The English Language Part 41

6. The _z_ in _azure_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin.

7. The _ch_ in _chest_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we suppose that at the time when the Anglo-Saxon alphabet was formed, the Latin _c_ in words like _civitas_ had the power, which it has in the present Italian, of _ch_.

8. The _j_ in _jest_.--A sign neither in Greek nor Latin, unless we admit the same supposition in respect to _g_, that has been indicated in respect to c.

9. The sound of the _kj_; in the Norwegian _kjenner_; _viz._, that (thereabouts) of _ksh_.--A sign neither in Latin nor Greek.

10. The English sound of _w_.--A sign neither in Latin nor Greek.

11. The sound of the German _u_, Danish _y_.--No sign in Latin; probably one in Greek, _viz._, [upsilon].

12. Signs for distinguishing the long and short vowels, as [epsilon] and [eta], [omicron] and [omega].--Wanting in Latin, but existing in Greek.

In all these points the cla.s.sical alphabets (one or both) were deficient.

To make up for their insufficiency one of two things was necessary, either to coin new letters, or to use conventional combinations of the old.

In the Anglo-Saxon alphabet (derived from the Latin) we have the following features:--

1. _C_ used to the exclusion of _k_.

2. The absence of the letter _j_, either with the power of _y_, as in German, of _zh_, as in French, or of _dzh_, as in English.

3. The absence of _q_; a useful omission, _cw_ serving instead.

4. The absence of _v_; _u_, either single or double, being used instead.

5. The use of _y_ as a vowel, and of _e_ as _y_.

6. The absence of _z_.

7. Use of _uu_, as _w_, or _v_: Old Saxon.

8. The use, in certain conditions, of _f_ for _v_.

9. The presence of the simple single signs __ and __, for the _th_ in _thin_, and the _th_ in _thine_.

Of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet we may safely say that it was _insufficient_.

The points wherein the Latin alphabet was {207} improved in its adaptation to the Gothic tongues, are, 1. the admission of __ and __; 2. the evolution of _w_ out of _u_. Upon this latter circ.u.mstance, and on _k_ and _z_, I make the following extract from the Latin Dedication of Otfrid's Krist:--"Hujus enim linguae barbaries, ut est inculta et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticae artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria _u u u_ ut puto quaerit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente,"

And, further, in respect to other orthographical difficulties:--"Interdum vero nec _a_, nec _e_, nec _i_, nec _u_, vocalium sonos praecanere potui, ibi _y_ Grec.u.m mihi videbatur ascribi. Et etiam hoc elementum lingua haec horrescit interdum; nulli se characteri aliquotiens in quodam sono nisi difficile jungens. _K_ et _z_ saepius haec lingua extra usum Latinitatis ut.i.tur; quae grammatici inter litteras dic.u.n.t esse superfluas. Ob stridorem autem dentium interdum ut puto in hac lingua _z_ utuntur, _k_ autem propter faucium sonoritatem."

-- 265. _The Anglo-Norman Period._--Between the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Norman-French, there are certain points of difference. In the first place, the sound-system of the languages (like the French) derived from the Latin, bore a greater resemblance to that of the Romans, than was to be found amongst the Gothic tongues. Secondly, the alphabets of the languages in point were more exclusively Latin. In the present French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, there is an exclusion of the _k_. This is not the case with the Anglo-Norman. Like the Latins, the Anglo-Normans considered that the sound of the Greek [theta] was represented by _th_: not, however, having this sound in their language, there was no corresponding sign in their alphabet. The greatest mischief done by the Norman influence was the ejection from the English alphabet of __ and __. In other respects the alphabet was improved. The letters _z_, _k_, _j_, were either imported or more currently recognised. The letter _y_ took a semi-vowel power, having been previously represented by _e_; {208} itself having the power of _i_.

The mode of spelling the compound sibilant with _ch_ was evolved. My notions concerning this mode of spelling are as follows:--At a given period the sound of _ce_ in _ceaster_, originally that of _ke_, had become, first, that of _ksh_, and, secondly, that of _tsh_; still it was spelt _ce_, the _e_, in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons, having the power of _y_. In the eyes also of the Anglo-Saxons the compound sound of _ksh_, or _tsh_, would differ from that of _k_ by the addition of _y_: this, it may be said, was the Anglo-Saxon view of the matter. The Anglo-Norman view was different.

Modified by the part that, in the combination _th_, was played by the aspirate _h_, it was conceived by the Anglo-Normans, that _ksh_, or _tsh_, differed from _k_, not by the addition of _y_ (expressed by _e_), but by that of _h_. Hence the combination _ch_ as sounded in _chest_. The same was the case with _sh_. This latter statement is a point in the history, not so much of an alphabet, as of an orthography.

The preceding sketch, as has been said more than once before, has been given with one view only, _viz._, that of accounting for defective modes of spelling. The history of almost all alphabets is the same. Originally either insufficient, erroneous, or inconsistent, they are transplanted from one language to a different, due alterations and additions rarely being made.

-- 266. The reduplication of the consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the cla.s.sical languages: _terra_, [Greek: thala.s.sa]. The following extract from the Ormulum (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have met with. The extract is from Thorpe's a.n.a.lecta Anglo-Saxonica.

And whase wilenn shall is boc, Efft oerr sie writenn, Himm bidde iec att hett write rihht, Swa sum iss boc himm taeche; All werrt utt affterr att itt iss Oppo iss firrste bisne, Wi all swilc rime als her iss sett, Wi alse fele wordess:

{209} And tatt he loke wel att he _An boc-staff write twiggess_,[37]

Eggwhaer aer itt uppo iss boc Iss writenn o att wise: Loke he well att hett write swa, Forr he ne magg noht elless, On Englissh writenn rihht te word, att wite he wel to soe.

Concerning the various other orthographical expedients, such as the reduplication of the vowel to express its length (_mood_), &c., I can give no satisfactory detailed history. The influence of the Anglo-Norman, a language derived from the Latin, established, in its fullest force, the recognition of the etymological principle.

-- 267. "I cannot trace the influence of the Moeso-Gothic alphabet, except, perhaps, in the case of the Anglo-Saxon letters __ and _[wynn]_, upon any other alphabet; _nor does it seem to have been itself acted upon by any earlier Gothic alphabet_." (See p. 205.) The reason for the remark in Italics was as follows: In the Icelandic language the word _run_ signifies a _letter_, and the word _runa_ a _furrow_, or _line_. It has also some secondary meanings, which it is unnecessary to give in detail. Upon a vast number of inscriptions, some upon rocks, some upon stones of a defined shape, we find an alphabet different (at least, apparently so) from that of the Greeks, Latins, and Hebrews, and also unlike that of any modern nation.

In this alphabet there is a marked deficiency of curved or rounded lines, and an exclusive preponderance of straight ones. As it was engraved rather than written, this is what we naturally expect. These letters are called Runes, and the alphabet which they const.i.tute is called the Runic alphabet.

Sometimes, by an extension of meaning, the Old Norse language, wherein they most frequently occur, is called the Runic language. This is as incorrect as to call a language an alphabetic language. To say, however, the Runic stage of a language is neither inaccurate nor inconvenient. The Runic alphabet, whether borrowed or invented by the early Goths, is of greater antiquity {210} than either the oldest Teutonic or the Moeso-Gothic alphabets. The forms, names, and order of the letters may be seen in Hickes' Thesaurus, in Olai Wormii Literatura Runica, in Rask's Icelandic Grammar, and in W. Grimm's Deutsche Runer.

The original number of the Runic letters is sixteen; expressing the sounds of _f_, _u_, __, _o_, _r_, _k_, _h_, _n_, _a_, _i_, _s_, _t_, _b_, _l_, _m_, _y_. To these are added four spurious Runes, denoting _c_, _x_, _ae_, _o_, and eight pointed Runes after the fashion of the pointed letters in Hebrew. In all this we see the influence of the imported alphabet upon the original Runes, rather than that of the original Runes upon the imported alphabet. It should, however, be remarked, that in the Runic alphabet the sound of _th_ in _thin_ is expressed by a simple sign, and that by a sign not unlike the Anglo-Saxon .

-- 268. _The Order of the Alphabet._--In the history of our alphabet, we have had the history of the changes in the arrangement, as well as of the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question now presents itself: _viz._, Is there in the order of the letters any _natural_ arrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession of letters arbitrary and accidental? In the year 1835 I conceived, that in the order of the Hebrew alphabet I had discovered a very artificial arrangement. I also imagined that this artificial arrangement had been detected by no one besides myself. Two years afterwards a friend[38] stated to me that he had made a similar observation, and in 1839 appeared, in Mr.

Donaldson's New Cratylus, the quotation with which the present section will be concluded. The three views in the main coincide; and, as each has been formed independently (Mr. Donaldson's being the first recorded), they give the satisfactory result of three separate investigations coinciding in a theory essentially the same. The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:--

_Name._ _Sound._

1. _Aleph_ Either a vowel or a breathing.

2. _Beth_ B.

3. _Gimel_ G. as in _gun_.

{211} 4. _Daleth_ D.

5. _He_ Either a vowel or an aspirate.

6. _Vaw_ V.

7. _Zayn_ Z.

8. _Kheth_ a variety of K.

9. _Teth_ a variety of T.

10. _Yod_ I.

11. _Caph_ K.

12. _Lamed_ L.

13. _Mem_ M.

14. _Nun_ N.

15. _Samech_ a variety of S.

16. _Ayn_ Either a vowel or--?

17. _Pe_ P.

18. _Tsadi_ TS.

19. _Koph_ a variety of K.

20. _Resh_ R.

21. _Sin_ S.

22. _Tau_ T.

Let _beth_, _vaw_, and _pe_ (_b_, _v_, _p_) const.i.tute a series called series P. Let _gimel_, _kheth_, and _koph_ (_g_, _kh_, _k'_) const.i.tute a series called series K. Let _daleth_, _teth_, and _tau_ (_d_, _t'_, _t_) const.i.tute a series called series T. Let _aleph_, _he_, and _ayn_ const.i.tute a series called the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order.

1. _Aleph_ of the vowel series.

2. _Beth_ of series P.

3. _Gimel_ of series K.

4. _Daleth_ of series T.

Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel series; that of series K follows; and, in the last place, comes the letter of series D. After this the order changes: _daleth_ being followed by _he_ of the vowel series.