CHAPTER III.

OF CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.

s. 215. Certain combinations of articulate sounds are incapable of being pronounced. The following rule is one that, in the forthcoming pages, will frequently be referred to. _Two (or more) _mutes_, of different degrees of sharpness and flatness, are incapable of coming together in the same syllable._ For instance, _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, _z_, &c. being flat, and _p_, _f_, _t_, _k_, _s_, &c. being sharp, such combinations as _abt_, _avt_, _apd_, _afd_, _agt_, _akd_, _atz_, _ads_, &c., are unpronounceable. _Spelt_, indeed, they may be; but attempts at pronunciation end in a _change_ of the combination. In this case either the flat letter is changed to its sharp equivalent (_b_ to _p_, _d_ to _t_, &c.) or _vice vers[^a]_ (_p_ to _b_, _t_ to _d_). The combinations _abt_, and _agt_, to be pronounced, must become either _apt_ or _abd_, or else _akt_ or _agd_.

For determining which of the two letters shall be changed, in other words, whether it shall be the first that accommodates itself to the second, or the second that accommodates itself to the first, there are no general rules. This is settled by the particular habit of the language in consideration.

The word _mutes_ in the second sentence of this section must be dwelt on. It is only with the _mutes_ that there is an impossibility of pronouncing the heterogeneous combinations above mentioned. The liquids and the vowels are flat; but the liquids and vowels, although flat, may be followed by a sharp consonant. If this were not the case, the combinations _ap_, _at_, _alp_, _alt_, &c. would be unpronounceable.

The semivowels, although flat, admit of being followed by a sharp consonant.

The law exhibited above may be called the law of accommodation. {153}

Combinations like _gt_, _kd_, &c., may be called incompatible combinations.

s. 216. _Unstable combinations._--That certain sounds in combination with others have a tendency to undergo changes, may be collected from the observation of our own language, as we find it spoken by those around us, or by ourselves. The _ew_ in _new_ is a sample of what may be called an unsteady or unstable combination. There is a natural tendency to change it either into _oo_ (_noo_) or _yoo_ (_nyoo_); perhaps also into _yew_ (_nyew_).

s. 217. _Effect of the semivowel _y_ on certain letters when they precede it._--Taken by itself the semivowel _y_, followed by a vowel (_ya_, _yee_, _yo_, _you_, &c.), forms a stable combination. Not so, however, if it be preceded by a consonant, of the series _t_, _k_, or _s_, as _tya_, _tyo_; _dya_, _dyo_; _kya_, _kyo_; _sya_, _syo_. There then arises an unstable combination. _Sya_ and _syo_ we pronounce as _sha_ and _sho_; _tya_ and _tyo_ we pronounce as _cha_ and _ja_ (_i.e._ _tsh_, _dzh_.). This we may verify from our pronunciation of words like _sure_, _picture_, _verdure_ (_shoor_, _pictshoor_, _verdzhoor_), having previously remarked that the _u_ in those words is not sounded as _oo_ but as _yoo_. The effect of the semivowel _y_, taken with instability of the combination _ew_, accounts for the tendency to pronounce _dew_ as if written _jew_.

s. 218. _The evolution of new sounds._--To an English ear the sound of the German _ch_ falls strange. To an English organ it is at first difficult to pronounce. The same is the case with the German vowels _oe_ and _ue_ and with the French sounds _u_, _eu_, &c.

To a German, however, and a Frenchman, the sound of the English _th_ (either in _thin_ or _thine_) is equally a matter of difficulty.

The reason of this lies in the fact of the respective sounds being absent in the German, French, and English languages; since sounds are easy or hard to pronounce just in proportion as we have been familiarised with them.

There is no instance of a new sound being introduced at once into a language. Where they originate at all, they are _evolved_, not imported. {154}

s. 219. _Evolution of sounds._--Let there be a language where there is no such a sound as that of _z_, but where there is the sound of _s_. The sound of _z_ may be evolved under (amongst others) the following conditions. 1. Let there be a number of words ending in the flat mutes; as _slab_, _stag_, _stud_, &c. 2. Let a certain form (the plural number or the genitive case) be formed by the addition of _is_ or _es_; as _slabis_, _stages_, _studes_, &c. 3. Let the tendency that words have to contract eject the intermediate vowel, _e_ or _i_, so that the _s_ of the inflexion (a _sharp_ mute) and the _b_, _d_, _g_, &c. of the original word (_flat_ mutes) be brought into juxta-position, _slabs_, _studs_, _stags_. There is then an incompatible termination, and one of two changes must take place; either _b_, _d_, or _g_ must become _p_, _t_, or _k_ (_slaps_, _staks_, _stuts_); or _s_ must become _z_ (_stagz_, _studz_, _slabz_). In this latter case _z_ is evolved. Again,

Let there be a language wherein there are no such sounds as _sh_, _ch_ (_tsh_), or _j_ (_dzh_); but where there are the sounds of _s_, _t_, _d_, and _y_.

Let a change affect the unstable combinations _sy_, _ty_, _dy_. From this will arise the evolved sounds of _sh_, _ch_, and _j_.

The phenomena of evolution help to determine the pronunciation of dead languages.

s. 220. _On the value of a sufficient system of sounds._--In certain imaginable cases, a language may be materially affected by the paucity of its elementary articulate sounds.

In a given language let there be the absence of the sound _z_, the other conditions being those noted in the case of the words _stag_, _slab_, _stud_, &c. Let the intermediate vowel be ejected. Then, instead of the _s_ being changed into an evolved _z_, let the other alternative take place; so that the words become _staks_, _slaps_, _stuts_. In this latter case we have an alteration of the original word, brought about by the insufficiency of the system of articulate sounds.

s. 221. _Double consonants rare._--It cannot be too clearly understood that in words like _pitted_, _stabbing_, _massy_, &c. there is no real reduplication of the sounds of _t_, _b_, and _s_, respectively. Between the words _pitted_ (as with the small-pox) and _pitied_ (as being an object of pity) there is a difference in {155} spelling only. In speech the words are identical. _The reduplication of the consonant is in English, and the generality of languages, a conventional mode of expressing upon paper the shortness (dependence) of the vowel that precedes._

s. 222. Real reduplications of consonants, _i.e._, reduplications of their _sound_, are, in all languages, extremely rare. I am fully aware of certain statements made respecting the Laplandic and Finlandic languages, _viz._, that doubled consonants are, in them, of common occurrence. Notwithstanding this, I have an impression that it is generally under one condition that true reduplication takes place. In compound and derived words, where the original root _ends_, and the superadded affix _begins_ with the same letter, there is a reduplication of the sound, and not otherwise. In the word _soulless_, the _l_ is doubled to the ear as well as to the eye; and it is a false pronunciation to call it _souless_ (_soless_). In the "Deformed Transformed" it is made to rhyme with _no less_, improperly.

"Clay, not dead but soulless, Though no mortal man would choose thee, An immortal no less Deigns not to refuse thee."

In the following words, all of which are compounds, we have true specimens of the doubled consonant.

_n_ is doubled in _unnatural_, _innate_, _oneness_. _l_ -- _soulless_, _civil-list_, _palely_. _k_ -- _book-case_. _t_ -- _seaport-town_.

It must not, however, be concealed, that, in the mouths even of correct speakers, one of the doubled sounds is often dropped.

s. 223. _True aspirates rare._--The criticism applied to words like _pitted_, &c., applies also to words like _Philip_, _thin_, _thine_, &c. There is therein no sound of _h_. How the so-called aspirates differ from their corresponding lenes has not yet been determined. That it is _not_ by the addition of _h_ is evident. _Ph_ and _th_ are conventional modes of spelling simple single sounds, which might better be expressed by simple single signs. {156}

In our own language the _true_ aspirates, like the true duplications, are found only in compound words; and there they are often slurred in the pronunciation.

We find _p_ and _h_ in the words _haphazard_, _upholder_. -- _b_ and _h_ -- _abhorrent_, _cub-hunting_. -- _f_ and _h_ -- _knife-handle_, _offhand_. -- _v_ and _h_ -- _stave-head_. -- _d_ and _h_ -- _adhesive_, _childhood_. -- _t_ and _h_ -- _nuthook_. -- _th_ and _h_ -- _withhold_. -- _k_ and _h_ -- _inkhorn_, _bakehouse_. -- _g_ and _h_ -- _gig-horse_. -- _s_ and _h_ -- _race-horse_, _falsehood_. -- _z_ and _h_ -- _exhibit_, _exhort_. -- _r_ and _h_ -- _perhaps_. -- _l_ and _h_ -- _well-head_, _foolhardy_. -- _m_ and _h_ -- _Amherst_. -- _n_ and _h_ -- _unhinge_, _inherent_, _unhappy_.

Now in certain languages the _true_ aspirates are of common occurrence, _i.e._, sounds like the _t_ in _nuthook_, the _ph_ in _haphazard_, &c., are as frequent as the sounds of _p_, _b_, _s_, &c. In the spelling of these sounds by means of the English we are hampered by the circumstance of _th_ and _ph_ being already used in a different sense.

* * * * *

{157}