CHAPTER X.

Chapter 1024,333 wordsPublic domain

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.

s. 256. The preceding chapter has exhibited the theory of a full and perfect alphabet; it has shown how far the English alphabet falls short of such a standard; and, above all, it has exhibited the various conventional modes of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives a _history_ of our alphabet, whereby many of its defects are _accounted for_. These defects, it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the rest of the world; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it possesses them in a higher degree than any.

With few, if any, exceptions, all the modes of writing in the world originate, directly or indirectly, from the Phoenician, Hebrew, or Semitic alphabet. This is easily accounted for when we call to mind,--1. The fact that the Greek, the Latin, and the Arabian alphabets, are all founded upon this; and, 2. The great influence of the nations speaking those three languages. The present sketch, however, is given only for the sake of accounting for defects.

s. 257. _Phoenician, Hebrew, or Semitic Period._--At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the neighbouring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters. For these see the Hebrew Grammars and the Phoenicia of Gesenius.

The chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only twenty-two letters will be insufficient. Now, in the particular case of the languages in point, the number of elementary sounds, as we infer from the present Arabic, was above the average. {201} It may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic alphabet was _insufficient_ for even the Semitic languages.

It was, moreover, _inconsistent_: since sounds as like as those of _teth_ and _tau_ (mere variations of each other) were expressed by signs as unlike as [Hebrew: T`] and [Hebrew: T]; whilst sounds as unlike as those of _beth_ with a point, and _beth_ without a point (_b_ and _v_), were expressed (if expressed at all) by signs as like as [Hebrew: B] and [Hebrew: B].

In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to another, and be found, at once, to coincide.

The Greeks had, in all probability, sounds which were wanting in Palestine and Phoenicia. In Palestine and Phoenicia it is certain that there were sounds wanting in Greece.

Of the twenty-two Phoenician letters the Greeks took but twenty-one. The eighteenth letter, _tsadi_, [Hebrew: TS], was never imported into Europe.

s. 258. _Greek Period._--Compared with the Semitic, the _Old_ Greek alphabet ran thus:--

Such the order and form of the Greek and Hebrew letters. Here it may be remarked, that, of each alphabet, it is only the modern forms that are compared; the likeness in the _shape_ of the letters may be seen by comparing them in their {202} older stages. Of these the exhibition, in a work like the present, is inconvenient. They may, however, be studied in the work already referred to in the _Phoenicia_ of Gesenius. The _names_ of the letters are as follows:--

s. 259. The Asiatic alphabet of Phoenicia and Palestine is now adapted to the European language of Greece. The first change took place in the manner of writing. The Orientals wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to right. Besides this, the following principles, applicable whenever the alphabet of one language is transferred to another, were recognised:--

1. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case, as seen above, with the eighteenth letter, _tsadi_.

2. Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8, 16, and probably with some others.

3. Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was the case with 6 and 19.

4. For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signs [phi], [chi], [upsilon], [omega].

5. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older {203} ones (as was the case with [Hebrew: P], [Hebrew: P], [Hebrew: B], [Hebrew: B], &c. in Hebrew), but new, distinct, and independent letters.

In all this there was an improvement. The faults of the newer Greek alphabet consisted in the admission of the compendium [psi]=_ps_, and the retention of the fifteenth letter (_samech_, _xi_), with the power of _ks_, it being also a compendium.

s. 260. _The Italian or old Latin period._--That it was either from the original Phoenician, or from the _old_ Greek, that the Italian alphabets were imported, we learn from the existence in them of the letters _f_ and _q_, corresponding respectively to the sixth and nineteenth letters; these having, in the second stage of the Greek alphabet, been ejected.

s. 261. The first alphabet imported into Italy was the Etruscan. In this the [beta], [delta], and [omicron] were ejected, their sounds (as it is stated) not being found in the Etruscan language. Be it observed, that the sounds both of [beta] and [delta] are _flat_. Just as in the Devonshire dialect the flat sounds (_z_, _v_, &c.) have the preponderance, so, in the Etruscan, does there seem to have been a preponderating quantity of the sharp sounds. This prepares us for a change, the effects whereof exist in almost all the alphabets of Europe. In Greek and Hebrew the third letter (_gimel_, _gamma_) had the power of the flat mute _g_, as in _gun_. In the Etruscan it had the power of _k_. In this use of the third letter the Romans followed the Etruscans: but, as they had also in their language the sound of _g_ (as in _gun_), they used, up to the Second Punic War, the third letter (_viz._ _c_), to denote both sounds. In the Duillian column we have MACESTRATOS, CARTHACINIENSES.[36] Afterwards, however, the separate sign (or letter) _g_ was invented, being originally a mere modification of c. The _place_ of _g_ in the alphabet is involved in the history of _z_.

s. 262. The Roman alphabet had a double origin. For the first two centuries after the foundation of the city the alphabet used was the Etruscan, derived directly from the Greek, and from the _old_ Greek. This accounts for the presence of _f_ and _q_.

{204}

Afterwards, however, the Romans modified their alphabet by the alphabet of the Italian Greeks; these Italian Greeks using the late Greek alphabet. This accounts for the presence of _v_, originating in the Greek _ypsilon_.

In accommodating the Greek alphabet to their own language, the Latins recognised the following principles:--

I. The ejection of such letters as were not wanted. Thus it was that the seventh letter (_zayn_, _zaeta_) was thrown out of the alphabet, and the new letter, _g_, put in its place. Subsequently, _z_ was restored for the sake of spelling Greek words, but was placed at the end of the alphabet. Thus also it was, that _thaeta_, _kappa_ (_c_ being equivalent to _k_), and the fifteenth letter, were ejected, while [psi] and [chi] were never admitted. In after-times the fifteenth letter (now _xi_) was restored, for the same reason that _z_ was restored, and, like _z_, was placed at the end of the alphabet.

II. The use of the imported letters with a new power. Hence the sixth letter took the sound, not of _v_ or _w_, but of _f_; and the eighth of _h_.

Beyond this the Romans made but slight alterations. In ejecting _kappa_, _thaeta_ and _chi_, they did mischief. The same in changing the power of c. The representation of [phi] by _ph_, and of [theta] by _th_ was highly erroneous. The retention of _x_ and _q_ was unnecessary. _V_ and _j_, two letters whereby the alphabet was really enriched, were mere modifications of _u_ and _i_ respectively. _Y_ also seems a modification of _v_.

Neither the Latin, Greek, nor Hebrew orthographies were much warped to etymological purposes.

It should be observed, that in the Latin the letters have no longer any names (like _beth_, _baeta_), except such as are derived from their powers (_be_, _ce_).

It may now be seen that with a language containing such sounds as the _th_ in _thin_ and _thine_, and the _ch_ in the German _auch_, it is to their advantage to derive their alphabet from the Greek; whilst, with a language containing such sounds as _h_ and _v_, it is to their advantage to derive it from the Latin.

It may also be seen, that, without due alterations and {205} additions, the alphabet of one country will not serve as the alphabet of another.

s. 263. _The Moeso-Gothic alphabet._--In the third century the classical alphabets were applied to a Gothic language. I use the word alphabets because the Moeso-Gothic letters borrowed from both the Latin and the Greek. Their form and order may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus and in Lye's Grammar. With the Greek they agree in the following particulars.

1. In the sound of the third letter being not that of [kappa] (_c_), but of the _g_ in _gun_.

2. In retaining _kappa_ and _chi_.

3. In expressing the simple single sound of _th_ by a simple single sign. This sign, however, has neither the shape nor alphabetical position of the Greek _thaeta_.

With the Latin they agree, 1. in possessing letters equivalent to _f_, _g_, _h_, _q_, _y_.

2. In placing _z_ at the end of the alphabet.

The Moeso-Gothic alphabet seems to have been formed on eclectic principles, and on principles sufficiently bold. Neither was its application traversed by etymological views. I cannot trace its influence, except, perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters _th_ and _[wynn]_, upon any other alphabet; nor does it seem to have been acted upon by any earlier Gothic alphabet.

s. 264. _The Anglo-Saxon alphabet._--What sort of an alphabet the Gothic languages possess we know: what sort of alphabet they require, we can determine. For the following sounds (amongst others) current in the Gothic, either one or both of the classical languages are deficient in corresponding signs.

1. The _th_ in _thin_.--A sign in Greek ([theta]), but none in Latin.

2. The _th_ in _thine_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.

3. The _ch_ in the German _auch_.--A sign in Greek ([chi]), but none in Latin.

4. The flat sound of the same, or the probable sound of the _h_ in _thurh_, _leoht_, _&c_., Anglo-Saxon.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin. {206}

5. The _sh_ in _shine_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.

6. The _z_ in _azure_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.

7. The _ch_ in _chest_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we suppose that at the time when the Anglo-Saxon alphabet was formed, the Latin _c_ in words like _civitas_ had the power, which it has in the present Italian, of _ch_.

8. The _j_ in _jest_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we admit the same supposition in respect to _g_, that has been indicated in respect to c.

9. The sound of the _kj_; in the Norwegian _kjenner_; _viz._, that (thereabouts) of _ksh_.--A sign neither in Latin nor Greek.

10. The English sound of _w_.--A sign neither in Latin nor Greek.

11. The sound of the German _ue_, Danish _y_.--No sign in Latin; probably one in Greek, _viz._, [upsilon].

12. Signs for distinguishing the long and short vowels, as [epsilon] and [eta], [omicron] and [omega].--Wanting in Latin, but existing in Greek.

In all these points the classical alphabets (one or both) were deficient. To make up for their insufficiency one of two things was necessary, either to coin new letters, or to use conventional combinations of the old.

In the Anglo-Saxon alphabet (derived from the Latin) we have the following features:--

1. _C_ used to the exclusion of _k_.

2. The absence of the letter _j_, either with the power of _y_, as in German, of _zh_, as in French, or of _dzh_, as in English.

3. The absence of _q_; a useful omission, _cw_ serving instead.

4. The absence of _v_; _u_, either single or double, being used instead.

5. The use of _y_ as a vowel, and of _e_ as _y_.

6. The absence of _z_.

7. Use of _uu_, as _w_, or _v_: Old Saxon.

8. The use, in certain conditions, of _f_ for _v_.

9. The presence of the simple single signs _th_ and _dh_, for the _th_ in _thin_, and the _th_ in _thine_.

Of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet we may safely say that it was _insufficient_. The points wherein the Latin alphabet was {207} improved in its adaptation to the Gothic tongues, are, 1. the admission of _th_ and _dh_; 2. the evolution of _w_ out of _u_. Upon this latter circumstance, and on _k_ and _z_, I make the following extract from the Latin Dedication of Otfrid's Krist:--"Hujus enim linguae barbaries, ut est inculta et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticae artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria _u u u_ ut puto quaerit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente," And, further, in respect to other orthographical difficulties:--"Interdum vero nec _a_, nec _e_, nec _i_, nec _u_, vocalium sonos praecanere potui, ibi _y_ Grecum mihi videbatur ascribi. Et etiam hoc elementum lingua haec horrescit interdum; nulli se characteri aliquotiens in quodam sono nisi difficile jungens. _K_ et _z_ saepius haec lingua extra usum Latinitatis utitur; quae grammatici inter litteras dicunt esse superfluas. Ob stridorem autem dentium interdum ut puto in hac lingua _z_ utuntur, _k_ autem propter faucium sonoritatem."

s. 265. _The Anglo-Norman Period._--Between the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Norman-French, there are certain points of difference. In the first place, the sound-system of the languages (like the French) derived from the Latin, bore a greater resemblance to that of the Romans, than was to be found amongst the Gothic tongues. Secondly, the alphabets of the languages in point were more exclusively Latin. In the present French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, there is an exclusion of the _k_. This is not the case with the Anglo-Norman. Like the Latins, the Anglo-Normans considered that the sound of the Greek [theta] was represented by _th_: not, however, having this sound in their language, there was no corresponding sign in their alphabet. The greatest mischief done by the Norman influence was the ejection from the English alphabet of _th_ and _dh_. In other respects the alphabet was improved. The letters _z_, _k_, _j_, were either imported or more currently recognised. The letter _y_ took a semi-vowel power, having been previously represented by _e_; {208} itself having the power of _i_. The mode of spelling the compound sibilant with _ch_ was evolved. My notions concerning this mode of spelling are as follows:--At a given period the sound of _ce_ in _ceaster_, originally that of _ke_, had become, first, that of _ksh_, and, secondly, that of _tsh_; still it was spelt _ce_, the _e_, in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons, having the power of _y_. In the eyes also of the Anglo-Saxons the compound sound of _ksh_, or _tsh_, would differ from that of _k_ by the addition of _y_: this, it may be said, was the Anglo-Saxon view of the matter. The Anglo-Norman view was different. Modified by the part that, in the combination _th_, was played by the aspirate _h_, it was conceived by the Anglo-Normans, that _ksh_, or _tsh_, differed from _k_, not by the addition of _y_ (expressed by _e_), but by that of _h_. Hence the combination _ch_ as sounded in _chest_. The same was the case with _sh_. This latter statement is a point in the history, not so much of an alphabet, as of an orthography.

The preceding sketch, as has been said more than once before, has been given with one view only, _viz._, that of accounting for defective modes of spelling. The history of almost all alphabets is the same. Originally either insufficient, erroneous, or inconsistent, they are transplanted from one language to a different, due alterations and additions rarely being made.

s. 266. The reduplication of the consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical languages: _terra_, [Greek: thalassa]. The following extract from the Ormulum (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have met with. The extract is from Thorpe's Analecta Anglo-Saxonica.

And whase wilenn shall this boc, Efft otherr sithe writenn, Himm bidde iec thatt hett write rihht, Swa sum thiss boc himm taechethth; All thwerrt utt affterr thatt itt iss Oppo thiss firrste bisne, Withth all swilc rime als her iss sett, Withth alse fele wordess:

{209} And tatt he loke wel thatt he _An boc-staff write twiggess_,[37] Eggwhaer thaer itt uppo thiss boc Iss writenn o thatt wise: Loke he well thatt hett write swa, Forr he ne magg noht elless, On Englissh writenn rihht te word, Thatt wite he wel to sothe.

Concerning the various other orthographical expedients, such as the reduplication of the vowel to express its length (_mood_), &c., I can give no satisfactory detailed history. The influence of the Anglo-Norman, a language derived from the Latin, established, in its fullest force, the recognition of the etymological principle.

s. 267. "I cannot trace the influence of the Moeso-Gothic alphabet, except, perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters _th_ and _[wynn]_, upon any other alphabet; _nor does it seem to have been itself acted upon by any earlier Gothic alphabet_." (See p. 205.) The reason for the remark in Italics was as follows: In the Icelandic language the word _run_ signifies a _letter_, and the word _runa_ a _furrow_, or _line_. It has also some secondary meanings, which it is unnecessary to give in detail. Upon a vast number of inscriptions, some upon rocks, some upon stones of a defined shape, we find an alphabet different (at least, apparently so) from that of the Greeks, Latins, and Hebrews, and also unlike that of any modern nation. In this alphabet there is a marked deficiency of curved or rounded lines, and an exclusive preponderance of straight ones. As it was engraved rather than written, this is what we naturally expect. These letters are called Runes, and the alphabet which they constitute is called the Runic alphabet. Sometimes, by an extension of meaning, the Old Norse language, wherein they most frequently occur, is called the Runic language. This is as incorrect as to call a language an alphabetic language. To say, however, the Runic stage of a language is neither inaccurate nor inconvenient. The Runic alphabet, whether borrowed or invented by the early Goths, is of greater antiquity {210} than either the oldest Teutonic or the Moeso-Gothic alphabets. The forms, names, and order of the letters may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus, in Olai Wormii Literatura Runica, in Rask's Icelandic Grammar, and in W. Grimm's Deutsche Runer.

The original number of the Runic letters is sixteen; expressing the sounds of _f_, _u_, _th_, _o_, _r_, _k_, _h_, _n_, _a_, _i_, _s_, _t_, _b_, _l_, _m_, _y_. To these are added four spurious Runes, denoting _c_, _x_, _ae_, _oe_, and eight pointed Runes after the fashion of the pointed letters in Hebrew. In all this we see the influence of the imported alphabet upon the original Runes, rather than that of the original Runes upon the imported alphabet. It should, however, be remarked, that in the Runic alphabet the sound of _th_ in _thin_ is expressed by a simple sign, and that by a sign not unlike the Anglo-Saxon th.

s. 268. _The Order of the Alphabet._--In the history of our alphabet, we have had the history of the changes in the arrangement, as well as of the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question now presents itself: _viz._, Is there in the order of the letters any _natural_ arrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession of letters arbitrary and accidental? In the year 1835 I conceived, that in the order of the Hebrew alphabet I had discovered a very artificial arrangement. I also imagined that this artificial arrangement had been detected by no one besides myself. Two years afterwards a friend[38] stated to me that he had made a similar observation, and in 1839 appeared, in Mr. Donaldson's New Cratylus, the quotation with which the present section will be concluded. The three views in the main coincide; and, as each has been formed independently (Mr. Donaldson's being the first recorded), they give the satisfactory result of three separate investigations coinciding in a theory essentially the same. The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:--

_Name._ _Sound._

1. _Aleph_ Either a vowel or a breathing. 2. _Beth_ B. 3. _Gimel_ G. as in _gun_. {211} 4. _Daleth_ D. 5. _He_ Either a vowel or an aspirate. 6. _Vaw_ V. 7. _Zayn_ Z. 8. _Kheth_ a variety of K. 9. _Teth_ a variety of T. 10. _Yod_ I. 11. _Caph_ K. 12. _Lamed_ L. 13. _Mem_ M. 14. _Nun_ N. 15. _Samech_ a variety of S. 16. _Ayn_ Either a vowel or--? 17. _Pe_ P. 18. _Tsadi_ TS. 19. _Koph_ a variety of K. 20. _Resh_ R. 21. _Sin_ S. 22. _Tau_ T.

Let _beth_, _vaw_, and _pe_ (_b_, _v_, _p_) constitute a series called series P. Let _gimel_, _kheth_, and _koph_ (_g_, _kh_, _k`_) constitute a series called series K. Let _daleth_, _teth_, and _tau_ (_d_, _t`_, _t_) constitute a series called series T. Let _aleph_, _he_, and _ayn_ constitute a series called the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order.

1. _Aleph_ of the vowel series. 2. _Beth_ of series P. 3. _Gimel_ of series K. 4. _Daleth_ of series T.

Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel series; that of series K follows; and, in the last place, comes the letter of series D. After this the order changes: _daleth_ being followed by _he_ of the vowel series.

5. _He_ of the vowel series. 6. _Vaw_ of series P. 7. _Zayn_ ---- 8. _Kheth_ of series K. 9. _Teth_ of series T.

In this second sequence the _relative_ positions of _v_, _kh_, and _t`_ are the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series. The sequence itself is broken by the letter _zayn_, but it is remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel, and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but fragmentary. Still, even now, _pe_, of series P, follows _ayn_; _tau_, of {212} series D, is farthest from it; and _koph_, of series K, is intermediate. I am satisfied that we have in the Hebrew alphabet, and in all alphabets derived from it (consequently in the English), if not a system, the rudiments of a system, and that the system is of the sort indicated above; in other words, that the order of the alphabet is a _circulating order_.

In Mr. Donaldson's hands this view is not only a fact, but an instrument of criticism:--"The fact is, in our opinion, the original Semitic alphabet contained only sixteen letters. This appears from the organic arrangement of their characters. The remaining sixteen letters appear in the following order:--_aleph_, _beth_, _gimel_, _daleth_, _he_, _vaw_, _kheth_, _teth_, _lamed_, _mem_, _nun_, _samech_, _ayn_, _pe_, _koph_, _tau_. If we examine this order more minutely, we shall see that it is not arbitrary or accidental, but strictly organic, according to the Semitic articulation. We have four classes, each consisting of four letters: the first and second classes consist each of three mutes, preceded by a breathing; the third of the three liquids and the sibilant, which, perhaps, closed the oldest alphabet of all; and the fourth contains the three supernumerary mutes, preceded by a breathing. We place the characters first vertically:--

Aleph [Alef] First breathing Beth [Bet] B } Gimel [Gimel] G } _Media._ Daleth [Dalet] D } He [He] Second breathing. Vaw [Vav] Bh } Kheth [Khet] Gh } _Aspirate._ Teth [Tet] Dh } Lamed [Lamed] L } Mem [Mem] M } _Liquids._ Nun [Nun] N } Samech [Samekh] S _The Sibilant_. Ayn [Ayin] Third breathing. Pe [Pe] P } Koph [Kuf] K } _Tenues._ Tau [Tav] T }

In the horizontal arrangement we shall, for the sake of greater simplicity, omit the liquids and the sibilant, and then we have {213}

_Breathings._ _Labials._ _Palatals._ _Linguals._

[Alef] [Bet] [Gimel] [Dalet] [He] [Vav] [Khet] [Tet] [Ayin] [Pe] [Kuf] [Tav]

In this we see, that, while the horizontal lines give us the arrangement of the mutes according to the breathings, the vertical columns exhibit them arranged according to the organ by which they are produced. Such a classification is obviously artificial."

s. 269. _Parallel and equivalent orthographies._--Let there be in two given languages the sound of _k_, as in _kin_. Let each of these languages represent it by the same letter, _k_. In this case, the two orthographies are identical. Let, however, one nation represent it by _k_, and another by c. In this case the orthographies are not identical, but parallel. The same is the case with combinations. Let one nation (say the Anglo-Saxon) represent the sound of _y_ (in _ye_) by _e_, whilst another nation (the Norse) represents it by _j_. What the Anglo-Saxon spells _ceaster_, the Northman spells _kjaster_; and what the Northman spells _kjaere_, the Anglo-Saxon spells _ceaere_. Let the sound of this _ce_ and _kj_ undergo a change, and become _ksh_; _kjaere_ and _ceaere_, being pronounced _kshaere_. The view of the Northman and Anglo-Saxon will be the same; each will consider that the compound sound differs from the simple one by the addition of the sound of _y_; that sound being expressed in one nation by _e_, and in the other by _j_. In this case the two expressions of the compound sound are parallel, its elements being considered the same, although the signs by which those elements are expressed are different.

Let, however, a different view of the compound sound be taken. Let it be thought that the sound of _ksh_ differs from that of _k_, not by the addition of the sound of _y_, but by that of _h_; and so let it be spelt _kh_ or _ch_. In this case the orthographies _kh_ and _kj_ (or _ce_) are not parallel, but equivalent. They express the same sound, but they do not denote the same elements. The same sound is, very possibly, expressed by the Anglo-Saxon _ce_, the Norwegian _kj_, and the English _ch_. In this case _ce_ and _kj_ are parallel, _ce_ and _ch_ equivalent, orthographies.

* * * * *

{214}