Ἁῖμα ῥοδὸν τίκτει, τὰ δὲ δάκρυα τᾶν ἀνεμῶναν.Bion.
Ἁῖμα ῥοδὸν τίκτει, τὰ δὲ δάκρυα τᾶν ἀνεμῶναν.
Ἁῖμα ῥοδὸν τίκτει, τὰ δὲ δάκρυα τᾶν ἀνεμῶναν.
Bion.
Bion.
And if it be English, it is (on the score of analogy) as undoubtedlyanémmony. The pronunciation of the word in point is determined when we have determined the language of it.
II.Mistakes as to fact, the language of a word being determined.—To know the wordanemōneto be Greek, and to use it as a Greek word, but to call itanemŏny, is not to be undecided as to a matter of language, but to be ignorant as to a matter of quantity.
III.Neglect of analogy.—Each and all of the following words,orator,theatre,senator, &c. are in the Latin language, from whence they are derived, accented on the second syllable; asorátor,theátre,senátor. In English, on the contrary, they are accented on the first; asórator,théatre,sénator. The same is the case with many other words similarly derived. They similarly suffer a change of accent. So many words do this, that it is the rule in English for words to throw their accent from the second syllable (counting from the end of the word) to the third. It was on the strength of this rule,—in other words, on the analogies oforator, &c., that the English pronunciation of the Greek wordἀνεμώνηwas stated to beanémmone. Now, to take a word derived from the Latin, and to look to its original quantity only, without consulting the analogies of other words similarly derived, is to be neglectful of the analogies of our own language, and attentive to the quantities of a foreign one.
These, amongst others, the immediate causes of erroneous enunciation, have been adduced not for the sake of exhausting, but for the sake of illustrating the subject.
§ 245. In matters of orthoepy it is the usual custom to appeal to one of the following standards.
I.The authority of scholars.—This is of value up to a certain point only. The fittest person for determining the classical pronunciation of a word likeanemoneis the classical scholar; but the mere classical scholar is far from being the fittest person to determine the analogies that such a word follows in English.
II.The usage of educated bodies, such as the bar, the pulpit, the senate,&c.—These are recommended by two circumstances: 1. The chance that each member of them is sufficiently a scholar in foreign tongues to determine the original pronunciation of derived words, and sufficiently a critic in his own language to be aware of the analogies that are in operation. 2. The quantity of imitators that, irrespective of the worth of his pronunciation, each individual can carry with him. On this latter ground the stage is a sort of standard.
The objection to the authority of educated bodies is its impracticability. It is only the usage of the component individuals that can be determined. Of these many may carry with them the dialects of their provinces, so that, although good standards on points of accent and quantity, they are bad ones upon points of articulation.
III.The authority of societies constituted with the express purpose of taking cognizance of the language of the country.—These, although recognized in Italy and other parts of the Continent, have only been proposed in Great Britain. Their inefficacy arises from the inutility of attempting to fix that which, like language, is essentially fluctuating.
IV.The authority of the written language.—The value of this may be collected from the chapter on orthography.
V. These, amongst others, the standards that have been appealed to, are adduced not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to show the unsatisfactory nature of authority in matters of speech.
§ 246. For a person, on a point of pronunciation, to trust to his own judgment, he must be capable, with every word that he doubts about, of discussing three questions:—
I.The abstract or theoretical propriety of a certain pronunciation.—To determine this he must have a sufficient knowledge of foreign tongues and a sufficient knowledge of English analogies. He must also have some test by which he can determine to what language an equivocal word belongs. Of tests for this purpose, one, amongst others, is the following:—Let it be asked whether the wordlens(in Optics) is English or Latin; whether it is to be considered as a naturalised word or a strange one. The following fact will give an answer. There is of the wordlensa plural number, and this plural number is the English formlenses, and not the Latin formlentes. The existence of an English inflection proves that the word to which it belongs is English, although its absence does not prove the contrary. That the wordanemoneis English (and consequently pronouncedanemŏne) we know from the plural form, which is notanemonæ, butanemones.
II.The preference of one pronunciation over another on the score of utility.—The wordascetic, for certain orthographical reasons, notwithstanding its origin from the Greek wordaskeó, is calledassetic. From similar reasons there is a tendency to call the wordsceptic,septic. Theoretical propriety (and, be it observed, the analogy ofascetichas not been overlooked) is infavour of the word being soundedskeptic. The tendency of language, however, is the other way. Now, the tendency of language and the theoretical propriety being equal, there is an advantage (a point of utility) in sayingskeptic, which turns the scale. By sounding thekwe distinguish the wordskepticfromseptic. By this the language gains a point in perspicuity, so that we can talk of theanti-skepticwritings of Bishop Warburton and of theanti-septicproperties of charcoal.
III.The tendencies of language.—From p. 153, we see that the combinationewis an unstable combination, that it has a tendency to becomeyoo, and that theyinyoohas a tendency to change adpreceding intoj; in other words, we see the reason why, by many persons,dewis pronouncedjew.
It is generally an easier matter to say how a word will be sounded a hundred years hence, than to determine its present pronunciation. Theoretical propriety is in favour ofdew, so also is the view in the way of utility. Notwithstanding this, posterity will sayjew, for the tendencies of language are paramount to all other influences.
We may now judge of the relative value of the three lines of criticism exhibited above. Other things being equal, the language should have the advantage of the doubt, and the utility of a given pronunciation should prevail over its theoretical propriety. Where, however, the tendencies are overwhelming, we can only choose whether, in doubtful words, we shall speak like our ancestors, or like our posterity.[35]
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOGRAPHY.
§ 247. Orthoepy determines the correct pronunciation of words, and deals with a language as it isspoken; orthography determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a language as it iswritten. The term is derived from the Greek wordsorthos(upright), andgraphé, orgrafæ(writing). Orthography is less essential to language than orthoepy; since all languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are written. Orthography presupposes orthoepy. Orthography addresses itself to the eye, orthoepy to the ear. Orthoepy deals with the articulate sounds that constitute syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by which such articulate sounds are expressed in writing. Aletteris the sign of an articulate (and, in the case ofh, of an inarticulate) sound.
A full and perfect system of orthography consists in two things:—1. The possession of a sufficient and consistent alphabet. 2. The right application of such an alphabet. This position may be illustrated more fully.
§ 248. First, in respect to a full and perfect alphabet. Let there be in a certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the number of forty, whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of them, amount to no more thanthirty. In this case the alphabet is insufficient. It is not full enough: since ten of the simple single articulate sounds have no corresponding signs whereby they may be expressed. In our own language, the sounds (amongst others) ofthinthin, and ofthinthine, are simple and single, whilst there is no sign equally simple and single to spell them with.
An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in agiven language two simple single sounds, for instance, thepinpate, and thefinfate. Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a given sign, for instance,פ (as is actually the case in Hebrew), stand for thepinpate; and let a second sign be required for thefinfate. Concerning the nature of this latter sign, two views may be taken. One framer of the alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere modifications of each other, may argue that no new sign (or letter) is at all necessary, but that the sound offinfatemay be expressed by a mere modification of the sign (or letter)פ, and may be written thusפּ, or thusפ´ orפ', &c.; upon the principle that, like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The other framer of the alphabet, contemplating the difference between the two sounds, rather than the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of the signפ, but a letter altogether new, such asf, orφ, &c., upon the principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude should be expressed by signs of a different degree of dissimilitude.
Hitherto the expression of the sounds in point is a matter of convenience only. No question has been raised as to its consistency or inconsistency. This begins under conditions like the following:—Let there be in the language in point the sounds of thetintin, and of thethinthin; which (it may be remembered) are precisely in the same relation to each other as thepinpateand thefinfate. Let each of these sounds have a sign (or letter) expressive of it. Upon the nature of these signs, or letters, will depend the nature of the sign or letter required for thefinfate. If the letter expressing thethinthinbe a mere modification of the letter expressing thetintin, then must the letter expressive of thefinfatebe a mere modification of the letter expressing thepinpate, andvice versâ. If this be not the case, the alphabet is inconsistent.
In the English alphabet we have (amongst others) the following inconsistency:—The sound of thefinfate, in a certain relation to the sound of thepinpate, is expressed by a totally distinct sign; whereas, the sound of thethinthin(similarly related to thetintin) is expressed by no new sign, but by a mere modification oft; viz.,th.
A third element in the faultiness of an alphabet is the fault of erroneous representation. The best illustration of this we get from the Hebrew alphabet, where the sounds ofת andט, merevarietiesof each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar signs, whilstת andתּ, soundsspecificallydistinct, are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter.
§ 249.The right application of an alphabet.—An alphabet may be both sufficient and consistent, accurate in its representation of the alliances between articulate sounds, and in nowise redundant; and yet, withal, it may be so wrongly applied as to be defective. Of defect in the use or application of the letters of an alphabet, the three main causes are the following:—
1.Unsteadiness in the power of letters.—Of this there are two kinds. In the first, there is one sound with two (or more) ways of expressing it. Such is the sound of the letterfin English. In words of Anglo-Saxon origin it is spelt with a single simple sign, as infill; whilst in Greek words it is denoted by a combination, as inPhilip. The reverse of this takes place with the letterg; here a single sign has a double power; ingibbetit is sounded asj, and ingibberishasgingot.
2.The aim at secondary objects.—The natural aim of orthography, of spelling, or of writing (for the three terms mean the same thing), is to express thesoundsof a language. Syllables and words it takes as they meet the ear, it translates them by appropriate signs, and so paints them, as it were, to the eye. That this is the natural and primary object is self-evident; but beyond this natural and primary object there is, with the orthographical systems of most languages, a secondary one,viz.the attempt to combine with the representation of the sound of a given word the representation of its history and origin.
The sound of thec, incity, is the sound that we naturally spell with the letters, and if the expression of this sound was theonlyobject of our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (sity). The following facts, however, traversethis simple view of the matter. The word is a derived word; it is transplanted into our own language from the Latin, where it is spelt with ac(civitas); and to change thiscintosconceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason thecis retained, although, as far as the mere expression of sounds (the primary object in orthography) is concerned, the letter is a superfluity. In cases like the one adduced the orthography is bent to a secondary end, and is traversed by the etymology.
3.Obsoleteness.—It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one time may have been correct, may, by a change of pronunciation, become incorrect; so that orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling.
§ 250.Difference between the change of a sound and the original false expression of a sound.—The letteruis a simple single sign. The sound ofow, intown, is a diphthongal, or a double, sound. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, the modern wordtownis spelttún. In this case one of two things must have taken place: either the word must have changed its sound, or the Anglo-Saxons must have expressed it falsely and improperly.
§ 251. From the foregoing sections we arrive at the theory of a full and perfect alphabet and orthography, of which a few (amongst many others) of the chief conditions are as follow:—
1. That for every simple single sound, incapable of being represented by a combination of letters, there be a simple single sign.
2. That sounds within a determined degree of likeness be represented by signs within a determined degree of likeness; whilst sounds beyond a certain degree of likeness be represented by distinct and different signs,and that uniformly.
3. That no sound have more than one sign to express it.
4. That no sign express more than one sound.
5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words, and not their histories.
6. That changes of speech be followed by corresponding changes of spelling.
With these principles in our mind we may measure the imperfections of our own and of other alphabets.
§ 252. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate sounds of the language. The enumeration of these is, strictly speaking, a point, not of orthography, but of orthoepy. It is, however, so intimately connected with the former that the present chapter seems its proper place. The vowels belonging to the English language are thetwelvefollowing:—
For the relations of these see Chapter II.
The diphthongal sounds arefour.
This last sound being most incorrectly expressed by the single letteri.
The consonantal sounds are, 1. the two semivowels; 2. the four liquids; 3. fourteen out of the sixteen mutes; 4.chinchest, andjinjest, compound sibilants; 5.ng, as inking; 6. the aspirateh. In all, twenty-four.
Some writers would add to these the additional sound of theé ferméof the French; believing that the vowel in words liketheirandveinhas a different sound from the vowel in words likethereandvain. For my own part I cannot detect such a difference either in my own speech or that of my neighbours; although I am far from denying that in certaindialectsof our language such may have been the case. The following is an extract from the Danish grammar for Englishmen, by Professor Rask, whose eye, in the matter in question, seems to have misled his ear: "Theé fermé, orclose é, is very frequent in Danish, but scarcely perceptible in English; unless in such words as,their,vein,veil, which appear to sound a little different fromthere,vain,vale."
The vowels being twelve, the diphthongs four, and the consonantal sounds twenty-four, we have altogether as many as forty sounds, some being so closely allied to each other as to be mere modifications, and others being combinations rather than simple sounds; all, however, agreeing in requiring to be expressed by letters or by combinations of letters, and to be distinguished from each other.
Now, although every sound specifically distinct should be expressed by a distinct sign, it does not follow that mere modifications or varieties (especially if they be within certain limits) should be so expressed. In the Greek language sounds as like as theoinnotand theoinnoteare expressed by signs as unlike asοandω; that is, by the lettersomicronandomegarespectively; and so it is withεandη. All that can be said in this case is, that it is the character of the Greek alphabet to represent a difference which the English neglects.
With respect to the diphthongs it is incorrect, uncommon, and inconvenient to represent them by simple single signs, rather than by combinations. In the English language the soundsofou,ew, andoi, are properly spelt with two letters. Not so, however, ofiinbite.
The compound sibilants may also be expressed not by single signs, but by the combinationstshanddzh; although, for certain reasons, such a mode of spelling is inconvenient. With these views we may appreciate,
I.The insufficiency of the English alphabet.
A.In respect to the vowels.—Notwithstanding the fact that the sounds of theainfather,fate, andfat, and of theoand theawinnote,not, andbawl, are modifications ofaandorespectively, we have stillsixvowel sounds specifically distinct, for which (ybeing a consonant rather than a vowel) we have butfivesigns. Theuinduck, specifically distinct from theuinbull, has no specifically distinct sign to represent it.
B.In respect to the consonants.—Thethinthin, thethinthine, theshinshine, thezinazure, and thenginking, five sounds specifically distinct, and five sounds perfectly simple require corresponding signs, which they have not.
II.Its inconsistency.—Thefinfan, and thevinvansounds in a certain degree of relationship topandb, are expressed by signs as unlike asfis unlikep, and asvis unlikeb. The sound of thethinthin, thethinthine, theshinshine, similarly related tot,d, ands, are expressed by signs as liket,d, ands, respectively, asthandsh.
The compound sibilant sound ofjinjestis spelt with the single signj, whilst the compound sibilant sound inchestis spelt with the combinationch.
III.Erroneousness.—The sound of theeeinfeetis considered the long (independent) sound of theeinbed; whereas it is the long (independent) sound of theiinpit.
Theiinbiteis considered as the long (independent) sound of theiinpit; whereas it is a diphthongal sound.
Theuinduckis looked upon as a modification of theuinbull; whereas it is a specifically distinct sound.
Theouinhouseand theoiinoilare looked upon as the compounds ofoandiand ofoandurespectively; whereas the latter element of them is notiandu, butyandw.
Thethinthinand thethinthineare dealt with as oneand the same sound; whereas they are sounds specifically distinct.
Thechinchestis dealt with as a modification ofc(either with the power ofkor ofs); whereas its elements aretandsh.
IV.Redundancy.—As far as the representation of sounds is concerned the lettercis superfluous. In words likecitizenit may be replaced bys; in words likecatbyk. Inch, as inchest, it has no proper place. Inch, as inmechanical, it may be replaced byk.
Qis superfluous,cworkwbeing its equivalent.
Xalso is superfluous,ks,gz, orz, being equivalent to it.
The diphthongal formsæandœ, as inÆneasandCrœsus, except in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.
V.Unsteadiness.—Here we have (amongst many other examples), 1. The consonantcwith the double power ofsandk; 2.gwith its sound ingunand also with its sound ingin; 3.xwith its sounds inAlexander,apoplexy,Xenophon.
In the foregoing examples a single sign has a double power; in the wordsPhilipandfilip, &c., a single sound has a double sign.
In respect to the degree wherein the English orthography is made subservient to etymology, it is sufficient to repeat the statement that thec,æ, andœare retained in the alphabet for etymological purposes only.
The defects noticed in the preceding sections areabsolutedefects, and would exist, as they do at present, were there no language in the world except the English. This is not the case with those that are now about to be noticed; for them, indeed, the worddefectis somewhat too strong a term. They may more properly be termed inconveniences.
Compared with the languages of the rest of the world the use of many letters in the English alphabet issingular. The letteri(when long or independent) is, with the exception of England, generally sounded asee. With Englishmen it has a diphthongal power. The inconvenience of this is the necessity that it imposes upon us, in studying foreign languages, ofunlearning the sound which we give it in our own, and of learning the sound which it bears in the language studied. So it is (amongst many others) with the letterj. In English this has the sound ofdzh, in French ofzh, and in German ofy. From singularity in the use of letters arises inconvenience in the study of foreign tongues.
In usingjasdzhthere is a second objection. It is not only inconvenient, but it is theoretically incorrect. The letterjwas originally a modification of the voweli. The Germans, who used it as the semivowely, have perverted it from its original power less than the English have done, who sound itdzh.
With these views we may appreciate, of the English alphabet and orthography,
I).Its convenience or inconvenience in respect to learning foreign tongues.—The sound given to theainfateis singular. Other nations sound it asainfather.
The sound given to thee, long (or independent), is singular. Other nations sound it either asainfate, or asé fermé.
The sound given to theiinbiteis singular. Other nations sound it aseeinfeet.
The sound given to theooinfoolis singular. Other nations sound it as theoinnote, or as theó chiuso.
The sound given to theuinduckis singular. Other nations sound it as theuinbull.
The sound given to theouinhouseis singular. Other nations, more correctly, represent it byauoraw.
The sound given to thewinwetis somewhat singular, but is also correct and convenient. With many nations it is not found at all, whilst with those where it occurs it has the sound (there or thereabouts) ofv.
The sound given toyis somewhat singular. In Danish it has a vowel power. In German the semivowel sound is spelt withj.
The sound given tozis not the sound which it has in German and Italian; but its power in English is convenient and correct.
The sound given tochinchestis singular. In other languages it has generally a guttural sound; in French that ofsh. The English usage is more correct than the French, but less correct than the German.
The sound given toj(as said before) is singular.
II.)The historical propriety of certain letters.—The use ofiwith a diphthongal power is not only singular and inconvenient, but also historically incorrect. The Greekiota, from whence it originates, has the sound ofiandee, as inpitandfeet.
They, sounded as inyet, is historically incorrect. It grew out of the Greekυ, a vowel, and no semivowel. The Danes still use it as such, that is, with the power of the Germanü.
The use ofjfordzhis historically incorrect.
The use ofcforkin words derived from the Greek, asmechanical,ascetic, &c., is historically incorrect. The formcis the representative ofγandσand not of the Greekkappa.
In remodelling alphabets the question of historical propriety should be recognized. Other reasons for the use of a particular letter in a particular sense being equal, the historical propriety should decide the question. The above examples are illustrative, not exhaustive.
§ 253.On certain conventional modes of spelling.—In the Greek language the sounds ofoinnotand ofoinnote(although allied) are expressed by the unlike signs or lettersοandω, respectively. In most other languages the difference between the sounds is considered too slight to require for its expression signs so distinct and dissimilar. In some languages the difference is neglected altogether. In many, however, it is expressed, and that by some modification of the original letter.
Let the sign (ˉ) denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or independent, whilst the sign (˘) indicates shortness, or dependence. In such a case, instead of writingnotandnωt, like the Greeks, we may writenŏtandnōt, the sign serving for a fresh letter. Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the natural use of (ˉ) and (˘) is to express length or shortness, dependence or independence. Now, supposing the broad sound ofoto be already represented, it is very evident that, of the other two sounds ofo, the one must be long (independent), and the other short (dependent); and as it is only necessary to express one of these conditions, we may, if we choose, use the sign (ˉ) alone; its presence denoting length, and its absence shortness (independence or dependence).
As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of (ˉ) we may, if we choose, substitute such a mark as (´) (and writenót=nōt=nωt=nōte); provided only that the sign (´) expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark (´),viz.as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long (independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (´) natural? For a reason that the reader has anticipated, it is not natural, but conventional. It is used elsewhere not as the sign ofquantity, but as the sign ofaccent; consequently, being placed over a letter, and being interpreted according to its natural meaning, it gives the idea, not that the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or accented. Its use as a sign of quantity is an orthographical expedient, or a conventional mode of spelling.
The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the mode of expressing the quantity of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin with these:
The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllable (as infeet,cool), is an orthographical expedient. It merely means that the syllable is long (or independent).
The juxta-position of two different vowels, where there is but one syllable (as inplain,moan), is an orthographical expedient. It generally means the same as the reduplication of a vowel,i.e., that the syllable is long (independent).
The addition of theemute, as inplane,whale(whatever may have been its origin), is, at present, but an orthographical expedient. It denotes the lengthening of the syllable.
The reduplication of the consonant after a vowel, as inspotted,torrent, is in most cases but an orthographical expedient. It merely denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent).
The use ofphforfinPhilip, is an orthographical expedient, founded upon etymological reasons.
The use ofthfor the simple sound of the first consonant inthinandthine, is an orthographical expedient. The combination must be dealt with as a single letter.
X, however, andqare not orthographical expedients. They are orthographical compendiums.
The above instances have been adduced as illustrations only. Further details will be found hereafter. For many of them we can give a reason (for instance, for the reduplication of a consonant to express the shortness of the preceding vowel), and of many of them we can give an historical account (see Chapter X.).
§ 254. The mischief of orthographical expedients is this:—When a sign, or letter, is used in aconventional, it precludes us from using it (at least without further explanation) in itsnaturalsense:e.g., the doubleoinmoodconstitutes but one syllable. If in a foreign language we had, immediately succeeding each other, first the syllablemo, and next the syllableod, we should have to spell itmo-od, ormöodormo-ỏd, &c. Again, it is only by our knowledge of the language that thethinnuthook, is not pronounced like thethinburthen. In the languages of India the true sound oft+his common. This, however, we cannot spell naturally because the combinationthconveys to us another notion. Hence such combinations asthh, ort‛, &c., in writing Hindoo words.
A second mischief of orthographical conventionalities, is the wrong notions that they engender, the eye misleading the ear. Thatthis reallyt+h, no one would have believed had it not been for the spelling.
§ 255. The present section is the partial application of the preceding observations. It is a running commentary upon the orthographical part of Dr. Johnson's Grammar. Presuming a knowledge of the detail of the English orthography, it attempts an explanation of some of its leading characters. Many of these it possesses in common with other tongues. Several are peculiar to itself.
"A, sounded asaw, or as a modification ofo."—A, as infather, ando, as innote(as may be seen in p.150), form the extremities of the vowel system. Notwithstanding this, the two sounds often interchange. The orthographical systems of most languages bear witness to this. In French theauinautelhas the sound ofo; in Danishaa=o(baadebeing pronouncedbohde); in Swedishåhas the same power. In Old English the formshond,strond, &c., occur, instead ofhand, strand, &c. In Anglo-Saxon, brád, stán, &c., correspond to the English formsbroad,stone. I am not able to say whetherachanges oftenest too, orotoa. The formhondis older than the formhand. In the wordsalt, however, theawas pronounced as theainfatbefore it was pronounced (as at present) like theoinnot. If this were not the case it would never have been spelt with ana. In the wordslaunchandhaunch, by some calledlanch,hanch, and by otherslawnch,hawnch, we find a present tendency to interchange these sounds.
The change fromatootakes place most especially before the liquidl,wall,call,fall. When the liquidlis followed by another consonant, it (viz.l) is generally sunk in pronunciation,falcon,salmon, &c., pronouncedfaucon,sammon, orsaumon. The reason of this lies in the following fact,viz.,that syllables wherein there are, at the same time, two final consonants and a long vowel, have a tendency to become shortened by one of two processes, viz., either by ejecting one of the consonants, or by shortening the vowel. That thelinfalconis affected not by the change ofatoo, but by the change of a short vowel to a long, or of a slender one to a broad one, is shown in the tendency which the common people have to sayhodeforhold, as well as by the Scotch formgowdforgold. This fact bears upon the difficult problem in the Greek (and in other languages),viz., whether thelengtheningof the vowel in words likeὀδοὺς(compared withὀδόντος), is the cause or the effect of the rejection of the consonant.
"Eis long, as inscene; or short, as incellar."'—Johnson.It has been stated before that the (so-called) long sound ofeis non-existent, and theeinscene, is the (so-called) long sound of theiinpit.
For the power ofeinsinceandonce, see the remarks ons.
For the power ofeinhedgeandoblige, see the remarks ong.
The power ofemute in words likecane,bane,tune,robe,pope,fire,cure,tube, has already been noticed. It serves to denote the length of the preceding vowel. For this purpose it is retained; but it was not for this purpose that it was invented. Originally it expressed a sound, and it is only by a change of language that it has come, as it were by accident, to be an orthographical expedient.
Let a word consist of two syllables. Let the latter end in a vowel. Let there be between the vowel of the first and the vowel of the second syllable, one consonant and no more,e. g.,namæ. Let the consonant belong to the root of the word; and let the first syllable of the word be the essential and the radical part of it. Let this same syllable (as the essential and radical part of it) have an accent. The chances are that, under such circumstances, the vowel of the first syllable will be long (independent), just as the chances are that a vowel followed by two consonants will be short. Let a change in language affect thefinalvowel, so that a word which was originally pronouncednama, should become, first,namë, and afterwardsnām,naim, ornæm; the vowel being sounded as theainfate. Let the finale, although lost in pronunciation, be retained in the spelling. The chances are that, the above conditions being given, such ane(final and mute) shall, whenever it occurs, occur at the end of a long syllable. The next process is for a succeeding generation to mistake a coincidence for a sign, and to imagine that anemute expresses the length of syllable.
I consider this to be the key to the use of theemute in all words where it is preceded by one consonant only.
From the circumstance that the French and the English are the only nations wherein theemute is part and parcel of the orthography, it has been hastily imagined that the employment of it is to be attributed to the Norman Conquest. The truth, however, is, that we find it equally in words of Saxon and of Norman origin.
The fact that, in certain words, anemute is preceded bytwo consonants and by a short vowel, does not militate against the view given above.
"Ihas a sound, long, as infine, and short, as infin. That is eminently observable ini, which may be likewise remarked in other letters, that the short sound is not the long sound contracted, but a sound wholly different."—Johnson.This extract has been made in order to add the authority of Johnson to the statement so often repeated already;viz., that theiinbiteis not the long sound of theiinbit.
For the sound ofuinguest,prorogue,guard, see the remarks ong.
As a vowel,yis wholly superfluous. It is a current remark that more words end iny(fortify,pretty) than in any other letter. This is true only in respect to their spelling. As a matter ofspeech, theyfinal has always the sound either of theeeinfeet, or of theiinbite. Such is the case with the wordsfortifyandpretty, quoted above. For some reason or other, the voweleis never, in English, written at the end of words, unless when it is mute; whilstiis never written at all. Instead ofcri, we writecry, &c. This is a peculiarity of our orthography, for which I have no satisfactory reason. Itmaybe, that with words ending ine,yis written for the sake of showing that the vowel is not mute, but sounded. Again, the adjectives ending inyasany, and the adverbs inly, asmanly, in the older stages of our language ended, not iny, but inig(manlig,ænig); so that the presenty, in such words, may be less the equivalent ofithan the compendium ofig. I venture this indication with no particular confidence.
Thebindebtor,subtile,doubt, agrees with thebinlamb,limb,dumb,thumb,womb, in being mute. It differs, however, in another respect. The wordsdebtor,subtle,doubt, are of classical, the wordslamb,limb,dumb, &c., are of Saxon, origin. Indebtor, &c., thebwas, undoubtedly, at one time, pronounced, since it belonged to a different syllable;debitor,subtilis,dubito, being the original forms. I am far from being certain that with the other words,lamb, &c., this was the case. With them thebbelonged (if it belonged to the word at all) to the same syllable as them. I think,however, that instead of this being the case, theb, inspeech, never made a part of the word at all; that it belongs now, and that it always belonged, to thewrittenlanguage only; and that it was inserted in the spelling upon what may be called the principle of imitation. For a further illustration of this, see the remarks on the wordcould.
"Chhas a sound which is analysed intotsh, aschurch,chin,crutch.Cmight be omitted in the language without loss, since one of its sounds might be supplied bys, and the other byk, but that it preserves to the eye the etymology of words, asfacefromfacies,captivefromcaptivus"—Johnson.
Beforea,o,u(that is, before a full vowel),cis sounded ask; beforee,i, andy(that is, before a small vowel), it has the power ofs. This change of sound according to the nature of the vowel following, is so far from being the peculiarity of the English, that it is common in all languages; except that sometimesc, instead of becomings, becomests,tsh,ksh, in other words, some other sibilant;but always a sibilant. A reference to p.153will explain this change. At a certain time,k(writtenc, as is the case in Latin) becomes changed by the vowel following intoksh, and from thence intos,ts, ortsh. That the syllablescit,cyt,cet, were at one time pronouncedkit,kyt,ket, we believe: 1. from the circumstance that if it were not so, they would have been spelt with ans; 2. from the comparison of the Greek and Latin languages, where the wordscete,circus,cystis, Latin, areκητὴ, κίρκος,κύστις, Greek.
In the wordsmechanical,choler, &c., derived from the Greek, it must not be imagined that thecrepresents the Greekkappaorκ. The combinationc+his to be dealt with as a single letter. Thus it was that the Romans, who had in their language neither the sound ofχ, nor the signκ, rendered the Greekchi(χ), just as byththey renderedθ, and byph,φ.
The faulty representation of the Greekχhas given rise to a faulty representation of the Greekκ, as inascetic, fromἀσκήτικος.
"C, according to the English orthography, never ends aword; therefore we writestick,block, which were originallysticke,blocke. In such wordscis now mute."—Johnson.Just as there was a prejudice againstioreending a word there seems to have been one in the case ofc. In the wordFrederickthere are three modes of spelling: 1. Frederic; 2. Frederik; 3. Frederick. Of these three it is the last only that seems, to an Englishman, natural. The form Frederic seems exceptionable, because the last letter isc, whilst Frederik is objected to becausekcomes in immediate contact with the short vowel.
Now the reason againstcending a word seems this. From what has been remarked above,cseems, in and of itself, to have no power at all. Whether it shall be sounded askor assseems undetermined, except by the nature of the vowel following. If the vowel following be small,c=s, if full,c=k. Butcfollowed by nothing is equivocal and ambiguous. Nowcfinal iscfollowed by nothing; and thereforecequivocal, ambiguous, indefinite, undetermined. This is the reason whycis never final. Let there be such words asstickeandblocke. Let thekbe taken away. The words remainstice,bloce. Thekbeing taken away, there is a danger of calling themstise,blose.
A verbal exception being taken, the statement of Dr. Johnson, that in words likestickandblockthecis mute, is objectionable. The mute letter is not so much thecas thek.
"Gat the end of a word is always hard, asring,sing."—Johnson.A verbal exception may be taken here.Ng, is not a combination of the sounds ofn+g, but the representation of a simple single sound; so that, as in the case ofthandsh, the two letters must be dealt with as a single one.
"Gbeforenis mute, asgnash,sign,foreign."—Johnson.The three words quoted above are not in the same predicament. In words likegnashtheghas been silently dropped on the score of euphony (see remarks onk); insignandforeigntheghas not been dropped, but changed. It has taken the allied sound of the semivowely, and so, with the preceding vowel, constitutes a diphthong.
Beforea,o,u(full vowels),ghas the sound, as ingay,go,gun: beforee,i,y, that ofgem,giant.
At the end of a word (that is, followed by nothing at all), or followed by a consonant, it has the same sound that it has beforea,o,u—agog,grand. This shows that such is its natural sound. Inhedgeandobligetheemute serves to show that thegis to be pronounced asj.
Let there be the wordrŏg. Let the vowel be lengthened. Let this lengthening be expressed by the addition ofemute,roge. There is now a risk of the word being calledroje. This is avoided by insertingu, as inprorogue. Why, however, is it that theuruns no chance of being pronounced, and the word of being soundedprorogwé? The reason for this lies in three facts. 1. The affinities between the sounds ofgaandka. 2. The fact thatquis merelykw. 3. The fact that inqu, followed by another vowel, as inquoit(pronouncedkoyt),antique, &c., theuis altogether omitted in pronunciation. In other words, the analogy ofquis extended togu.
For the varied sounds ofghinplough,tough,enough(enow),through, we must remember that the original sound ofghwas a hard guttural, as is at present the case in Scotland, and betweeng,h,f,v,w, there are frequent interchanges.
"His a note of aspiration."—It is under the notion thatth,ph,sh, as inthin,thine,Philip,shine, are aspirated sounds, thathis admitted in the spelling. As has been repeatedly stated,th,ph,share to be treated as single signs or letters.
"J, consonant, sounds uniformly like the softg(i.e., as ingem), and is, therefore, a letter useless, except in etymology, asejaculation,jester,jocund,juice."—Johnson.It may be added that it never occurs in words of Saxon origin, and that in the single wordAllelujahit has the sound ofy, as in the German.
Knever comes beforea,o,u, or before a consonant. It is used beforee,i,y, wherecwould, according to the English analogy, be liable to be sounded ass; as inkept,king,skirt. These words, if writtencept,cing,scirt, would run the risk of being soundedsept,sing,sirt. Broadly speaking,kis neverused except wherecwould be inconvenient. The reason of this lies in the fact of there being no such letter askin the Latin language. Hence arose in the eyes of the etymologist the propriety of retaining, in all words derived from the Latin (crown,concave,concupiscence, &c.), the letterc, to the exclusion ofk. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, being taken from the Roman, excludedk, so thatcwas written even before the small vowels,a,e,i,y; ascyning, orcining,a king.Cthen supplantskupon etymological grounds only. In the languages derived from the Latin this dislike to the use ofkleads to several orthographical inconveniences. As the tendency ofc, beforee,i,y, to be sounded ass(or as a sound allied tos), is the same in those languages as in others; and as in those languages, as in others, there frequently occur such sounds askit,ket,kin, &c., a difficulty arises as to the spelling. If speltcit,cet, &c., there is the risk of their being soundedsit,set. To remedy this, anhis interposed—chit,chet, &c. This, however, only substitutes one difficulty for another, sincechis, in all probability, already used with a different sound,e.g., that ofsh, as in French, or that ofkguttural, as in German. The Spanish orthography is thus hampered. Unwilling to spell the wordchimera(pronouncedkimera) with ak; unable to spell it with eithercorch, it writes the wordquimæra. This distaste forkis an orthographical prejudice. Even in the way of etymology it is but partially advantageous, since in the other Gothic languages, where the alphabet is less rigidly Latin, the words that in English are spelt with ac, are there written withk,—kam, German;komme, Danish;skrapa, Swedish;=came,come,scrape.
The use ofkfinal, as instick, &c., has been noticed in p.194.
"Skeptic, for so it should be written, notsceptic."—Johnson.Quoted for the sake of adding authority to the statement made in p.193,viz., that the Greekkappais to be represented not byc, but byk.
"Kis never doubled, butcis used before it to shorten the vowel by a double consonant, ascŏckle,pĭckle."—Johnson.This is referable to the statement thatkis never used wherecis admissible.
"Kis used beforen,knell,knot, but totally loses its sound."—Johnson.This, however, is not the ease in the allied languages; in German and Danish, in words likeknecht,knive, thekis sounded. This teaches us that such was once the case in English. Hence we learn that in the wordsknife,knight(and also ingnaw,gnash), we have an antiquated or obsolete orthography.
For the ejection of the sound oflincalf,salmon,falcon, &c. see undera. For thelincould, see that word.
"Nis sometimes mute afterm, asdamn,condemn,hymn."—Johnson.In all these words thenoriginally belonged to a succeeding syllable,dam-no,condem-no,hym-nus.
Q, accurately speaking, is neither a letter, nor an abbreviation. It is always followed byu, asqueen,quilt, and the two lettersqumust be looked upon as a single sign, equivalent to (but scarcely an abbreviation) ofkw.Qis not=kalone. The combinationqu, is never soundedkoo. Neither iskw. If it were so, there would be in the wordqueen(currently speaking)threesounds ofu,viz., two belonging toq(=kw), and one belonging touitself.Wbeing considered as=2u:q=k+ ½w. This view ofqbears upon the theory of words likeprorogue, &c.
The reader is referred to p. 152. There he is told that, when a word ends in a flat consonant,b,v,d,g, the plural termination is not the sound ofs, but that ofz(stagz,dogz); althoughsbe the letterwritten. Such also is the case with words ending in the vowels or the liquids (peaz,beanz,hillz, notpeace,beance,hillce). This fact influences our orthography. The majority of words ending insare found to be plural numbers, or else (what is the same thing in respect to form) either genitive cases, or verbs of the third person singular; whilst in the majority of these thesis sounded asz. Hence, the inference from analogy thatssingle, at the end of words, is sounded asz. Now this fact hampers the orthography of those words whereinsfinal retains its natural sound, assince,once,mass,mace; for let these bewrittensins,ons,mas, the chances are that they will be pronouncedsinz,onz,maz. To remedy this, thesmay be doubled, as inmass. This, however, can be done in a few cases only. It cannot be done conveniently where the vowel is long, the effect of a double consonant being to denote that the preceding vowel is short. Neither can it be done conveniently after a consonant, such combinations assinss, &c., being unsightly. This throws the grammarian upon the use ofc, which, as stated above, has, in certain situations, the power ofs. To write, however, simplysinc, oronc, would induce the risk of the words being soundedsink,onk. To obviate this,eis added, which has the double effect of not requiring to be sounded (being mute), and of showing that thechas the sound ofs(being small).
"It is the peculiar quality ofsthat it may be sounded before all consonants, exceptxandz, in whichsis comprised,xbeing onlyks, andzonly a hard [flat] or grosss. Thissis therefore termed by grammarianssuæ potestatis litera, the reason of which the learned Dr. Clarke erroneously supposed to be, that in some words it might be doubled at pleasure."—Johnson.A reference to the current Greek Grammars will indicate another reason forσbeing calledsuæ potestatis litera. It will there be seen that, whilstπ,β,φ—κ,γ,χ—τ,δ,θ—are grouped together, astenues,mediæ, andaspiratæ, and asinter se cognatæ,σstands by itself;ζits media (flat sound) being treated as a double letter, andsh, its so-called aspirate, being non-existent in the Greek language.
The sound oftibefore a vowel, as insalvation, is explained in p.153.
"Thhas two sounds; the one soft [flat], asthus,whether; the other hard [sharp], asthing,think. The sound is soft [flat] in all words between two vowels, asfather,whether; and betweenrand a vowel, asburthen."—Johnson.The reason of the latter statement lies in the fact of both the vowels andrbeingflat(see p.152), and so exerting a flattening influence upon the sounds in contact with them.
In the substantivesbreathandcloth, thethis sharp (i.e., asthinthin); in the verbsbreatheandclothe, thethis flat (i.e.,asthinthine).—A great number of substantives may be made verbs by changing the sound of their final consonant. However, with the wordsbreatheandclothe, a second change has taken place,viz., the vowel has been lengthened. Now of these two changes,viz., the lengthening of the vowel, and the flattening of the consonant, which is the one represented by theemute, inclotheandbreathe, as compared withclothandbreath? I imagine the former. Hence an exception is taken to the following statement of Dr. Johnson:—"When it (th) is softened [flattened] at the end of a word, anesilent must be added, asbreath,breathe,cloth,clothe."
The sounds of thesinsure, of thetinpicture(when pronouncedpictshure), and of thezinazureandglazier, are explained in p.153.