A Handbook of the English Language Part 20

25. Y Y Upsilon -- 26. Z Z Zaeta Zain.

-- 164. The differences of this table are referable to one of the following four heads:--a. Ejection. b. Addition. c. Change of power. d. Change of order.

a. _Ejection._--In the first instance, the Italians ejected as unnecessary, letters 7,[44] 9, and 11: _zayn_ (_zaeta_), _teth_ (_thaeta_), and _kaf_ (_kappa_). Either the sounds which they expressed were wanting in their language; or else they were expressed by some other letter. The former was probably the case with 7 and 9, _zaeta_ and _thaeta_, the latter with 11, _kappa_.

b. _Addition._--Out of the Greek _iota_, two; out of the Greek _upsilon_, four modifications have been evolved; viz., i and j out of ?, and u, v, w, y, out of ?.

c. _Change of power._--Letter 3, in Greek and Hebrew had the sound of the g in _gun_; in Latin that of k. The reason for this lies in the structure of the Etruscan language. In that tongue the _flat_ sounds were remarkably deficient; indeed, it is probable, that that of g was wanting. Its _sharp_ equivalent, however, the sound of k, was by no means wanting; and the Greek _gamma_ was used to denote it. This made the equivalent to k, the third letter of the alphabet, as early as the time of the Etruscans.

But the _Romans_ had both sounds, the _flat_ as well as the _sharp_, g as well as k. How did they express them? Up to the second Punic War they made the rounded form of the Greek G, out of which the letter C has arisen, do double work, and signify k and g equally, just as in the present English th is sounded as the Greek ?,[45] and as dh;[46] in proof whereof we have in the Duillian column, MACESTRATOS = MAGISTRATOS, and CARTHACINIENSES = CARTHAGINIENSES.

Thus much concerning the power and places of the Latin c, as opposed to the Greek ?. But this is not all. The use of _gamma_, with the power of k, made _kappa_ superfluous, and accounts for its ejection in the _Etruscan_ alphabet; a fact already noticed.

Furthermore, an addition to the Etruscan alphabet was required by the existence of the sound of g, in Latin, as soon as the inconvenience of using c with a double power became manifest. What took place then? Even this. The third letter was modified in form, or became a new letter, c being altered into g; and the new letter took its place in the alphabet.

Where was this? As the _seventh_ letter between f (_digamma_) and h (_haeta_).

Why? Because it was there where there was a vacancy, and where it replaced the Greek _zaeta_, or the Hebrew _zayn_, a letter which, _at that time_, was not wanted in Latin.

d. _Change of order._--As far as the letters c and g are concerned, this has been explained; and it has been shown that change of order and change of power are sometimes very closely connected. All that now need be added is, that those letters which were _last_ introduced from the Greek into the Roman alphabet, were placed at the end.

This is why u, v, w, and y come after t--the last letter of the original Phnician, and also of the _older_ Greek.

This, too, is the reason for z coming last of all. It was restored for the purpose of spelling Greek words. But as its original place had been filled up by g, it was tacked on as an appendage, rather than incorporated as an element.

X in _power_, coincided with the Greek xi; in _place_, with the Greek _khi_. Its _position_ seems to have determined its _form_, which is certainly that of X rather than of ?. The full investigation of this is too lengthy for the present work.

-- 165. It should be observed, that, in the Latin, the letters have no longer any _names_ (like _beth_, _baeta_), except such as are derived from their powers (_be_, _ce_).

-- 166. The principles which determined the form of the Roman alphabet were, upon the whole, correct; and, hence, the Roman alphabet, although not originally meant to express an Italian tongue at all, expressed the language to which it was applied tolerably.

On the other hand, there were both omissions and alterations which have had a detrimental effect upon the orthography of those other numerous tongues to which Latin has supplied the alphabet. Thus--

a. It is a matter of regret, that the differences which the Greeks drew between the so-called _long_ and _short_ e and o, was neglected by the Latins; in other words, that ? was omitted entirely, and ? changed in power. Had this been the case, all the orthographical expedients by which we have to express the difference between the o in _not_, and the o in _note_, would have been prevented--_not_, _note_, _moat_--_bed_, _bead_, _heel_, _glede_, &c.

b. It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessary _compendium_ as q = cu, or cw, should have been retained from the old Greek alphabet; and, still more so, that the equally superfluous x = cs, or ks, should have been re-admitted.

c. It is a matter of regret, that the Greek ? was not treated like the Greek ?. Neither were wanted at first; both afterwards. The manner, however, of their subsequent introduction was different. _Zaeta_ came in as a simple single letter, significant of a simple single sound. _Thaeta_, on the contrary, although expressive of an equally simple sound, became th.

This was a combination rather than a letter; and the error which it engendered was great.

It suggested the idea, that a simple sound was a compound one--which was wrong.

It further suggested the idea, that the sound of ? differed from that of t, by the addition of h--which was wrong also.

-- 167. The Greek language had a system of sounds different from the Phnician; and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.

The Roman language had a system of sounds different from the Greek and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.

This leads us to certain questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon. Had _it_ a system of sounds different from the Roman? If so, what modifications did the alphabet require? Were such modifications effected? If so, how?

Sufficiently or insufficiently? The answers are unsatisfactory.

-- 168. The Anglo-Saxon had, even in its earliest stage, the following sounds, for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs or letters--

1. The sound of the th in _thin_.

2. The sound of the th in _thine_.

It had certainly these: probably others.

-- 169. Expressive of these, two new signs were introduced, viz., = th in _thin_, and = th in _thine_.

W, also evolved out of u, was either an original improvement of the Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of the allied languages of the Continent. Probably the latter was the case; since we find the following pa.s.sage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid's "Krist:"--"Hujus enim linguae barbaries, ut est inculca 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."

This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered the purpose to which it was applied tolerably.

-- 170. Change, however, went on; and the orthography which suited the earlier Anglo-Saxon would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not suit the language which had become or was becoming, _English_; wherein the sounds for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs increase. Thus there is at present--

1. The sound of the sh in _s.h.i.+ne_.

2. The sound of the z in _azure_.

How are these to be expressed? The rule has. .h.i.therto been to denote simple single sounds, by simple single signs, and where such signs have no existence already, to _originate new ones_.

To _combine existing letters_, rather than to coin a new one, has only been done rarely. The Latin subst.i.tution of the combination th for the simple single ?, was exceptionable. It was a precedent, however, which now begins to be followed generally.

-- 171. It is this precedent which accounts for the absence of any letter in English, expressive of either of the sounds in question.

-- 172. Furthermore, our alphabet has not only not increased in proportion to our sound-system, but it has _decreased_. The Anglo-Saxon = the th in _thin_, and = the th in _thine_, have become obsolete; and a difference in p.r.o.nunciation, which our ancestors expressed, _we_ overlook.

The same precedent is at the bottom of this; a fact which leads us to--

-- 173. _The Anglo-Norman alphabet._--The Anglo-Saxon language was _Gothic_; the alphabet, _Roman_.

The Anglo-Norman language was _Roman_; the alphabet, _Roman_ also.

The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source; his writing from another.

The Anglo-Norman took both from the same.

In adapting a Latin alphabet to a Gothic language, the Anglo-Saxon allowed himself more lat.i.tude than the Anglo-Norman. We have seen that the new signs and were Anglo-Saxon.

Now the sounds which these letters represent did not occur in the Norman-French, consequently the Norman-French alphabet neither had nor needed to have signs to express them; until after the battle of Hastings, _when it became the Anglo-Norman of England_.

_Then_, the case became altered. The English language influenced the Norman orthography, and the Norman orthography the English language; and the result was, that the simple single correct and distinctive signs of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, became replaced by the incorrect and indistinct combination th.

This was a loss, both in the way of theoretical correctness and perspicuity.

Such is the general view of the additions, ejections, changes of power, and changes of order in the English alphabet. The extent, however, to which an alphabet is faulty, is no measure of the extent to which an orthography is faulty; since an insufficient alphabet may, by consistency in its application, be more useful than a full and perfect alphabet unsteadily applied.