Thus ap (as quoted above) is p - ?, or p; whilst pa (sounded similarly) is p - p, or ?.
In the formation of syllables, I consider that the sound of breath arrested belongs to the first, and the sound of breath escaping to the second syllable; that if each sound were expressed by a separate sign, the word _happy_ would be divided thus, _hap-?y_; and that such would be the case with all consonants between two syllables. The _whole_ consonant belongs neither to one syllable nor the other. Half of it belongs to each. The reduplication of the p in _happy_, the t in _pitted_, &c., is a mere point of spelling.
CHAPTER VI.
ON QUANt.i.tY.
-- 136. The dependent vowels, as the a in _fat_, i in _fit_, u in _but_, o in _not_, have the character of being uttered with rapidity, and they pa.s.s quickly in the enunciation, the voice not resting on them. This rapidity of utterance becomes more evident when we contrast with them the prolonged sounds of the a in _fate_, ee in _feet_, oo in _book_, or o in _note_; wherein the utterance is r.e.t.a.r.ded, and wherein the voice rests, delays, or is prolonged. The f and t of _fate_ are separated by a longer interval than the f and t of _fat_; and the same is the case with _fit_, _feet_, &c.
Let the n and the t of _not_ be each as 1, the o also being as 1; then each letter, consonant or vowel, shall const.i.tute ? of the whole word.
Let, however, the n and the t of _note_ be each as 1, the o being as 2.
Then, instead of each consonant const.i.tuting ? of the whole word, it shall const.i.tute but .
Upon the comparative extent to which the voice is prolonged, the division of vowels and syllables into _long_ and _short_ has been established: the o in _note_ being long, the o in _not_ being short. And the longness or shortness of a vowel or syllable is said to be its _quant.i.ty_.
-- 137. Attention is directed to the word _vowel_. The longness or shortness of a _vowel_ is one thing. The longness or shortness of a _syllable_ another. This difference is important in prosody; especially in comparing the English with the cla.s.sical metres.
The vowel in the syllable _see_ is long; and long it remains, whether it stand as it is, or be followed by a consonant, as in _see-n_, or by a vowel, as in _see-ing_.
The vowel in the word _sit_ is short. If followed by a vowel it becomes unp.r.o.nounceable, except as the ea in _seat_ or the i in _sight_. By a consonant, however, it _may_ be followed. Such is the case in the word quoted--_sit_. Followed by a _second_ consonant, it still retains its shortness, e.g., _sits_. Whatever the comparative length of the _syllables_, _see_ and _seen_, _sit_ and _sits_, may be, the length of their respective _vowels_ is the same.
Now, if we determine the character of the syllable by the character of the vowel, all syllables are short wherein there is a short vowel, and all are long wherein there is a long one. Hence, measured by the quant.i.ty of the vowel, the word _sits_ is short, and the syllable _see-_ in _seeing_ is long.
-- 138. But it is well known that this view is not the view commonly taken of the syllables _see_ (in _seeing_) and _sits_. It is well known, that, in the eyes of a cla.s.sical scholar, the _see_ (in _seeing_) is short, and that in the word _sits_ the i is long.
The cla.s.sic differs from the Englishman thus,--_He measures his quant.i.ty, not by the length of the vowel, but by the length of the syllable taken altogether._ The perception of this distinction enables us to comprehend the following statements.
a. That vowels long by nature may _appear_ to become short by position, and _vice versa_.
b. That, by a laxity of language, the _vowel_ may be said to have changed its quant.i.ty, whilst it is the _syllable_ alone that has been altered.
c. That if one person measures his quant.i.ties by the vowels, and another by the syllables, what is short to the one, shall be long to the other, and _vice versa_. The same is the case with nations.
d. That one of the most essential differences between the English and the cla.s.sical languages is that the quant.i.ties (as far as they go) of the first are measured by the vowel, those of the latter by the syllable. To a Roman the word _monument_ consists of two short syllables and one long one; to an Englishman it contains three short syllables.
CHAPTER VII.
ON ACCENT.
-- 139. In the word _tyrant_ there is an emphasis, or stress, upon the first syllable. In the word _presume_ there is an emphasis, or stress, on the second syllable. This emphasis, or stress, is called _accent_. The circ.u.mstance of a syllable bearing an accent is sometimes expressed by a mark ("); in which case the word is said to be accentuated, i.e., to have the accent signified in writing.
Words accented on the last syllable--_Brigade_, _pretence_, _harpoon_, _relieve_, _deter_, _a.s.sume_, _besought_, _bereft_, _before_, _abroad_, _abode_, _abstruse_, _intermix_, _superadd_, _cavalier_.
Words accented on the last syllable but one--_An"chor_, _ar"gue_, _hasten_, _father_, _foxes_, _smiting_, _husband_, _market_, _vapour_, _barefoot_, _archangel_, _bespatter_, _disable_, _terrific_.
Words accented on the last syllable but two--_Reg"ular_, _an"tidote_, _for"tify_, _susceptible_, _incontrovertible_.
Words accented on the last syllable but three (rare)--_Receptacle_, _regulating_, _talkativeness_, _absolutely_, _luminary_, _inevitable_, &c.
-- 140. A great number of words are distinguished by the difference of accent alone.
An _attribute_. To _attribute_.
The month _August_. An _august_ person.
A _com"pact_. _Compact_ (close).
To _con"jure_ (magically). _Conjure_ (enjoin).
_Des"ert_, wilderness. _Desert_, merit.
_Invalid_, not valid. _Invalid_, a sickly person.
_Minute_, 60 seconds. _Minute_, small.
_Supine_, part of speech. _Supine_, careless, &c.
-- 141. In _trant_ and _presume_, we deal with single words; and in each _word_ we determine which _syllable_ is accented. Contrasted with the sort of accent that follows, this may be called a _verbal_ accent.
In the line,
Better for _us_, perhaps, it might appear, (Pope"s "Essay on Man," I. 169.)
the p.r.o.noun _us_ is strongly brought forward. An especial stress or emphasis is laid upon it, denoting that _there are other beings to whom it might not appear_, &c. This is collected from the context. Here there is a _logical_ accent. "When one word in a sentence is distinguished by a stress, as more important than the rest, we may say that it is _emphatical_, or that an _emphasis_ is laid upon it. When one syllable in a word is distinguished by a stress, and more audible than the rest, we say that it is accented, or that an accent is put upon it. Accent, therefore, is to syllables what emphasis is to sentences; it distinguishes one from the crowd, and brings it forward to observation."--Nares" "Orthoepy," part ii. chap. 1.
CHAPTER VIII.
ORTHOGRAPHY.
-- 142. _Orthoepy_, a word derived from the Greek _orthon_ (_upright_), and _epos_ (_a word_), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy determines words, and deals with a language as it is _spoken_; _orthography_ determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a language as it is _written_. This latter term is derived from the Greek words _orthos_ (_upright_), and _graphe_, or _grafae_ (_writing_).
Orthography is less essential to language than orthoepy; since all languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are written. Orthography presupposes orthoepy. Orthography addresses itself to the eye, orthoepy to the ear. Orthoepy deals with the articulate sounds that const.i.tute syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by which such articulate sounds are expressed in writing. A _letter_ is the sign of an articulate (and, in the case of h, of an inarticulate) sound.
-- 143. A full and perfect system of orthography consists in two things:--1.
The possession of a sufficient and consistent alphabet. 2. The right application of such an alphabet. This position may be ill.u.s.trated more fully.
-- 144. First, in respect to a sufficient and consistent alphabet--Let there be in a certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the number of forty, whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of them, amount to no more than _thirty_. In this case the alphabet is insufficient.
It is not full enough: since ten of the simple single articulate sounds have no corresponding signs whereby they may be expressed. In our own language, the sounds (amongst others) of th in _thin_, and of th in _thine_, are simple and single, whilst there is no sign equally simple and single to spell them with.
-- 145. An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a given language two simple single sounds, (for instance) the p in _pate_, and the f in _fate_.
Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a given sign, for instance, ? (as is actually the case in Hebrew), stand for the p in _pate_; and let a second sign be required for the f in _fate_. Concerning the nature of this latter sign, two views may be taken. One framer of the alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere modifications of each other, may argue that no new sign (or letter) is at all necessary, but that the sound of f in _fate_ may be expressed by a mere modification of the sign (or letter) ?, and may be written thus ??, or thus ?" or ?", &c.; upon the principle that like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The other framer of the alphabet, contemplating the difference between the two sounds, rather than the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of the sign ?, but a letter altogether new, such as f, or f, &c., upon the principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude should be expressed by signs of a different degree of dissimilitude.
Hitherto the expression of the sounds in point is a matter of convenience only. No question has been raised as to its consistency or inconsistency.
This begins under conditions like the following:--Let there be in the language in point the sounds of the t in _tin_, and of the th in _thin_; which (it may be remembered) are precisely in the same relation to each other as the p in _pate_ and the f in _fate_. Let each of these sounds have a sign or letter expressive of it. Upon the nature of these signs, or letters, will depend the nature of the sign or letter required for the f in _fate_. If the letter expressing the th in _thin_ be a mere modification of the letter expressing the t in _tin_, then must the letter expressive of the f in _fate_ be a mere modification of the letter expressing the p in _pate_, and _vice versa_. If this be not the case, the alphabet is inconsistent.
In the English alphabet we have (amongst others) the following inconsistency:--The sound of the f in _fate_, in a certain relation to the sound of the p in _pate_, is expressed by a totally distinct sign; whereas, the sound of the th in _thin_ (similarly related to the t in _tin_) is expressed by no new sign, but by a mere modification of t; viz., th.