I consider this to be the key to the use of the _e_ mute in all words where it is preceded by one consonant only.
From the circ.u.mstance that the French and the English are the only nations wherein the _e_ mute is part and parcel of the orthography, it has been hastily imagined that the employment of it is to be attributed to the Norman Conquest. The truth, however, is, that we find it equally in words of Saxon and of Norman origin.
The fact that, in certain words, an _e_ mute is preceded by {192} two consonants and by a short vowel, does not militate against the view given above.
"_I_ has a sound, long, as in _fine_, and short, as in _fin_. That is eminently observable in _i_, which may be likewise remarked in other letters, that the short sound is not the long sound contracted, but a sound wholly different."--_Johnson._ This extract has been made in order to add the authority of Johnson to the statement so often repeated already; _viz._, that the _i_ in _bite_ is not the long sound of the _i_ in _bit_.
For the sound of _u_ in _guest_, _prorogue_, _guard_, see the remarks on _g_.
As a vowel, _y_ is wholly superfluous. It is a current remark that more words end in _y_ (_fortify_, _pretty_) than in any other letter. This is true only in respect to their spelling. As a matter of _speech_, the _y_ final has always the sound either of the _ee_ in _feet_, or of the _i_ in _bite_. Such is the case with the words _fortify_ and _pretty_, quoted above. For some reason or other, the vowel _e_ is never, in English, written at the end of words, unless when it is mute; whilst _i_ is never written at all. Instead of _cri_, we write _cry_, &c. This is a peculiarity of our orthography, for which I have no satisfactory reason. It _may_ be, that with words ending in _e_, _y_ is written for the sake of showing that the vowel is not mute, but sounded. Again, the adjectives ending in _y_ as _any_, and the adverbs in _ly_, as _manly_, in the older stages of our language ended, not in _y_, but in _ig_ (_manlig_, _aenig_); so that the present _y_, in such words, may be less the equivalent of _i_ than the compendium of _ig_. I venture this indication with no particular confidence.
The _b_ in _debtor_, _subtile_, _doubt_, agrees with the _b_ in _lamb_, _limb_, _dumb_, _thumb_, _womb_, in being mute. It differs, however, in another respect. The words _debtor_, _subtle_, _doubt_, are of cla.s.sical, the words _lamb_, _limb_, _dumb_, &c., are of Saxon, origin. In _debtor_, &c., the _b_ was, undoubtedly, at one time, p.r.o.nounced, since it belonged to a different syllable; _debitor_, _subtilis_, _dubito_, being the original forms. I am far from being certain that with the other words, _lamb_, &c., this was the case. With them the _b_ belonged (if it belonged to the word at all) to the same syllable as the _m_. I think, {193} however, that instead of this being the case, the _b_, in _speech_, never made a part of the word at all; that it belongs now, and that it always belonged, to the _written_ language only; and that it was inserted in the spelling upon what may be called the principle of imitation. For a further ill.u.s.tration of this, see the remarks on the word _could_.
"_Ch_ has a sound which is a.n.a.lysed into _tsh_, as _church_, _chin_, _crutch_. _C_ might be omitted in the language without loss, since one of its sounds might be supplied by _s_, and the other by _k_, but that it preserves to the eye the etymology of words, as _face_ from _facies_, _captive_ from _captivus_"--_Johnson._
Before _a_, _o_, _u_ (that is, before a full vowel), _c_ is sounded as _k_; before _e_, _i_, and _y_ (that is, before a small vowel), it has the power of _s_. This change of sound according to the nature of the vowel following, is so far from being the peculiarity of the English, that it is common in all languages; except that sometimes _c_, instead of becoming _s_, becomes _ts_, _tsh_, _ksh_, in other words, some other sibilant; _but always a sibilant_. A reference to p. 153 will explain this change. At a certain time, _k_ (written _c_, as is the case in Latin) becomes changed by the vowel following into _ksh_, and from thence into _s_, _ts_, or _tsh_.
That the syllables _cit_, _cyt_, _cet_, were at one time p.r.o.nounced _kit_, _kyt_, _ket_, we believe: 1. from the circ.u.mstance that if it were not so, they would have been spelt with an _s_; 2. from the comparison of the Greek and Latin languages, where the words _cete_, _circus_, _cystis_, Latin, are [Greek: kete, kirkos], [Greek: kustis], Greek.
In the words _mechanical_, _choler_, &c., derived from the Greek, it must not be imagined that the _c_ represents the Greek _kappa_ or [kappa]. The combination _c_ + _h_ is to be dealt with as a single letter. Thus it was that the Romans, who had in their language neither the sound of [chi], nor the sign [kappa], rendered the Greek _chi_ ([chi]), just as by _th_ they rendered [theta], and by _ph_, [phi].
The faulty representation of the Greek [chi] has given rise to a faulty representation of the Greek [kappa], as in _ascetic_, from [Greek: asketikos].
"_C_, according to the English orthography, never ends a {194} word; therefore we write _stick_, _block_, which were originally _sticke_, _blocke_. In such words _c_ is now mute."--_Johnson._ Just as there was a prejudice against _i_ or _e_ ending a word there seems to have been one in the case of c. In the word _Frederick_ there are three modes of spelling: 1. Frederic; 2. Frederik; 3. Frederick. Of these three it is the last only that seems, to an Englishman, natural. The form Frederic seems exceptionable, because the last letter is _c_, whilst Frederik is objected to because _k_ comes in immediate contact with the short vowel.
Now the reason against _c_ ending a word seems this. From what has been remarked above, _c_ seems, in and of itself, to have no power at all.
Whether it shall be sounded as _k_ or as _s_ seems undetermined, except by the nature of the vowel following. If the vowel following be small, _c_=_s_, if full, _c_=_k_. But _c_ followed by nothing is equivocal and ambiguous. Now _c_ final is _c_ followed by nothing; and therefore _c_ equivocal, ambiguous, indefinite, undetermined. This is the reason why _c_ is never final. Let there be such words as _sticke_ and _blocke_. Let the _k_ be taken away. The words remain _stice_, _bloce_. The _k_ being taken away, there is a danger of calling them _stise_, _blose_.
A verbal exception being taken, the statement of Dr. Johnson, that in words like _stick_ and _block_ the _c_ is mute, is objectionable. The mute letter is not so much the _c_ as the _k_.
"_G_ at the end of a word is always hard, as _ring_, _sing_."--_Johnson._ A verbal exception may be taken here. _Ng_, is not a combination of the sounds of _n_+_g_, but the representation of a simple single sound; so that, as in the case of _th_ and _sh_, the two letters must be dealt with as a single one.
"_G_ before _n_ is mute, as _gnash_, _sign_, _foreign_."--_Johnson._ The three words quoted above are not in the same predicament. In words like _gnash_ the _g_ has been silently dropped on the score of euphony (see remarks on _k_); in _sign_ and _foreign_ the _g_ has not been dropped, but changed. It has taken the allied sound of the semivowel _y_, and so, with the preceding vowel, const.i.tutes a diphthong. {195}
Before _a_, _o_, _u_ (full vowels), _g_ has the sound, as in _gay_, _go_, _gun_: before _e_, _i_, _y_, that of _gem_, _giant_.
At the end of a word (that is, followed by nothing at all), or followed by a consonant, it has the same sound that it has before _a_, _o_, _u_--_agog_, _grand_. This shows that such is its natural sound. In _hedge_ and _oblige_ the _e_ mute serves to show that the _g_ is to be p.r.o.nounced as _j_.
Let there be the word _r[)o]g_. Let the vowel be lengthened. Let this lengthening be expressed by the addition of _e_ mute, _roge_. There is now a risk of the word being called _roje_. This is avoided by inserting _u_, as in _prorogue_. Why, however, is it that the _u_ runs no chance of being p.r.o.nounced, and the word of being sounded _prorogwe_? The reason for this lies in three facts. 1. The affinities between the sounds of _ga_ and _ka_.
2. The fact that _qu_ is merely _kw_. 3. The fact that in _qu_, followed by another vowel, as in _quoit_ (p.r.o.nounced _koyt_), _antique_, &c., the _u_ is altogether omitted in p.r.o.nunciation. In other words, the a.n.a.logy of _qu_ is extended to _gu_.
For the varied sounds of _gh_ in _plough_, _tough_, _enough_ (_enow_), _through_, we must remember that the original sound of _gh_ was a hard guttural, as is at present the case in Scotland, and between _g_, _h_, _f_, _v_, _w_, there are frequent interchanges.
"_H_ is a note of aspiration."--It is under the notion that _th_, _ph_, _sh_, as in _thin_, _thine_, _Philip_, _shine_, are aspirated sounds, that _h_ is admitted in the spelling. As has been repeatedly stated, _th_, _ph_, _sh_ are to be treated as single signs or letters.
"_J_, consonant, sounds uniformly like the soft _g_ (_i.e._, as in _gem_), and is, therefore, a letter useless, except in etymology, as _e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.n_, _jester_, _jocund_, _juice_."--_Johnson._ It may be added that it never occurs in words of Saxon origin, and that in the single word _Allelujah_ it has the sound of _y_, as in the German.
_K_ never comes before _a_, _o_, _u_, or before a consonant. It is used before _e_, _i_, _y_, where _c_ would, according to the English a.n.a.logy, be liable to be sounded as _s_; as in _kept_, _king_, _skirt_. These words, if written _cept_, _cing_, _scirt_, would run the risk of being sounded _sept_, _sing_, _sirt_. Broadly speaking, _k_ is never {196} used except where _c_ would be inconvenient. The reason of this lies in the fact of there being no such letter as _k_ in the Latin language. Hence arose in the eyes of the etymologist the propriety of retaining, in all words derived from the Latin (_crown_, _concave_, _concupiscence_, &c.), the letter _c_, to the exclusion of _k_. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, being taken from the Roman, excluded _k_, so that _c_ was written even before the small vowels, _a_, _e_, _i_, _y_; as _cyning_, or _cining_, _a king_. _C_ then supplants _k_ upon etymological grounds only. In the languages derived from the Latin this dislike to the use of _k_ leads to several orthographical inconveniences. As the tendency of _c_, before _e_, _i_, _y_, to be sounded as _s_ (or as a sound allied to _s_), is the same in those languages as in others; and as in those languages, as in others, there frequently occur such sounds as _kit_, _ket_, _kin_, &c., a difficulty arises as to the spelling. If spelt _cit_, _cet_, &c., there is the risk of their being sounded _sit_, _set_. To remedy this, an _h_ is interposed--_chit_, _chet_, &c. This, however, only subst.i.tutes one difficulty for another, since _ch_ is, in all probability, already used with a different sound, _e.g._, that of _sh_, as in French, or that of _k_ guttural, as in German. The Spanish orthography is thus hampered. Unwilling to spell the word _chimera_ (p.r.o.nounced _kimera_) with a _k_; unable to spell it with either _c_ or _ch_, it writes the word _quimaera_. This distaste for _k_ is an orthographical prejudice. Even in the way of etymology it is but partially advantageous, since in the other Gothic languages, where the alphabet is less rigidly Latin, the words that in English are spelt with a _c_, are there written with _k_,--_kam_, German; _komme_, Danish; _skrapa_, Swedish;=_came_, _come_, _sc.r.a.pe_.
The use of _k_ final, as in _stick_, &c., has been noticed in p. 194.
"_Skeptic_, for so it should be written, not _sceptic_."--_Johnson._ Quoted for the sake of adding authority to the statement made in p. 193, _viz._, that the Greek _kappa_ is to be represented not by _c_, but by _k_.
"_K_ is never doubled, but _c_ is used before it to shorten the vowel by a double consonant, as _c[)o]ckle_, _p[)i]ckle_."--_Johnson._ {197} This is referable to the statement that _k_ is never used where _c_ is admissible.
"_K_ is used before _n_, _knell_, _knot_, but totally loses its sound."--_Johnson._ This, however, is not the ease in the allied languages; in German and Danish, in words like _knecht_, _knive_, the _k_ is sounded.
This teaches us that such was once the case in English. Hence we learn that in the words _knife_, _knight_ (and also in _gnaw_, _gnash_), we have an antiquated or obsolete orthography.
For the ejection of the sound of _l_ in _calf_, _salmon_, _falcon_, &c. see under a. For the _l_ in _could_, see that word.
"_N_ is sometimes mute after _m_, as _d.a.m.n_, _condemn_, _hymn_."--_Johnson._ In all these words the _n_ originally belonged to a succeeding syllable, _dam-no_, _condem-no_, _hym-nus_.
_Q_, accurately speaking, is neither a letter, nor an abbreviation. It is always followed by _u_, as _queen_, _quilt_, and the two letters _qu_ must be looked upon as a single sign, equivalent to (but scarcely an abbreviation) of _kw_. _Q_ is not=_k_ alone. The combination _qu_, is never sounded _koo_. Neither is _kw_. If it were so, there would be in the word _queen_ (currently speaking) _three_ sounds of _u_, _viz._, two belonging to _q_ (=_kw_), and one belonging to _u_ itself. _W_ being considered as=2 _u_: _q_=_k_ + _w_. This view of _q_ bears upon the theory of words like _prorogue_, &c.
The reader is referred to p. 152. There he is told that, when a word ends in a flat consonant, _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, the plural termination is not the sound of _s_, but that of _z_ (_stagz_, _dogz_); although _s_ be the letter _written_. Such also is the case with words ending in the vowels or the liquids (_peaz_, _beanz_, _hillz_, not _peace_, _beance_, _hillce_). This fact influences our orthography. The majority of words ending in _s_ are found to be plural numbers, or else (what is the same thing in respect to form) either genitive cases, or verbs of the third person singular; whilst in the majority of these the _s_ is sounded as _z_. Hence, the inference from a.n.a.logy that _s_ single, at the end of words, is sounded as _z_. Now this fact hampers the orthography of those words wherein _s_ final retains its natural sound, as _since_, _once_, _ma.s.s_, _mace_; for let these be {198} written _sins_, _ons_, _mas_, the chances are that they will be p.r.o.nounced _sinz_, _onz_, _maz_. To remedy this, the _s_ may be doubled, as in _ma.s.s_. This, however, can be done in a few cases only. It cannot be done conveniently where the vowel is long, the effect of a double consonant being to denote that the preceding vowel is short. Neither can it be done conveniently after a consonant, such combinations as _sinss_, &c., being unsightly. This throws the grammarian upon the use of _c_, which, as stated above, has, in certain situations, the power of _s_. To write, however, simply _sinc_, or _onc_, would induce the risk of the words being sounded _sink_, _onk_. To obviate this, _e_ is added, which has the double effect of not requiring to be sounded (being mute), and of showing that the _c_ has the sound of _s_ (being small).
"It is the peculiar quality of _s_ that it may be sounded before all consonants, except _x_ and _z_, in which _s_ is comprised, _x_ being only _ks_, and _z_ only a hard [flat] or gross _s_. This _s_ is therefore termed by grammarians _suae potestatis litera_, the reason of which the learned Dr. Clarke erroneously supposed to be, that in some words it might be doubled at pleasure."--_Johnson._ A reference to the current Greek Grammars will indicate another reason for [sigma] being called _suae potestatis litera_. It will there be seen that, whilst [pi], [beta], [phi]--[kappa], [gamma], [chi]--[tau], [delta], [theta]--are grouped together, as _tenues_, _mediae_, and _aspiratae_, and as _inter se cognatae_, [sigma] stands by itself; [zeta] its media (flat sound) being treated as a double letter, and _sh_, its so-called aspirate, being non-existent in the Greek language.
The sound of _ti_ before a vowel, as in _salvation_, is explained in p.
153.
"_Th_ has two sounds; the one soft [flat], as _thus_, _whether_; the other hard [sharp], as _thing_, _think_. The sound is soft [flat] in all words between two vowels, as _father_, _whether_; and between _r_ and a vowel, as _burthen_."--_Johnson._ The reason of the latter statement lies in the fact of both the vowels and _r_ being _flat_ (see p. 152), and so exerting a flattening influence upon the sounds in contact with them.
In the substantives _breath_ and _cloth_, the _th_ is sharp (_i.e._, as _th_ in _thin_); in the verbs _breathe_ and _clothe_, the _th_ is flat (_i.e._, {199} as _th_ in _thine_).--A great number of substantives may be made verbs by changing the sound of their final consonant. However, with the words _breathe_ and _clothe_, a second change has taken place, _viz._, the vowel has been lengthened. Now of these two changes, _viz._, the lengthening of the vowel, and the flattening of the consonant, which is the one represented by the _e_ mute, in _clothe_ and _breathe_, as compared with _cloth_ and _breath_? I imagine the former. Hence an exception is taken to the following statement of Dr. Johnson:--"When it (_th_) is softened [flattened] at the end of a word, an _e_ silent must be added, as _breath_, _breathe_, _cloth_, _clothe_."
The sounds of the _s_ in _sure_, of the _t_ in _picture_ (when p.r.o.nounced _pictshure_), and of the _z_ in _azure_ and _glazier_, are explained in p.
153.
The present chapter is intended not to exhaust the list, but to ill.u.s.trate the character of those orthographical expedients which insufficient alphabets, changes in language, and the influences of etymology engender both in the English and in other tongues.
{200}
CHAPTER X.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.
-- 256. The preceding chapter has exhibited the theory of a full and perfect alphabet; it has shown how far the English alphabet falls short of such a standard; and, above all, it has exhibited the various conventional modes of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives a _history_ of our alphabet, whereby many of its defects are _accounted for_. These defects, it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the rest of the world; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it possesses them in a higher degree than any.
With few, if any, exceptions, all the modes of writing in the world originate, directly or indirectly, from the Phoenician, Hebrew, or Semitic alphabet. This is easily accounted for when we call to mind,--1. The fact that the Greek, the Latin, and the Arabian alphabets, are all founded upon this; and, 2. The great influence of the nations speaking those three languages. The present sketch, however, is given only for the sake of accounting for defects.
-- 257. _Phoenician, Hebrew, or Semitic Period._--At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the neighbouring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters. For these see the Hebrew Grammars and the Phoenicia of Gesenius.
The chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only twenty-two letters will be insufficient. Now, in the particular case of the languages in point, the number of elementary sounds, as we infer from the present Arabic, was above the average. {201} It may safely be a.s.serted, that the original Semitic alphabet was _insufficient_ for even the Semitic languages.
It was, moreover, _inconsistent_: since sounds as like as those of _teth_ and _tau_ (mere variations of each other) were expressed by signs as unlike as [Hebrew: T"] and [Hebrew: T]; whilst sounds as unlike as those of _beth_ with a point, and _beth_ without a point (_b_ and _v_), were expressed (if expressed at all) by signs as like as [Hebrew: B] and [Hebrew: B].
In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to another, and be found, at once, to coincide.