The English Language Part 37

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 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 {181} 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.

3. _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.

-- 250. _Difference between the change of a sound and the original false expression of a sound._--The letter _u_ is a simple single sign. The sound of _ow_, in _town_, is a diphthongal, or a double, sound. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, the modern word _town_ is spelt _tun_. 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. {182}

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 the _twelve_ following:--

1. That of _a_ in _father_. | 7. That of _e_ in _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_.

For the relations of these see Chapter II.

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_ -- _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_.

{183} 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_.

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_."

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 the _o_ in _not_ and the _o_ in _note_ are expressed by signs as unlike as [omicron] and [omega]; that is, by the letters _omicron_ and _omega_ respectively; and so it is with [epsilon] and [eta]. 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 sounds {184} of _ou_, _ew_, and _oi_, are properly spelt with two letters. Not so, however, of _i_ in _bite_.

The compound sibilants may also be expressed not by single signs, but by the combinations _tsh_ and _dzh_; 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 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.

II. _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 signs 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_.

III. _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 {185} 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_.

IV. _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.