4. 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 tún. In this case one of two things must have taken place; either the word must have changed its sound, or the AngloSaxons must have expressed it falsely and improperly.

§ 305. Of a full and perfect alphabet and orthography, then, the chief conditions are as follows:

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. Of all the points connected with the improvement of vicious modes of spelling, this requires the most careful and discreet handling.

The elementary articulate sounds of the English Language are to be found in § 277. To these some writers would add the additional sound of the é fermé 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 é fermé, or close é, 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."

Now 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.

But, 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 o and w; that is, by the letters omicron and omega respectively; and so it is with ɛ and n. 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.

ε

η.

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 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.

§ 306. With these views we may appreciate,

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 æ, as in Æneas and Crœsus, except in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.

5. 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 fillip, &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 the c, a, and œ are retained in the alphabet for etymological purposes only.

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 use it as the semi-vowel y, have perverted it from its original power less than the English have done, who sound it dzh.

With these views we may appreciate, of the English alphabet and orthography—

1. 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 in 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 semi-vowel 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.

2. The historical propriety 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 v, a vowel, and no semi-vowel. 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 ascetic, &c. is historically incorrect. In remodelling alphabets the question of historical propriety should be recognised. Other reasons for the use of a particular letter in a particular sense being equal, the historical propriety should decide the question. The above examples are illustrative, not exhaustive.

§ 307. 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