A Handbook of the English Language Part 17

-- 146. A third element in the faultiness of an alphabet is the fault of erroneous representation. The best ill.u.s.tration of this we get from the Hebrew alphabet, where the sounds of ? and ?, mere _varieties_ of each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar signs, whilst ? and ?, sounds _specifically_ distinct, are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter.

-- 147. _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 no wise 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:--

a. _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 letter f in English. In words of Anglo-Saxon origin it is spelt with a single simple sign, as in _fill_; whilst in Greek words it is denoted by a combination, as in _Philip_. The reverse of this takes place with the letter g; here a single sign has a double power; in _gibbet_ it is sounded as j, and in _gibberish_ as g in _got_.

b. _The aim at secondary objects._--The natural aim of orthography, of spelling, or of writing, is to express the _sounds_ of 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 the c, in _city_, is the sound that we naturally spell with the letter s, and if the expression of this sound was the _only_ object of our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (_sity_). The following facts, however, traverse this 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 a c (_civitas_); and to change this c into s conceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason the c is 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.

c. _Obsoleteness._--It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one time may have been correct, may, by a change of p.r.o.nunciation, become incorrect; so that orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling.

-- 148. 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.

-- 149. Previous to considering the sufficiency or insufficiency of the English alphabet, it is necessary to enumerate the elementary articulate sounds of the language. The vowels belonging to the English language are the following _twelve_:--

1. That of a in _father_. 7. That of e -- _bed_.

2. -- a -- _fat_. 8. -- i -- _pit_.

3. -- a -- _fate_. 9. -- ee -- _feet_.

4. -- aw -- _bawl_. 10. -- u -- _bull_.

5. -- o -- _not_. 11. -- oo -- _fool_.

6. -- o -- _note_. 12. -- u -- _duck_.

The diphthongal sounds are _four_.

1. That of ou in _house_.

2. -- ew -- _new_.

3. -- oi -- _oil_.

4. -- i -- _bite_.

This last sound being most incorrectly expressed by the single letter i.

The consonantal sounds are, 1. the two semivowels; 2. the four liquids; 3.

fourteen out of the sixteen mutes; 4. ch in _chest_, and j in _jest_, compound sibilants; 5. ng, as in _king_; 6. the aspirate h. In all, twenty-four.

1. w as in _wet_. 13. th as in _thin_.

2. y -- _yet_. 14. th -- _thine_.

3. m -- _man_. 15. g -- _gun_.

4. n -- _not_. 16. k -- _kind_.

5. l -- _let_. 17. s -- _sin_.

6. r -- _run_. 18. z -- _zeal_.

7. p -- _pate_. 19. sh -- _shine_.

8. b -- _ban_. 20. z -- _azure, glazier_.

9. f -- _fan_. 21. ch -- _chest_.

10. v -- _van_. 22. j -- _jest_.

11. t -- _tin_. 23. ng -- _king_.

12. d -- _din_. 24. h -- _hot_.

-- 150. Some writers would add to these the additional sound of the _e ferme_ of the French; believing that the vowel in words like _their_ and _vein_ has a different sound from the vowel in words like _there_ and _vain_. 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 certain _dialects_ of 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; "The _e ferme_, or _close e_, 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 from _there_, _vain_, _vale_."

-- 151. 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. This enables us to appreciate--

-- 152. _The insufficiency of the English alphabet._--

a. _In respect to the vowels._--Notwithstanding the fact that the sounds of the a in _father_, _fate_, and _fat_, and of the o and the aw in _note_, _not_, and _bawl_, are modifications of a and o respectively, we have still _six_ vowel sounds specifically distinct, for which (y being a consonant rather than a vowel) we have but _five_ signs. The u in _duck_, specifically distinct from the u in _bull_, has no specifically distinct sign to represent it.

b. _In respect to the consonants_.--The th in _thin_, the th in _thine_, the sh in _shine_, the z in _azure_, and the ng in _king_, five sounds specifically distinct, and five sounds perfectly simple require corresponding signs, which they have not.

-- 153. _Its inconsistency._--The f in _fan_, and the v in _van_, sounds in a certain degree of relationship to p and b, are expressed by sounds as unlike as f is unlike p, and as v is unlike b. The sound 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 ae and , as in _aeneas_ and _Crsus_, except in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.