A Handbook of the English Language

§ 93. A true word sometimes takes the appearance of a hybrid without really being so. The -icle, in icicle, is apparently the same as the -icle in radicle. Now, as ice is Gothic, and -icle classical, hybridism is simulated. Icicle, however, is not a derivative but a compound; its parts being is and gicel, both Anglo-Saxon words.^[39]

§ 94. On incompletion of the radical.—Let there be in a given language a series of roots ending in -t, as sæmat. Let a euphonic influence eject the -t, as often as the word occurs in the nominative case. Let the nominative case be erroneously considered to represent the root, or radical, of the word. Let a derivative word be formed accordingly, i.e., on the notion that the nominative form and the radical form coincide. Such a derivative will exhibit only a part of the root; in other words, the radical will be incomplete.

Now all this is what actually takes place in words like hæmo-ptysis (spitting of blood), sema-phore (a sort of telegraph). The Greek imparisyllabics eject a part of the root in the nominative case; the radical forms being hæmat- and sæmat-, not hæm-and sæm-.

Incompletion of the radical is one of the commonest causes of words being coined faultily. It must not, however, be concealed, that even in the classical writers, we have in words like δίστομος examples of incompletion of the radical.

§ 95. The preceding chapters have paved the way for a distinction between the historical analysis of a language, and the logical analysis of one.

Let the present language of England (for illustration's sake only) consist of 40,000 words. Of these let 30,000 be Anglo-Saxon, 5,000 Anglo-Norman, 100 Celtic, 10 Latin of the first, 20 Latin of the second, and 30 Latin of the third period, 50 Scandinavian, and the rest miscellaneous. In this case the language is considered according to the historical origin of the words that compose it, and the analysis is an historical analysis.

But it is very evident that the English, or any other language, is capable of being contemplated in another view, and that the same number of words may be very differently classified. Instead of arranging them according to the languages whence they are derived, let them be disposed according to the meanings that they convey. Let it be said, for instance, that out of 40,000 words, 10,000 are the names of natural objects, that 1000 denote abstract ideas, that 1000 relate to warfare, 1000 to church matters, 500 to points of chivalry, 1000 to agriculture, and so on through the whole. In this case the analysis is not historical but logical; the words being classed not according to their origin, but according to their meaning.

Now the logical and historical analyses of a language generally in some degree coincide; that is, terms for a certain set of ideas come from certain languages; just as in English a large proportion of our chemical terms are Arabic, whilst a still larger one of our legal ones are Anglo-Norman.

CHAPTER II.

THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

§ 96. The relation of the present English to the Anglo-Saxon is that of a modern language to an ancient one: the words modern and ancient being used in a defined and technical sense.

Let the word smiðum illustrate this. Smið-um, the dative plural of smið, is equivalent in meaning to the English to smiths; or to the Latin fabr-is. Smiðum, however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two words (i.e., a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letter s, in smiths, shows that the word is plural. The -um, in smiðum, does this and something more. It is the sign of the dative case plural. The -um in smiðum, is the part of a word. The preposition to is a separate word with an independent existence. Smiðum is the radical syllable smið + the subordinate inflectional syllable -um, the sign of the dative case. The combination to smiths is the substantive smiths + the preposition to, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in form. As far, then, as the words just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English by expressing an idea by a certain modification of the form of the root, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea by the addition of a preposition; in other words, the Saxon inflection is superseded by a combination of words.

The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement. 1. The earlier the stage of a given language the greater the amount of its inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the smaller the amount of them. 2. As languages become modern they substitute prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses. 3. The amount of inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of prepositions and auxiliary verbs. 4. In the course of time languages drop their inflections, and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means of prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place. 5. Given two modes of expression, the one inflectional (smiðum), the other circumlocutional^[40] (to smiths), we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second to a late, state of language.

The present chapter, then showing the relation of the English to the Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the general relation of a modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; and so are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the ancient Greek.

§ 97. Contrasted with the English, the Anglo-Saxon has (among others) the following differences.

NOUNS.

1. Gender.—In Anglo-Saxon there were three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter. With adjectives each gender had its peculiar declension. With substantives also there were appropriate terminations, though only to a certain degree.

2. The definite article varied with the gender of its substantive; þæt eage, the eye; se steorra, the star; seo tunge, the tongue.

3. Number.—The plural form in -en (as in oxen), rare in English, was common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole declension; e.g., eágan, eyes; steorran, stars; tungan, tongues. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxons had forms in -u and -a as ricu, kingdoms; gifa, gifts. The termination -s, current in the present English, was confined to a single gender and to a single declension, as endas, ends; dagas, days; smiðas, smiths.

4. Case.—Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least three; viz., the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words an ablative or instrumental one. Smið, a smith; smiðe, to a smith; smiðes, of a smith. Plural, smiðas, smiths; smiðum, to smiths; smiða, of smiths: he, he; hine, him; him, to him; his, his; se, the; þa, the; þy, with the; þam, to the; þæs, of the.

5. Declension.—In Anglo-Saxon it was necessary to determine the declension of a substantive. There was the weak, or simple declension for words ending in a vowel (as, eage, steorra, tunga), and the strong declension for words ending in a consonant (smið, spræc, leáf). The letters i and u were dealt with as semivowels, semi-vowels being dealt with as consonants; so that words like sunu and gifu belonged to the same declension as smið and sprǽc.

6. Definite and indefinite form of adjectives.—In Anglo-Saxon each adjective had two forms, one definite and one indefinite. There is nothing of this kind in English. We say a good sword, and the good sword equally. In Anglo-Saxon, however, the first combination would be se gode sweord, the second án god sweord, the definite form being distinguished from the indefinite by the addition of a vowel.

7. Pronouns personal.—The Anglo-Saxon language had for the first two persons a dual number; inflected as follows:

Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative pronouns, as well as the numerals twa and þreo, had a fuller declension than they have at present.

VERBS.

8. Mood.—The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with one exception^[41]) differs from the indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon considerably different from the indicative.

The Saxon infinitive ended in -an (lufian), and besides this there was a so-called gerundial form, to lufigenne.

Besides these there were considerable differences in respect to particular words; but of these no notice is taken; the object being to indicate the differences between the ancient and modern stages of a language in respect to grammatical structure.

9. To bring about these changes a certain amount of time is, of course, necessary; a condition which suggests the difficult question as to the rate at which languages change. This is different for different languages; but as the investigation belongs to general philology rather than to the particular history of the English language, it finds no place here.

§ 98. The extent, however, to which external causes may accelerate or retard philological changes, is not foreign to our subject; the influence of the Norman Conquest, upon the previous Anglo-Saxon foundation, being a problem of some difficulty.

At the first glance it seems to have been considerable, especially in the way of simplifying the grammar. Yet the accuracy of this view is by no means unequivocal. The reasons against it are as follows:

a. In Friesland no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Frisian, as compared with the ancient, is nearly as simple in its grammatical structure, as the English is when compared with the Anglo-Saxon.

b. In Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, no such conquest took place. Yet the modern Danish and Swedish, as compared with the Old Norse, are nearly as simple in their grammatical structure, as the English is, when compared with the Anglo-Saxon.

The question requires more investigation than it has met with.

An extract from Mr. Hallam's "History of Literature" closes the present section, and introduces the next.

"Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to determine the commencement of the English language; not so much, as in those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce why it should pass for a separate language, rather than a modification or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage, and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:—1. By contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think, can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pass for the latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which is to cover everything from A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1250."—Chapter i. 47.

§ 99. This shows that by the middle of the 12th century, the Anglo-Saxon of the standard Anglo-Saxon authors, had undergone such a change as to induce the scholars of the present ago to denominate it, not Saxon, but Semi-Saxon. It had ceased to be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become English.

Some, amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon are,

1. The substitution of -an for -as, in the plural of substantives, munucan for munucas (monks); and, conversely, the substitution of -s for -n, as steorres for steorran (stars).

2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels, þæt ylc for þæt ylce; sone for sunu; name for nama; dages for dagas.

3. The substitution of -n for -m in the dative case, hwilon for hwilum.

4. The ejection of the -n of the infinitive mood, cumme for cuman (to come), nemne for nemnen (to name).

5. The ejection of -en in the participle passive, I-hote for gehaten (called, hight).

6. The gerundial termination -enne, superseded by the infinitive termination -en; as to lufian for to lufienne, or lufigenne.

7. The substitution of -en for -að in the persons plural of verbs; hi clepen (they call) for hi clypiað, &c.

The preponderance (not the occasional occurrence) of forms like those above constitute Semi-Saxon in contradistinction to standard Saxon, classical Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon proper.

§ 100. Old English stage.—Further changes convert Semi-Saxon into Old English. Some, amongst others, are the following:—

1. The ejection of the dative plural termination -um, and the substitution of the preposition to and the plural sign -s; as to smiths for smiðum. Of the dative singular the -e is retained (ende, worde); but it is by no means certain that, although recognized in writing, it was equally recognized in pronunciation also.

2. The ejection of -es in the genitive singular whenever the preposition of came before it; Godes love (God's love), but the love of God, and not the love of Godes.

3. The syllable -es as a sign of the genitive case extended to all genders and to all declensions; heart's for heortan; sun's for sunnan.

4. The same in respect to the plural number; sterres for steorran; sons for suna.

5. The ejection of -na in the genitive plural; as of tunges for tungena.

6. The use of the word the, as an article, instead of se, &c.

The preponderance of the forms above (and not their mere occasional occurrence) constitutes Old English in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

§ 101. In the Old English the following forms predominate.

1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative pronoun, or definite article; þan, þenne, þære, þam;—in contradistinction to the Middle English.

2. The presence of the dative singular in -e; ende, smithe.

3. The existence of a genitive plural in -r or -ra; heora, theirs; aller, of all. This, with substantives and adjectives, is less common.

4. The substitution of heo for they, of heora for their, of hem for them.

5. A more frequent use of min and thin, for my and thy;—in contradistinction to both Middle and Modern English.

6. The use of heo for she;—in contradistinction to Middle and Modern English and Old Lowland Scotch.

7. The use of broader vowels; as in iclepud or iclepod (for icleped or yclept); geongost, youngest; ascode, asked; eldore, elder.

8. The use of the strong preterits (see the chapter on the tenses of verbs), where in the present English the weak form is found—wex, wop, dalf, for waxed, wept, delved.

9. The omission not only of the gerundial termination -enne, but also of the infinitive sign -en after to; to honte, to speke;—in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.

10. The substitution of -en for -eþ or -eð, in the first and second persons plural of verbs; we wollen, we will: heo schullen, they should.

11. The comparative absence of the articles se and seo.

12. The substitution of ben and beeth, for synd and syndon = we, ye, they are.

§ 102. Concerning the extent to which the Anglo-Norman was used, I retail the following statements and quotations.

1. "Letters even of a private nature were written in Latin till the beginning of the reign of Edward I., soon after 1270, when a sudden change brought in the use of French."—Mr. Hallam, communicated by Mr. Stevenson (Literature of Europe, i. 52, and note).

2. Conversation between the members of the Universities was ordered to be carried on either in Latin or French:—"Si qua inter se proferant, colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur."—Statutes of Oriel College, Oxford.—Hallam, ibid. from Warton.

3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."—Ibid.

4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into French."—Ibid. "Pueri in scholis, contra morem cæterarum nationum, et Normannorum adventu, derelicto proprio vulgari, construere Gallice compelluntur. Item quod filii nobilium ab ipsis cunabulorum crepundiis ad Gallicum idioma informantur. Quibus profecto rurales homines assimulari volentes, ut per hoc spectabiliores videantur, Francigenari satagunt omni nisu."—Higden (Ed. Gale, p. 210).

§ 103. The reigns of Edward III., and Richard II., may be said to form a transition from the Old to the Middle; those of Mary and Elizabeth from the Middle to the New, Recent or Modern English. No very definite line of demarcation, however, can be drawn.

§ 104. The present tendencies of the English may be determined by observation: and as most of them will be noticed in the etymological part of this volume, the few here indicated must be looked upon as illustrations only.

1. The distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood is likely to pass away. We verify this by the very general tendency to say if it is, and if he speaks, rather than if it be, and if he speak.

2. The distinction between the participle passive and the past tense is likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to say it is broke, and he is smote, for it is broken and he is smitten.

3. Of the double forms, sung and sang, drank and drunk, &c., one only will be the permanent.

As stated above, these tendencies are but a few out of many, and have been adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it.

QUESTIONS.

1. Classify the Celtic elements of the English language.

2. Enumerate the chief periods during which words from the Latin were introduced into English, and classify the Latin elements accordingly.

3. What words were introduced directly by the Danes, Scandinavians, or Norsemen? What indirectly? Through what language did these latter come?

4. Give the dates of the Battle of Hastings, and of the reigns of Louis Outremer, Ethelred II, and Edward the Confessor. What was the amount of Norman-French elements in England anterior to the Conquest?

5. Give the languages from whence the following words were introduced into the English—flannel, jerked (as to beef), hammock, apparatus, waltz, Seraph, plaid, street, muslin.

6. Distinguish between the direct, indirect, and ultimate origin of introduced words. What words have we in English which are supposed to have originated in the Ancient Ægyptian, the Syrian, and the languages of Asia Minor?

7. Under what different forms do the following words appear in English—monasterium, πρεσβύτερος, ἐπίσκοπος. Account for these differences. Syrup, shrub, and sherbet, all originate from the same word. Explain the present difference.

8. Give the direct origin (i.e., the languages from which they were immediately introduced) of—Druid, epistle, chivalry, cyder, mæander. Give the indirect origin of the same.

9. Investigate the process by which a word like sparrow-grass, apparently of English origin, is, in reality, derived from the Latin word asparagus. Point out the incorrectness in the words frontispiece, colleague, and lanthorn.

10. To what extent may Norse, and to what extent may Celtic words, not found in the current language of English, be found in the provincial dialects?

11. What were the original names of the towns Whitby and Derby? From what language are the present names derived? Give the reason for your answer.

12. Show the extent to which the logical and historical analyses coincide in respect to the words introduced from the Roman of the second period, the Arabic, the Anglo-Norman, and the Celtic of the current English.

13. What are the plural forms of criterion, axis, genius, index, dogma? When is a word introduced from a foreign language perfectly, when imperfectly incorporated with the language into which it is imported? Is the following expression correct—the cherubim that singeth aloft? If not, why?

14. What is there exceptionable in the words semaphore (meaning a sort of telegraph), and witticism. Give the etymologies of the words icicle, radicle, and radical.

15. What are the singular forms of cantharides, phænomena, and data?

16. What are the stages of the English language? How does the present differ from the older ones?

17. Exhibit in detail the inflections of the Anglo-Saxon a) noun, and b) verb, which are not found in the present English. What is the import of the loss of inflections, and their replacement by separate words? What is the nature of such words in nouns? What in verbs?

18. Contrast the syntax of the Anglo-Saxon with the Modern English adjective. What is the English for the Anglo-Saxon words wit, unc, incer?

19. Express, in general terms, the chief points wherein a modern language differs from an ancient one: or, rather, the points wherein the different stages of the same language differ.

20. Investigate the influence of the Norman Conquest on the English. Explain the terms Semi-Saxon, Old English, and Middle English. Compare the stages of the English with those of the other Gothic tongues.

21. Give the Modern English for the following forms and expressions—munucas, steorran, to lufienne. What are the Anglo-Saxon forms of munucan, steorres, i-hotte, clepen? Translate the Latin word omnium (genitive plural of omnis) into Old English. Translate the Greek ὁ, ἡ, τὸ into Anglo-Saxon, Old English, and Modern English.

22. Investigate the extent to which the Anglo-Norman superseded the Anglo-Saxon subsequent to the Conquest. Is any further change in the grammatical structure of our language probable? If so, what do you consider will be the nature of it?

PART III.

SOUNDS, LETTERS, PRONUNCIATION, SPELLING.

CHAPTER I.

GENERAL NATURE AND CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.

§ 105. To two points connected with the subject of the following chapter, the attention of the reader is requested.

a. In the comparison of sounds the ear is liable to be misled by the eye. Thus—

The syllables ka and ga are similar syllables. The vowel is in each the same, and the consonant is but slightly different. Hence the words ka and ga are more allied to each other than the words ka and ba, ka and ta, &c., because the consonantal sounds of k and g are more allied than the consonantal sounds of k and b, k and t.

Comparing the syllables ga and ka, we see the affinity between the sounds, and we see it at the first glance. It lies on the surface, and strikes the ear at once.

It is, however, very evident that ways might be devised or might arise from accident, of concealing the likeness between the two sounds, or, at any rate, of making it less palpable. One of such ways would be a faulty mode of spelling. If instead of ga we wrote gha the following would be the effect: the syllable would appear less simple than it really was; it would look as if it consisted of three parts instead of two, and consequently its affinity to ka would seem less than it really was. It is perfectly true that a little consideration would tell us that, as long as the sound remained the same, the relation of the two syllables remained the same also; and that, if the contrary appeared to be the case, the ear was misled by the eye. Still a little consideration would be required. Now in the English language we have (amongst others) the following modes of spelling that have a tendency to mislead;—

The sounds of ph and of f, in Philip and fillip, differ to the eye, but to the ear are identical. Here a difference is simulated.

The sounds of th in thin, and of th in thine, differ to the ear but to the eye seem the same. Here a difference is concealed.

Furthermore. These last sounds appear to the eye to be double or compound. This is not the case; they are simple single sounds, and not the sounds of t followed by h, as the spelling leads us to imagine.

b. Besides improper modes of spelling, there is another way of concealing the true nature of sounds. If I say that ka and ga are allied, the alliance is manifest; since I compare the actual sounds. If I say ka and gee are allied, the alliance is concealed; since I compare, not the actual sounds, but only the names of the letters that express those sounds. Now in the English language we have (amongst others) the following names of letters that have a tendency to mislead:—

The sounds fa and va are allied. The names eff and vee conceal this alliance.

The sounds sa and za are allied. The names ess and zed conceal the alliance.

In comparing sounds it is advisable to have nothing to do either with letters or names of letters. Compare the sounds themselves.

§ 106. In many cases it is sufficient, in comparing consonants, to compare syllables that contain those consonants; e.g., in order to determine the relations of p, b, f, v, we say pa, ba, fa, va; or for those of s and z, we say sa, za. Here we compare syllables, each consonant being followed by a vowel. At times this is insufficient. We are often obliged to isolate the consonant from its vowel, and bring our organs to utter (or half utter) the imperfect sounds of p', b', t', d'.

§ 107. Let any of the vowels (for instance, the a in father) be sounded. The lips, the tongue, and the parts within the throat remain in the same position; and as long as these remain in the same position the sound is that of the vowel under consideration. Let, however, a change take place in the position of the organs of sound; let, for instance, the lips be closed, or the tongue be applied to the front part of the mouth: in that case the vowel sound is cut short. It undergoes a change. It terminates in a sound that is different, according to the state of those organs whereof the position has been changed. If, on the vowel in question, the lips be closed, there then arises an imperfect sound of b or p. If on the other hand, the tongue be applied to the front teeth, or to the forepart of the palate, the sound is one (more or less imperfect) of t or d. This fact illustrates the difference between the vowels and the consonants. It may be verified by pronouncing the a in fate, ee in feet, oo in book, o in note, &c.

It is a further condition in the formation of a vowel sound, that the passage of the breath be uninterrupted. In the sound of the l' in lo (isolated from its vowel) the sound is as continuous as it is with the a in fate. Between, however, the consonant l and the vowel a there is this difference: with a, the passage of the breath is uninterrupted; with l, the tongue is applied to the palate, breaking or arresting the passage of the breath.

§ 108. The primary division of our articulate sounds is into vowels and consonants. The latter are again divided into liquids (l, m, n, r) and mutes (p, b, f, v, t, d, k, g, s, z, &c.).

§ 109. Sharp and flat.—Take the sounds of p, f, t, k, s. Isolate them from their vowels, and pronounce them. The sound is the sound of a whisper.

Let b, v, d, g, z, be similarly treated. The sound is no whisper, but one at the natural tone of our voice.

Now p, f, t, k, s (with some others that will be brought forward anon) are sharp, whilst b, v, &c., are flat. Instead of sharp, some say hard, and instead of flat, some say soft. The terms sonant and surd are, in a scientific point of view, the least exceptionable. They have, however, the disadvantage of being pedantic. The tenues of the classics (as far as they go) are sharp, the mediæ flat.

§ 110. Continuous and explosive.—Isolate the sounds of b, p, t, d, k, g. Pronounce them. You have no power of prolonging the sounds, or of resting upon them. They escape with the breath, and they escape at once.

It is not so with f, v, sh, zh. Here the breath is transmitted by degrees, and the sound can be drawn out and prolonged for an indefinite space of time. Now b, p, t, &c., are explosive, f, v, &c., continuous.

§ 111. Concerning the vowels, we may predicate a) that they are all continuous, b) that they are all flat.

Concerning the liquids, we may predicate a) that they are all continuous, b) that they are all flat.

Concerning the mutes, we may predicate a) that one half of them is flat, and the other half sharp, and b) that some are continuous, and that others are explosive.

§ 112.—The letter h is no articulate sound, but only a breathing.

CHAPTER II.

SYSTEM OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.

§ 113.—The attention of the reader is now directed to the following foreign vowel sounds.

1. The é fermé, of the French.—This is a sound allied to, but different from, the a in fate, and the ee in feet. It is intermediate to the two.

2. The u of the French, ü of the Germans, y of the Danes.—This sound is intermediate to the ee in feet, and the oo in book.

3. The o chiuso, of the Italians.—Intermediate to the o in note, and the oo in book.

For these sounds we have the following sequences: a in fate, é fermé, ee in feet, ü in übel (German), oo in book, o chiuso, o in note. And this is the true order of alliance among the vowels; a in fate, and o in note, being the extremes; the other sounds being transitional or intermediate. As the English orthography is at once singular and faulty, it exhibits the relationship but imperfectly.

§ 114. The system of the mutes.—Preliminary to the consideration of the system of the mutes, let it be observed:—

1. that the th in thin is a simple single sound, different from the th in thine, and that it may be expressed by the sign þ.

2. That the th in thine is a simple single sound, different from the th in thin, and that it may be expressed by the sign ð.

3. That the sh in shine is a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign σ^[42] (Greek σῖγμα).

4. That the z in azure, glazier (French j) is a simple single sound, and that it may be expressed by the sign ζ^[42] (Greek ζῆτα).

5. That in the Laplandic, and possibly in many other languages, there are two peculiar sounds, different from any in English, German, and French, &c., and that they may respectively be expressed by the sign κ and the sign γ^[42] (Greek κάππα and γάμμα).

§ 115. With these preliminary notices we may exhibit the system of the sixteen mutes; having previously determined the meaning of two fresh terms, and bearing in mind what was said concerning the words sharp and flat, continuous and explosive.

Lene and aspirate.—From the sound of p in pat, the sound of f in fat differs in a certain degree. This difference is not owing to a difference in their sharpness or flatness. Each is sharp. Neither is it owing to a difference in their continuity or explosiveness; although f is continuous, whilst p is explosive. This we may ascertain by considering the position of s. The sound of s is continuous; yet s, in respect to the difference under consideration, is classed not with f the continuous sound but with p the explosive one. This difference, which has yet to be properly elucidated, is expressed by a particular term; and p is called lene, f is called aspirate.

Hence p, b, t, d, k, g, s, z, are lene; f, v, þ, ð, κ, γ, σ, ζ, are aspirate. Also p, f, t, þ, k, κ, s, σ, are sharp, whilst b, v, d, ð, g, γ, z, ζ, are flat; so that there is a double series of relationship capable of being expressed as follows:—

All the so-called aspirates are continuous; and, with the exception of s and z, all the lenes are explosive.

§ 116. I believe that in the fact of each mute appearing in a four-fold form (i.e., sharp, or flat, lene, or aspirate), lies the essential character of the mutes as opposed to the liquids.

§ 117. Y and w.—These sounds, respectively intermediate to γ and i (the ee in feet), and to v and u (oo in book), form a transition from the vowels to the consonants.

§ 118. The French word roi, and the English words oil, house, are specimens of a fresh class of articulations; viz., of compound vowel sounds or diphthongs. The diphthong oi is the vowel o + the semivowel y. The diphthongal sound in roi is the vowel o + the semivowel w. In roi the semivowel element precedes, in oil it follows.

§ 119. The words quoted indicate the nature of the diphthongal system.

1. Diphthongs with the semivowel w, a) preceding, as in the French word roi, b) following, as in the English word new.

2. Diphthongs with the semivowel y, a) preceding, as is common in the languages of the Lithuanic and Slavonic stocks, b) following, as in the word oil.

3. Triphthongs with a semivowel both preceding and following.

The diphthongs in English are four; ow as in house, ew as in new, oi as in oil, i as in bite, fight.

§ 120. Chest, jest.—Here we have compound consonantal sounds. The ch in chest = t + sh; the j in jest = d + zh. I believe that in these combinations one or both the elements, viz., t and sh, d and zh, are modified; but I am unable to state the exact nature of this modification.

§ 121. Ng.—The sound of the ng in sing, king, throng, when at the end of a word, or of singer, ringing, &c., in the middle of a word, is not the natural sound of the combination n and g, each letter retaining its natural power and sound; but a simple single sound, for which the combination ng is a conventional mode of expression.

§ 122. Compared with a in fate, and the o in note, a in father, and the aw in bawl, are broad; the vowels of note and fate being slender.

§ 123. In fat, the vowel is, according to common parlance, short; in fate, it is long. Here we have the introduction of two fresh terms. For the words long and short, I substitute independent and dependent. If from the word fate I separate the final consonantal sound, the syllable fa remains. In this syllable the a has precisely the sound that it had before. It remains unaltered. The removal of the consonant has in nowise modified its sound or power. It is not so, however, with the vowel in the word fat. If from this I remove the consonant following, and so leave the a at the end of the syllable, instead of in the middle, I must do one of two things: I must sound it either as the a in fate, or else as the a in father. Its (so-called) short sound it cannot retain, unless it be supported by a consonant following. For this reason it is dependent. The same is the case with all the so-called short sounds, viz., the e in bed, i in fit, u in bull, o in not, u in but.

§ 124. It is not every vowel that is susceptible of every modification. I (ee) and u (oo) are incapable of becoming broad. The e in bed, although both broad and slender, is incapable of becoming independent. For the u in but, and for the ö of certain foreign languages, I have no satisfactory systematic position.

§ 125. Vowel System.

From these the semivowels w and y make a transition to the consonants v and the so-called aspirate of g, respectively.

§ 126. System of Consonants.

CHAPTER III.

OF CERTAIN COMBINATIONS OF ARTICULATE SOUNDS.

§ 127. Certain combinations of articulate sounds are incapable of being pronounced. The following rule is one that, in the forthcoming pages, will frequently be referred to. Two (or more) mutes, of different degrees of sharpness and flatness, are incapable of coming together in the same syllable. For instance, b, v, d, g, z, &c., being flat, and p, f, t, k, s, &c., being sharp, such combinations as abt, avt, apd, afd, agt, akd, atz, ads, &c., are unpronounceable. Spelt, indeed, they may be; but all attempts at pronunciation end in a change of the combination. In this case either the flat letter is really changed to its sharp equivalent (b to p, d to t, &c.) or vice versâ (p to b, t to d). The combinations abt and agt, to be pronounced, must become either apt or abd, or else akt or agd.

The word mutes in the third sentence of this section must be dwelt on. It is only with the mutes that there is an impossibility of pronouncing the heterogeneous combinations above-mentioned. The liquids and the vowels are flat; but the liquids and vowels, although flat, may be followed by a sharp consonant. If this were not the case, the combinations ap, at, alp, alt, &c., would be unpronounceable.

The semivowels, also, although flat, admit of being followed by a sharp consonant.

§ 128. Unstable combinations.—That certain sounds in combination with others have a tendency to undergo farther changes, may be collected from the observation of our own language, as we find it spoken by those around us, or by ourselves. The diphthong ew is a sample of what may be called an unsteady or unstable combination. There is a natural tendency to change it either into oo or yoo; perhaps also into yew. Hence new is sometimes sounded noo, sometimes nyoo, and sometimes nyew.

§ 129. Effect of the semivowel y on certain letters when they precede it.—Taken by itself the semivowel y, followed by a vowel (ya, yee, yo, you, &c.), forms a stable combination. Not so, however, if it be preceded by a consonant, of the series t or s, as tya, tyo; dya, dyo; sya, syo. There then arises an unstable combination. Sya and syo we pronounce as sha and sho; tya and tyo we pronounce as cha and ja (i.e., tsh, dzh). This we may verify from our pronunciation of words like sure, picture, verdure (shoor, pictshoor, verdzhoor), having previously remarked that the u in those words is not sounded as oo but as yoo. The effect of the semivowel y, taken with the instability of the combination ew, accounts for the tendency to pronounce dew as if written jew.

§ 130. Double consonants rare.—It cannot be too clearly understood that in words like pitted, stabbing, massy, &c., there is no real reduplication of the sounds of t, b, and s, respectively. Between the words pitted (as with the small-pox) and pitied (as being an object of pity) there is a difference in spelling only. In speech the words are identical. The reduplication of the consonant is, in English and the generality of languages, a conventional mode of expressing in writing the shortness or dependence, of the vowel preceding.

§ 131. Real reduplications of consonants, i.e., reduplications of their sound, are, in all languages, extremely rare. In English they occur only under one condition. In compound and derived words, where the original root ends, and the superadded affix begins, with the same letter, there is a reduplication of the sound and not otherwise. In the word soulless, the l is doubled to the ear as well as to the eye; and it is a false pronunciation to call it souless (soless). In the "Deformed Transformed" it is made to rhyme with no less, improperly:—