CHAPTER IIITHE ORTHOGRAPHIC SITUATION
It is with a good deal of hesitation that I approach this part of my subject. To treat it fully, to consider it in all its details, would require a familiarity with the history of sounds, with their precise values, and with the proper way of representing these values, to which I can lay no claim. Though I have given some time to the study of this branch of the general question, I am well aware that my knowledge of it is not the knowledge of a professional, but of an amateur. It is only when I read the attempts of the assailants of spelling reform to write what they are pleased to call phonetically, that my own slender acquaintance with this field of research looms up momentarily before my eyes as endowed with colossal proportions. Fortunately, intimate familiarity with this particularpart of the subject is not needed for the end had here in view. To point out the evils afflicting our present system is possible for him who is unable to prescribe a remedy. This is the special task which I set before myself in this section.
It is essential, in the first place, to have clearly before our minds the nature of the problem with which we are called upon to deal. The general statement about it may be and often is summarized in a few words. We are told that in English the same sound is represented by half a dozen signs, and the same sign is used to denote half a dozen sounds. This is all true. Unfortunately, to the vast majority of men it conveys no definite idea. It certainly would not bring clearly before them much conception of the real difficulty. Some of them would even be puzzled to explain what is meant here by the wordsign. Most of them have no knowledge whatever of the number and quality of the sounds they use. This remark is not intended as a reproach. Their condition of ignorance is due to no fault of their own. The existing orthography does not content itself with hiding from the ordinary eye all knowledge of phonetic law; it puts a stumbling-block in the way of its acquisition. Accordingly, it does more than permitignorance of the subject; it fosters it. Men are not led to consider even the most aggressively prominent facts of their own utterance. I have known intelligent young persons, of much more than ordinary ability, who had never learned as a matter of knowledge that the digraphthhas two distinct sounds; that werethinpronounced as isthen, orthenas isthin, we should have in each case another word than the one we actually possess. They had never confused the two in their usage, but as little had they been in the habit of remarking the difference between them. Consequently, when it was brought directly to their attention, it came upon them as a sort of surprise. If a distinction which lies on the very surface could so easily escape notice, what hope can be entertained of gaining a realizing sense of those subtler ones which abound on every side?
The first point, therefore, to be made emphatic is that there is a large number of sounds in the speech and but a limited number of signs in the alphabet. The number of sounds has been variously estimated. It depends a good deal upon the extent to which the orthoepic investigator is disposed to recognize differences more or less subtle and the weight he assigns to each. In general, it may be said that usuallythe lowest number given is thirty-eight, and the highest forty-four. A very common estimate puts them at forty-two. Exactness on this point is not necessary for the purpose here aimed at, and for the sake of convenience the whole number of sounds will be temporarily assumed to be forty, more or less. To represent these forty sounds we have nominally twenty-six letters. Really we have but twenty-three. Eithercorkis supernumerary, as are alsoxandq.
Here, then, lies the initial difficulty. The Roman alphabet we have adopted has not a sufficient number of letters to do the duty required of it. For us its inability has been further aggravated by the loss of two signs which the language had originally, or acquired early in its history. For the disappearance of these there was later in another quarter a partial compensation in the differentiation ofiandj, and ofuandv. Of the two vanished signs one was a Rune, called “thorn” or the “thorn letter,” þ, the other a crossedd, represented by ð. They were or could be used to represent the surd or hard initial sound heard inthinjust mentioned, and the corresponding sonant or soft sound heard inthen. These two letters, unknown to the Roman alphabet, were allowed to die outof general use in the fifteenth century. Of both the digraphthtook the place. Yet in one way the so-called thorn letter has left behind a memorial of itself. Its form had something of a resemblance to the black-letter charactery. Consequently, when “thorn” ceased to be used,ywas at times substituted for it. Especially was this true in the case of the wordstheandthat. These were frequently printed asyᵉandyᵗ. This form of the latter word disappeared after a while, not merely from use, but practically from remembrance.Ye, however, in the sense ofthe, but with its initial letter given the sound ofy, is fondly cherished and sometimes employed by certain persons, who indulge in the delusion that by so doing they are writing and talking Old English.
The use of this one digraph to represent these two distinct sounds inevitably tends to create uncertainty of pronunciation, if not to produce confusion. We can see this fact exemplified in the case of such words astitheandpathandoathandmouth. In thesethhas in the singular the surd sound, in the plural the sonant. The proper way of pronouncing them has therefore to be learned carefully in each individual instance, for there is nothing in the spelling to indicate it. Usage in truth is very fluctuating with respectto some of the words in which this digraph appears. In consequence, the question of their pronunciation begets at times much controversy. Still, compared with the uncertainty attending other signs, the perplexities caused by this are of slight importance.
The lack of a sufficient number of signs to indicate the sounds is therefore the first difficulty to be encountered. But this is a defect which English shares with several tongues which have adopted the Roman alphabet. There is another characteristic which belongs to our language exclusively. This is the progressive movement which has gone on in the case of some of the vowel-sounds. In the historic development of English pronunciation several of these have lost their original values. This has caused them not merely to deviate from the sounds they once had in our own speech, but has also brought them out of harmony with those of the cultivated tongues of modern Europe. In none of these have the original values experienced any such disturbance. Such a condition of things is so peculiar to our language, it complicates the whole orthographic situation so thoroughly, that it demands first consideration in any discussion of the various problems that need to be solved.Let us give briefly, then, the most important facts in regard to the changes which have taken place in the history of these sounds.
The first vowel-sound of the alphabet—theaheard infatherandfar—has been aptly styled “the fundamental vowel-tone of the human voice.” But the noticeable fact about it in English is that it has not only gone largely out of use already, but that it tends to go out of use more and more. Once the most common of articulate utterances, it has now become one of the rarest. In reducing the employment of it English has gone beyond all other modern cultivated tongues. The decline in its use has been steady. “In the Sanskrit,” says Whitney, “in its long and short forms it makes over seventy per cent. of the vowels and about thirty per cent. of the whole alphabet.” In examining his own utterance he rated the frequency of its occurrence at a little more than half of one per cent. This may be taken as fairly representative of the fortunes which have generally befallen the sound. Different parts of the English-speakingworld preserve it, indeed, in different degrees. In Great Britain—if I can take as typical of all persons the pronunciation of it furnished to my own ears by a few—it is retained more fully than in the United States. But even there it has for a long period been disappearing. There is no reason to suppose that with our present orthography this process will not continue to go on.
The loss of this sound would assuredly be a great calamity to the speech. The coming of that day may be distant; it is to be hoped that it will never come at all. Yet owing to the incapacity of our orthography to represent pronunciation strictly, and therefore hold it fast permanently, the sound is certainly in danger of following to the very end the road on which it has long been travelling. It shows every sign of steady though slow disappearance. Once it was heard generally in many classes of words where it is now never heard at all. Such, for instance, was the case whenawas followed byn, as inanswer,chance,dance,plant; byf, as inafter; bys, as ingrass,glass,pass; byst, as inlastandvast. More than a century ago the lexicographer Walker contended that this sound must formerly have been always heard in these and such like words, because it was “still thesound given to them by the vulgar, who are generally the last to alter the common pronunciation.” There can be little doubt of the fact. In truth, Doctor Johnson distinctly specifiedrather,fancy,congratulate,glassamong others as having it. Walker added that “the shortain these words”—those mentioned above—“is now the general pronunciation of the polite and learned world.” Hence, he felt justified in asserting that the ancient sound “borders very closely on vulgarity.”
This same result is showing itself in the instances where the vowel is followed by other letters or combinations of letters. Beforelfandth—which can be illustrated respectively bycalf,half, and bypath,bath—the original sound, once generally heard, has given way largely and is still giving way. There are certainly many parts of the English-speaking world where the older pronunciation of it would be the exception and not the rule. The most effective agent in retaining it is a followingr. In this case the sound is heard in no small number of words, as may be seen, for illustration, inbarandcar. Another agency working for its retention, though far less powerful than the preceding, is a followingl, as inbalmandcalm. But in this second case the sound is even nowthreatened with extinction. It exhibits in many places weakness of hold upon the utterance. Hence, it may come to take the road already trodden by other words in which it once showed itself. In the case of some of these, as a result of diminishing use, the sound, when heard, for illustration, in words likehalfandcalf, is already looked upon by many as an affectation. Should such a feeling about it come not only to exist but to prevail when the vowel is followed bylm, its doom would be sealed. To hearpsalmpronounced as the proper nameSamis still hateful to the orthoepically pure. Such a usage can as yet be politely termed a provincialism, or, insultingly, a vulgarism. Yet against the levelling tendency of an orthography which does not protect pronunciation, it is possible that the earlier sound ofain these words may not be able to hold out forever.
So much for the first vowel of the alphabet. We are as badly off, though in a different way, when we come to the second. It emphasizes the degeneracy which has overtaken our whole orthographic and orthoepic system that the name we now give to the first vowel was originally and still is scientifically the long sound of the second. The respective short and long values of this are heard in the wordsmetandmate. In themare indicated the two sounds which the second vowel once had with us, and which it still retains in other cultivated tongues. The short sound continues to exist in all its primitive vigor, but the long sound is now very generally denoted bya.Eitself no longer has it, save in the exclamationeh, and in certain cases where it is followed byiory, such asveinandrein, andtheyorobey. Perhaps, indeed, it would be better to say that, strictly speaking, this letter by itself never indicates the sound at all; for the digraphseiandey, as we shall see later, have various distinct values, and are therefore entitled to be considered independently.
A condition of things not essentially dissimilar can be reported of the next vowel. Its original corresponding short and long sounds would be exactly represented by those heard in the wordsfillandfeel. But the same transition or progression which has waited upon the second vowel has also attended the third. Its proper long sound has now become the name by which we regularly designate the second vowel. The fortunes ofihave accordingly been about the same as those of its predecessore. Here again the genuine short sound has been preserved in its integrity and on a large scale. But the letter is now only occasionally used todenote the long sound it had originally. This employment of it occurs too mainly in comparatively recent words of foreign origin. These have brought with them to a greater or less extent the pronunciation they had in the tongue from which they came. Some of the most common of these words arecapriceandpolice;fatigueandintrigue;profile;machine,magazine,marine, androutine; andantique,critique,oblique, andpique. Once too it belonged tooblige, and even to this day the pronunciationobleegeis occasionally heard.
What we call the third vowel is not a vowel, but a diphthong. We can see its sound and real character indicated in the Roman pronunciation ofCæsar, the Germankaiser, or in theaeof the Spanishmaestro. Against this general movement it can be said that the long and short sounds of the fourth vowel are much nearer their originals. This is by no means true, however, of the fifth. The genuine corresponding long and short sounds of it can be seen represented in the wordsfoolandfull. But we now almost universally apply the term “shortu” to the neutral sound heard inbutandburn. This sound occurs on the most extensive scale. It has, in fact, come to be one of the most common in our pronunciation, as to it all the vowels ofthe unaccented syllables are disposed to tend. Even the sound ofuin accented syllables begins to show occasional traces of this degeneration. Who has not heard that provincial pronunciation of the verbputwhich gives it the exact value of the initial syllable ofputty? With nothing in our orthography to give fixity to orthoepy, there is little limit to the possibilities lying before this so-called “shortu” in the way of displacing other sounds.
Let us now summarize the facts of the situation. The primal sound of the first vowel is on the road to complete disappearance. The long sound of the second vowel has usurped the name and in part the proper functions of the first. The long sound of the third vowel has performed a similar office for the second. The third vowel, so-called, is a diphthong. On the other hand, the short sounds of these three vowels—seen insat,set,sit—continue to exist in their original integrity. All of them are employed on an extensive scale. Furthermore, the regular long and short sounds ofuhave no longer the prominence they once had in connection with this vowel. To the popular apprehension the idea of it is supplied, as has just been said, by the neutral vowel-sound we call “shortu.” This has largely taken the place ofother vowel-sounds, and threatens to do so still more in the future.
The confusion in the use of the vowel-signs is itself reinforced by the condition of the alphabet. For the former, indeed, the latter is in no small measure responsible. Behind all the other agencies which have brought about the present wretched condition of our orthography stands out its one most glaring defect. The Roman alphabet we have adopted as our own is unequal to the demand made upon it. The three diphthongs being included in the consideration, we have at a low calculation fifteen vowel-sounds and but five characters to represent them. According to a more common calculation, we have eighteen vowel-sounds to be represented by this limited number. With the consonants we are a good deal better off. The supernumeraries being excluded, there are eighteen single characters for the twenty-four sounds to be denoted.
To make up for this deficiency of letters, two courses lay open to the users of English; rather, two courses were forced upon them. One was to have the same sign represent two or more sounds. This was at best a poor method of relief. Even had it been done correctly and systematically, so far as that result could beaccomplished, it could not have failed to be unsatisfactory. It would have been an attempt to impose upon these few signs a burden they were unable to carry. But not even was this imperfect result achieved. Apparently it was not even aimed at. The sounds of the vowels have been so confused with one another that no fixed value can be attached to any vowel-sign. They are often used for each other in the most lawless fashion. So much is this the case that it is frequently impossible to tell from the spelling of a word what is the pronunciation of its vowel, or from the pronunciation of its vowel what is the spelling of the word.
There was another way followed to meet the difficulty. This second method was to make the best of the situation by that combination of vowels, or that combination of vowel and consonant, or of two consonants, to which we have given the name of digraphs. The first of these do not really constitute diphthongs, though such they have sometimes been termed. This method was far more sensible than the preceding. The task of making combinations of letters which should represent only particular sounds would have been, to be sure, a hard one. The lawlessness pervading our vowel-system would doubtless have prevented it from being carriedout with thoroughness. But carried out imperfectly, it would have been a distinct improvement upon what we have now. But so far from any attempt having been made to accomplish it on even an imperfect scale, it can hardly be said to have been undertaken at all. There are two instances, indeed, in which such combinations have an invariable or nearly invariable value. One of these isaw, found in such words asbawlandlawn. This digraph never has any other sound than that of the so-called “broada”—heard, for illustration, infallandsalt. The other isee, seen inseenitself, as well as in a number of other words. With two or three exceptions, this combination has that sound of the third vowel we now ascribe to the second and call “longe.” But in both these instances the limitation of the digraph to the representation of a single sound was a result of accident rather than of design. These combinations were in truth left to run the same haphazard course which the letters composing them had usually followed. Accordingly, to them extended the lawlessness pervading the vowel-system. As a consequence, the pronunciation of the numerous digraphs became, as we shall see later, as varying and uncertain as that of the single vowels themselves.
We come now to the consideration of specific details upon which have been based the general statements just made. Not by any means all of them. There is no intention here of setting forth an exhaustive enumeration of the facts that could be presented. Even did I possess the phonetic knowledge, which I lack, sufficient to do this properly and fully, the undertaking would have lain outside of my plan. Furthermore, it would hinder the effect of the argument for most persons rather than help it. The mass of detail would be oppressive by its volume, and for that very reason less impressive. Accordingly, I throw out of consideration any representation of the variations of pronunciation to be found in unaccented syllables. In them indistinctness of sound, owing to the inability of our present orthography to denote precise values, has gone beyond that prevailing in the other cultivated tongues of modern Europe. Not only are the vowel-sounds in such syllables pronounced differently by different individuals, they are pronounced differently by the same individual at different times. In particular the precise pronunciation will be apt to vary with the speaker’s rapidity or slowness of utterance. In one case the exact sound will come out with perfect distinctness, in anotherit will be hard to tell by what vowel it is represented. It is enough to say here of the unaccented syllables that there is a strong tendency, especially in hasty utterance, to give to them generally the sound of that neutral vowel we commonly call “shortu.”
It is accordingly in these unaccented syllables that so many were wont to trip in the spelling contests once so popular. It was not unusual to have the very best equipped contestant fail. He attempted to use his reason; to succeed, it was essential to discard that and trust instead to his memory. Take, for illustration, so common a verb asseparate. Who, ignorant of the word, could tell from the ordinary pronunciation of it—even when that is reasonably distinct—what is the precise sound heard in the case of the second syllable? Should it be represented by anaor ane? The actual fact has to be learned, not through the agency of the ear, but through that of the eye. This is but a single instance out of hundreds that could be cited where a similar uncertainty must always prevail because the pronunciation cannot act as a clear guide to the present spelling.
In the following pages, therefore, attention shall be directed mainly to setting forth some of the most salient facts which reveal, in a wayeasily comprehensible, the confusion existing in our present orthography. For this purpose the discussion is intentionally confined almost entirely to those syllables upon which the principal accent falls. In a few instances some syllables will be included upon which rests the secondary accent. In both cases, however, the examples will be selected of words in which the distinction of sound is plainly apparent to all, and easily recognizable. This limits the discussion to but a section of the whole field. But though far from covering the ground, the absolute truth of the general statements about the condition of our orthography will appear distinctly manifest to him who has the patience to wade through the following dreary assemblage of facts, or perhaps it would be more proper to say, the following assemblage of dreary facts. Beginning with the vowel-system, the various letters or combinations of letters will be set forth which are used to indicate the same sound. In a number of instances these signs occur on a very small scale. Accordingly, three examples of every one will be invariably given when the sound heard is represented frequently by the spelling, or at least more or less frequently. When but one or two words are specified, this smaller number will denote thatthese are all the ordinary ones of that class—exclusive of derivatives and compounds—which are known to exist. At any rate, they are all that are known to exist to the writer. It is not unlikely that examples have been overlooked which will suggest themselves to the reader. We begin with the vowel-system.
The vowelademands first attention. The sound of it, heard infatherandfar, has been spoken of as disappearing. The simple vowel usually represents it, so far as it continues to exist. Other signs, however, are occasionally employed. It is heard in theuaofguardandguardian, in theeaofheart, and also ofhearkenwhen so spelled; and finally in England in theeofclerk,sergeant, and a few other words. Once much more common, it has even there steadily given way before the advance of the so-called “shortu” sound, occurring in such words asher. In the pronunciation of some it is further represented, for illustration, by theauofhauntandhaunch. On the other hand, as contrasted with this declining use, the regular short sound ofa,heard inmanandmat, is preserved in its fullest vigor. In the large majority of instances it is indicated by the simple letter itself. The exceptions to this representation of it are merely sporadic. Such are theuaofguaranteeand theaiofplaid.
But dismissing the consideration of these two sounds of this vowel, take those heard respectively in the wordsfare,fall, andfate. Let us begin with the first of these. Its sound is denoted in many words by the simple vowel, as can be seen inpare,care,declare. But it is also indicated byaiinpair,hair,stair; byayinprayer; byeinthereandwhere; and byeiintheirandheir. The second of these is theausound heard inall,warm,want. It is not unfrequently denominated “broada.” But besides this vowel the sound is further represented byoin such words asoft,loss,song; byauindaub,haul,taught, and the like; similarly byawinsaw,drawn,bawl, and numerous others; byoainbroad; and byouinsought,thought,bought.
It has already been pointed out that the so-called long sound ofadoes not strictly belong to it; that it is really anesound. But as it has imposed its name upon the vowel, it is properly to be considered with it in any treatise whichappeals to the general public. Its most usual representative is the letter itself, seen inpale,pane,page, and in scores of words in which the presence of an unpronounced finalehas come to indicate generally, though not invariably, that the preceding vowel is long. But then again it is represented byaiinpail,pain,exclaim; byayinlay,pay,day; byeaingreat,steak,break; byeiinveil,vein,heinous; and byeyinthey,obeyandsurvey. In the interjectionehthe vowel has for once its original sound. Again there are two instances in which a digraph with this sound occurs in but a single case. These two are theaoofgaoland the au ofgauge.
In the case of the first of these words there were two ways of spelling it which existed from the fourteenth century. These aregaolandjail. The first form comes from the dialect of Normandy, the second from that of Paris. Both have been in use from the beginning. About both there has been to some extent controversy, at least in the past. The New Historical Dictionary, which contains a full history of the origin and use of these two forms, gives us a quotation bearing upon this point from Roger L’Estrange’s translation of theVisions of Quevedo. In this version, which appeared in 1668, English allusions were not unfrequentlyintroduced. In one instance men are represented as being in a state of rage because they cannot come to a resolution as to whether they ought to sayGoal(sic) orJayl.Gaolis still the official form of the word in England. That fact has mainly contributed to its maintenance in literature, so far as it continues to be used. In the United Statesjailis both the official and the literary form. But the spellinggaolhas to some a peculiar attraction of its own. Not a single letter in it save the finallis of use in indicating with certainty its right pronunciation. In truth, the orthography almost enforces a wrong one. There are those to whom this fact is the highest recommendation it can have.
The second word has varied between the spellingsgaugeandgagealmost from its very entrance into the language in the fifteenth century. One gets the impression that there was a time when the latter was the preferred form. But with our present knowledge no statement of this sort can be made positively. “You shall not gage me by what we do to-night,” says Gratiano to Bassanio inThe Merchant of Venice. Modern editions, in defiance of the original, printgauge; for the folio and both the early quartos agree in havinggage. Shakespeare’s use seems to be nothing but anotherillustration of his perverse preference for the so-called American spelling, or the American preference for Shakespeare’s spelling, just as one chooses to put it. Such an anomalous form asgaugeproved at times too much for the tolerance of the orthographically much-enduring Englishman. Even him it has struck as peculiarly objectionable. So in the eighteenth century he set out to remove this particular blot upon the speech. But as he was in nowise tainted with the virus of reform, he exhibited the usual incurable aversion to having the spelling bear any relation to the pronunciation. Accordingly, he refused to take the natural as well as time-honored course of dropping the unnecessary and misleadingu. Instead, he reversed the order of the letters of the digraph. Theaubecameua.
There have been in modern times men who advocated this method of spelling the word with all that fervor of faith which is so frequent an accompaniment of limited knowledge. On this point, for instance, the late Grant Allen felt called upon to bear his testimony. He was wont to make his novels a vehicle for conveying his linguistic views as well as those pertaining to religion, society, and politics. “Cynicus replied, with an ugly smile,” he wrote, “thatnobody could ever guage anybody else’s nature.”[16]Then, with what might fairly be called an ugly smile of his own, Allen added in a parenthesis, “notgauge, a vile dictionary blunder.” There was no apparent reason for this lexical outburst; there was certainly no proof vouchsafed of the justice of the assertion. As the originals of the word were the Old French noungaugeand the verbgauger, it is hard to see how dictionaries could be held responsible for blunders, if blunders they were, which foreigners had perpetrated centuries before. There is, in truth, as little etymological justification forguageas there is phonetic forgauge.Gage, if it were not the most common way of spelling the word during the Elizabethan period, was certainly a common one. It is now, on the whole, the preferred form in the United States. Except in the nautical termweather-gage, the u is very generally retained in England. This is doubtless due to the desire of gratifying the ardent enthusiasm pervading the toiling millions of Great Britain for spellings which remind them of the Old French originals, from which were derived the words they employ.
In the case of the second vowel, the shortesound is properly shown in a large number of words of whichlet,felt,bedmay be taken as representatives. These are all phonetically spelled. No educated man who saw them for the first time would have any hesitation about their pronunciation. Such a condition of things tends to chasten the feelings of that class of persons, not inconsiderable in number, who think it distinctively to the credit of the spelling that it should get as far away from the pronunciation as possible. They may be consoled, however, by the fact that this same sound is represented byainanyandmany; byeain a large number of words, such ashealth,endeavor,weather; by ai insaidandagain; byayin says; byeiinheiferandnonpareil, and byeoinjeopardandleopard. There are those who give this short sound toleisure, rhyming it withpleasure, as did Milton,[17]instead of the more common long sound heard with us. Indeed, it is noticeable that preference is given to the former in the New Historical English Dictionary, though that pronunciation is absolutely ignored in some of the best American ones. The compilers of these last may have been touched byWalker’s pathetic plea for the long sound. “Leisure,” he wrote, “is sometimes pronounced as rhyming withpleasure; but in my opinion very improperly; for if it be allowed that custom is equally divided, we ought, in this case, to pronounce the diphthong long, as more expressive of the idea annexed to it.”
Anyandmanyare now the only two words whereahas the sound of shorte. At one time it was heard in others, and was not unfrequently so represented in literature. It lingers, too, in some instances, and even, indeed, flourishes in spite of all the efforts of education to extirpate it. The present authorized pronunciation ofcatch, instead ofketch, is one of the comparatively few triumphs gained by the written word over the spoken. In days when devotion did not exist to orthography irrespective of the purpose it was designed to fulfil, theaassumed the spelling ofealong with its sound. The earliercag, for illustration, has been abandoned for the pure phonetic spellingkeg. Apparently no serious harm has befallen the language in consequence. Even more distant from the remote Latin original,canalis, denoting the home ofcanis, ‘the dog,’ is the formkennel. This turns its back upon its primitive, and contents itself with simply representing the pronunciation. Somuch are we the creatures of habit and association in the matter of spelling that the most ardent believer in the doctrine of basing orthography upon derivation could in neither of the cases just mentioned be persuaded to revert to the form nearest to that in the original tongue.
The sound to which we give the name of “longe” belongs strictly, as has been pointed out, toi. A few of the words have also been given in which it still continues to be so indicated.[18]There are certain conditions under which it is represented by the simple letter itself. One is when it alone constitutes an accented syllable, as inequal,era,ecliptic. Another when it ends a monosyllable or an accented syllable, as inhe,be,regal,cohesion. It appears finally with a good deal of frequency in words in which the sound of the simple vowel is lengthened by the artificial device of an appended mutee, as intheme,precede,complete. This last word, it may be said in passing, was once often spelledcompleat. But as the letter itself represents much more usually the short sound of the vowel, the long sound has come to be indicated often by various digraphs. Of these, two are particularly prominent. One ofthem isee, seen in a large number of words, such asmeet,thee,proceed. The second digraph isea, found inbean,meat,eagle, and a host of others. But the sound is not limited to these two combinations. It is represented byeiinreceive,conceit,seize; byieinbelieve,chief,fiend; byeyinkey; byeoinpeople; byayinquay; byæinægis,pæan,minutiæ; and several other words not fully naturalized.
Once, indeed, this last method of indicating the sound was far more common. In many instances it has been supplanted by the simplee. It was not till a comparatively late period that such spellings aseraandetherdrove out in great measure the once prevalentæraandæther. Asæhas with us strictly but one sound, the change cannot, from all points of view, be deemed an improvement. In the case of an unknown word first brought to the attention, no one could now be positive, under certain conditions, whether the vowel should be treated as long or short. Take, for illustration,encyclopedia, once often spelledencyclopædia. He who sees the word for the first time is as likely to pronounce the antepenultimate syllablepĕdaspēd. He certainly could not tell from the orthography employed how this particular syllable should be sounded. Still, for much morethan a century the tendency of the users of the language has been steadily directed toward the discarding of theæin all cases. As long ago as 1755 Dr. Johnson, in his dictionary, recommended its disuse. “Æ,” he wrote, “is sometimes found in Latin words not completely naturalized or assimilated, but is by no means an English diphthong, and is more properly expressed by singlee, asCesar,Eneas.” Dr. Johnson was hostile to spelling reform; but he could venture to sanction a spelling of these two Latin proper names, at which even the average spelling reformer would shudder.
Fortunately for those of us who believe that spelling exists for the sake of indicating pronunciation, the sound of shorti, one of the most common vowel sounds in the language, is almost always represented by the letter itself. The exceptions are few, comparatively speaking. The only sign to take its place in any body of words sufficiently numerous to be entitled a class isy, as seen insyntax,abyss,system, and other words, generally of Greek origin. The instances where different signs are employed are purely sporadic. Most of them, however, are for various reasons remarkable. The sound is represented byein the name of the language we speak and of the country whereit came into being. It is further represented by theeofpretty, by theoofwomen, by theuofbusyandbusiness, by theieofsieve, and by theuiofguildandguiltandbuild. Once in the speech of most men, and now in that of many, it is given to theeeofbeen, and regularly to that combination as found inbreeches.
Gildis a variant spelling ofguild, and represents the earlier form. Theuiof the two additional examples given ought to be a saddening spectacle to the devout believer in derivation as the basis of orthography. The original form ofguiltwasgylt. So it remained with various spellings—of whichgiltwas naturally the most common—until the sixteenth century. But there was also an allied form,gult. These two undoubtedly represented distinct and easily recognizable pronunciations of the word. They were at last combined so as to create a spelling, of the pronunciation of which no one could now be certain until he was told. This did not take place on any scale worth mentioning until the latter part of the sixteenth century, though the combination had occasionally been seen much earlier. Essentially the same thing can be said ofbuild. It originally appeared in various ways, of whichbyld,bild, andbuldwere the prominent types. At the end of the fifteenthcentury the practice began of recognizing both forms by writingbuildorbuyld. In a measure this doubtless represented a then existing shade of pronunciation. The spelling, once established, has continued since. No one ever thinks of pronouncing theu; perhaps no one has ever thought of it since the combination was formed. Yet there is no question that intense sorrow would be occasioned to a certain class of persons were they to be deprived of the pleasure of inserting in the word this useless and now orthoepically misleading letter.
The so-called “longi” ought strictly to be treated under the diphthongs; but as it is popularly associated in the minds of men with the simple vowel, its diphthongal sound will be considered at this point. Its most usual representative is the letter itself. This presents little difficulty in the pronunciation if the words end with a mutee, as inmine,desire,bite. The distinction betweenthinandthine, for instance, is then easily made. But when it comes to such words asmind,child, andpinton the one hand, andlift,gild, andtinton the other, there is nothing in the spelling to indicate with certainty how theiof these words should be sounded. As no general rule can be laid down, the pronunciation of each has in consequence to be learnedby itself. This uncertainty was perhaps one of the causes which led to the transition of the diphthongal sound ofiinwindto the short soundwĭnd, which so aroused the wrath of Dean Swift. But besidesithe sound is also indicated by theyoftype,ally,thyme, and a number of words derived from the Greek; byie, especially in monosyllables, such asdie,lie, andtie; byyein the nounlye; byeiinheightandsleight, and according to one method of pronunciation ineitherandneither. It is further represented by theaiofaisle, by theeyofeye, and by theuyofbuy.
The third vowel now demands attention. Orthoepists contend that there is no genuine shortoin English utterance. Without entering into a discussion of this point, it is sufficient to say that the two sounds of the letter, which are ordinarily designated as short and long, are represented respectively in the wordsnotandnote. The former sound remains fairly faithful to this vowel. It is hardly indicated by any other sign. Theaofwhat,squad,quarryis about the only one to take its place. Very different is it with the long sound heard innote. This is far from confining itself to any single letter. In no small number of words it is represented byoa, as inboat,groan,coal; byoe, as infoe,toe,hoe; byou, as inpour,mould,shoulder; or again byow, as seen incrow,snow,show. Less common, but still to be met with, is this sound heard in the combinationew, as seen insew; as well as inshewandstrew, as these words were once regularly and are now occasionally spelled; inoo, as indoorandfloor; ineau, inbeau,bureau, andflambeau; and in theeoofyeoman.
This last word was once spelled at timesyomanand at timesyeman. These forms doubtless represented the two ways of pronouncing it that existed. TheToxophilusof Roger Ascham, for illustration, was dedicated to the use “of the gentlemen and yomen of Englande.” But the sound of the vowel of the first syllable wavered for a long period between the longoand the shorte. Ben Jonson, in the earlier part of the seventeenth century, observed of the word that “it were truer writtenyĕman.” In the latter half of the eighteenth century Doctor Johnson tells us that theeoof this word “is sounded likeeshort.” This was the view taken by perhaps the larger number of orthoepists, who immediately followed him. In spite of them theopronunciation has triumphed. It has shown, however, a tender consideration for its defeated rival by allowing it to lead auseless existence in the syllable in which, in the utterance of many, it once represented the actual sound.
The corresponding short and long sounds ofuare seen in the wordsfullandrule. Buto, either singly, or in combination with other letters, is a favorite way of indicating both. The short sound of this vowel, which is far from common, is represented by theoofbosom,woman,wolf; by theooofgood,foot,stood; by theouofcould,would,should. On the other hand, the corresponding long sound is also represented by theoofmove,prove,lose; by theoeofshoeandcanoe; by theoooftoo,root,fool; byouin such words asuncouth,routine,youth, and a number of others derived generally from the French. There has been and still is something of a tendency on the part of the users of language to change the long sound ofoointo its short one. Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his poem ofUrania, represents Learning as giving a lesson on propriety of pronunciation. Among other points considered, occurred the following observations:
She pardoned one, our classic city’s boast,That said at Cambridge mŏst instead of mōst,But knit her brows and stamped her angry footTo hear a Teacher call a rōot a rŏot.
This is perhaps as good an example as can be furnished of the waste of time and labor imposed by our present orthography in mastering distinctions of sounds in words when there is nothing in the sign employed to indicate which one is proper. To men not given up to slavish admiration of our present spelling, it would seem that Learning, instead of stamping her foot, would have been much more sensibly engaged in using her head to devise some method by which one and the same combination of letters should not be called upon to represent two distinct sounds in words so closely allied in form asfootandroot; or distinct sounds in words with the same ending astoeand theshoethat covers it.
Another way of indicating the long sound of this vowel is either by the simple letter itself or by it in combination with other letters. For instance, it is represented byuein such words astrue,avenue,pursue; byuiinfruit,bruise,pursuit; byeuinneuter,deuce,pentateuch; byewinbrew,sewer,lewd; and byieuinadieu,lieu,purlieu. But there is a peculiarity in the words containing this vowel, the consideration of which involves too much space to have little more than a reference here. We all recognize the difference of the sound ofuas heard respectivelyinfortuneandfortuitous, inannualandannuity, involumeandvoluminous, inpenuryandpenurious. In the first one of each of these pairs of words ay-element is introduced into the pronunciation; in the second theuhas its absolutely pure long sound. Nor is this introduction of they-element limited to the letter when used alone. We can find it exemplified in theueofstatue,value,tissue; in theeuofeulogy,euphony,Europe; in theewofewe,hew,few. This iotization, as it is called, is especially prevalent in words with the terminationture, asnature,furniture,sculpture, andagriculture. Now and then some one is heard giving, or attempting to give, to theuof this ending the pure sound; but such persons are usually regarded as possessed of “cultoor” and not culture.
The only word of this special class in which such a method of pronunciation can be said to have attained any recognition whatever isliterature. The word itself is an old one in our speech. Once, however, it meant merely knowledge of literature. It did not mean that body of writings which constitute the production of a country or of a period. This sense of it, now the most common, is comparatively modern. The earliest instance I have chanced to meet of it—though it was doubtless used a good dealearlier—is in the correspondence of Southey and William Taylor of Norwich. There it occurs in a letter belonging to the year 1803, in which Southey tells his friend that he was expecting to undertake the editorship of a work dealing biographically and critically with “the history of English literature.”[19]Still, the pronunciation just mentioned of this word, differing as it does from the others of the same class, must even then have been occasionally heard. It was certainly made the subject of comment by Byron. He somewhere speaks—I have mislaid the reference—of a publisher who was in the habit of talking aboutliteratoor. This peculiar pronunciation still comes at times from the lips of educated men.
But the regular long and short sounds ofuyield in frequency of occurrence to that sound of it heard inbutandburn. In common speech this has usurped with us the title of “shortu.” By orthoepists it itself is divided into a long and a short sound, according as it is or is not followed by anr. Into it, as has been pointed out, the pronunciation of all unaccented syllables tends to run. Hence, in the case of these,there has come to exist the greatest possible variety of signs by which it is indicated. But even in the accented syllables there is a sufficient number of different ones to arrest the attention. Naturally the most usual representative of it is the vowel from which it has taken its name. But it is far from being limited to this sign. Its short sound is further represented by theoof such words aslove,dove, andson; similarly by theouofdouble,touch, andyoung; and by theooofbloodandflood. In vulgar speechsootwould have to be added to the last two. Furthermore, it is represented by the sporadic example of theoeofdoes. The long sound runs through a still wider range of examples. Words containing it but denoted by various signs could be given by the score. It is represented by all the vowels except the first. Theeofher,were,fern, stands for it. So does theioffir,bird,virgin. So does theoofwork,worship,worth. It is likewise largely represented byeain such words asheard,learn,search; byouinscourge,journal,flourish, and no small number of others containing this particular sign. In the single instance oftiercethe sound is denoted also byie. Were its use in unaccented syllables indicated, this list of signs would be largely extended. As it is, it will be seen that nine is thenumber employed in accented syllables to represent it.
So much for the simple vowels. We come now to the three diphthongs. The first of these, which is made up of the sound of theaoffatherand that of theeofthey, has already been considered in treating what is called “longi.” Eight signs were given by which it was denoted.[20]This wealth of representation does not belong to the two other diphthongs. There are but two signs by which the sound of the second is indicated. These are theouofsouth,found,about, and theowofnow,town,vowel. The third diphthong again has but two signs, theoiofboil,point,spoil, and theoyofboy,joy,destroy. Many of the words in whichoiappears had once the pronunciation of the first mentioned diphthong. To the truth of this both the rymes of the poets and the assertions of the early orthoepists bear ample testimony. The statement is still further confirmed by the fact that the sound still lingers, or, rather, is prevalent, in the speech of the uneducated, the great conservators of past usage. The words given above as illustrative of this sign of the diphthong would have been pronounced by our fathersbīle,pīnt,spīle. So they are still pronounced by the illiterate. In one word, indeed, this sound has not passed entirely from the colloquial speech of the cultivated either in England or America.Roilis not merely heard asrīle, but is not unfrequently found so printed.
Up to this point we have been engaged in making manifest the numerous different ways in which the same vowel-sound is represented in our present orthography. Necessarily a reversal of the process would present an equally impressive showing, for examples just as impressive would make manifest how the same sign adds to the further confusion of English spelling by denoting a number of different vowel-sounds. But there is a limit to the endurance of the reader, to say nothing of that of the writer. Furthermore, there is little need of this addition in the case of the vowels. The facts about to be furnished will be more than sufficient to satisfy any demand for illustrations of the extent to which the same sign has been made to indicate a wide variety of differentsounds, though in the sporadic instances the examples already given must be repeated. For we come now to the consideration of those combinations of letters, numerous in English spelling, to which has been given the name of digraphs. They are sometimes made up of a union of vowels, sometimes of a union of a vowel and a consonant, sometimes of a union of two consonants.
I have already adverted to the fact that had there been any system established in the employment of these combinations of letters, and had each of them been made to represent unvaryingly one particular sound, some of the worst evils of English orthography would have been largely mitigated, and in certain cases entirely relieved. But this was not to be. The opportunity of bringing about regularity of usage in the employment of these signs was either not seen, or if seen was not improved. The same variableness, the same irregularity, the same lawlessness which existed in the representation of the sounds of the vowels and diphthongs came to exist in the case of the digraphs also. They consequently did little more than add to the confusion prevailing in English orthography, and became as valueless for indicating pronunciation as are the single letters of which they are composed.
To this sweeping statement there are two partial exceptions. The first isaw. This is one of several representatives of the so-called broad sound ofaheard inballandfall. Whenever that digraph appears, its pronunciation is invariably the same. No such absolute assertion can be made of the digraph which represents the sound of “longe.” This is the combinationee. There are but two exceptions in common use to the pronunciation of it just given. The first is the wordbreeches. Its singular has the regular sound. The pronunciation as shortiin the plural—used, too, there in a special sense—may perhaps be due to an extension to this form of that tendency, so prevalent in English speech, on the part of the derivative, to shorten the vowel of the primitive. The other is the participlebeenof the substantive verb. In usage the pronunciation of this word has long wavered and still wavers between the sounds heard respectively insinandseen. Of this variation there will be occasion to speak later in detail.
These exceptions, however, affect but a limited number of words. They are hardly worth considering when their regularity is put in contrast with the irregularities of the other combinations. Let us begin with the digraphai. Ordinarily it has the sound we are accustomed to call “long a,” as can be seen infail,rain, andpaid. Inpair,fair,hairit has another sound. Insaid,again,againstit has the sound of shorte. Inaisleit has the diphthongal sound called by us “longi.” This word furnishes an interesting illustration of the way in which much of our highly prized orthography came to have a being. Its present spelling is comparatively recent. Doctor Johnson recognized in it the lack of conformity to any possible derivation. He adopted it on the authority of Addison, though with manifest misgiving. He thought it ought to be writtenaile, but in deference to this author he inserted it in his dictionary asaisle.
“Thus,” he said, “the word is written by Addison, but perhaps improperly.”[21]Johnson’s action was followed without thought and without hesitation by his successors. There is no question, indeed, as to the impropriety of the present spelling from the point of view of both derivation and pronunciation. Equally there is no doubt as to the impropriety of its meaning from the former point of view. It came remotelyfrom the Latinala, ‘a wing.’ Therefore, it means really the wing part of the church on each side of the nave. In this sense it is still employed. But since the first half of the eighteenth century it has been made to denote also the passage between rows of seats. Strictly speaking, this is a particularly gross corruption, though, like so many in our speech, it has now been sanctioned by good usage. The proper word to indicate such a sense wasalley, corresponding to the Frenchallée, ‘a passage.’ This was once common and is still used in the North of England.Aisleitself was formerly spelledileoryle. Confusing it withisle, originally spelledile, men inserted ansabout the end of the seventeenth century. Later anawas prefixed under the influence of the Frenchaile. It was thus that this linguistic monster, defying any correct orthography or orthoepy, was created. In any sense of it thesis an unjustifiable intrusion, representing as the word does in one signification the Latinala, ‘a wing,’ and in the other the Frenchallée, ‘a passage.’
There is another word containing this digraph which illustrates vividly the uncertainty of sound caused by the present spelling. This isplait, both as verb and substantive. About its pronunciation usage has long been conflicting.“Plait, a fold of cloth, is regular, and ought to be pronounced likeplate, a dish,” said Walker, at the beginning of the eighteenth century. “Pronouncing it so as to rhyme withmeat,” he added, “is a vulgarism, and ought to be avoided.” So say several later English dictionaries. So say the leading American ones. Webster, indeed, concedes that the pronunciation denounced by Walker is colloquially possible. It therefore does not necessarily relegate the user of it to the ranks of the vulgar. Now comes the New Historical English Dictionary, and gives the word not merely three distinct pronunciations, but holds up as only really proper that which has failed to gain the favor of most lexicographers. It is the one found “in living English use,” it says, when the word has the sense of ‘fold.’ Further we are assured that with this signification it is ordinarily writtenpleat. This would tend to justify still more the ryme withmeat, which so shocked Walker. Then in its second sense of a ‘braid of hair or straw’ we are told that it has the sound ofainmat. This leaves the pronunciation ofplaitto ryme withplatehardly any support to stand on. It has merely the distinction of being mentioned first; but it is denied a real existence as a spoken word. Nothing could better illustrate the unlimitedpossibilities opened by our present orthography for discussions of propriety of pronunciation about which certainty can never be assured. All statements about general usage, no matter from what source coming, must necessarily be received with a good many grains of allowance, if not with a fair proportion of grains of distrust—at least, whenever our orthoepic doctors disagree. Do the best the most conscientious investigator can, he can never make himself familiar with the practice of but a limited number of educated men who have a right to be consulted. His conclusions, therefore, must always rest upon a more or less imperfect collection of facts.
The digraphayis naturally subject to the same influences asai. It is, however, much less used save at the end of words. Grief has, indeed, been felt and expressed, even by devout worshippers of our present orthography, at the arbitrary change of signs made in the inflection of certain verbs, likelay,pay,say. These, without any apparent reason for so doing, pass from the digraphayin the present toaiin the preterite. Naturally there is no objectionable uniformity in the practice. That might tend to render slightly easier the acquisition of our spelling. Accordingly,layandpayandsayhave in the past tenselaid,paid, andsaid, while verbs with the same termination, such asplay,pray,delay, have in this same past tense the formsplayedandprayedanddelayed.Stayuses impartiallystaidandstayed. Much dissatisfaction has been expressed at the “wanton departure from analogy,” as it has been called, which has been manifested by the words of the first list given. As the characteristic of our spelling everywhere is a wanton departure from analogy, it hardly seems worth while to find fault with this particular exhibition of it.
Inquaythe digraph has the entirely distinct sound of “longe.” Of this word it may be added that the spelling is modern while the pronunciation is ancient. Originally it appeared askeyorkay—of course, with the usual orthographic variations. In the earlier half of the eighteenth century, under the influence of the Frenchquai, the present form of the word came in; toward the end of the century it had become the prevailing form. This gave the lexicographer, Walker, an opportunity to display his hostility to any sort of spelling which should engage in the reprehensible task of aiming to indicate pronunciation. Such a proceeding was in his eyes a radically vicious course ofaction. In the entire ignorance of the original form of the word he remarked that it “is now sometimes seen writtenkey; for if we cannot bring the pronunciation to the spelling, it is looked upon as some improvement to bring the spelling to the pronunciation—a most pernicious practice in language.”
Key, as the spelling suggests, had originally the sound ofeyintheyandobey; later it passed into the sound of “longe.” This it has transmitted to its supplanter. In the scarcity of rymes in our tongue, it is always a little venturesome to infer from the evidence of verse the past pronunciation of words which have with us the same termination, but different sounds. This imparts a little uncertainty to the treatment ofquayin two passages containing the word which are given by the New Historical Dictionary.
But now arrives the dismal dayShe must return to Ormond-quay,
says Swift in his poem ofStella at Wood-Park. Does the ryme here represent an attempt to conform the pronunciation to the spelling? More likely it represents the survival of a pronunciation once more or less prevalent. The second extract fromIn Memoriamis under the circumstances more striking:
If one should bring me the reportThat thou hadst touched the land to-day,And I went down unto the quay,And found thee lying in the port.
It certainly looks as if in this passage Tennyson had set out to make the pronunciation conform to the spelling.
Our next digraph isea. This has a choice variety of sounds to represent. Most commonly it receives the pronunciation of “longe.” Of the scores of examples containing it,beast,hear, anddealmay be taken as specimens. But while this is its most frequent sound, it is far from being the only one. Its most important rival is that of shorte, which can be found in no small number of words likebreath,breast,weather. In these and all other like cases the second vowel is absolutely superfluous as regards pronunciation. The unnecessary letter is in some instances due to derivation; in others it exists in defiance of it—as, for instance, infeatherandendeavor. Its insertion was doubtless due to an attempt to represent a sound which is no longer heard in these words. In a large number of instances they were once spelled without the now unpronounced letter.
Common also is a third sound of this digraph—the one we call “shortu.” It is heard inhearditself, inearth, inearly, inlearn, insearch, and in a number of other words in whicheais followed byr. There is a fourth sound of it which may be represented bybear,swear,tear. A fifth sound of it occurs in the wordsheart,hearth, andhearken. Again, a sixth sound of it is represented by such words asgreat,break,steak. In all these cases it will be observed that certain of these words have in the course of their history tended to pass from one pronunciation of the digraph into another. Sometimes they have for a long time wavered between the two.Hearth, which contains the fifth sound just assigned to the combination, was often made to ryme with words containing the third sound, represented byearth. According to the New Historical Dictionary, this is true now of Scotland, and of the Northern English dialect. It is true also of certain parts of the United States, or, at any rate, of certain persons. It seems also to have been the pronunciation of Milton.
Far from all resort of mirthSave the cricket on the hearth
are lines found inIl Penseroso. So alsogreatonce had often the first sound here given to the digraph, as if it were spelledgreet. Both thissound as well as the one it now receives were so equally authorized in the eighteenth century that Dr. Johnson triumphantly cited the fact as a convincing proof of the impossibility of making a satisfactory pronouncing dictionary, just as we are now told that we cannot have a phonetic orthography because men pronounce the same word in different ways.
The digrapheehaving already been considered, we pass on toei. Its most frequent sound is that heard in such words asrein,veil, andneighbor. But it has also the sound of “longe” inconceit,seize,ceiling, and a few others. Inheirandheiressandtheirit has the sound ofainfare. Inheightandsleightit has the sound of “longi.” Inheiferandnonpareilit has the sound of shorte. The allied digrapheyhas no such range of sounds. In accented syllables it represents only the first one given toei, as can be seen inthey,grey, andsurvey.Key, with the sound of “longe,” seems to be the solitary exception.
It is already plainly apparent that there is nothing in the character of our present spelling to fit it to serve as a guide to pronunciation, the very office for which spelling was created. But its worthlessness in this respect, with the consequent uncertainty and anxiety attendingthe use of it, forms in the case of two words containing the digraphei, one of the most amusing episodes in the history of English orthoepy. In modern times their pronunciation has given rise to controversy and heart-burnings as bitter as the matter itself is unimportant. These words areeitherandneither. Were they to adopt the most common pronunciation of the digraph they would have the sound heard in such words aseight,vein, andfeint. This, in truth, they once had. To indicate that fact they have occasionally been writtenaytherandnayther. But this pronunciation, outside of Ireland at least, had largely disappeared by the latter part of the eighteenth century. So far as many orthoepists were concerned, it was ignored entirely. Those who mentioned it often accorded it scant favor. The affections of lexicographers were long divided between the sounds heard inreceiveanddeceit, and that heard inheightandsleight. For the former there was a very marked preference. Most of them did not even admit the existence of the “longi” sound; those who did, gave it generally a grudging recognition. The various pronunciations prevailing in the latter part of the eighteenth century were specified by Nares in hisElements of Orthoepy. “Eitherandneither,” he wrote, “are spoken by some with the sound of longi. I have heard even that of longagiven to them; but as the regular way is also in use, I think it is preferable. These differences seem to have arisen from ignorance of the regular sound ofei.” As the regular sound ofei, if any one of them is entitled to that designation, is heard in such words asskeinandfreight, one gets the impression that Nares himself was ignorant of what it was.
Walker, the orthoepic lawgiver of our fathers, distinctly preferred the “longe” sound ofeitherandneither. Both the practice of Garrick and analogy led him to maintain that they should be pronounced as if ryming “with breather, one who breathes.” He was compelled, however, to admit that the “longi” sound was heard so frequently that it was hardly possible in insist exclusively upon the other. He did the best he could, nevertheless, to ignore it and thereby banish it. While in the introduction to his dictionary he recognized the existence of both sounds, in the body of his work that of “longe” was the only one given. In this course he was followed by his reviser, Smart, who succeeded to his name, and up to a certain degree to his authority. Smart went evenfurther than his predecessor. He was apparently ignorant of the fact—he certainly ignored it—that any other pronunciation of these words than that of “longe” was known to the English people. But in spite of its defiance of analogy and of the hostility of lexicographers, the sound of “longi” continued to make its way. The fact has sometimes excited the indignation of orthoepists. Yet it is hard to understand how any one who cherishes the vagaries of English spelling should get into a state of excitement about the vagaries of its pronunciation.