sound of the _i_ in _bit_.

For the sound of _u_ in _guest_, _prorogue_, _guard_, see the remarks on _g_.

As a vowel, _y_ is wholly superfluous. It is a current remark that more words end in _y_ (_fortify_, _pretty_) than in any other letter. This is true only in respect to their spelling. As a matter of _speech_, the _y_ final has always the sound either of the _ee_ in _feet_, or of the _i_ in _bite_. Such is the case with the words _fortify_ and _pretty_, quoted above. For some reason or other, the vowel _e_ is never, in English, written at the end of words, unless when it is mute; whilst _i_ is never written at all. Instead of _cri_, we write _cry_, &c. This is a peculiarity of our orthography, for which I have no satisfactory reason. It _may_ be, that with words ending in _e_, _y_ is written for the sake of showing that the vowel is not mute, but sounded. Again, the adjectives ending in _y_ as _any_, and the adverbs in _ly_, as _manly_, in the older stages of our language ended, not in _y_, but in _ig_ (_manlig_, _aenig_); so that the present _y_, in such words, may be less the equivalent of _i_ than the compendium of _ig_. I venture this indication with no particular confidence.

The _b_ in _debtor_, _subtile_, _doubt_, agrees with the _b_ in _lamb_, _limb_, _dumb_, _thumb_, _womb_, in being mute. It differs, however, in another respect. The words _debtor_, _subtle_, _doubt_, are of classical, the words _lamb_, _limb_, _dumb_, &c., are of Saxon, origin. In _debtor_, &c., the _b_ was, undoubtedly, at one time, pronounced, since it belonged to a different syllable; _debitor_, _subtilis_, _dubito_, being the original forms. I am far from being certain that with the other words, _lamb_, &c., this was the case. With them the _b_ belonged (if it belonged to the word at all) to the same syllable as the _m_. I think, {193} however, that instead of this being the case, the _b_, in _speech_, never made a part of the word at all; that it belongs now, and that it always belonged, to the _written_ language only; and that it was inserted in the spelling upon what may be called the principle of imitation. For a further illustration of this, see the remarks on the word _could_.

"_Ch_ has a sound which is analysed into _tsh_, as _church_, _chin_, _crutch_. _C_ might be omitted in the language without loss, since one of its sounds might be supplied by _s_, and the other by _k_, but that it preserves to the eye the etymology of words, as _face_ from _facies_, _captive_ from _captivus_"--_Johnson._

Before _a_, _o_, _u_ (that is, before a full vowel), _c_ is sounded as _k_; before _e_, _i_, and _y_ (that is, before a small vowel), it has the power of _s_. This change of sound according to the nature of the vowel following, is so far from being the peculiarity of the English, that it is common in all languages; except that sometimes _c_, instead of becoming _s_, becomes _ts_, _tsh_, _ksh_, in other words, some other sibilant; _but always a sibilant_. A reference to p. 153 will explain this change. At a certain time, _k_ (written _c_, as is the case in Latin) becomes changed by the vowel following into _ksh_, and from thence into _s_, _ts_, or _tsh_. That the syllables _cit_, _cyt_, _cet_, were at one time pronounced _kit_, _kyt_, _ket_, we believe: 1. from the circumstance that if it were not so, they would have been spelt with an _s_; 2. from the comparison of the Greek and Latin languages, where the words _cete_, _circus_, _cystis_, Latin, are [Greek: kete, kirkos], [Greek: kustis], Greek.

In the words _mechanical_, _choler_, &c., derived from the Greek, it must not be imagined that the _c_ represents the Greek _kappa_ or [kappa]. The combination _c_ + _h_ is to be dealt with as a single letter. Thus it was that the Romans, who had in their language neither the sound of [chi], nor the sign [kappa], rendered the Greek _chi_ ([chi]), just as by _th_ they rendered [theta], and by _ph_, [phi].

The faulty representation of the Greek [chi] has given rise to a faulty representation of the Greek [kappa], as in _ascetic_, from [Greek: asketikos].

"_C_, according to the English orthography, never ends a {194} word; therefore we write _stick_, _block_, which were originally _sticke_, _blocke_. In such words _c_ is now mute."--_Johnson._ Just as there was a prejudice against _i_ or _e_ ending a word there seems to have been one in the case of c. In the word _Frederick_ there are three modes of spelling: 1. Frederic; 2. Frederik; 3. Frederick. Of these three it is the last only that seems, to an Englishman, natural. The form Frederic seems exceptionable, because the last letter is _c_, whilst Frederik is objected to because _k_ comes in immediate contact with the short vowel.

Now the reason against _c_ ending a word seems this. From what has been remarked above, _c_ seems, in and of itself, to have no power at all. Whether it shall be sounded as _k_ or as _s_ seems undetermined, except by the nature of the vowel following. If the vowel following be small, _c_=_s_, if full, _c_=_k_. But _c_ followed by nothing is equivocal and ambiguous. Now _c_ final is _c_ followed by nothing; and therefore _c_ equivocal, ambiguous, indefinite, undetermined. This is the reason why _c_ is never final. Let there be such words as _sticke_ and _blocke_. Let the _k_ be taken away. The words remain _stice_, _bloce_. The _k_ being taken away, there is a danger of calling them _stise_, _blose_.

A verbal exception being taken, the statement of Dr. Johnson, that in words like _stick_ and _block_ the _c_ is mute, is objectionable. The mute letter is not so much the _c_ as the _k_.

"_G_ at the end of a word is always hard, as _ring_, _sing_."--_Johnson._ A verbal exception may be taken here. _Ng_, is not a combination of the sounds of _n_+_g_, but the representation of a simple single sound; so that, as in the case of _th_ and _sh_, the two letters must be dealt with as a single one.

"_G_ before _n_ is mute, as _gnash_, _sign_, _foreign_."--_Johnson._ The three words quoted above are not in the same predicament. In words like _gnash_ the _g_ has been silently dropped on the score of euphony (see remarks on _k_); in _sign_ and _foreign_ the _g_ has not been dropped, but changed. It has taken the allied sound of the semivowel _y_, and so, with the preceding vowel, constitutes a diphthong. {195}

Before _a_, _o_, _u_ (full vowels), _g_ has the sound, as in _gay_, _go_, _gun_: before _e_, _i_, _y_, that of _gem_, _giant_.

At the end of a word (that is, followed by nothing at all), or followed by a consonant, it has the same sound that it has before _a_, _o_, _u_--_agog_, _grand_. This shows that such is its natural sound. In _hedge_ and _oblige_ the _e_ mute serves to show that the _g_ is to be pronounced as _j_.

Let there be the word _r[)o]g_. Let the vowel be lengthened. Let this lengthening be expressed by the addition of _e_ mute, _roge_. There is now a risk of the word being called _roje_. This is avoided by inserting _u_, as in _prorogue_. Why, however, is it that the _u_ runs no chance of being pronounced, and the word of being sounded _prorogw['e]_? The reason for this lies in three facts. 1. The affinities between the sounds of _ga_ and _ka_. 2. The fact that _qu_ is merely _kw_. 3. The fact that in _qu_, followed by another vowel, as in _quoit_ (pronounced _koyt_), _antique_, &c., the _u_ is altogether omitted in pronunciation. In other words, the analogy of _qu_ is extended to _gu_.

For the varied sounds of _gh_ in _plough_, _tough_, _enough_ (_enow_), _through_, we must remember that the original sound of _gh_ was a hard guttural, as is at present the case in Scotland, and between _g_, _h_, _f_, _v_, _w_, there are frequent interchanges.

"_H_ is a note of aspiration."--It is under the notion that _th_, _ph_, _sh_, as in _thin_, _thine_, _Philip_, _shine_, are aspirated sounds, that _h_ is admitted in the spelling. As has been repeatedly stated, _th_, _ph_, _sh_ are to be treated as single signs or letters.

"_J_, consonant, sounds uniformly like the soft _g_ (_i.e._, as in _gem_), and is, therefore, a letter useless, except in etymology, as _ejaculation_, _jester_, _jocund_, _juice_."--_Johnson._ It may be added that it never occurs in words of Saxon origin, and that in the single word _Allelujah_ it has the sound of _y_, as in the German.

_K_ never comes before _a_, _o_, _u_, or before a consonant. It is used before _e_, _i_, _y_, where _c_ would, according to the English analogy, be liable to be sounded as _s_; as in _kept_, _king_, _skirt_. These words, if written _cept_, _cing_, _scirt_, would run the risk of being sounded _sept_, _sing_, _sirt_. Broadly speaking, _k_ is never {196} used except where _c_ would be inconvenient. The reason of this lies in the fact of there being no such letter as _k_ in the Latin language. Hence arose in the eyes of the etymologist the propriety of retaining, in all words derived from the Latin (_crown_, _concave_, _concupiscence_, &c.), the letter _c_, to the exclusion of _k_. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, being taken from the Roman, excluded _k_, so that _c_ was written even before the small vowels, _a_, _e_, _i_, _y_; as _cyning_, or _cining_, _a king_. _C_ then supplants _k_ upon etymological grounds only. In the languages derived from the Latin this dislike to the use of _k_ leads to several orthographical inconveniences. As the tendency of _c_, before _e_, _i_, _y_, to be sounded as _s_ (or as a sound allied to _s_), is the same in those languages as in others; and as in those languages, as in others, there frequently occur such sounds as _kit_, _ket_, _kin_, &c., a difficulty arises as to the spelling. If spelt _cit_, _cet_, &c., there is the risk of their being sounded _sit_, _set_. To remedy this, an _h_ is interposed--_chit_, _chet_, &c. This, however, only substitutes one difficulty for another, since _ch_ is, in all probability, already used with a different sound, _e.g._, that of _sh_, as in French, or that of _k_ guttural, as in German. The Spanish orthography is thus hampered. Unwilling to spell the word _chimera_ (pronounced _kimera_) with a _k_; unable to spell it with either _c_ or _ch_, it writes the word _quimaera_. This distaste for _k_ is an orthographical prejudice. Even in the way of etymology it is but partially advantageous, since in the other Gothic languages, where the alphabet is less rigidly Latin, the words that in English are spelt with a _c_, are there written with _k_,--_kam_, German; _komme_, Danish; _skrapa_, Swedish;=_came_, _come_, _scrape_.

The use of _k_ final, as in _stick_, &c., has been noticed in p. 194.

"_Skeptic_, for so it should be written, not _sceptic_."--_Johnson._ Quoted for the sake of adding authority to the statement made in p. 193, _viz._, that the Greek _kappa_ is to be represented not by _c_, but by _k_.

"_K_ is never doubled, but _c_ is used before it to shorten the vowel by a double consonant, as _c[)o]ckle_, _p[)i]ckle_."--_Johnson._ {197} This is referable to the statement that _k_ is never used where _c_ is admissible.

"_K_ is used before _n_, _knell_, _knot_, but totally loses its sound."--_Johnson._ This, however, is not the ease in the allied languages; in German and Danish, in words like _knecht_, _knive_, the _k_ is sounded. This teaches us that such was once the case in English. Hence we learn that in the words _knife_, _knight_ (and also in _gnaw_, _gnash_), we have an antiquated or obsolete orthography.

For the ejection of the sound of _l_ in _calf_, _salmon_, _falcon_, &c. see under a. For the _l_ in _could_, see that word.

"_N_ is sometimes mute after _m_, as _damn_, _condemn_, _hymn_."--_Johnson._ In all these words the _n_ originally belonged to a succeeding syllable, _dam-no_, _condem-no_, _hym-nus_.

_Q_, accurately speaking, is neither a letter, nor an abbreviation. It is always followed by _u_, as _queen_, _quilt_, and the two letters _qu_ must be looked upon as a single sign, equivalent to (but scarcely an abbreviation) of _kw_. _Q_ is not=_k_ alone. The combination _qu_, is never sounded _koo_. Neither is _kw_. If it were so, there would be in the word _queen_ (currently speaking) _three_ sounds of _u_, _viz._, two belonging to _q_ (=_kw_), and one belonging to _u_ itself. _W_ being considered as=2 _u_: _q_=_k_ + 1/2 _w_. This view of _q_ bears upon the theory of words like _prorogue_, &c.

The reader is referred to p. 152. There he is told that, when a word ends in a flat consonant, _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, the plural termination is not the sound of _s_, but that of _z_ (_stagz_, _dogz_); although _s_ be the letter _written_. Such also is the case with words ending in the vowels or the liquids (_peaz_, _beanz_, _hillz_, not _peace_, _beance_, _hillce_). This fact influences our orthography. The majority of words ending in _s_ are found to be plural numbers, or else (what is the same thing in respect to form) either genitive cases, or verbs of the third person singular; whilst in the majority of these the _s_ is sounded as _z_. Hence, the inference from analogy that _s_ single, at the end of words, is sounded as _z_. Now this fact hampers the orthography of those words wherein _s_ final retains its natural sound, as _since_, _once_, _mass_, _mace_; for let these be {198} written _sins_, _ons_, _mas_, the chances are that they will be pronounced _sinz_, _onz_, _maz_. To remedy this, the _s_ may be doubled, as in _mass_. This, however, can be done in a few cases only. It cannot be done conveniently where the vowel is long, the effect of a double consonant being to denote that the preceding vowel is short. Neither can it be done conveniently after a consonant, such combinations as _sinss_, &c., being unsightly. This throws the grammarian upon the use of _c_, which, as stated above, has, in certain situations, the power of _s_. To write, however, simply _sinc_, or _onc_, would induce the risk of the words being sounded _sink_, _onk_. To obviate this, _e_ is added, which has the double effect of not requiring to be sounded (being mute), and of showing that the _c_ has the sound of _s_ (being small).

"It is the peculiar quality of _s_ that it may be sounded before all consonants, except _x_ and _z_, in which _s_ is comprised, _x_ being only _ks_, and _z_ only a hard [flat] or gross _s_. This _s_ is therefore termed by grammarians _suae potestatis litera_, the reason of which the learned Dr. Clarke erroneously supposed to be, that in some words it might be doubled at pleasure."--_Johnson._ A reference to the current Greek Grammars will indicate another reason for [sigma] being called _suae potestatis litera_. It will there be seen that, whilst [pi], [beta], [phi]--[kappa], [gamma], [chi]--[tau], [delta], [theta]--are grouped together, as _tenues_, _mediae_, and _aspiratae_, and as _inter se cognatae_, [sigma] stands by itself; [zeta] its media (flat sound) being treated as a double letter, and _sh_, its so-called aspirate, being non-existent in the Greek language.

The sound of _ti_ before a vowel, as in _salvation_, is explained in p. 153.

"_Th_ has two sounds; the one soft [flat], as _thus_, _whether_; the other hard [sharp], as _thing_, _think_. The sound is soft [flat] in all words between two vowels, as _father_, _whether_; and between _r_ and a vowel, as _burthen_."--_Johnson._ The reason of the latter statement lies in the fact of both the vowels and _r_ being _flat_ (see p. 152), and so exerting a flattening influence upon the sounds in contact with them.

In the substantives _breath_ and _cloth_, the _th_ is sharp (_i.e._, as _th_ in _thin_); in the verbs _breathe_ and _clothe_, the _th_ is flat (_i.e._, {199} as _th_ in _thine_).--A great number of substantives may be made verbs by changing the sound of their final consonant. However, with the words _breathe_ and _clothe_, a second change has taken place, _viz._, the vowel has been lengthened. Now of these two changes, _viz._, the lengthening of the vowel, and the flattening of the consonant, which is the one represented by the _e_ mute, in _clothe_ and _breathe_, as compared with _cloth_ and _breath_? I imagine the former. Hence an exception is taken to the following statement of Dr. Johnson:--"When it (_th_) is softened [flattened] at the end of a word, an _e_ silent must be added, as _breath_, _breathe_, _cloth_, _clothe_."

The sounds of the _s_ in _sure_, of the _t_ in _picture_ (when pronounced _pictshure_), and of the _z_ in _azure_ and _glazier_, are explained in p. 153.

The present chapter is intended not to exhaust the list, but to illustrate the character of those orthographical expedients which insufficient alphabets, changes in language, and the influences of etymology engender both in the English and in other tongues.

* * * * *

{200}