The Grammar of English Grammars Part 16

OBS. 3.--In their definitions of vowels and consonants, many grammarians have resolved letters into _sounds only_; as, "A Vowel is an articulate _sound_," &c.--"A Consonant is an articulate _sound_," &c.--_L. Murray's Gram._, p. 7. But this confounding of the visible signs with the things which they signify, is very far from being a true account of either.

Besides, letters combined are capable of a certain mysterious power which is independent of all sound, though speech, doubtless, is what they properly represent. In practice, almost all the letters may occasionally happen to be _silent_; yet are they not, in these cases, necessarily useless. The deaf and dumb also, to whom none of the letters express or represent sounds, may be taught to read and write understandingly. They even learn in some way to distinguish the accented from the unaccented syllables, and to have some notion of _quant.i.ty_, or of something else equivalent to it; for some of them, it is said, can compose verses according to the rules of prosody. Hence it would appear, that the powers of the letters are not, of necessity, identified with their sounds; the things being in some respect distinguishable, though the terms are commonly taken as synonymous. The fact is, that a word, whether spoken or written, is of itself _significant_, whether its corresponding form be known or not.

Hence, in the one form, it may be perfectly intelligible to the illiterate, and in the other, to the educated deaf and dumb; while, to the learned who hear and speak, either form immediately suggests the other, with the meaning common to both.

OBS. 4.--Our knowledge of letters rises no higher than to the forms used by the ancient Hebrews and Phoenicians. Moses is supposed to have written in characters which were nearly the same as those called Samaritan, but his writings have come to us in an alphabet more beautiful and regular, called the Chaldee or Chaldaic, which is said to have been made by Ezra the scribe, when he wrote out a new copy of the law, after the rebuilding of the temple. Cadmus carried the Phoenician alphabet into Greece, where it was subsequently altered and enlarged. The small letters were not invented till about the seventh century of our era. The Latins, or Romans, derived most of their capitals from the Greeks; but their small letters, if they had any, were made afterwards among themselves. This alphabet underwent various changes, and received very great improvements, before it became that beautiful series of characters which we now use, under the name of _Roman letters_. Indeed these particular forms, which are now justly preferred by many nations, are said to have been adopted after the invention of printing. "The Roman letters were first used by Sweynheim and Pannartz, printers who settled at Rome, in 1467. The earliest work printed wholly in this character in England, is said to have been Lily's or Paul's Accidence, printed by Richard Pinson, 1518. The Italic letters were invented by Aldus Manutius at Rome, towards the close of the fifteenth century, and were first used in an edition of Virgil, in 1501."--_Constables Miscellany_, Vol. xx, p. 147. The Saxon alphabet was mostly Roman. Not more than one quarter of the letters have other forms.

But the changes, though few, give to a printed page a very different appearance. Under William the Conqueror, this alphabet was superseded by the modern Gothic, Old English, or Black letter; which, in its turn, happily gave place to the present Roman. The Germans still use a type similar to the Old English, but not so heavy.

OBS. 5.--I have suggested that a true knowledge of the letters implies an acquaintance with their _names_, their _cla.s.ses_, their _powers_, and their _forms_. Under these four heads, therefore, I shall briefly present what seems most worthy of the learner's attention at first, and shall reserve for the appendix a more particular account of these important elements. The most common and the most useful things are not those about which we are in general most inquisitive. Hence many, who think themselves sufficiently acquainted with the letters, do in fact know but very little about them. If a person is able to read some easy book, he is apt to suppose he has no more to learn respecting the letters; or he neglects the minute study of these elements, because he sees what words they make, and can amuse himself with stories of things more interesting. But merely to understand common English, is a very small qualification for him who aspires to scholars.h.i.+p, and especially for a _teacher_. For one may do this, and even be a great reader, without ever being able to name the letters properly, or to p.r.o.nounce such syllables as _ca, ce, ci, co, cu, cy_, without getting half of them wrong. No one can ever teach an art more perfectly than he has learned it; and if we neglect the _elements_ of grammar, our attainments must needs be proportionately unsettled and superficial.

I. NAMES OF THE LETTERS. The _names_ of the letters, as now commonly spoken and written in English, are _A, Bee, Cee, Dee, E, Eff, Gee, Aitch, I, Jay, Kay, Ell, Em, En, O, Pee, Kue, Ar, Ess, Tee, U, Vee, Double-u, Ex, Wy, Zee_.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--With the learning and application of these names, our literary education begins; with a continual rehearsal of them in spelling, it is for a long time carried on; nor can we ever dispense with them, but by subst.i.tuting others, or by ceasing to mention the things thus named. What is obviously indispensable, needs no proof of its importance. But I know not whether it has ever been noticed, that these names, like those of the days of the week, are worthy of particular distinction, for their own nature. They are words of a very peculiar kind, being nouns that are at once _both proper and common_. For, in respect to rank, character, and design, each letter is a thing strictly individual and identical--that is, it is ever one and the same; yet, in an other respect, it is a comprehensive sort, embracing individuals both various and numberless. Thus every B is a _b_, make it as you will; and can be nothing else than that same letter b, though you make it in a thousand different fas.h.i.+ons, and multiply it after each pattern innumerably. Here, then, we see individuality combined at once with great diversity, and infinite multiplicity; and it is _to this combination_, that letters owe their wonderful power of transmitting thought. Their _names_, therefore, should always be written with capitals, as proper nouns, at least in the singular number; and should form the plural regularly, as ordinary appellatives.

Thus: (if we adopt the names now most generally used in English schools:) _A, Aes; Bee, Bees; Cee, Cees; Dee, Dees; E, Ees; Eff, Effs; Gee, Gees; Aitch, Aitches; I, Ies; Jay, Jays; Kay, Kays; Ell, Ells; Em, Ems; En, Ens; O, Oes; Pee, Pees; Kue, Kues; Ar, Ars; Ess, Esses; Tee, Tees; U, Ues; Vee, Vees; Double-u, Double-ues; Ex, Exes; Wy, Wies; Zee, Zees._

OBS. 2.--The names of the letters, as expressed in the modern languages, are mostly framed _with reference_ to their powers, or sounds. Yet is there in English no letter of which the name is always identical with its power: for _A, E, I, O_, and _U_, are the only letters which can name themselves, and all these have other sounds than those which their names express. The simple powers of the other letters are so manifestly insufficient to form any name, and so palpable is the difference between the nature and the name of each, that did we not know how education has been trifled with, it would be hard to believe even Murray, when he says, "They are frequently confounded by writers on grammar. Observations and reasonings on the _name_, are often applied to explain the _nature_ of a consonant; and by this means the student is led into error and perplexity."--_L. Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p. 8. The confounding of names with the things for which they stand, implies, unquestionably, great carelessness in the use of speech, and great indistinctness of apprehension in respect to things; yet so common is this error, that Murray himself has many times fallen into it.[87] Let the learner therefore be on his guard, remembering that grammar, both in its study and in its practice, requires the constant exercise of a rational discernment. Those letters which name themselves, take for their names those sounds which they usually represent at the end of an accented syllable; thus the names, _A, E, I, O, U_, are uttered with the sounds given to the same letters in the first syllables of the other names, _Abel, Enoch, Isaac, Obed, Urim_; or in the first syllables of the common words, _paper, penal, pilot, potent, pupil_. The other letters, most of which can never be perfectly sounded alone, have names in which their powers are combined with other sounds more vocal; as, _Bee, Cee, Dee,--Ell, Em, En,--Jay, Kay, Kue_. But in this respect the terms _Aitch_ and _Double-u_ are irregular; because they have no obvious reference to the powers of the letters thus named.

OBS. 3.--Letters, like all other things, must be learned and spoken of _by their names_; nor can they be spoken of otherwise; yet, as the simple characters are better known and more easily exhibited than their written names, the former are often subst.i.tuted for the latter, and are read as the words for which they are a.s.sumed. Hence the orthography of these words has. .h.i.therto been left too much to mere fancy or caprice. Our dictionaries, by a strange oversight or negligence, do not recognize them as words; and writers have in general spelled them with very little regard to either authority or a.n.a.logy. What they are, or ought to be, has therefore been treated as a trifling question: and, what is still more surprising, several authors of spelling-books make no mention at all of them; while others, here at the very threshold of instruction, teach falsely--giving "_he_" for _Aitch_, "_er_" for _Ar_, "_oo_" or "_uu_" for _Double-u_, "_ye_" for _Wy_, and writing almost all the rest improperly. So that many persons who think themselves well educated, would be greatly puzzled to name on paper these simple elements of all learning. Nay, there can be found a hundred men who can readily write the alphabetic names which were in use two or three thousand years ago in Greece or Palestine, for one who can do the same thing with propriety, respecting those which we now employ so constantly in English:[88] and yet the words themselves are as familiar to every school-boy's lips as are the characters to his eye. This fact may help to convince us, that _the grammar_ of our language has never yet been sufficiently taught. Among all the particulars which const.i.tute this subject, there are none which better deserve to be everywhere known, by proper and determinate names, than these prime elements of all written language.

OBS. 4.--Should it happen to be asked a hundred l.u.s.trums hence, what were the names of the letters in "the Augustan age of English literature," or in the days of William the Fourth and Andrew Jackson, I fear the learned of that day will be as much at a loss for an answer, as would most of our college tutors now, were they asked, by what series of names the Roman youth were taught to spell. Might not Quintilian or Varro have obliged many, by recording these? As it is, we are indebted to Priscian, a grammarian of the sixth century, for almost all we know about them. But even the information which may be had, on this point, has been strangely overlooked by our common Latin grammarians.[89] What, but the greater care of earlier writers, has made the Greek names better known or more important than the Latin? In every nation that is not totally illiterate, custom must have established for the letters a certain set of names, which are _the only true ones_, and which are of course to be preferred to such as are local or unauthorized. In this, however, as in other things, use may sometimes vary, and possibly improve; but when its decisions are clear, no feeble reason should be allowed to disturb them. Every parent, therefore, who would have his children instructed to read and write the English language, should see that in the first place they learn to name the letters as they are commonly named in English. A Scotch gentleman of good education informs me, that the names of the letters, as he first learned them in a school in his own country, were these: "A, Ib, Ec, Id, E, Iff, Ig, Ich, I, Ij, Ik, Ill, Im, In, O, Ip, Kue, Ir, Iss, It, U, Iv, Double-u, Ix, Wy, Iz;"

but that in the same school the English names are now used. It is to be hoped, that all teachers will in time abandon every such local usage, and name the letters _as they ought to be named_; and that the day will come, in which the regular English _orthography_ of these terms, shall be steadily preferred, ignorance of it be thought a disgrace, and the makers of school-books feel no longer at liberty to alter names that are a thousand times better known than their own.

OBS. 5.--It is not in respect to their _orthography_ alone, that these first words in literature demand inquiry and reflection: the _p.r.o.nunciation_ of some of them has often been taught erroneously, and, with respect to three or four of them, some writers have attempted to make an entire change from the customary forms which I have recorded. Whether the name of the first letter should be p.r.o.nounced "_Aye_," as it is in England, "_Ah_," as it is in Ireland, or "_Aw_," as it is in Scotland, is a question which Walker has largely discussed, and clearly decided in favour of the first sound; and this decision accords with the universal practice of the schools in America. It is remarkable that this able critic, though he treated minutely of the letters, naming them all in the outset of his "Principles" subsequently neglected the names of them all, except the first and the last. Of _Zee_, (which has also been called _Zed, Zad, Izzard, Uzzard, Izzet_, and _Iz_,)[90] he says, "Its common name is _izzard_, which Dr. Johnson explains into _s hard_; if, however, this is the meaning, it is a gross misnomer; for the _z_ is not the hard, but the soft _s_;[91] but as it has a less sharp, and therefore not so audible a sound, it is not impossible _but_ it may mean _s surd_. _Zed_, borrowed from the French, is the more fas.h.i.+onable name of this letter; but, in my opinion, _not to be admitted, because the names of the letters ought to have no diversity._"--_Walker's Principles_, No. 483. It is true, the name of a letter ought to be one, and in no respect diverse; but where diversity has already obtained, and become firmly rooted in custom, is it to be obviated by insisting upon what is old-fas.h.i.+oned, awkward, and inconvenient? Shall the better usage give place to the worse? Uniformity cannot be so reached.

In this country, both _Zed_ and _Izzard_, as well as the worse forms _Zad_ and _Uzzard_, are now fairly superseded by the softer and better term _Zee_; and whoever will spell aloud, with each of these names, a few such words as _dizzy, mizzen, gizzard_, may easily perceive why none of the former can ever be brought again into use. The other two, _Iz_ and _Izzet_, being localisms, and not authorized English, I give up all six; _Zed_ to the French, and the rest to oblivion.

OBS. 6.--By way of apology for noticing the name of the first letter, Walker observes, "If a diversity of names to vowels did not confound us in our spelling, or declaring to each other the component letters of a word, it would be entirely needless to enter into _so trifling a question_ as the mere name of a letter; but when we find ourselves unable to convey signs to each other on account of this diversity of names, and that words themselves are endangered by an improper utterance of their component parts, it seems highly inc.u.mbent on us to attempt a uniformity in this point, which, insignificant as it may seem, is undoubtedly the foundation of a just and regular p.r.o.nunciation."--_Dict., under A_. If diversity in this matter is so perplexing, what shall we say to those who are attempting innovations without a.s.signing reasons, or even pretending authority? and if a knowledge of these names is the basis of a just p.r.o.nunciation, what shall we think of him who will take no pains to ascertain how he ought to speak and write them? He who pretends to teach the proper fas.h.i.+on of speaking and writing, cannot deal honestly, if ever he silently prefer a suggested improvement, to any established and undisturbed usage of the language; for, in grammar, no individual authority can be a counterpoise to general custom. The best usage can never be that which is little known, nor can it be well ascertained and taught by him who knows little. Inquisitive minds are ever curious to learn the nature, origin, and causes of things; and that instruction is the most useful, which is best calculated to gratify this rational curiosity. This is my apology for dwelling so long upon the present topic.

OBS. 7.--The names originally given to the letters were not mere notations of sound, intended solely to express or make known the powers of the several characters then in use; nor ought even the modern names of our present letters, though formed with special reference to their sounds, to be considered such. Expressions of mere sound, such as the notations in a p.r.o.nouncing dictionary, having no reference to what is meant by the sound, do not const.i.tute words at all; because they are not those acknowledged signs to which a meaning has been attached, and are consequently without that significance which is an essential property of words. But, in every language, there must be a series of sounds by which the alphabetical characters are commonly known in speech; and which, as they are the acknowledged names of these particular objects, must be ent.i.tled to a place among _the words_ of the language. It is a great error to judge otherwise; and a greater to make it a "trifling question" in grammar, whether a given letter shall be called by one name or by an other. Who shall say that _Daleth, Delta_, and _Dee_, are not three _real words_, each equally important in the language to which it properly belongs? Such names have always been in use wherever literature has been cultivated; and as the forms and powers of the letters have been changed by the nations, and have become different in different languages, there has necessarily followed a change of the names. For, whatever inconvenience scholars may find in the diversity which has thence arisen, to name these elements in a set of foreign terms, inconsistent with the genius of the language to be learned, would surely be attended with a tenfold greater. We derived our letters, and their names too, from the Romans; but this is no good reason why the latter should be spelled and p.r.o.nounced as we suppose they were spelled and p.r.o.nounced in Rome.

OBS. 8.--The names of the twenty-two letters in Hebrew, are, without dispute, proper _words_; for they are not only significant of the letters thus named, but have in general, if not in every instance, some other meaning in that language. Thus the mysterious ciphers which the English reader meets with, and wonders over, as he reads the 119th Psalm, may be resolved, according to some of the Hebrew grammars, as follows:--

[Hebrew: Aleph] Aleph, A, an ox, or a leader; [Hebrew: Beth] Beth, Bee, house; [Hebrew: Gimel] Gimel, Gee, a camel; [Hebrew: Dalet] Daleth, Dee, a door; [Hebrew: he] He, E, she, or behold; [Hebrew: vav] Vau, U, a hook, or a nail; [Hebrew: zajin] Zain, Zee, armour; [Hebrew: het] Cheth, or Heth, Aitch, a hedge; [Hebrew: tet] Teth, Tee, a serpent, or a scroll; [Hebrew: jod] Jod, or Yod, I, or Wy, a hand shut; [Hebrew: kaf] Caph, Cee, a hollow hand, or a cup; [Hebrew: lamed] Lamed, Ell, an ox-goad; [Hebrew: mem] Mem, Em, a stain, or spot; [Hebrew: nun] Nun, En, a fish, or a snake; [Hebrew: samekh] Samech, Ess, a basis, or support; [Hebrew: ayin] Ain, or Oin, O, an eye, or a well; [Hebrew: pe] Pe, Pee, a lip, or mouth; [Hebrew: tsadi] Tzaddi, or Tsadhe, Tee-zee, (i. e. tz, or ts,) a hunter's pole; [Hebrew: qof] Koph, Kue, or Kay, an ape; [Hebrew: resh] Resch, or Resh, Ar, a head; [Hebrew: s.h.i.+n] Schin, or Sin, Ess-aitch, or Ess, a tooth; [Hebrew: tav] Tau, or Thau, Tee, or Tee-aitch, a cross, or mark.

These English names of the Hebrew letters are written with much less uniformity than those of the Greek, because there has been more dispute respecting their powers. This is directly contrary to what one would have expected; since the Hebrew names are words originally significant of other things than the letters, and the Greek are not. The original p.r.o.nunciation of both languages is admitted to be lost, or involved in so much obscurity that little can be positively affirmed about it; and yet, where least was known, grammarians have produced the most diversity; aiming at disputed sounds in the one case, but generally preferring a correspondence of letters in the other.

OBS. 9.--The word _alphabet_ is derived from the first two names in the following series. The Greek letters are twenty-four; which are formed, named, and sounded, thus:--

[Greek: A a], Alpha, a; [Greek: B, b], Beta, b; [Greek: G g], Gamma, g hard; [Greek: D d], Delta, d; [Greek: E e], Epsilon, e short; [Greek: Z z], Zeta, z; [Greek: ae ae], Eta, e long; [Greek: TH Th th], Theta, th; [Greek: I i], Iota, i; [Greek K k], Kappa, k; [Greek: L l], Lambda, l; [Greek: M m], Mu, m; [Greek: N n], Nu, n; [Greek: X x], Xi, x; [Greek: O o], Omicron, o short; [Greek: P p], Pi, p; [Greek: R r] Rho, r; [Greek: S s s], Sigma, s; [Greek: T t], Tau, t; [Greek: Y y], Upsilon, u; [Greek: PH ph], Phi, ph; [Greek: CH ch], Chi, ch; [Greek: PS ps], Psi, ps; [Greek: O o], Omega, o long.

Of these names, our English dictionaries explain the first and the last; and Webster has defined _Iota_, and _Zeta_, but without reference to the meaning of the former in Greek. _Beta, Delta, Lambda_, and perhaps some others, are also found in the etymologies or definitions of Johnson and Webster, both of whom spell the word _Lambda_ and its derivative _lambdoidal_ without the silent _b_, which is commonly, if not always, inserted by the authors of our Greek grammars, and which Worcester, more properly, retains.

OBS. 10.--The reader will observe that the foregoing names, whether Greek or Hebrew, are in general much less simple than those which our letters now bear; and if he has ever attempted to spell aloud in either of those languages, he cannot but be sensible of the great advantage which was gained when to each letter there was given a short name, expressive, as ours mostly are, of its ordinary power. This improvement appears to have been introduced by the Romans, whose names for the letters were even more simple than our own. But so negligent in respect to them have been the Latin grammarians, both ancient and modern, that few even of the learned can tell what they really were in that language; or how they differed, either in orthography or sound, from those of the English or the French, the Hebrew or the Greek. Most of them, however, may yet be ascertained from Priscian, and some others of note among the ancient philologists; so that by taking from later authors the names of those letters which were not used in old times, we can still furnish an entire list, concerning the accuracy of which there is not much room to dispute. It is probable that in the ancient p.r.o.nunciation of Latin, _a_ was commonly sounded as in _father_; _e_ like the English _a_; _i_ mostly like _e_ long; _y_ like _i_ short; _c_ generally and _g_ always hard, as in _come_ and _go_. But, as the original, native, or just p.r.o.nunciation of a language is not necessary to an understanding of it when written, the existing nations have severally, in a great measure, accommodated themselves, in their manner of reading this and other ancient tongues.

OBS. 11.--As the Latin language is now printed, its letters are twenty-five. Like the French, it has all that belong to the English alphabet, except the _Double-u_. But, till the first Punic war, the Romans wrote C for G, and doubtless gave it the power as well as the place of the Gamma or Gimel. It then seems to have slid into K; but they used it also for S, as we do now. The ancient Saxons, generally p.r.o.nounced C as K, but sometimes as Ch. Their G was either guttural, or like our Y. In some of the early English grammars the name of the latter is written _Ghee_. The letter F, when first invented, was called, from its shape, Digamma, and afterwards Ef. J, when it was first distinguished from I, was called by the Hebrew name Jod, and afterwards Je. V, when first distinguished from U, was called Vau, then Va, then Ve. Y, when the Romans first borrowed it from the Greeks, was called Ypsilon; and Z, from the same source, was called Zeta; and, as these two letters were used only in words of Greek origin, I know not whether they ever received from the Romans any shorter names. In Schneider's Latin Grammar, the letters are named in the following manner; except Je and Ve, which are omitted by this author: "A, Be, Ce, De, E, Ef, Ge, Ha, I, [Je,] Ka, El, Em, En, O, Pe, Cu, Er, Es, Te, U, [Ve,] Ix, Ypsilon, Zeta." And this I suppose to be the most proper way of writing their names _in Latin_, unless we have sufficient authority for shortening Ypsilon into Y, sounded as short _i_, and for changing Zeta into Ez.

OBS. 12.--In many, if not in all languages, the five vowels, A, E, I, O, U, name themselves; but they name themselves differently to the ear, according to the different ways of uttering them in different languages. And as the name of a consonant necessarily requires one or more vowels, that also may be affected in the same manner. But in every language there should be a known way both of writing and of speaking every name in the series; and that, if there is nothing to hinder, should be made conformable to _the genius of the language_. I do not say that the names above can be regularly declined in Latin; but in English it is as easy to speak of two Dees as of two trees, of two Kays as of two days, of two Exes as of two foxes, of two Effs as of two skiffs; and there ought to be no more difficulty about the correct way of writing the word in the one case, than in the other. In Dr.

Sam. Prat's Latin Grammar, (an elaborate octavo, all Latin, published in London, 1722,) nine of the consonants are reckoned mutes; b, c, d, g, p, q, t, j, and v; and eight, semivowels; f, l, m, n, r, s, x, z. "All the mutes," says this author, "are named by placing _e_ after them; as, be, ce, de, ge, except _q_, which ends in _u_." See p. 8. "The semivowels, beginning with _e_, end in themselves; as, ef, _ach_, el, em, en, er, es, _ex_, (or, as Priscian will have it, _ix_,) _eds_." See p. 9. This mostly accords with the names given in the preceding paragraph; and so far as it does not, I judge the author to be wrong. The reader will observe that the Doctor's explanation is neither very exact nor quite complete: K is a mute which is not enumerated, and the rule would make the name of it _Ke_, and not _Ka_;--H is not one of his eight semivowels, nor does the name Ach accord with his rule or seem like a Latin word;--the name of Z, according to his principle, would be _Ez_ and not "_Eds_," although the latter may better indicate the _sound_ which was then given to this letter.

OBS. 13.--If the history of these names exhibits diversity, so does that of almost all other terms; and yet there is some way of writing every word with correctness, and correctness tends to permanence. But Time, that establishes authority, destroys it also, when he fairly sanctions newer customs. To all names worthy to be known, it is natural to wish a perpetual uniformity; but if any one thinks the variableness of these to be peculiar, let him open the English Bible of the fourteenth century, and read a few verses, observing the names. For instance: "Forsothe whanne _Eroude_ was to bringynge forth hym, in that nigt _Petir_ was slepynge bitwixe tweyno knytis."--_Dedis_, (i. e., _Acts_,) xii, 6. "_Crist Ihesu_ that is to demynge the quyke and deed."--_2 Tim._, iv, 1. Since this was written for English, our language has changed much, and at the same time acquired, by means of the press, some aids to stability. I have recorded above the _true_ names of the letters, as they are now used, with something of their history; and if there could be in human works any thing unchangeable, I should wish, (with due deference to all schemers and fault-finders,) that these names might remain the same forever.

OBS. 14.--If any change is desirable in our present names of the letters, it is that we may have a shorter and simpler term in stead of _Double-u_.

But can we change this well known name? I imagine it would be about as easy to change _Alpha, Upsilon, or Omega_; and perhaps it would be as useful.

Let Dr. Webster, or any defender of his spelling, try it. He never named the _English_ letters rightly; long ago discarded the term _Double-u_; and is not yet tired of his experiment with "_oo_;" but thinks still to make the vowel sound of this letter its name. Yet he writes his new name wrong; has no authority for it but his own; and is, most certainly, reprehensible for the _innovation_.[92] If W is to be named as a vowel, it ought to _name itself_, as other vowels do, and not to take _two Oes_ for its written name. Who that knows what it is, to name a letter, can think of naming _w_ by double _o_? That it is possible for an ingenious man to misconceive this simple affair of naming the letters, may appear not only from the foregoing instance, but from the following quotation: "Among the thousand mismanagements of literary instruction, there is at the outset in the hornbook, _the pretence to represent elementary sounds_ by syllables composed of two or more elements; as, _Be, Kay, Zed, Double-u_, and _Aitch_. These words are used in infancy, and through life, as _simple elements_ in the process of synthetic spelling. If the definition of a _consonant_ was made by the master from the practice of the child, it might suggest pity for the pedagogue, but should not make us forget the realities of nature."--_Dr. Push, on the Philosophy of the Human Voice_, p. 52. This is a strange allegation to come from such a source. If I bid a boy spell the word _why_, he says, "Double-u, Aitch, Wy, _hwi_;" and knows that he has spelled and p.r.o.nounced the word correctly. But if he conceives that the five syllables which form the three words, _Double-u_, and _Aitch_, and _Wy_, are the three simple sounds which he utters in p.r.o.nouncing the word _why_, it is not because the hornbook, or the teacher of the hornbook, ever made any such blunder or "pretence;" but because, like some great philosophers, he is capable of misconceiving very plain things. Suppose he should take it into his head to follow Dr. Webster's books, and to say, "Oo, he, ye, _hwi_;" who, but these doctors, would imagine, that such spelling was supported either by "the realities of nature," or by the authority of custom? I shall retain both the old "definition of a consonant," and the usual names of the letters, notwithstanding the contemptuous pity it may excite in the minds of _such_ critics.

II. CLa.s.sES OF THE LETTERS.

The letters are divided into two general cla.s.ses, _vowels_ and _consonants_.

A _vowel_ is a letter which forms a perfect sound when uttered alone; as, _a, e, o_.

A _consonant_ is a letter which cannot be perfectly uttered till joined to a vowel; as, _b, c, d_.[93]

The vowels are _a, e, i, o, u_, and sometimes _w_ and _y._ All the other letters are consonants.

_W_ or _y_ is called a consonant when it precedes a vowel heard in the same syllable; as in _wine, twine, whine; ye, yet, youth_: in all other cases, these letters are vowels; as in _Yssel, Ystadt, yttria; newly, dewy, eyebrow._

CLa.s.sES OF CONSONANTS.

The consonants are divided, with respect to their powers, into _semivowels_ and _mutes._

A _semivowel_ is a consonant which can be imperfectly sounded without a vowel, so that at the end of a syllable its sound may be protracted; as, _l, n, z_, in _al, an, az._

A _mute_ is a consonant which cannot be sounded at all without a vowel, and which at the end of a syllable suddenly stops the breath; as, _k, p, t_, in _ak, ap, at._

The semivowels are, _f, h, j, l, m, n, r, s, v, w, x, y, z_, and _c_ and _g_ soft: but _w_ or _y_ at the end of a syllable, is a vowel; and the sound of _c, f, g, h, j, s_, or _x_, can be protracted only as an _aspirate_, or strong breath.

Four of the semivowels,--_l, m, n_, and _r_,--are termed _liquids_, on account of the fluency of their sounds; and four others,--_v, w, y_, and _z_,--are likewise more vocal than the aspirates.

The mutes are eight;--_b, d, k, p, q, t_, and _c_ and _g_ hard: three of these,--_k, q_, and _c_ hard,--sound exactly alike: _b, d_, and _g_ hard, stop the voice less suddenly than the rest.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--The foregoing division of the letters is of very great antiquity, and, in respect to its princ.i.p.al features sanctioned by almost universal authority; yet if we examine it minutely, either with reference to the various opinions of the learned, or with regard to the essential differences among the things of which it speaks, it will not perhaps be found in all respects indisputably certain. It will however be of use, as a basis for some subsequent rules, and as a means of calling the attention of the learner to the manner in which he utters the sounds of the letters. A knowledge of about three dozen different elementary sounds is implied in the faculty of speech. The power of producing these sounds with distinctness, and of adapting them to the purposes for which language is used, const.i.tutes perfection of utterance. Had we a perfect alphabet, consisting of one symbol, and only one, for each elementary sound; and a perfect method of spelling, freed from silent letters, and precisely adjusted to the most correct p.r.o.nunciation of words; the process of learning to read would doubtless be greatly facilitated. And yet any attempt toward such a reformation, any change short of the introduction of some entirely new mode of writing, would be both unwise and impracticable.

It would involve our laws and literature in utter confusion, because p.r.o.nunciation is the least permanent part of language; and if the orthography of words were conformed entirely to this standard, their origin and meaning would, in many instances, be soon lost. We must therefore content ourselves to learn languages as they are, and to make the best use we can of our present imperfect system of alphabetic characters; and we may be the better satisfied to do this, because the deficiencies and redundancies of this alphabet are not yet so well ascertained, as to make it certain what a perfect one would be.

OBS. 2.--In order to have a right understanding of the letters, it is necessary to enumerate, as accurately as we can, the elementary _sounds_ of the language; and to attend carefully to the manner in which these sounds are enunciated, as well as to the characters by which they are represented.

The most unconcerned observer cannot but perceive that there are certain differences in the sounds, as well as in the shapes, of the letters; and yet under what heads they ought severally to be cla.s.sed, or how many of them will fall under some particular name, it may occasionally puzzle a philosopher to tell. The student must consider what is proposed or asked, use his own senses, and judge for himself. With our lower-case alphabet before him, he can tell by his own eye, which are the long letters, and which the short ones; so let him learn by his own ear, which are the vowels, and which, the consonants. The processes are alike simple; and, if he be neither blind nor deaf, he can do both about equally well. Thus he may know for a certainty, that _a_ is a short letter, and _b_ a long one; the former a vowel, the latter a consonant: and so of others. Yet as he may doubt whether _t_ is a long letter or a short one, so he may be puzzled to say whether _w_ and _y_, as heard in _we_ and _ye_, are vowels or consonants: but neither of these difficulties should impair his confidence in any of his other decisions. If he attain by observation and practice a clear and perfect p.r.o.nunciation of the letters, he will be able to cla.s.s them for himself with as much accuracy as he will find in books.

OBS. 3.--Grammarians have generally agreed that every letter is either a vowel or a consonant; and also that there are among the latter some semivowels, some mutes, some aspirates, some liquids, some sharps, some flats, some l.a.b.i.als, some dentals, some nasals, some palatals, and perhaps yet other species; but in enumerating the letters which belong to these several cla.s.ses, they disagree so much as to make it no easy matter to ascertain what particular cla.s.sification is best supported by their authority. I have adopted what I conceive to be the best authorized, and at the same time the most intelligible. He that dislikes the scheme, may do better, if he can. But let him with modesty determine what sort of discoveries may render our ancient authorities questionable. Aristotle, three hundred and thirty years before Christ, divided the Greek letters into _vowels, semivowels_, and _mutes_, and declared that no syllable could be formed without a vowel. In the opinion of some neoterics, it has been reserved to our age, to detect the fallacy of this. But I would fain believe that the Stagirite knew as well what he was saying, as did Dr.

James Rush, when, in 1827, he declared the doctrine of vowels and consonants to be "a misrepresentation." The latter philosopher resolves the letters into "_tonics, subtonics_, and _atonics_;" and avers that "consonants alone may form syllables." Indeed, I cannot but think the ancient doctrine better. For, to say that "consonants alone may form syllables," is as much as to say that consonants are not consonants, but vowels! To be consistent, the attempters of this reformation should never speak of vowels or consonants, semivowels or mutes; because they judge the terms inappropriate, and the cla.s.sification absurd. They should therefore adhere strictly to their "tonics, subtonics, and atonics;" which cla.s.ses, though apparently the same as vowels, semivowels, and mutes, are better adapted to their new and peculiar division of these elements. Thus, by reforming both language and philosophy at once, they may make what they will of either!

OBS. 4.--Some teach that _w_ and _y_ are always vowels: conceiving the former to be equivalent to _oo_, and the latter to _i_ or _e_. Dr. Lowth says, "_Y_ is always a vowel," and "_W_ is either a vowel or a diphthong."

Dr. Webster supposes _w_ to be always "a vowel, a simple sound;" but admits that, "At the beginning of words, _y_ is called an _articulation_ or _consonant_, and _with some propriety perhaps_, as it brings the root of the tongue in close contact with the lower part of the palate, and nearly in the position to which the close _g_ brings it."--_American Dict., Octavo_. But I follow Wallis, Brightland, Johnson, Walker, Murray, Worcester, and others, in considering both of them sometimes vowels and sometimes consonants. They are consonants at the beginning of words in English, because their sounds take the article _a_, and not _an_, before them; as, _a wall, a yard_, and not, _an wall, an yard_. But _oo_ or the sound of _e_, requires _an_, and not _a_; as, _an eel, an oozy bog_.[94] At the end of a syllable we know they are vowels; but at the beginning, they are so squeezed in their p.r.o.nunciation, as to follow a vowel without any hiatus, or difficulty of utterance; as, "_O worthy youth! so young, so wise!_"

OBS. 5.--Murray's rule, "_W_ and _y_ are consonants when they begin a word or syllable, but in every other situation they are vowels," which is found in Comly's book, _Kirkham's_, Merchant's, Ingersoll's, Fisk's. Hart's, Hiley's, Alger's, Bullions's, Pond's, S. Putnam's, Weld's, and in sundry other grammars, is favourable to my doctrine, but too badly conceived to be quoted here as authority. It _undesignedly_ makes _w_ a consonant in _wine_, and a vowel in _twine_; and _y_ a consonant when it _forms_ a syllable, as in _dewy_: for a letter that _forms_ a syllable, "begins" it.