A Handbook of the English Language by Robert Gordon Latham (books for men to read .txt) 📖

of the th in thin, the th in thine, the sh in shine, similarly related to t, d, and s, are expressed by signs as like t, d, and s, respectively, as th and sh.

The compound sibilant sound of j in jest is spelt with the single sign j, whilst the compound sibilant sound in chest is spelt with the combination ch.

§ 154. Erroneousness.—The sound of the ee in feet is considered the long (independent) sound of the e in bed; whereas it is the long (independent) sound of the i in pit.

The i in bite is considered as the long (independent) sound of the i in pit; whereas it is a diphthongal sound.

The u in duck is looked upon as a modification of the u in bull; whereas it is a specifically distinct sound.

The ou in house and the oi in oil are looked upon as the compounds of o and i and of o and u respectively; whereas the latter element of them is not i and u, but y and w.

The th in thin and the th in thine are dealt with as one and the same sound; whereas they are sounds specifically distinct.

The ch in chest is dealt with as a modification of c (either with the power of k or of s); whereas its elements are t and sh.

§ 155. Redundancy.—As far as the representation of sounds is concerned the letter c is superfluous. In words like citizen it may be replaced by s; in words like cat by k. In ch, as in chest, it has no proper place. In ch, as in mechanical, it may be replaced by k.

Q is superfluous, cw or kw being its equivalent.

X also is superfluous, ks, gz, or z, being equivalent to it.

The diphthongal forms æ and œ, as in Æneas and Crœsus, except in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.

§ 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, æ, and œ 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 é fermé.

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 ó 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 υ, a vowel, and no semivowel. The Danes still use it as such, that is, with the power of the German ü.

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 γ and σ 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) ο and ω, 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 writing not and nωt, like the Greeks, we may write nŏt and nōt, 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 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 (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 chose, substitute such a mark as (′) and write nót = nōt = nωt = nōte; 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 anticipated, it is not natural, but conventional. Neither is it convenient. It is used elsewhere not as the sign of quantity, 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 quantity 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 quantity 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 Phœnician.

At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phœnicia, 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 asserted, 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