A Handbook of the English Language-- 156. _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 as many as three letters c, ae, and are retained in the alphabet for _etymological purposes only_.
-- 157. 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 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 in the English alphabet and orthography--
_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 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.
-- 158. _The historical propriety or impropriety 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 ?, 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 ? and s and not of the Greek _kappa_.
-- 159. _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) ? and ?, 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 () 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 writing _not_ and _n?t_, like the Greeks, we may write _not_ and _not_, the sign serving for a fresh letter. Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the natural use of () and (?) is to express length or shortness, dependence or independence. Now, supposing the broad sound of o 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 chose, subst.i.tute such a mark as (') and write _not_ = _not_ = _n?t_ = _note_; provided only that the sign (') expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark ('), 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. Neither is it convenient.
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 then, would be an orthographical expedient, or an inconvenient conventional mode of spelling.
The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the modes 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 juxtaposition 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).
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.
_Caution._--The letters x and q are not orthographical expedients. They are orthographical _compendiums_, x = ks, and q = kw.
CHAPTER IX.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.
-- 160. The preceding chapter has exhibited the theory of a full and perfect alphabet; it has shown how far the English alphabet falls short of such a standard; and, above all, it has exhibited some of the conventional modes of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives a _history_ of our alphabet, whereby many of its defects are _accounted for_. These defects, it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the rest of the world; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it possesses them in a higher degree than any.
With few, if any exceptions, _all the modes of writing in the world originate_, directly or indirectly, from the Phnician.
At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phnicia, and the neighboring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of _twenty-two_ separate and distinct letters.
Now the chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only _twenty-two_ letters will be insufficient.
Hence it may safely be a.s.serted, that the original Semitic alphabet was _insufficient_ for even the _Semitic_ languages.
-- 161. In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to another, and be found to suit. When such is the case, alterations are required. The extent to which these alterations are made at all, or (if made) made on a right principle varies with different languages. Some _adapt_ an introduced alphabet well: others badly.
Of the _twenty-two_ Phnician letters the Greeks took but _twenty-one_. The eighteenth letter, _tsadi_ ? was never imported into Europe.
Compared with the Semitic, the _Old_ Greek alphabet ran thus:--
_Hebrew._ _Greek._
1. ? ?.
2. ? ?.
3. ? G.
4. ? ?.
5. ? ?.
6. ? Digamma.