The English Language

_X_ also is superfluous, _ks_, _gz_, or _z_, being equivalent to it.

The diphthongal forms _ae_ and _oe_, as in _aeneas_ and _Croesus_, except in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.

V. _Unsteadiness._--Here we have (amongst many other examples), 1. The consonant _c_ with the double power of _s_ and _k_; 2. _g_ with its sound in _gun_ and also with its sound in _gin_; 3. _x_ with its sounds in _Alexander_, _apoplexy_, _Xenophon_.

In the foregoing examples a single sign has a double power; in the words _Philip_ and _filip_, &c., a single sound has a double sign.

In respect to the degree wherein the English orthography is made subservient to etymology, it is sufficient to repeat the statement that the _c_, _ae_, and _oe_ are retained in the alphabet for etymological purposes only.

The defects noticed in the preceding sections are _absolute_ defects, and would exist, as they do at present, were there no language in the world except the English. This is not the case with those that are now about to be noticed; for them, indeed, the word _defect_ is somewhat too strong a term. They may more properly be termed inconveniences.

Compared with the languages of the rest of the world the use of many letters in the English alphabet is _singular_. The letter _i_ (when long or independent) is, with the exception of England, generally sounded as _ee_.

With Englishmen it has a diphthongal power. The inconvenience of this is the necessity that it imposes upon us, in studying foreign languages, of {186} unlearning the sound which we give it in our own, and of learning the sound which it bears in the language studied. So it is (amongst many others) with the letter _j_. In English this has the sound of _dzh_, in French of _zh_, and in German of _y_. From singularity in the use of letters arises inconvenience in the study of foreign tongues.

In using _j_ as _dzh_ there is a second objection. It is not only inconvenient, but it is theoretically incorrect. The letter _j_ was originally a modification of the vowel _i_. The Germans, who used it as the semivowel _y_, have perverted it from its original power less than the English have done, who sound it _dzh_.

With these views we may appreciate, of the English alphabet and orthography,

I). _Its convenience or inconvenience in respect to learning foreign tongues._--The sound given to the _a_ in _fate_ is singular. Other nations sound it as _a_ in _father_.

The sound given to the _e_, long (or independent), is singular. Other nations sound it either as _a_ in _fate_, or as _e ferme_.

The sound given to the _i_ in _bite_ is singular. Other nations sound it as _ee_ in _feet_.

The sound given to the _oo_ in _fool_ is singular. Other nations sound it as the _o_ in _note_, or as the _o chiuso_.

The sound given to the _u_ in _duck_ is singular. Other nations sound it as the _u_ in _bull_.

The sound given to the _ou_ in _house_ is singular. Other nations, more correctly, represent it by _au_ or _aw_.

The sound given to the _w_ in _wet_ is somewhat singular, but is also correct and convenient. With many nations it is not found at all, whilst with those where it occurs it has the sound (there or thereabouts) of _v_.

The sound given to _y_ is somewhat singular. In Danish it has a vowel power. In German the semivowel sound is spelt with _j_.

The sound given to _z_ is not the sound which it has in German and Italian; but its power in English is convenient and correct.

The sound given to _ch_ in _chest_ is singular. In other languages it has generally a guttural sound; in French that of {187} _sh_. The English usage is more correct than the French, but less correct than the German.

The sound given to _j_ (as said before) is singular.

II.) _The historical propriety of certain letters._--The use of _i_ with a diphthongal power is not only singular and inconvenient, but also historically incorrect. The Greek _iota_, from whence it originates, has the sound of _i_ and _ee_, as in _pit_ and _feet_.

The _y_, sounded as in _yet_, is historically incorrect. It grew out of the Greek [upsilon], a vowel, and no semivowel. The Danes still use it as such, that is, with the power of the German _u_.

The use of _j_ for _dzh_ is historically incorrect.

The use of _c_ for _k_ in words derived from the Greek, as _mechanical_, _ascetic_, &c., is historically incorrect. The form _c_ is the representative of [gamma] and [sigma] and not of the Greek _kappa_.

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

-- 253. _On certain conventional modes of spelling._--In the Greek language the sounds of _o_ in _not_ and of _o_ in _note_ (although allied) are expressed by the unlike signs or letters [omicron] and [omega], respectively. In most other languages the difference between the sounds is considered too slight to require for its expression signs so distinct and dissimilar. In some languages the difference is neglected altogether. In many, however, it is expressed,

Let the sign (-) denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or independent, whilst the sign (U) indicates shortness, or dependence. In such a case, instead of writing _not_ and _n[omega]t_, like the Greeks, we may write _n[)o]t_ and _n[=o]t_, the sign serving for a fresh letter.

Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the natural use of (-) and (U) is to express length or shortness, dependence or independence. Now, supposing the broad sound of _o_ {188} to be already represented, it is very evident that, of the other two sounds of _o_, the one must be long (independent), and the other short (dependent); and as it is only necessary to express one of these conditions, we may, if we choose, use the sign (-) alone; its presence denoting length, and its absence shortness (independence or dependence).

As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of (-) we may, if we choose, subst.i.tute such a mark as (') (and write _not_=_n[=o]t_=_n[omega]t_=_n[=o]te)_; provided only that the sign (') expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark ('), _viz._ as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long (independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (') natural?

For a reason that the reader has antic.i.p.ated, it is not natural, but conventional. It is used elsewhere not as the sign of _quant.i.ty_, but as the sign of _accent_; consequently, being placed over a letter, and being interpreted according to its natural meaning, it gives the idea, not that the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or accented. Its use as a sign of quant.i.ty is an orthographical expedient, or a conventional mode of spelling.

The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the mode of expressing the quant.i.ty of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin with these:

The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllable (as in _feet_, _cool_), is an orthographical expedient. It merely means that the syllable is long (or independent).

The juxta-position of two different vowels, where there is but one syllable (as in _plain_, _moan_), is an orthographical expedient. It generally means the same as the reduplication of a vowel, _i.e._, that the syllable is long (independent).

The addition of the _e_ mute, as in _plane_, _whale_ (whatever may have been its origin), is, at present, but an orthographical expedient. It denotes the lengthening of the syllable.

The reduplication of the consonant after a vowel, as in _spotted_, _torrent_, is in most cases but an orthographical expedient. It merely denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent). {189}

The use of _ph_ for _f_ in _Philip_, is an orthographical expedient, founded upon etymological reasons.

The use of _th_ for the simple sound of the first consonant in _thin_ and _thine_, is an orthographical expedient. The combination must be dealt with as a single letter.

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

The above instances have been adduced as ill.u.s.trations 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 a _conventional_, it precludes us from using it (at least without further explanation) in its _natural_ sense: _e.g._, the double _o_ in _mood_ const.i.tutes but one syllable. If in a foreign language we had, immediately succeeding each other, first the syllable _mo_, and next the syllable _od_, we should have to spell it _mo-od_, or _mood_ or _mo-[o-hook]d_, &c. Again, it is only by our knowledge of the language that the _th_ in _nuthook_, is not p.r.o.nounced like the _th_ in _burthen_. In the languages of India the true sound of _t_ + _h_ is common. This, however, we cannot spell naturally because the combination _th_ conveys to us another notion. Hence such combinations as _thh_, or _t'_, &c., in writing Hindoo words.

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

-- 255. The present section is the partial application of the preceding observations. It is a running commentary upon the orthographical part of Dr. Johnson's Grammar. Presuming a knowledge of the detail of the English orthography, it attempts an explanation of some of its leading characters.

Many of these it possesses in common with other tongues. Several are peculiar to itself. {190}

"_A_, sounded as _aw_, or as a modification of _o_."--_A_, as in _father_, and _o_, as in _note_ (as may be seen in p. 150), form the extremities of the vowel system. Notwithstanding this, the two sounds often interchange.

The orthographical systems of most languages bear witness to this. In French the _au_ in _autel_ has the sound of _o_; in Danish _aa_=_o_ (_baade_ being p.r.o.nounced _bohde_); in Swedish __ has the same power. In Old English the forms _hond_, _strond_, &c., occur, instead of _hand_, strand, &c. In Anglo-Saxon, brad, stan, &c., correspond to the English forms _broad_, _stone_. I am not able to say whether _a_ changes oftenest to _o_, or _o_ to a. The form _hond_ is older than the form _hand_. In the word _salt_, however, the _a_ was p.r.o.nounced as the _a_ in _fat_ before it was p.r.o.nounced (as at present) like the _o_ in _not_. If this were not the case it would never have been spelt with an a. In the words _launch_ and _haunch_, by some called _lanch_, _hanch_, and by others _lawnch_, _hawnch_, we find a present tendency to interchange these sounds.

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

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

{191}

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

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

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

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