A DEFENCE
PHONETIC SPELLING;
DRAWN FROM
A HISTORY OP THE ENGLISH ALPHABET AND ORTHOGRAPHY;
WITH A REMEDY FOR THEIR DEFECTS.
BY E. G. LATHAM, M.A., M.D., F.K.8.
LONDON :
FRED. PITMAN, PHONETIC DEPOT, 20 PATERNOSTER ROW, E.G.
BATH:
ISAAC PITMAN, PHONETIC INSTITUTE.
1872.
BATH:
BT ISAAC PITMAJT,
PABSOSAGE LARS.
A DEFENCE OF PHONETIC SPELLING.
SECTION I.
PBEFATOEY BEMABKS.
The present contribution to the cause of Phonetic Spelling is
separated from its predecessors by an interval of more than thirty-
five years. Between the beginning of 1834 and the end of 1835 three
short works upon the same subject were published in quick succes-
sion.^) Signs of zeal of this kind stand in strong contrast to the
silence by which they were followed. It is not, however, without
a purpose that they are referred to ; for the dates are meant to show
that I am neither a recent convert nor a laborer of the eleventh
hour. Indeed I may truly say that, from first to last, the subject has
rarely been out of my mind ; so that I have watched with interest
what others more courageous than myself effected during the inter-
val. Much was done then ; more, however, has to be done now :
for the present time not only encourages additional exertion but
imperatively demands it.
It is not, however, as a mere observer that I trouble the reader
with this introduction, though the difference between the state of
opinion in 1872 and 1835 is sufficient to command our best atten-
tion, and to awaken our most sanguine expectations. What I more
especially wish to show is that, if I have not been able to form some-
thing like a matured judgement on the question, it has not been for
want of either time or opportunity.
Again, I have no system of my own either to advocate or abandon.
Taking these two facts together we have, perhaps, the elements
of a dispassionate criticism.
1. " An Address to the Authors of England and America, on the Necessity of
Permanently Eemodeling their Alphabet and Orthography," etc. By E. G.'
Latham, B.A., Cambridge, 1834.
" Abstract of Rask's Essay on the Sibilants, and his Mode of Transcribing
Works in the Georgian and Armenian Languages, by Means of European Letters ;
with Remarks." By R. G. Latham, B.A., Cambridge, 1834.
"A Gramatical Sketch of the Greek Language. By R. G. Latham, B.A.,
Cambridge, 1835.
1059570
4 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
The interval has given us,
1. The construction and promulgation of a truly Phonetic
Alphabet.
'2. An able " Plea for Phonetic Spelling " by a writer who, even
among professed scholars and practised logicians, is, undeniably,
master of his subject.
3. A general awakening of public opinion on the matter, the result
of which has been an incipient literature connected with the subject,
and a free ventilation of opinion.
4. The arrival of a time when everything connected with primary
education forces itself upon the mind of every man, woman, and
child who speaks the English language.
When once a question becomes one of economy it is sure to
command attention : and the economy here involved is of two kinds.
The money question I leave to the rate-payers, fully confident that
it will not be ignored by them. This, however, is but a small part
of the matter. To the child of the poor man everything that takes
him away from directly remunerative employment is a tax upon his
time, the stuff whereof life is made. And it is much the same,
though in a less degree, with the sons and daughters of the rich.
But in learning to read, every unnecessary obstacle is so much
waste : and that the English language abounds and overflows with
mischievous obstacles of this kind, is a point upon which it may
confidently be said that every competent judge has pronounced a
verdict. ' There is waste throughout, injurious waste, unnecessary
waste, remediable waste ; waste which those whom it most injures
will soon be constrained to investigate, to condemn, and to abate.
The "Address," etc., which has just been alluded to, was written
with a genuine rhetorical exordium, and with a motto for the re-
formers of the day,
'Tis hard if 'tis not lawful to present
Reform in writing as in Parliament.
Byron, " Hints from Horace."
and a prophecy of the great efforts in favor of progress, on the
part of the writers of the age that of "William IV., the Guliel-
mian age as it was called. These were, simply and innocently, called
upon to do more than ever author did before, or will do hereafter ;
inaugurate by example a reform of unparalleled importance and
transcendent magnitude, by merely writing English in a manner
which they had not learned, and never heard of till the time of the
"Address."
The treatise itself was, unfortunately, neither one thing nor the
other. It was not wholly phonetic, nor yet wholly according to the
old system. It was, rather, an expansion of some innovations ex-
hibited in certain papers of the Cambridge " Classical Museum,"
proposed by one of the reputed editors, (possibly, sanctioned by the
other,) which touched the ed of the past participle, and the 's of the
Prefatory Remarks. '5
possessive, or genitive, case. It spelt plucked as pluckt, and
father s, etc., as fathers. There was no want of good reasoning
in favor of the change, which was indeed so far from being a
radical or revolutionary innovation that it was a restoration of the
orthography of a better age ; and, as such, wounded no one's con-
servatism. Nevertheless, it was, after a short trial, abandoned by
its distinguished proposers. One part of the paper in support of it
was the absolute annihilation of the doctrine that the 's of the
genitive was the his, in combinations like " Christ his sake." It
clenched the last nail in the coffin of this venerable grammatical
error.
Now the interference on my own part with the received spelling
was extended to
1 . C with the power of s. This was changed into Jc ; giving us
such combinations as obskurest, kalkulate, and the like.
2. The substitution of kw for qu kwestion, ekwalli.
3. The same in respect tu gu langwages.
4. I final for y ekwalli, properti.
5. The substitution of the semivowel y for i in diphthongs ; one
of the leading principles of the work being that the number of
vowels in a word should in no case exceed the number of syllables
neynteenth, descreybing, leyk, wreyters, leyf, etc.
6. The same principle substituted w for u in abowt, amownt, pro-
nownce, etc.
7. For^> was written ff rases, filosofi.
8. For x, ks ekspress.
9. For probable, middle, probabl, middl.
I am not now prepared to say that, if nine alterations were to
be made, these were the best to begin with ; yet I think that, as a
group, they made a legitimate collection of samples.
My defence for thus investing my lucubrations with this parti-
colored dress (or undress) was on the principle so well laid down in
a short illustration of, I believe, Eastern origin: "If you have a
handful of truths, open it by one finger at a time." This was prob-
ably a mistake. For the introduction of the whole body of the
wedge it was too little ; for merely the thin edge, it was too much.
Of course, the body of the pamphlet consisted mainly of the antici-
pation of objections, and the suggestion of the nature of the new
signs required for the completion of the English Alphabet. From
anything like the entire creation of a new letter I shrank, either
from an acquired knowledge of its difficulty, or instinctively. In-
deed, I had no inducements to aim at originality at all. For the u
in but I proposed either the Greek n or an inverted v " A." For the
a in fate, and the o in note, I suggested <R and ce; both of which I
now condemn. For the a in fat " ic," i.e. the diphthong minus the
line which connects the extremity of its right-hand bend with the
central column. This I abandon. So, also, I abandon i without
the dot, ("i") for the i in pit; and so, also, u (it with two dots) for
6 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
the oo in food. The only sign which I at present should care to de-
fend is uj for the sh in shine ; and, even here, the aid of a committee
of printers would be required to put it into form. I think now, as
I thought then, that if we could only get the small letters, the
capitals might be left to develop themselves ; holding, however,
most decidedly that the small must be equally as well fitted for
writing as for printing.
But even in the case of the new letter I have suggested, I am
prepared to take the facts of the present time as I find them. The
Phonetic Alphabet of the Phonetic Journal, I accept as it stands ;
with a few exceptions, which I leave to the judgement of time.
The only new letter then which, under any circumstances, I should
feel inclined to defend, I leave undefended. It was no creation of
my own ; but a sign taken from Kask's "Essay on the Sibilants,"
which I was then translating.
This Essay and the Greek Grammar belong to Metagraphy or
Transliteration, rather than to Phonetic Spelling in the strict sense
of the term. The former will be alluded to in the sequel.
Such were my early but forgotten productions, still-born inno-
cents. The writers of the Gulielmian age, of whom so much had
been asked, did, of course, just nothing at all for them. Indeed, for
my own part the little I know about them is as follows :
One copy of the Essay on the Sibilants was certainly sold ; for,
some years afterwards, it appeared in a sale-list with the rest of the
library of Mr Forskal of the British Museum.
Of the " Address " I heard that a copy was ordered by a circu-
lating book-club in the country, and that "three weeks " were allowed
to each member for the reading of it. It was republished by Mr
Pitman, in his Phonetic Journal for July, 1859.
Thirdly, for the Greek Grammar in English letters, there was an
actual wholesale order. It was given by a friendly bookseller at Eton
who remembered me as a boy. I thought it was done for old acquaint-
ance' sake, and was sorry to hear that the venture had been an un-
successful one. But the sad truth came out at last. He had taken
it for a comic.Greek Grammar, and was both surprised and hurt when
the few premature and precocious purchasers complained of it as an
imposition. " They could not, for the life of them, see the fun in
it." Nor, when stock was taken, did he.
I may perhaps be allowed to quote here the opening and con-
cluding paragraphs of the "Address to the Authors of England and
America," which attempted something in a field that has since
been diligently and profitably cultivated and effected nothing.
Messieurs and Mesdames,
The obscurest individual amongst you, as well as the most celebrated,
works equally, though in a different degree, towards the production of what may
be called the literature of the age we live in. I think it highly probable, that in
describing the modes of thought of the nineteenth century, some future historian
may express himself in phrases like the following :
" About this time, knowledge ceased to be the exclusive property of the learned
Prefatory Remarks, 7
and the secluded. What Socrates did for philosophy, the writers of the Gulielmian
age did for every kind of knowledge ; they brought it down into common life, and
men then began to form themselves into societies, not for the sake of pursuing,
but of diffusing it ; and works written professedly for the people came to be dis-
tributed at prices which a few years before would have appeared incredible. These
productions of the press were meant for the information of the lower they suc-
ceeded only in enlightening the middle classes. It never struck the promoters
of such liberal schemes, that the chief embargos upon knowledge consisted not in
the scarcity of books, or in the abstruseness of such of them as had been written
with no especial view of being adapted to the most uninformed apprehension, but
that the cause of the evil was more deeply rooted, namely, in the excessive diffi-
culties which presented themselves in the first approaches towards knowledge,
which arose from the complexity of the mode of spelling then in use, sufficient to
give a distaste for every thing which books could teach, to all such beginners as
were not gifted either with iron assiduity or instinctive genius. It never struck
them, that although there was no royal road to knowledge, it was by no means in-
cumbent on them to keep the usual one clogged up with unnecessary obstacles ; and
the amount of the distaste for studies such things tended to create, none seemed to
have taken the trouble to calculate."
The following pages contain an attempt to obviate such remarks, and to render
the very elements of mental improvement of as easy attainment as the nature of
the things will allow, by the substitution of a complete for an incomplete orthog-
raphy : and I address it to those in whose hands alone lies the power of introducing
or rejecting alterations.
The author's proposals were then detailed at length, and the
subject was urged upon the attention of the writers for the press
by the following concluding remarks :
A change from the present to a better state of things is not to be brought about
suddenly, nor is it desirable that it should be so. Innovations must succeed each
each other slowly, but they would take place, and they would in the end succeed,
if every man, in the least degree awakened to what ought to be done, would either
himself introduce, if he be a writer, some alteration ; or, if he be a reader, hesitate
to condemn such authors as do so. A mighty change might be effected, with
very little additional trouble given to the reading public, if even half those
who appear in print would exert themselves to differ from the received orthogra-
phy, even no more than Mitford does in his history of Greece, Hare and Thirl-
wall in their translation of Niebuhr, or Oliver in his critical grammar of the
English language, or the author of the present work in the sheets now perused.
Thus one might confine his innovations to the substitution of z for s in the
plurals ; another may write " A " for oo in such irregularly written words as blood,
flood; and a third use the semivowel for the vowel in such diphthongs as hotise, oil.
But the true adaptation of the letters of a nation to its language will begin with
the introduction of one of the new signs ", 1? , etc. We must not, however, shut
our eyes to the fact, that be such a change brought about as it may, the
present and the next generation will have two alphabets to learn : this I think is
the maximum of the inevitable evil which attends all innovations. To such as
ask in what degree the present change is to be considered a final one, I can only
answer that I see at present not the most distant prospect of the growth or intro-
duction of anything like a new sound ; but I will neither deny that the observa-
tions I have made on the use of the letters r and u involve some idea of a change
in the pronunciation of the combinations those two letters form ; nor that future
innovators may arise and argue that it is abstractedly right that such letters as
we have derived from other alphabets, should in our own keep that force, and
that force only, which was given by the nation that invented them ; nor that, for
the sake of making our language of easy attainment to foreigners, and foreign
8 A -Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
languages as little difficult as possible to ourselves, it may be practically advan-
tageous that such sounds as the majority of European nations agree in attributing
to certain letters we attribute to the same letters ourselves. In the first of these
cases, y, as the descendant of v, a vowel sound, will be ejected from a language
where the sound it was invented to represent is wanting ; and in the second, a
substitute will be procured for.;', and.;' be sounded as y is at present, on the plea
that the present power we give to j is unique and singular : and if the plea, that
in printing diphthongs, the true elements must be given, avail, ay or ay, ay or
a<y, and ate, will be substituted for ey, oy, and ow. Greater changes than these
I can conceive no innovator who will venture to propose, or any alterations in
our language which it will demand. But for fear lest I be considered to overvalue
the evils of a thing so apparently unimportant as the fact of having twenty-four
letters instead of thirty, or three modes of spelling a word instead of one, I
must observe that the full weight of the embargo, both upon the attainment of
information in respect to individuals, and the diffusion of it over masses of popu-
lation arising therefrom, is all the less evident, because it is exactly in proportion
as a man is possessed of literary acquirements or mental capabilities, that the
difficulties he had to get over before he was enabled to read, and therefrom arising
narrowness of his escape from a distaste to study, are less vividly impressed upon
him. In his attempts to calculate such things, he can hardly be said to proceed
upon any experience in regard to feelings he has forgotten ; he must infer, as it
were a priori, that such difficulties as he finds our alphabet to cause, would create
so much discouragement in a child's mind, just as he would determine that all
such practical knowledge as th&tjire burns, ice chills, etc., is the fruit of a series
of unpleasant though forgotten experiments. Many early feelings must be re-em-
bodied by my readers before they will be able to appreciate the arguments on
which most of what has been written depends. As to the value of my own evi-
dence on such subjects, I may truly say that I am possessed by no such blind
enthusiasm as would shut my eyes to the difficulty of effecting such a change as
the one proposed ; still less am I conscious of having one iota of that feeling which
too often prompts people to exhibit plans, not in order that the public may value
them for the good they work, but for the specimen of acuteness they may display
on the part of the projector. Moreover, the system I would introduce is tar
from being so exclusively my own as to generate any undue parental partiality.
The investigations which led me to it lay among the works of writers the least
likely to communicate their enthusiasm : whilst the admission that forming a
system with reference to nothing bat the standard of perfection, and adapting
new improvements to an imperfect state of things previously existing, are things
entirely different, I am less unwilling than unable to remedy imperfections
arising from the nature of the alphabet I have to, as it were, engraft them
upon, should prevent the giving to the thing proposed even a pri md facie appear-
ance of its being a mere theory.
If I thought my attempt destined to share the fate of many such as have gone be-
fore it and been similar to it, and that it was doomed to be raked up from the pit of
oblivion only in order to be held up as a warning to others of the futility of such
like efforts as the present one, I should most certainly withhold it from the pub-
lic, valuing, as I ought to do, their time and my own : but I am encouraged by
finding, that of the many who have expressed a wish for alterations, few have in
the smallest degree adopted any; and of those who have adopted any, few
have detailed their reasons for doing so. The public, most naturally, place
little reliance on a person who embodies his abuse of an alphabet in words spelt
literatim in the mode he complains of, and still less on one who, if he does not
leave too much to their penetration, seems to pay too little deference to their
usages.
It is but equivocal advantage that the present attempt is in no wise a party
cause, as, if it were so, men might be brought to think upon it, and their feelings
might be enlisted on the side of their judgement; but so much is it the common
Value of the Present Time for Action. 9
interest of every man who speaks English, that it is the business of everybody
which is nobody : and the idea of its being this is what ought especially to be
guarded against. Great as the change from wrong to right is, it may be brought
about without either the aid of academies or orthographical societies, if only a
majority of those who read and of those who write would not so much convince them-
selves of the necessity of such a reform, but of the power each individual has to
promote it ; and the exertions necessary thereto consist in little more than the
conquering of a prejudice, and the acting upon their conviction.
To transmit the birthright of civilisation which we derived from our ancestors
unimpaired, and, if it may be so, improved to our posterity, is a social duty ; and
when the trouble each individual will have in clearing away the rubbish on the
high road to knowledge is not greater than that of accustoming himself to write
or read such a change as there is from cat to kat, at such intervals as may allow
the innovations to accumulate until confirmed by custom, and the full necessary
change have taken place I say that that man is selfish who will not submit to it.
And be it remembered that the introduction of new letters touches with us no
national prejudice, as it did with the Danes, with whom a" was objected to as a
substitute for aa, on the ground of its being Swedish ; nor is our present a b c
entwined with any ideas of national glory and triumphs gone by, as is that of the
Greeks. Our own alphabet, even in the best of times, was at best but a transfer
from the Latin ; the only original parts of it, 1? and , are rejected : the altera-
tions it underwent in the Norman times are tokens not of our glory but our
subjugation. The natural shortness of life is not more curtailed by waste of time
on the part of ourselves, than the unattainableness of universal knowledge is ag-
gravated by the multiplicity of its unnecessary obstacles. The division of labor is
as important in literature as in manufactures ; and if we of this age are bound to
do for our posterity what our ancestors have done for ourselves ; and if each era
has its own peculiar modes of thought, and the universal culture of the intellect
be so much a feature of the present one as to lead the many to confound it with
superficialness, is that man who labors to exhibit in the most intelligible point of
view that which is already discovered, serving mankind and earning their grati-
tude, one whit less than his fellow, who, with no greater genius, but more am-
bition, seeks to add to the stock of knowledge, leaving its diffusion to others ?
Both employments are undoubtedly of the highest nature, and neither must be
raised at the expense of the other ; but the one who, by rendering dark things light,
and good things common, makes two intellectualists where before there was but
one, adds to the number of laborers in the vineyard of knowledge ; and by multi-
plying the quantum of thought in operation, finally, though indirectly, not only
spreads wisdom more upon the earth, but also brings down more from heaven.
I confess I know no poetry equal to the contemplation of that intuitive and in-
stinctive acquirement, and that unbounded substitution of intellectual for physical
power, which must and will take place when there is not in any one branch of
any one kind of wisdom any other let or hindrance than those which lie either
in the nature of the subject itself, or in the insufficiency of the mind working
thereon.
SECTION H.
THE VALUE OF THE PRESENT TIME FOE ACTION AND CO-OPEBAT1ON.
It has been indicated in the preceding section that a time has
now come which differs from the days which went before it, in being
exceptionably favorable. This is not a matter of degree, but of kind.
The question of simple education has been long before us. The
present, however, is a time of compulsory education. It is more
10 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
than this ; it is a time of subsidised education. More still, it is a
time of *e(f-subsidised, jyeZf-sustained, and se/f-supporting education :
education which must be its own great reward ; and education to
which every one who is benefited by it must contribute. This brings
it within the domain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the
Commissioners whose business it is to make the most of all existing
educational endowments. Great powers are claimed for raising
new, and utilising old funds ; the old endowments are to be diverted,
and new rates to be laid, for the sake of the one great object of
education in general.
The end justifies the means. But the means are (what, to the
same extent, they have never been before) exceptional ; and the
very fact of their being so must be taken as an element in the price
paid for an inordinately superior advantage. I^evertheles, it creates
a second party in the affair : and it does not follow that, because we
get a great boon or profit, we are precluded from looking closely
into the details of the bargain.
Here, except as an item which always commands attention, I
put the money element out of the question. The incidence of the
taxation falls on the more valuable article time : for time, so valu-
able to all, is of double value to the working man. If education,
however, is made a matter which takes from him double, treble,
four times, etc., the amount which is absolutely necessary, a wrong
is inflicted upon him ; and this unnecessary waste may easily induce
him to prefer the existing state of acquiescent ignorance to that of
compulsory enlightenment. Perhaps he may be burning the candle
at both ends ; or, be himself a ratepayer paying rates out of the mo-
ney which his son, when dismissed from bird-tending, fails to earn.
Such is his condition. The skilled artisan of the towns, himself, to
a great degree, in the same predicament, may, perhaps, teach him
a broader view of such matters ; may, indeed, persuade him that
all is for the best. Let us assume that he does so. There is still a
point on which both can agree ; namely, that whatever be given in
return for the immediate loss should be given in return for as slight
a sacrifice as possible.
Here I pause. The moment it is shown that the art of reading
and writing can be obtained at the price of so many shillings or so
many days less than the amount which the constrained education of
his son charges, he has a matter which touches him most closely.
The particular case may be phonetic spelling, or it may be anything
eke. At any rate, it is a matter for a large class to .look to, and,
as the day has now come when this class can not only judge for
themselves, but have a voice in the decision, I submit that I am jus-
tified in speaking of the present time as one which we have not seen
before, and one which we should not allow to pass by.
" Phonetic News " and " Plea for Phonetic Spelling." 11
SECTION III.
THE " FOrNETIK NUZ," AND THE " PLEA FOE PHONETIC SPELLING."
The publication of the Fwietik Nqz was the first practical appeal
to the public. It let them know what a radical reform really was.
It told them that our alphabet was completed, and showed them
what the completion led to. It was, in short, an accomplished fact.
It attracted attention; and the question was permanently set
afloat. It was canvassed, upon the whole, fairly. The objections
fell under two heads.
Everyone thought there was some particular letter which might
be improved ; and when twenty different persons picked out twenty
different letters, the whole alphabet was broken up in detail. It
was like the Mahometans who eat the whole hog ; each by abstain-
ing from some particular part while they made free of the remainder.
Still more like was it to the immortal coat in the Tale of the Tub ;
where each brother preserved what the others relinquished, and re-
linquished what the others chose. It was soon found out, however,
that letters were not easy things to extemporise : and that the alpha-
bet, if taken at all, must be taken as it was found. Upon this principle
the present treatise is written. We have got our tool, and no good
workman will complain of it until he has been lucky enough to sup-
ply himself with a better.
Other objections lay against the principle. Upon this Mr Ellis's
" Plea " may speak for itself. ( 31). He gives them all in de-
tail. There is (1) the Etymological Objection ; (2) the Homony-
mical Objection ; (3) the Pecuniat'y Objection ; (4) the Linguistic
Objection; (5) the Conservative Objection; (6) the Pronunciative
Objection ; (7) the Double Trouble Objection ; (8) the Strange Ap-
pearance Objection; (9) the Vocalistic Objection; (10) the Book
Dearth Objection; (11) the Typical Objection; (12) the Phonetical
Objection; (13) the Inutility Objection; and (14) the Partial Suc-
cess Objection.
At the present time every one of these objections is abated ; and
I may add that, when the " Plea " was written, every one of them
was anticipated.
Of the theoretical ones, the Etymological is the only one which
is at all formidable ; and it is this more on account of the intel-
lectual culture and influence of the class of writers who maintain it,
than from its own intrinsic validity.
The practical ones have answered themselves. The strange-ap-
pearance objection is so much a matter of taste as to be unfit for
argument : though it is well to recognise its existence. The con-
servative and inutility objections are mere negations. The double-
-trouble objection must be dealt with according to the teachings of
experience ; for it turns upon the question as to what we pay as a
price and what we gain as a benefit. Upon the answer to this every
12 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
advocate of Phonetic Spelling has, of course, made up his mind.
On the other hand, he must, if he desire to make proselytes, con-
vince others. The book-dearth, typical, and the partial-success ob-
jections no longer exist ; not, at least, in the way they existed when
the " Plea " was written. There is now no book-dearth at all ; and
there is a great deal more than a partial success.
The Homonymical objectionlies midway between the two divisions.
It applies to words like wright, write, rite, and right ; and to others
besides. If they were all written alike, how could we distinguish
them ? But how do we distinguish them when they are used in
conversation, and address themselves to the ear only, without fear ;
that is, when they are all spoken alike. Easily enough. The context
is a sufficient guide. But suppose that it be not so ? We may
reply to this question that " when a case of real ambiguity occurs,
it will be time to think of the remedy." If this be ignored as a mere
haphazard answer, another, of a more general character, may be
substituted for it. It is the function of writing to represent lan-
guage, not to improve it : just as it is the business of a portrait-
-painter to take the features of his sitter as they are presented to
him by the proprietor as he sits. He must take each with his own
proper character for the time being ; wholly irrespective of any dif-
ferentiation between him and his alias. If the principals or their
friends do not know which is which, it is their business. They will
probably, if a distinction be really needed, find means of discrimina-
ting between them. I do not, however, say that in some very poor
languages, and in some exceptional instances, some diacritical mark
may not, on rare occasions, be needed. I have heard of such things
in China. I have read of such things in the language of the Arra-
pahos of North America ; but I have tried to find an instance of it
in English, and failed ; though, of course, if a person taxed his in-
genuity to invent one, he would probably succeed.
Thus far the question is a point of practice ; and I by no means
deny the possibility of its being, in some extraordinary instances,
a practical one.
In theory, or from the scientific view, the matter stands on a dif-
ferent ground. Rite, right, write, and wright are words originally
different ; and this original difference may be a fact, not only
worth preserving, but going out of our way to preserve : for it is a
detail in the history of four words interesting to say the least of
it ; possibly instructive. Be it so. But the fusion of the four into
one, is just as historical, just as interesting, just as instructive. And
this the present spelling entirely conceals. One piece of history, in
short, is exhibited at the expense of the other. It is doubtful, how-
ever, whether any good reason for the preference can be given.
Surely, then, instead of raising a discussion upon the doubtful point
as to which of two facts should be sacrificed to the preservation of
the other, it is better to keep aloof from the question altogether ;
and this we may do by the simple principle of limiting the spelling
"Phonetic News" and " Plea for Phonetic Spelling." 13
to its proper and exclusive function the representation of the sounds
of which it consists.
Upon the Pronuneiative objection something will be said in the
sequel, when the merits and demerits of the French orthography
come under notice.
In one point and in one point only, Mr Ellis's classification seems
imperfect. Perhaps he meant it to belong to the double-trouble ob-
jection ; but according to his narrative there was no trouble at all.
Miss Mitford told him that at two years old she read the newspaper,
showing off her ability in doing so. J$o one was likelier to have done
such a thing if it could be done at all. Mr Ellis, however, may have
been too polite a man to say this. He might, however, have said that
if she read the paper of the day in the twenty-fourth month of her
infancy she would have read the F-onetik Nyz in the twelfth. All
that this anecdote proves is that Miss Mitford was not as other chil-
dren are. Upon the ease with which our ordinary spelling may be
learned by ordinary readers it is no evidence whatever.
The time for enumerating and exposing the numberless redun-
dancies, defects, and inconsistencies of our alphabet has, probably,
gone by. Denunciation and ridicule may, possibly, have done their
duty ; for there is a time for all things, and, except on the platform,
there is now but little inducement for a reformer to be either funny
or indignant. Hard names and strong epithets have, doubtless,
done good service in their time, and may, perhaps, do it again. At
present, however, there is no one in particular to be blamed, for it
is no one's fault that our alphabet is as bad as it has been proved
to be. Nor is it the fault of the alphabet and the orthography
themselves, though it is their misfortune. The vices of our system
have either grown with its growth, or have been forced upon it ;
and, in the opinion of the present writer, the best way of convincing
the public of their existence is to trace them to their origin, and
note the stages of their development. By doing this we account for
them ; perhaps we may be said to excuse them. But what argument
is so decisive as to the existence of an evil as the exhibition of the
circumstances under which it attained its dimensions, and the evi-
dence of its being neither more nor less than the natural result of
the conditions by which it was preceded ? Or what is more con-
demnatory than the excuse which coincides with, and even antici-
pates, the accusation ? "Whatever may be the case in other respects,
it is certain that, when we take the subject from this point of view,
we put ourselves in the place of our opponents, and, in doing this,
are in the best position for a clear understanding of the matter
under discussion.
14 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
SECTION IV.
THE ENGLISH SYSTEM OF SPELLING AT LEAST TWELVE HTJNDEED
YEARS OLD OF LATIN ORIGIN.
The single point upon which all who have taken the pains to form
an opinion agree, is the bad pre-eminence of the English language
in respect to its spelling. Upon this the most conservative defend-
ers of the existing system and the most advanced innovators are of
one mind. In the eyes, perhaps, of the most partial of the former,
the French orthography may be backed against our own for bad-
ness. The respective demerits, however, are scarcely commensura-
ble. However artificial may be the system of expedients by which
the French attempt to combine Etymology and Phonesis, the
application of it is comparatively regular, consistent, and systematic.
That the system is long in learning is beyond doubt. Nevertheless,
when once mastered it can be used. It is not pretended that this is
the case with English. At any rate we have this remarkable fact
before us, namely, that of these two among the leading languages
of civilised Europe being the two in which the representation of a fine
form of speech, and a valuable literature, is the most imperfect. We
may deplore this, or we may be unwilling to say too much about it.
We may look about for a remedy, or we may give up the case as
hopeless. Sometimes we may take the pains to expose the more
egregious defects of the alphabet of Shakspere and Bacon ; and
sometimes we may find a grim, malicious pleasure in ridiculing them.
Out of all this good of some kind may come ; for the public at large
may be thus informed of the extent of the evil, and the essential
conditions of a reform may be thus established.
It is better, however, (though the attempt may be mistaken for
a defence,) to inquire into the causes of such a result. What makes
the French orthography so much worse than the Italian or the
Spanish ? What makes the English so faulty, as compared with the
German or the Danish ?
One answer to this presents itself at once. The English alphabet,
with its corresponding orthography, is, if not the oldest, one of the
oldest of the class to which it belongs the class being that of those
languages whose alphabet is derived from the Latin ; namely, those
of Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, England, and America ; of
Wales, Scotland, and Ireland ; of France, Portugal, Spain, and
Italy ; of Poland, Bohemia, and Dalmatia ; of Lithuania and of
Finland; in other words, the languages of Western Europe in
general ; as opposed to the Servian and the Russian, of Greek
origin. This division, which nearly coincides with that of the
Roman Catholic and Protestant forms of Christianity on the one
side, and the Greek Church and Mahometanism on the other, is
thoroughly natural. And, as the division is natural, so is the dis-
tinction between a Latin and a Greek framework important.
Though this comparatively high antiquity of the English alphabet
The English System of Spelling. 15
is a matter which scarcely requires proof, it is one which is very
likely to be overlooked. Compared with the alphabets of Greece
and .Rome, all the alphabets of modern Europe are of recent origin.
The English, however, is older than most of them. It had, proba-
bly, taken form, and been applied to spelling, as early as the first
quarter of the seventh century, if not earlier. The general rule in
the history of the introduction of an alphabet into the languages of
modern Europe is that it coincides with the introduction of Chris-
tianity ; so that where the Gospel enters, civilization and literature
follow. Now this means something more than the mere art of
spelling. It means the cultivation of the language to which the
alphabet is applied ; and as this may take place under very different
circumstances, it is very uncertain in its extent. In the great
countries of France, Italy, and the Spanish Peninsula, where not
only the alphabet but the language was Latin, the practice of
writing the native tongue came late : for, though the use and the
value of the alphabet were known, the only language that was
written by means of it was the Latin. Such being the case, we
can scarcely compare the alphabets and orthographies of France,
Spain, and Italy, in point of antiquity, with our own. The alpha-
bets themselves were, doubtless, as old as the Koman conquests of
the different countries. The application, however, of them to the
vernaculars of the land was, in all cases, comparatively late.
The first specimen of the language of Gaul, or France, dates from
A.D. 842. It is the oath taken by Charles the Bald, the son of
Charlemagne, by which his quarrel with his brother Ludwig was
checked. It is a hundred years later than a very well spelt fragment
of an Anglo-Saxon specimen quoted by Beda. It is Provencal
rather than French. Still, it stands alone, nearly two centuries
earlier than any succeeding piece of either French or Provencal of
equal length. It is fairly spelt ; the spelling, however, is not
French in the ordinary sense of the term. Except, however, in the
combination dh in ajudha and cadhuna, it is Latin orthography
applied to a Latinising language.
Pro Deo amur et pro Xristian poblo et nostro commun salvament d'ist di en
avaut, in quant Deus savir et poder me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre
Karlo, et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si com om per dreit son fradre salvar dist,
in o quid il me altresi fazet : et ab Ludher nul plaid nunquam prindrai uni, meon
vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit."
In Britain and in Germany the case was different ; for in Britain
and Germany the languages were not of the Latin, but of the Kel-
tic, and Teutonic families. In Britain, then, and in Germany the
Latin alphabet was applied to the native languages earlier than else-
where. The Polish, Bohemian, Lithuanian, Fin, and the other less
important alphabets of Latin origin are of much later introduction ;
the conversion of the countries to which they applied being later
than that of either Germany or the British Isles.
Our A.B.C, then, has been in work for upwards of twelve hun-
16 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
dred years ; though this as compared with the age of the Latin and
Greek alphabets is a short period, it is a long one compared with
many others. But this, though manifestly true as a matter of fact,
is of too general a nature to oe explanatory : and a more specific
reason is required. We shall find this, to great extent, in the
diference already alluded to between the Greek and Latin alpha-
bets as models, or frameworks, for the several secondary alphabets
derived from them. The Greek was decidedly more phonetic than
the Latin. Where the Latin made no distinction between the long
and short A and O, the Greeks had their Epsilon and Eta (e and TJ)
along with their Omikron and Omega (o and w). Where the Latin
spelt the sound of th with two letters, or by means of an artificial
combination, the Greek wrote 6 or (theta). Thirdly, the Greeks used
the letter K (kappa) wherever it was wanted : the Latins eschewed
it, and used C instead. What this eschewal has led to we shall see
in the sequel.
Though the Latin was the worst of the two models, there were
degrees in its inferiority ; or, to speak more correctly, there were
some countries in which there was a Greek influence as well, and,
by means of this, either improvements in the adaptation of the Latin
letters were effected, or certain faults were avoided. In continental
Germany, for instance, the k not only got admitted into the alpha-
bet, but kept, and continues to keep, its ground. The first German
alphabet, however, was of Greek origin. In Britain the influences
were more exclusively Latin, and the k, though admitted, so to say,
upon sufferance, was long treated as a stranger. At the present
time, indeed, it is recognised ; but whoever turns to a dictionary
and counts the words which begin with it, will find that they are
far fewer to the eye than to the ear, the reason being that more than
half of them are found under C. At first, however, k was kept out
of our alphabet altogether : simply because it was avoided by the
Romans. But even in the Latin spelling it presents itself excep-
tionally. In fact, though a letter which, in all the alphabets of
Latin origin, lies under disadvantages, it is one which, sooner or
later, shows itself. At present, however, it is sufficient to connect
its absence in a system of spelling with the Latin origin of the
alphabet.
SECTION V.
THE ALPHABETS AND SYSTEMS OF SPELLING WITH WHICH THE
ENGLISH MUST BE COMPARED.
The English alphabet, then, is an old one, and, more than this,
an old one which from the beginning was formed upon an indifferent
model. This was the Latin ; but in the Latin, as a model or a
framework, there were degrees. There was the Latin pure and
simple, with no second influence to disturb it ; and there was the
Latin in certain quarters where Greek influences might, possibly,
Alphabets and Systems of Spelling. 17
be at work by its side. From the Latin in its more exclusive form
the English art of writing was. probably, derived. This brings us
to closer inquiry as to the details of its origin ; for all that has
hitherto been said about it has been of a very general nature. The
Latin origin has been indicated; this, however, was done chiefly
with the view of contrasting it with a Greek one. The question
whether it was got directly from the Latin, or through some second-
ary language, still stands over ; and though twenty years ago the
inquiry would scarcely suggest itself, it is, at the present time, an
important one.
Again ; the beginning of the seventh century was only given as
an approximation. All it meant was this, that the English lan-
guage was one of the older ones of Europe. How it stood in this
respect with certain languages was only indicated. The antiquity
of the alphabets of the languages of the German (Teutonic) and
Keltic families, as compared with those of the languages derived
from the Latin, and those of the Slavonic and Lithuanic families,
was put prominently forwards ; or changing the expression, the
application of the Koman alphabet to the Italian, Spanish, Portu-
guese, and French languages was shown to be recent. These, then,
were eliminated from the field of comparison, which was thus
narrowed to two families.
Of these (1) the Keltic gives us two alphabets, orthographies, or
systems of spelling, both derived not only from the Latin, but from
the Latin in its more exclusive form. They were both, of course,
applied to languages other than Latin, the British (Welsh) and the
Irish (Gaelic). They were both connected with the same form of
Christianity, that of the British Church. They were both, as far
as we can judge, originally formed on the same principles, though
afterwards they diverged, and are now to be contrasted, rather than
compared with one another. We must take a very extreme view
of the unimportance of the Early British Church, unless we assign
to the Irish and Welsh orthographies a very early date. In any
case, they are as old as the English ; and probably, older. It will
scarcely, however, be maintained that either of them has been sub-
jected to the same amount of modifying or disturbing influences.
Add to this that one of them, the Welsh, has been remodeled ; so
that, although at the present time the Welsh orthography is, in
some respects, one of the best in Europe, it is not one which can
be said to have either a long and active, or a sustained and contin-
uous history.
2. Three alphabets may be assigned to the Teutonic or German
class of languages, (a) our own, the English ; (6) the German of Ger-
many ; (c) the Mceso-gothic. Of these it may safely be said that the
third in the order here given is the oldest. But the whole litera-
ture of the Mo3so-gothic consists in the remains of a translation of
the Gospels, along with fragments of a fuller version of (probably)
the whole Bible, and a few short records of certain sales or bargains
18 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
under the reign of the Gothic kings in Italy. The whole era, how-
ever, of the Moeso-gothic alphabet lies between A.D. 370 andA.D.700
this being an over-liberal estimate. Any comparison, then, of the
Mceso-gothic, notwithstanding its antiquity, as a practical working
alphabet, with the English is out of the question and, as much will
be said of it hereafter in connection with other parts of our "sub-
ject, this is enough for the present.
In respect, then, of anything like equal antiquity, combined with
an equally continuous history, it is only the German alphabet and
orthography that can be compared with our own : and it is probable
that if we knew the dates of the 6rst-written specimens of either the
German of the Continent, or the German of Britain, (that is, the
Anglo-Saxon,) we should find but little difference between them.
Each has been subjected to the influences of not less than thirteen
centuries. In their relative exposure, however, to influences from
without, there is no such agreement. There is no such fact in the
history of the German language as that of the ISorman conquest in
England, by which a second language was introduced, a concurrent
literature encouraged, and the cultivation of the native language,
for more than two centuries, kept in abeyance. As for the mass of
foreign words thus introduced, there is no approach to equality : for
let us say what we may about the Gothic, the Teutonic, or the Ger-
man structure of our tongue, it is as decidedly a mixed language as
the German is a homogeneous one. Lastly, in respect to their
grammatical structure, the English is in a different stage from the
German. Notwithstanding, however, all this, the German ortho-
graphy, though open to much improvement, is one of more than
average goodness, while the English is, to say the least, more bad
than indifferent.
SECTION VI.
THE PEONTTNCIATIVE OBJECTION. THE DEFECTS OF
FBENCH OETHOGBAPHY.
The French, the second worst language in the world for its sys-
tem of spelling, though far behind our own for badness, owes its faults
to a different cause. It was not, like the English, a language belong-
ing to a different family from that of its alphabet ; though, like the
English, it was founded exclusively on a Latin basis. Two other
causes favored its badness.
1. The French of Paris was not the dialect to which it was
originally applied : for the Provencal of the South and South-East
was cultivated before the French of the North : in fact the Provenfal
and the French were, and are, two different languages.
2. The language, when first written, was in such a transitional
state that it retained at the time when the alphabet was first applied
to it, an inordinate number of forms which afterwards became ob-
The Representation of Language. 19
solete. Yet who could say at what time the change had gone so
far that the spelling ought to be accomodated to it ? No one. So
the language changed while the spelling remained as it was.
!Xow this brings us to the Pronunciative objection. There is a
difficulty in selecting the right pronunciation out of several con-
flicting ones. This, however, is the business of the speaker and not
that of the speller : it is a point not of orthography but of orthoepy.
All that spelling has to do is to represent such or such a sound, or
combination of sounds. Whether it be the right one is to be
settled by time. The Pronunciative objection, as Mr Ellis truly re-
marks, is a fault of the language, which it is not the function of the
Phonetic speller to amend. Herein it agrees with the Homonymical.
And the two agree in this. They are not to be condemned on a
mere inspection. Each inculcates the necessity of judgement and
circumspection. It is possible that, in some exceptional cases,
homonyms may create a deficiency which the context may not re-
move. And it is also possible, (indeed very probable) that real diffi-
culties may arise which invest with a certain amount of validity the
objection under notice. That it is desirable that spelling should
have something to do with giving stability to a language few deny.
But where and when is the fixation to begin ? We are not, on the
one side, to stereotype a language until the end of time ; nor are we,
on the other, to stamp the fictitious sanction of an Imprimatur on
a word of which the form may be ephemeral or evanescent. These,
and a few others, are the points wherein it well becomes us to con-
sider the objections closely, seriously, with a sense of responsibility,
and with the free admission of their legitimacy within a proper limit.
The questions of Hamonymy, of Pronunciation, and of the extent to
which a phonetic orthography may be used for the secondary and
subordinate purpose, (for such it undoubtedly is) of what is called
the fixation of a language are, pre-eminently, those where the inno-
vator must take certain objections from the objector's point of view.
He must do so, to some extent, in the matter of etymology ; but
here he must do so most especially perhaps, also, in the spirit of
compromise.
SECTION VII.
THE REPRESENTATION OP LANGUAGE NEVER KEEPS PACE WITH
THE CHANGES OP LANGUAGE ITSELF. THE BADNESS OF
THE FRENCH SYSTEM OP SPELLING.
It is well to illustrate the leading causes of the badness of an
orthography by giving prominence to the systems of spelling which
are most decidedly affected by them. The English is bad, so is
the French. Each, however, owes its badness to a different cause.
To a reader who is, at one and the same time, a good Latin
scholar and a confirmed upholder of the etymological principle, the
2*
20 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
French spelling may, possibly, be rather laudable than the contrary.
It preserves the old forms, even though the modern language has
rejected them. Thus, though it fails to represent the language as
it is, it succeeds to admiration in telling us what it has been ; and
this in the eyes of an etymologist passes for a merit. Upon this,
however, it is enough to say that the etymological objection against
phonetic spelling is of more value in France than in England.
It is certain also that though phonetic spelling is perhaps less re-
quired in France than in England, it would, if applied, disguise the
language more ; as far, of course, as the eye, accustomed to the
usual orthography, is concerned. This is because, in France, there
are two languages, one for the ear, the other for the eye. But as
the two are simply the same form of speech in different stages, there
is (great as the contrast between them may be,) a principle, or the
shadow of a principle, to give regularity to the system of their
difference. The written French is Old French, even as Anglo-
Saxon is Old English. In England, however, we have no such
consolation, defence, or semblance of a system. In France, if
twenty different words are found to differ from each other accord-
ing as they are spoken or written, or as they are read or heard, there
ia a class to which each may be referred, and for each of such
classes there is a rule. In England there is no rule at all. In this
lies the great difference between the two languages in the valuation
of their demerits. Yet the English and the French are among the
leading languages of the world ; second, to say the least of them,
to none. But they are, facile primi, the first two in bad spelling.
The French has been the least disturbed. It has also the advantage
of its alphabet and its language belonging to the same family, the
Latin. But this is the main reason for its defects. It has kept up
that kind of continuity with the mother-tongue which made the re-
tention of old forms of spelling, long after the language itself had
ignored them, so much of a habit as to end" in its being a necessity.
This, then, shows what happens when changes of language are
not accompanied by corresponding changes in the representation of
it ; and, as this is one of the main causes of bad systems of spelling,
the French language has been chosen as an illustration. At present
this is the sole reason for our reference to it, though, when we come
to details, it will be again referred to.
SECTION VHI.
THE ETYMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE.
Much more will be said about this hereafter, because, (as has
already been mentioned,) it is one of the great practical points in the
phonetic question ; not so much on account of its own merits as*
because it enlists in its defence at least three-fourths of the scholar-
ship of the kingdom. It is here merely foreshadowed in its
The Etymological Principle. 21
generalities, and that because this is its proper place. It is closely
connected with what has just preceded it, because the extent to
which speech changes rapidly, while the representation of it
changes slowly, was well pre-eminently well illustrated in the
French language. The old forms which are still preserved with an
appearance of life and reality in the present spelling dead as they
are are preserved on etymological or historic grounds.
In the present section, however, the principle is dealt with in its
more general form ; for it may exist independently of any change
in language whatsoever. It may exist in the most original ortho-
graphy in the world. It may present itself in a language hitherto
unknown ; or, when known, absolutely isolated. If so, the accom-
modation of the spelling to obsolete forms is out of the question.
So is it, also, in respect to words derived from other languages ; for,
in the supposed instance, there is no language with which it can be
compared. To illustrate this, and at the same time to show that
the case is not an imaginary one, let us suppose that the languages
of (say) Tierra del Fuego and of the Andaman Islands are reduced
to an alphabet, into which the Scriptures, or some part of them, have
be translated. A word which begins with the sound of s will have
an s as its first letter. It will, in no case, begin with a c. Why ?
The ordinary system of representing a single sound by a single
letter will take its course, inasmuch as there is nothing to contra-
vene it. In English, however, sity might be (as it is) spelt city, and
we know the reason why. It is derived, indirectly, from the Latin
civitas. But with the languages here mentioned there is no such
thing as a derivation of this kind. Every true native word is spelt
as it is sounded.
Nevertheless, there may be, even in languages of this kind, ample
room for the introduction of the etymological principle ; indeed, it
may have existed in the very first language ever reduced to an
alphabet.
This, of course, leads to a distinction. Connections in the way
of etymology fall under two heads.
1. There are derivations of which the several elements are con-
tained in different languages. Such is the connection between city
and civitas.
2. There are others in which they are contained within the same
language. Such is the connection between wife and wives.
The former is impossible in languages either actually isolated, or,
if derived, of unknown origin.
The latter may exist in the most isolated language existing.
Of each of those kinds we have ample illustrations in our own
language. Of the first we find any amount of instances under the
simple letter c. Why is this letter used when s would do as well ?
Take the word already used as a specimen. Civis is the Latin for
a citizen, civitas for a city. No matter how the c was originally
sounded. It was, no doubt, at some time or other, pronounced as
22 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
k. But this time went by, no one exactly knows when. After the
change into *, it passed into the French language. From the
French the English took it, but they took it with the French sound
or power. And as they found it written, so they themselves wrote
it. How or why it was changed is a question which, at present, is
unimportant. The simple fact of its changes, and the adoption
of the spelling which it gave rise to, are all that is at present under
notice. It explains what is meant by the etymological principle as
applied to words not belonging to the language in which the
etymological spelling is found.
We may follow the principle further. The number of words
wherein c, followed by e, i, or y, is sounded as s, may be so great, that
the practice of thus sounding it may become universal. Hence it is
extended to words where it is followed by a, o, or u. This ended
in Ic being practically excluded from the Latin language. Hence,
again, as our alphabet was of Latin origin, and as k was never
formally admitted as a Latin letter, we have come to spell the
thoroughly English words can and could with a c, though in Ger-
man and Scandinavian (or Norse) they begin with k. But ken
(know) is the same word as can, in a different tense this and
nothing more. Ken, however, if spelt with c, would run the risk of
being sounded as sen; and this it is which has brought in the irre-
pressible k, the result being that ken is the English spelling of
one tense of the verb can, and can the English spelling of another
tense of the verb ken; for can, though it now means ability,
originally meant power or ability obtained by knowledge. Sen = I
know = can = I have known, that is, I know, or am able, at the
present time.
The words ken and can, then, show two things ; and for this
reason they have been brought forward. The etymological principle
brought in the c instead of k, and can was spelt as we have just
spelt it. But ken could not have been so spelt, and k was resorted
to. Nothing proves better the imperfection and the inconsistency
of this so-called principle. It is resorted to in the case of city and
clvitas to show the connection between the two words ; 'in can and
ken it conceals it.
An additional illustration of this principle is seen in cat and
kitten.
3. The etymological principle as it is suggested by forms found
within the limits of one and the same language, of which the words
wife and wives have been given as an example, is most conspicuous
in two large classes of words, alike in form, though different in re-
spect to their places in grammar. These are the genitive (or the
possessive) cases and the plural numbers of substantives, both of
which end, so far as the eye is concerned, in s ; the possessive
cases in 's (or s with an apostrophe), the plurals in * pure and sim-
P| e -father, of a father, the father's son, the fathers of the families.
For the genitive plural the sign is s', that is, it is the genitive (or
The ^Etymologic Principle. 23
possessive) singular, with the place of the apostrophe transposed,
e.g. the ship's sail, the ships' sails, according as one or more than one
is spoken of. All this has found its way into the ordinary gram-
mars, and is known to even the readers of Lindley Murray. The
history, however, of the apostrophe, and the double sound of the
final s, has not, until lately, had due attention bestowed upon it ;
neither is it so prominently exhibited in even the better class of
teaching books as it ought to be.
It is simple enough. The possessive case in Anglo-Saxon ended
in the syllable " es," the plural in the syllable "as" as, wulf,
iL-ulf-es, wulf - as ; brid, bridd-es, bridd-as = wulf, wulfs, ivulfs ;
bird, bird's, birds ; where there is only the addition of a letter, and
no extra syllable at all. As for the old genitive (possessive) plural
it was wulf -a and bridd-a, so that the English form in s' is merely
an extension of the 's of the singular.
Now as long as the s was preceded by a vowel and belonged to a
different syllable from that of the main body of the word, the
speaker was free to pronounce it in a uniform manner. It might
always be sounded as the s in sin or the ss in ass. As soon, how-
ever, as the vowel was dropped and the two consonants came into
contact, the action and reaction between them created a second
sound. When the consonant which preceded it was p, f, t, th (as
pronounced in thin,} or k, the original sound was retained, and words
like taps, chaffs, gnats, laths, and backs were spelt as they were
sounded. When, however, the preceding consonant was b, v, th (as
in thine,} or g, the sound was that of z ; and the spelling by which
it was represented would give, as the plurals of words like stab,
slave, lad, lathe, and nag, stabz, sldvz, ladz, Idthz, and nagz : the
change being the necessary result of the contact of two consonants
of different degrees of what is called hardness and softness, a change
which is by no means a matter of choice on the part of the speaker.
The two consonants must be in the same class, one of them being
accommodated to the other. In the words before us, the latter is ac-
commodated to the former, and stag gives stagz. The converse, how-
ever, might have been the case, and the former have been
accommodated to the latter : in which case the plural of stag would
have been staks. Z, however, seems to have been a favored sound.
The plurals and genitives of words ending in vowels and liquids
(where the pronunciation is optional) are all, to the ear, formed by
the addition of z : for, whatever may be the spelling, hamz, henz.
fiiltz, barz, blowz,fiiez, etc., are the sounds we utter in pronunciation.
This is the etymological principle as applicable, or applied, to
words within the pale of the same language. The English forms in
-s well illustrate it, for they fall into two classes, the genitive (or
possessive) cases originating in -es, and the plurals originating in
-as. The past tenses and participles, according as they end in t or
d, belong to the same system ; and along with these a few other
words, which, as they form smaller classes, are of less importance.
24 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
SECTION IX.
ORIGINAL INSUFFICIENCY OF LETTBBS OBTHOGBAPHIC
EXPEDIENTS.
The insufficiency of letters, or the want of proportion between
the number of simple single sounds for which signs are required,
and the actual number of such as are found in alphabets, is one of
the commonest causes of bad, or indifferent, spelling. It is the fault,
or misfortune, of most languages ; perhaps of all : for, though in
many alphabets of comparatively recent origin the evil is reduced
to a minimum, it can scarcely be said to be absolutely abolished :
indeed, when such is the case, and when to a sufficient system of
letters the merits of uniformity in their application is superadded, we
have, as far as the mere analysis and representation go, a full and
perfect phonetic alphabet. Even then, however, the signs or letters
may be faulty. They may, for instance, be too clumsy to be written
with ease, too slightly distinguished from one another to be easily
read, and thirdly, so unlike each other in the general character of
their structure as to present to the eye of the reader a strange and
inharmonious whole when printed or written in pages. Saving how-
ever, this, and a few other minor objections, it is clear that, when we
have got an alphabet which is, at one and the same time, complete
in the number of its letters, and uniform in the application of them,
we have nearly all that is wanted. As this, however, has never yet
been found in any language wherein the orthography has been left
wholly to itself, it follows that merits of the kind under notice are,
pre-eminently, the characteristics of the more modern alphabets ;
indeed, it is only in those that have been specially, purposely, and,
at the same time skilfully reformed, that they are found at all. We
have the same result, of course, when, for some language hitherto
unwritten, a competent constructor has succeeded in reducing it to
writing. This, however, is the making, rather than the growth or
development, of an alphabet.
As a fair proportion between the sounds and the signs by which
they are expressed, is the prerogative of the more recent alphabets,
so is the contrary the great demerit of the older ones : though the
rule is by no means universal. There are old alphabets with an
adequate number of sounds, and there are new ones where the want
of them is miserably and mischievously great. Upon the whole,
however, the difference is real. Moreover it is natural. In respect
to the first alphabet, a wonder of an invention, it is a great thing
that it existed at all. We expect that it will be incomplete. We
shall soon see that it was so. Unfortunately, however, we shall also
see that the deficiencies of the infancy of orthography were most
insufficiently rectified as alphabets grew older ; and that, when the
more important alphabets of the world had attained their majority
they were in a very unhealthy condition.
Original Insufficiency of Letters. 25
The natural result of this system of insufficiency is the creation of
a whole series of makeshifts, or, as they are called by philologues, or-
thographical expedients. A few instances of this kind are enough to
show how they work. A letter is wanting. This means that one sign
has to do the work of two. Nothing illustrates this better than certain
details in the history (and it forms a history by itself) of the letter c.
In the French language it reigns predominant. It excludes Jc alto-
gether. There was no k in Latin, and, as the French keeps up its
classical traditions, there is none in the language of France. To a
great extent, the rule that c before e, i, or y is pronounced as s is
sufficiently regular and general to help the learner ; though why
there should be such a rule at all is not very clear. In like manner,
the rule, that c before a, o, or u is sounded as k, is valid up to a
certain point ; for the sound of s before a broad vouel (a, o, u) in a
word, which, etymologically, ought to be spelt with c, is rare. Still
it occurs. To shew, then, that c is not c but s, we make a mark like
a comma under it ; w r hich really means that we make a new letter ;
though not one recognised in the alphabet and in the arrangement
of dictionaries. It is not c ; which, in such cases, is k. It is not s;
because it is, as a letter, a mere modification of c. What then is
it ? It is c in a o-natural sense ; a makeshift ; an orthographical
expedient.
On the other hand, the rule that c before a small vowel is * is
valid up to a certain point : for the sound of k, which, before a small
vowel (e, i, or y) ought to be spelt ke etc., is comparatively rare. Still
it occurs. But the French cannot write it. In Italian we might write
it chi : but in French the combination cli is used with another power
used-up, so to say. It stands for the English sh ; as in charade,
chaise, etc. We have, then, no resource in the h. So the spelling
is done by means of q + u ; which gives us que, qui, quillet, etc. In
Spanish, otherwise a well-spelt language, we have the same diffi-
culty. How can a Spaniard express the sound of k before i ? Not
by c ; for that has a different sound. Not by ch, for that, as in
French, is used with another power. What, then, can the Spaniard
do ? He must even do as the Frenchman does have recourse to
q + u, and a very indifferent one it is.
Now the word chim&ra is, at once, English, French, Spanish,
Latin, and Greek. In the last named language it is spelt X'MPi
in Latin chimcera, in English chimcera, in all of which languages the
ch is pronounced as k. In French it is chimere ; where the ch=sh.
But in Spanish it is pronounced as in Greek, etc,, and retains either
its true sound, or a near approximation to it. Yet in Spanish it is
spelt quimera : of all impossible spellings for a Greek, the most im-
possible.
Such is one out of many of the long list of orthographical expedi-
ents. How little the system favors a true etymological representation,
is easily seen, Yet it is out of a supposed adherence to etymology
than it grew. The preference of c to k is etymological or nothing.
26 A "Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
It will be shown in the sequel that, mutatis mutandis, the series
of insufficient makeshifts which has been illustrated by a reference
to c repeats itself with g ; where in words like rogue the u is needed
in order to show that the o is long. Write it rog, and the vowel
runs the risk of being sounded short (rog). Write it roag and you
disguise its Latin origin, from rogo. Write it roge, and the g may
be sounded as j, or as the ge in George.
This is sufficient to show what is meant by an orthographical ex-
pedient, and how it is connected with the insufficiency of signs ; or,
in other words, with the incompleteness of the alphabet.
SECTION X.
WRONG CLASSIFICATION DISTURBANCE AND CONFUSION, ETC.
To one of the three preceding heads more than three-fourths of
the redundancies, deficiencies, inconsistencies, and other admitted
faults of alphabets in general may be reduced. The minor faults
may be noted in a more summary manner ; or be indicated as they
occur.
Singularity in the nse of any particular letter can scarcely be
blamed when we consider an alphabet as what it is when taken by
itself. There is no principle generally recognised which binds the
speakers and spellers of one language to use the same letters that
are used by others : and still less to use them with the same power.
Every alphabet must be considered on its own merits. If the En-
glishman chooses to use c where the German uses k, it is no fault of
the alphabet of either of them. The practice of either one or the
other may be peculiar, exceptional, or even eccentric. Still, this is
no reason against it. It is no part of one language to suit its spel-
ling to that of another : though, at the same time, the greater the
agreement between them the better. Absolute uniformity amounts,
ot course, to a universal alphabet ; an admirable thing in itself, but
one which we must wish for rather than expect. Nevertheless, ex-
treme eccentricity in the use of a letter is a blemish. Nor is it a
very common one. P, b, t, d, k, s, I, m, n, r are used with great
uniformity throughout all the alpabets of Latin origin. The Hun-
farian, however, though in many respects a model alphabet, stands,
believe, alone in its use of *. In Hungarian it stands for sh as in
shire ; the * as in sire being represented by sz.
The misconception of the relation of sounds to one another, is a more
serious evil. The English stands almost alone in treating the i in
fine as the long sound of the i \nfin : it is, really, that of short ee in
feet ; whereas our long i represents a shortened form of the combina-
tion of a (as in father) vfitl\y=ay : the sound of the ai in the German
word .BazVm Bavaria. This is, doubtless, broader than the ei in
meine=mine, but is equally compound ; a compound made out of
the same elements. So, too, with the ou, in noun, etc. Its real ele-
Wrong Classification Disturbance and Confusion, etc. 27
ments are a + u (oo) ; or, as some say, o + u. In this mistaken view
of the relation of certain vowels to each other, and the erroneous
view as to the composition of our diphthongs, the English language
is more than usually blameworthy. Then there are the faults which
arise from the external relations rather than the intrinsic demerits
of an orthography ; such as extraordinary accumulations of words
of foreign origin, mixture of dialects, intrusion of a strange ortho-
graphy, and the like. These are the elements of what we have al-
ready called the wear-and-tear of a language, and of these the En-
glish has had more than its fair proportion.
Such, with the exception of a few additional minutiae, are the
chief reasons why alphabets and systems of spelling (we cannot
always call them orthographies, but rather the contrary,) are in-
sufficient for the purpose for which they are naturally intended
the representation or reproduction of language. They will now be
summarised, and that in the reverse order to the one in which
they have been exhibited.
1. Upon wear-and-tear, in a general way there is nothing more
to be said.
2. Upon the original incompleteness of the alphabet, and the
want of any uniform principle in its application, thus much can be
said ; namely, that it is remediable. This can be said without reser-
vation ; and, for the purpose under notice, it is saying everything ;
for it means that a palpable and notorious evil ought to be remedied.
3. The etymological principle should, perhaps, have been put in
a more general form. The inordinate preponderance, however, of
the etymological objection over all others, especially in reference to
the influence of the quarter from which it proceeds, makes it the
representative principle of its class. A little consideration, how-
ever, shows us that the system upon which we distinguish the
meanings of rite, right, write, and ^vright by the spelling, (our object
being to indicate to the eye a difference of import when the sounds
are identical,) comes under the same category only its definition
must be widened. Let us say, then, that the sacrifice of pure and
proper Phonetic representation, when made for either the purpose
of showing the origin of a word, or manifesting the difference of
import between words similarly pronounced, (the differentiation
principle,) are members of a higher class, the principle of which lies
in the attempt to make spelling available for secondary and illegiti-
mate objects, or to apply it to purposes for which it is neither
intended nor appropriate.
It is possible, indeed, that by exploring the whole domain of
language a few instances may be found where such a secondary
object may, when not bought at the price of the sacrifice of anything
else, be worthy of consideration. The cases, however, are yet to be
found, and when found, have to be considered as exceptional, and
(at best) excusable.
4. The extent to which the retention of old forms in the spelling,
28 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
when they have ceased to exist in the speaking, of a language, is de-
sirable, is the question which is the least capable of being determined
off-hand. As long as change goes on, there is always a period when
it is difficult to say when the change on one side ought to be adopted
to meet a change on the other. Sooner or later it may be made,
but the right moment is difficult to determine. Here, then, more
than elsewhere, are the innovators bound to place themselves, as
much as possible, in the same light as the conservators.
If these divisions be natural, it is clear that there are degrees in
the validity of the objections on one side, and in the claims for altera-
tion on the other. The completion, however, of the alphabet, and
the uniformity of its application are primary and absolute necessi-
ties. The limitation of the alphabet to its true function of rep-
resenting a language differs from this so slightly that the difference
has only been indicated for the sake of showing that it has not been
overlooked. The fixation of a fluctuating pronunciation is a matter
which must be left to settle itself. It is really a question of
orthoepy rather than orthography.
SECTION XI.
AN ENGLISH GOSPEL TRANSLITERATED INTO THE LANGUAGE
OF THE KORAN.
With all these elements of imperfection developed in an inordi-
nate degree, it is not strange that the art of learning to read
English should be a difficult one. An Englishman, indeed, is !apt
to underrate its difficulties. Foreigners, however, are generally
candid enough to own that, what with the multiplicity of its rules
and what with the number of its irregularities, the approaches to it
are, to say the least, discouraging.
As an instance of this I will lay before the reader an account of
an attempt to teach it by the method of transliteration ; and I will
tell the story as slowly as I can, in order that, between the begin-
ning and the end of the narrative, he may exercise his ingenuity in
guessing at the explanation of it. I have never yet found anyone
to whom I told it succeed in doing so.
About fifteen years ago a friend sent me a copy of one of the
Gospels (John) in the ordinary English text but in Arabic charac-
ters. I took it, at first, for a mere curiosity, though without pre-
tending to see my way to the object of it. Even a professed
Arabic scholar could not have read it off-hand. Letter for letter
he could have spelt it, and would thus have arrived at something
like something he had heard or seen before. However, the Preface
told me what this was, and what was stranger still, told me that the
work was one of a real practical value ; that it was meant to be
useful to certain men who, so far as the Arabic language was con-
The Alphabet in its Earliest Forms. 29
cerned, were no Arabs at all, but, on the contrary, as far as the
English went, very good Englishmen ; men, indeed, of one language
only, and that the English. This they spoke as their mother
tongue, and they spoke nothing else. They could not, however, be
taught to read it in English letters, and according to the English
orthography. Put the words in Arabic characters, and they could
read with pleasure and profit. I repeat it I never found anyone
who could guess who these strange English Arabs might be. Yet
the explanation was simple enough. How much Mahometanism
there is in the purely African and Negro parts of Africa is well
known. The Mandingos and the Fulahs are more Mahometan
than the men of Mecca themselves. In Bornu and Howssa the
Arabic is to the native what Latin used to be to the Pole and
Hungarian. It is, to them, not only the learned language, but,
practically, the only written one. Those who use it are, of course,
Mahometans, and where there is Mahometanism there is the
Koran. And now we have only to think of the slave trade, and to
turn to the Southern States of North America. Most of the
negros of the plantations are pagans, and the descendants of pa-
gans, men of many different languages and little knowledge of either
reading or writing. Some, however, are either Mahometans, or of
Mahometan blood ; and for these the Gospel was thus transliterated
from English into Arabic, in order to secure the means of repre-
senting its pronunciation.
SECTION XII.
THE ALPHABET IN ITS EARLIEST FORMS.
Let us" now ask how far we can trace the imperfection of our
spelling backwards ; not, however, with an intention of giving
anything like a natural history of the alphabet. This would lie
beyond the scope of the present pages. Something, however, like
a general view of the conditions under which the alphabets which
have had the closest connection with our own were developed, may
help us in the path of improvement, by showing how and when and
in what directions the straight line of progress was abandoned.
The primary or primitive alphabet (the word " original " is often
used in a different sense,) is generally attributed to the Phoenicians.
We find it in a fuller form in the Hebrew, and hence it will often
be called " Hebrew " in the present work. How are we to denomi-
nate such an alphabet ? Was it an invention, or was it a discovery ?
Was it a mere application of something previously applied to some-
thing else ? It was none of these things exclusively. The first
sign, or letter, if made out of the first author's brain, and out of
nothing else, was more than an invention. It was a creation. If
the sign, however, existed with another import, it was an applica-
tion. It is only, however, in respect of the letters themselves that
30 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
the term invention applies. The signs of the alphabet may or may
not have been invented. That, however, which led to them is more
akin to a discovery, and this the most important ever made. It
was the discovery that conversations could be resolved into words,
and words into their elementary articulations. This is the great
fundamental fact in the history of the alphabet ; the mere repre-
sentation of these articulational elements, though a great matter, is
one of only secondary importance. Out of these two elements the
primitive alphabet emerged, but the former of the two is the more
essential or fundamental.
The primitive alphabet, whatever else it may have been, was a
combination of a marvelous symbolization subsequent to a still more
marvelous analysis. The only thing to be analysed was floating
conversations ; for these are implied by the simple fact of the
alphabet being primitive or absolutely original. So far as there
was anything of the same kind antecedent to it, it was not primitive
but derivational or imitative. All honor to the unknown inventor.
As Carlyle says of the mysterious author of the great German
poem the Nibelungen-lied, " What matters it to him or to us that
the particular letters which composed his name be lost : his work
remains." And the work of this our unknown analyst will remain
to the end of time.
To attach to one man the full glory of having, single-handed,
elaborated the whole fabric, from first to last, out of nothing, is to
overwhelm a mere mortal with more than the honors of mortality.
In some way or other, though we can scarcely see how, the thing
grew. The analyst of spoken sentences may have been one man,
the translator between the ear and the eye another. The signs
may have been current with another import ; may have served, for
instance, to denote numbers. The analysis of sentences into words
may have been done more or less completely by hieroglyphics.
The further analysis of words into elements may have begun.
Nevertheless, the earliest known approximation to an alphabet was
a whole.
The first process was, as stated, an analysis as pure and simple
as the taking to pieces of a watch. And this would begin with
sentences. The resolution of these into their component words im-
plies something like the germs of a grammar : for two words in one
combination could only be treated separately, after cognisance had
been taken of their separation in another. Analysis, up to this point,
may exist for any length of time without leading to any scriptoria!
application, though without it an alphabet is scarcely possible.
The class of words with which it is the easiest to deal are the
Interjections, the Numerals, the Personal Pronouns, the Affirmative
and ^Negative Participles, inasmuch as these stand oftenest alone.
The less the nouns and verbs were inflected the easier it would be.
The process, too, would be easy in proportion as the language was
monosyllabic, and strongly accented.
The Alphalet in its Earliest Forms. 31
The analysis being carried to the isolation of the several element-
ary articulations of which the language consisted, the next step in
the process was the translation of the symbols that spoke to the ear
and passed away with the fleeting sound, to one which addressed
the eye and was capable of being fixed. Any combination of lines
and points would supply the signs by which this was to be done.
How far these were quickly written, easily distinguished, or
pleasantly read, was a matter of detail. If, as aforesaid, there were
a set of monograms for some other purpose already in existence,
the work of the alphabetographer would be facilitated.
The signs, however, for the sounds with which they corresponded
(so far as the analysis was made) were either invented or transferred
from some other application ; and when the words which they
composed were arranged in lines, the writing was from right to
left ; not as with us, from left to right.
Each letter had its namealeph = A., beth = 'B, etc. ; from these,
when they became changed into the alpha and beta of the Greeks,
the word " alphabet " is derived. In English we, for the most part,
have no names of this kind. We merely say bee, cee, dee, etc. ;
eff, aitch, and zed, however, are true names and very old ones too.
They are the Hebrew vav, heth, and tsaddi respectively. The
principle upon which these names were given has been a matter of
speculation. Some have held that certain letters were named after
certain objects, from their shapes resembling them ; others that the
name was taken from objects which themselves had a name begin-
ning with the letters under consideration. Thus, beth was called
beth because it was like a house (beth), or it was so called because
the name for house began with b. In the history of the adoption of
alphabets these speculations have their value ; their bearing, how-
ever, on its origin is of the slightest. It is one thing for a child to
be born, another for it to be named. When were these names
given ? Almost certainly before the application of the Phrenician
alphabet to the Greek, inasmuch as, in the two languages, they are
essentially the same.
The arrangement of these names, as we find them in dictionaries,
gives the order of the alphabet. It is not accidental. It has the
appearance of being both regular and scientific ; but it is, also, so
artificial that it requires some attention to understand it ; and even
then it is by no means square and clear. It can be illustrated, how-
ever, by our own A, B, C as well as by the Hebrew or Greek. Let
us take the vowels first. Instead of coming together, they are found
at intervals ; a at the beginning, u nearly at the end of the alpha-
bet ; e, i, and o in the intermediate part of the series but not in
contact with one another. There is something like regularity in the
distances between them. After noting this let us look at the clas-
sification of the consonants : premising that only those letters will
be noticed which are common to our own language and the Hebrew.
This is not the scientific method. It is, however, convenient ; and
32 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
for the object in hand, namely, the proof that the arrangement is
systematic rather than arbitrary, sufficient. B,f, p, and v are al-
lied letters ; members of the same class ; in the language of the Eton
Greek Grammar inter se cognates. So are k, (c), and g, and with its
origin power, q. So are d and t. Let us call the class represented
by b, etc. number one ; that represented by k, etc. number two ;
that represented by d and t number three. Now it may be found
by simple inspection that the members of each class stand in the same
relation of succession to each other and to the vowel. Thus :
A ... vowel
B ... class 1
C ... 2
D ... ,3
E ... vowel
F ... class 1
G ... , 2
I ... vowel
K ... class 2
O ... vowel
P ... class 1
Q ... 2
T . ,3
with t the Hebrew alphabet ended. The first of these quaternions,
(c being treated as k), is clear and definite ; the other three are ir-
regular ; the third being greatly interfered with by the liquids I, m,
and n ; and the fourth by rand *. The relation, however, as far as
it goes, is absolute. It may be said that it does not go far, which is
granted. It is only submitted that it goes farther than mere acci-
dent would carry it. The date of this runs back, at least, as far as
the adoption of the names of the letters by the Greeks.
"We now know what to call the alphabet. It is the result of a very
complex series of processes and operations. The analysis of sen-
tences into words, and of words into syllables, and so on. is a great
thing ; but greater still humanly speaking a wonderful instinct or
intuition of genius, or, speaking the language suited to the thoughts
of a higher sphere, an inspiration is the conception that such an
analysis was possible. Then comes the translation of the signs ad-
dressed to one sense into signs addressed to another ; the process by
which we speak to the eye and the process by which we write to the ear.
To this, observation has mainly been subservient. For the particular
signs, so far as such or such a letter was formed out of a new com-
bination of lines and points, limited on every side by the conditions of
reading and writing, invention was required ; and that of the high-
est kind ; and even when signs previously in use for other purposes
were made available for a new purpose, acumen, tact, and judgement
were demanded. How far all these conditions were complied with,
or anticipated, by a single individual we shall never know. All that
is here indicated is the complex nature of such an alphabet as has
just been described. There is the great idea of the possibility of an
analysis, and a representation. There are details of the analysis,
and the details of the representative signs. There is the naming of
them, and the arrangement of them. The alphabet, then, in its full
form, is a system, a structure, a construction.
The only element in this construction to which we clearly see our
way is the order of the letters. These served a double purpose.
The letters were, in Hebrew and Greek, numerals as well. TVhy a
Is there more than one Primitive Alphabet? 33
should precede b we cannot say. Why a should stand for 1, and b
for 2 we cannot say. But, given the fact that such were their
original powers as numerals, the order in which they stand is trans-
parently intelligible.
SECTION XHI.
IS THERE MORE THAN ONE PRIMITIVE ALPHABET ?
The process by which an alphabet is constructed has now been
exhibited. Taking it a* a whole, was it ever repeated ? Was there
ever a second alphabet invented, discovered, developed or con-
structed ; equally primary, primitive, original, and independent
with the one which has just been investigated ? I think not. I
think that the conception of decomposing the complex combinations
of spoken sounds into their elements, and fixing them by visible
signs, never entered into the head of any one but the original dis-
coverer, except so far as he learned from others that the thing could
be done, and (to some extent) the way of doing it. That men of ge-
nius have effected great things of the same kind is not denied. It
is only suggested that they had some previous knowledge of the
processes required for the result. There is, for instance, the Chero-
kee alphabet, of which more will be said in the sequel. There is the
language called Vei, the alphabet of which has attracted a fair amount
of attention. The " Vei Phonetic " appeared a few years back on
the title-page of a volume of Travels ; as a rival of the " Fernetik
Nqz " in respect to mystery of its import. " Vei," however, is the
name of a dialect of the Mandingo language, spoken on the north,-
west coast of Africa, which enjoys the prerogative of having a na-
tive alphabet. The originator of it, himself a native, is, perhaps,
still alive. The details of what he did have been stated on fair au-
thority. He knew that white people could write, and he framed an
alphabet for his countrymen. Hence, whether he could himself
write or not, he had seen writing, had been the bearer of letters,
and had admired the mystery of their import. I know of no nearer
approach to invention than this. Nevertheless, I deny that this is
the invention of writing. It wants the great element of independ-
ence ; the self-born conception, without any precedent to guide it,
of translating one kind of sign into another. This independent con-
ception of a possible end, even more than the acumen displayed in
the details of the instrument, constitutes in my mind the true basis
of the construction of an alphabet.
In asking what alphabets have the best claim to an independent
origin, we must eliminate those which are other than alphabetic in
the ordinary sense of the term : and this means the Chinese, and
the old Egyptian or Hieroglyphic.
With this limitation, those for which, either directly or indirectly,
an origin other than Phoenician, has been claimed are
3
34 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
I, 2. The Corean, and Japanese.
3-10. A remarkable group applied to certain languages of the
Malay family ; used either in time back or at present in the Philip-
pine Islands, in Celebes, in Lombok, and (to the number of three)
in the island of Sumatra.
II. Those of Southern India.
12. Those of Northern India.
These, it may be seen, are all found within the same geographical
area, the South-Eastern division of Asia. They all originally be-
longed to the languages of either the Buddhist or the Brahminic
religions. The Corean, the Japanese, and the alphabets of India do
so still. Those, however, of the Malay group have a history of their
own. They are sufficiently like each other to pass, with most critics,
for members of a single family. The opposite view, however, has
been taken ; and the extreme opinion that they are all of independ-
ent origin has had its upholders ; of which the most influential was
one of our best Malay scholars, the late Mr Crawfurd. They are
very unlike all other alphabets : and can be connected with those of
India only by the assumption of an inordinate amount of alteration.
When we bear in mind the language to which they applied ; the
rudeness of the tribes which used them ; and, above all, the nature
of the material on which they were written, (or sometimes, as on the
stem of the bamboo, scratched or scraped.) this assumption is, in
the mind of the present writer, legitimate. Still it is a point
on which opinions differ. Be this, however, as it may ; they have
all dropped their connection with the religion through which
they were introduced, the Brahminism of India. The Battas of
Sumatra have relapsed into something like their primitive paganism.
Still they preserve their alphabet : and, as they are man-eaters, the
combination of literature with cannibalism is remarkable. The three
other Sumatran alphabets, those of the Eejang, Korinchi, and Lam-
pong dialects, are used by a Mahometan population ; so that they
have the Arabic alphabet of the Koran to contend with : and to
this they will probably give way altogether. In the Philippines,
the dominant alphabet is that of the Spanish missionaries. In
Lombok the literature seems to have always been as scanty as it is
at present. The creed, however, is Mahometan, and the ordinary
alphabet Arabic. In Celebes, however, though the creed is Ma-
hometan, the native alphabet is still in use. It is written. More
than this, it is printed.
This is as much as need here be said about them. Whatever may
be their claims to an independent origin, they have no connection
with our present investigation. Some, indeed, of our readers may
possibly think that in the question of phonetic spelling for England
we need not go so far as even Phoenicia. It is only certain that we
need not go no farther.
Capital and Small Letters. 35
SECTION XIV.
CAPITAL AND SMALL LETTERS MONUMENTAL, CURSIVE,
AND PRINTED STYLES.
The original Phoenician alphabet, in its Hebrew form, though it
gives us the germ and principles of all the alphabets derived from
it, by no means gives us a notion of the changes which each letter
was destined to undergo, in its transfer from country to country and
from language to language. These, in many cases, end in absolute
transformations. The history of them, however, is but imperfectly
understood ; the little that is actually known being known only of
the earliest and the latest forms or the two extremes. We know
thoroughly the difference between the small letters and the capitals,
and we know the difference between writing and printing, for these
belong to our own times, We have also a fair knowledge of the
early alphabet as it occurs in inscriptions. We know, in short, the
alphabet of inscriptions and coins, the Lapidary alphabet, and the
Numismatic alphabet ; and we know that this was an alphabet of
capital letters. But of the early Cursive alphabet for parchment
or paper, we know but little. That the capitals took forms
approaching those of the small or cursive ones, we know in certain
particular cases. But all these are of a comparatively late date.
And so it is when we come to the middle of the fifteenth century.
We know how, when printing was invented, the cursive alphabet
became an alphabet of stamps.
The difference, however, between capital and small letters was
developed during the interval ; only, however, in certain alphabets.
In the printed Hebrew, and the printed Russian, all the letters are
still capitals. In the Arabic they are all small, or cursive. Except
then in the cases where either the capital or the small letter is
predominant, there are, virtually, two alphabets determined by
the differences of the material for which they were intended,
though, so far as they were of the same origin, only one.
And this difference of material is important. For incision we
want straight lines and angles ; for writing we want curves :
whereas, for printing we can use both. A cursive letter, then, is
something more than a capital of lesser growth ; and, though the
distinction need not always be acted on in the coinage of new
letters, its existence must be recognised.
So much for the two alphabets, the small, (or cursive,) and the
capital ; and their connection with ordinary writing on the one
side, and with coins and inscriptions on the other. When printing,
however, was invented, these two became four, and every letter had
four forms ; a capital and a small one for the typefounder, and a
capital and a small one for the penman.
36 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
SECTION XV.
THE PHONETIC AS OPPOSED TO THE ETYMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE.
There is another point upon which a remark may now be made.
The alphabet more especially under notice, that employed in the
Phonetic Journal by Mr Pitman is, in every sense of the word,
Phonetic. As such it stands in contrast with the present incomplete
alphabet with its corresponding faulty orthography. It is phonetic
from first to last. It limits letters to the representation of sounds ;
to this and nothing else. Secondary objects, such as the suggestion
of the etymological history of a word, as the differentiation of the
meanings of words sounded alike, (with, however, a few exceptions,
as in, no = " in, we," and inn, knoic = in, mo) and as the fixation of
the language, it utterly ignores. It not eraly ignores all this, but it
goes to the length of doing away with all that has already been
attempted in any of these directions, or with any of these intentions.
To use a favorite expression of Sir William Hamilton's, it is " Thor-
ough-going." As compared, then with the existing orthography it
is phonetic in the highest degree, and the ordinary system is its
opposite. Nevertheless, it does not follow that the ordinary system,
notwithstanding this opposition, is wholly wanting in phonetic ele-
ments. It has them to a great extent ; indeed no alphabet, and no
orthography can exist without a phonetic element as its basis. It
is only when they are so far warped by other influences as to become
something different from that for which they were originally in-
tended, that the opposition suggested by the word in its present
sense becomes real. The Phonetic Principle is one thing : a Pho-
netic System of Spelling, consisting of an alphabet and its corres-
ponding orthography, is another : and, in the forthcoming pages,
the former the Phonetic Principle will mean the limitation of
spelling to the representation of sounds only, and the exclusion of
all secondary objects : generally, however, with special reference to
the principle to which it is the most opposed the Etymological or
Historical Principle.
SECTION XVI.
ALPHABETS UNDOUBTEDLY DERIVED FROM THE PHffiNICIAN.
(a) THE EASTERN OR ASIATIC GROUP.
1. The Phrenician Alphabet itself is known only through coins and
inscriptions ; the great part of which are Punic rather than Phoe-
nician, in the geographical sense of the word. Punic was another
name for Phoenician, and Carthage was a Phoenician colony. Africa
and Spain are the countries where Punic remains most abound. A
specimen of the language of Carthage occurs in a play of the Latin
comic writer, Plautus ; where one of the characters, Pcenulus, or the
Derivation of Alphabets. 37
Little Carthaginian, speaks the language of the country. The
writing, however, is Latin. The Phoenician alphabet, then, so far
as we know it, is known only in respect to its capital letters.
2. The Samaritan alphabet, also, is written in capitals only. This
is the alphabet of the famous copy of the Pentateuch ; which is He-
brew in language and Samaritan in spelling. The so-called Samaritan
Chronicle is, like the Pentateuch, in respect to its letters, Samar-
itan ; though Arabic in language. This means that the Samaritan
has obtained its original Lapidary character for more than a thou-
sand years at least. It gives us the nearest approach to the orig-
inal primitive alphabet of any alphabet at present in use.
3. The Hebrew of the Old Testament, although the alphabet of
which the most is known, is, by no means, in respect to the shape of
the letters, a good representative of the original. Yet it consists of
capitals only. They are not, however, of the sort required for in-
scriptions. They are meant for writing. Nevertheless, they are
wholly deficient in the cursive character. This is, doubtless, because
they were not meant to be written as ordinary letters ; but as Holy
Scriptures. There is a boldness in their lines, and a squareness in
their outline which has given them the name of the Quadrate Char-
acter. Written, or almost drawn, with a pious patience and ob-
servant care, they undergo but little change so long as they
remain the letters of the holy text. As the Chaldee of the later
writers, and a secular literature, they lose their massive regularity,
and become more or less cursive. Still, in printing, there is but one
sort of letter the Capital.
Such is the Hebrew alphabet when written with the original
twenty-two letters and no more. How inadequate this was to the
representation of the vowel sounds has been already stated. This
evil, however, is remedied in what is called the Masoretic text of
the Old Testament. Here we have a full representation of the
vowels : and, in the strict sense of the term, every sign thus super-
added is a new letter. The Masoretic signs, however, of the vowels
are not letters in the ordinary acceptation of the term. They are
marks consisting of either short lines (- T), or dots (: "' ':)
written over or under the consonants with which they combine ;
and as such are adjuncts or appendages, rather than true letters.
Another use of the dot was to add it to certain consonants wherein
two closely allied sounds had only one sign. These were true dia-
critical marks. The vowel-signs were something more. In the or-
thography df the class of languages now before us both play an
important part. The Hebrew, with its direct derivatives, is the al-
phabet of Judaism.
4. The Syriac is, pre-eminently, the alphabet of Christianity early
Eastern Christianity. With the same framework of twenty-two con-
sonants it has the same system of superadded vowels. These, how-
ever, are only three in number, and are borrowed from the Greek.
There is no distinction between the small letters and the capitals in
38 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
writing ; all the letters being small. In inscriptions, however, they
are all capital, and that of an archaic character, that is, they
approach the Phoenician. From the Syriac of the iNestorian mission-
aries we get the Uighur, or alphabet of the Turks of Central Asia ;
before their conversion to Christianity : and from this the Mongol,
and from the Mongol the Mantshu. These two represent the lan-
guages of Buddhism, and are the most outlying, eccentric, or meta-
morphic of all the members of the class. All the letters are small ;
the lines run neither from right nor left, to from left to right, but
from the top of the page to the bottom.
In the South-East where existed the pagan civilisation of the
fire-worshippers of the Euphrates, the Tigris and the Syrian Desert,
the alphabet, best represented by the inscriptions of Palmyra, gave
origin to that of the Persians anterior to their conversion to Mahom-
etanism. This is, at the present time, the alphabet of the Parsees.
5. In the Arabic, the alphabet of the Koran, the present Persian,
Turkish, Hindostani, and Malay languages are written ; all having,
previous to the introduction of Mahometanism, been written in
proper alphabets of their own. The Arabic, a growth out of an early
form of the Syriac, is formed wholly for writing ; the lapidary or
inscription character being at a minimum. All the letters are
small rather than capital, and as much as possible they are made to
run into one another. Hence, most of them have three forms ; one
for the beginning, one for the middle, and one for the end of a
word. The vowels, when written at all, are inserted, or rather
superadded, on the Syriac principle. The fundamental consonants
are few in number, indeed only the original twenty-two of the
Hebrew alphabet. Hence, there is a necessity for diacritical dots.
6. The Abyssinian alphabet stands alone in its class. It is the
alphabet of a so-called Christian country. It is written from left to
right. Finally, it is a syllabarium rather than a series of simple signs
for simple sounds.
SECTION XVII.
ALPHABETS UNDOUBTEDLY DERIVED FBOM THE PHOENICIAN.
(b) THE WESTERN OB EUROPEAN GBOUP. THE GBEEK AND ITS
DEBIVAT1VES.
Whatever may been the number of elementary sounds in the
Phoenician language, it was greater than that of the letters. The
alphabet, then, was inadequate to the demands of the language for
which it was constructed. Much more would it be so for a strange
one. Fortunately, when extended to Greece, it fell into the hands
of such a nation as the Greeks, for they had pre-eminently the capa-
city of improving, developing, and adorning whatever they touched.
"With the Phoanician they agreed :
a. In keeping the order of the letters.
b. In keeping their names.
Derivation of Alphabets, 39
Thus far, then, the Greeks were conservative : and no harm was
done by their conservatism. Much good, on the other hand, was
done by their innovations. The results of these were that, when
the Greek alphabet became a model for others, it had the following
form, and was applied to the language on the following principles :
1. Its letters in writing ran from the left to right. The Hebrew
writing was from right to left.
2. Its capital letters were clearly distinguished from the small
ones, and vice versd. In some cases there was a mere rounding or
softening down of an angle : so that a letter, previously fitted for
inscriptions, became adapted for cursive writing. In others, the
change amounted to the formation of a new letter.
3. Signs which were not wanted had disappeared, so that three
letters which belonged to Hebrew, and which were at first adopted
by the Greeks, no longer found a place in their alphabet. These were
(a) The Hebrew vau, or vaf, with the power of v or w. It was
the sixth letter in both the Hebrew and the Greek alphabets, and,
in the latter, when it ceased to be used as a letter, it was retained
as a numeral =6. It was called the Jh'gamma, being, in form, like
two gammas, one on the top of the other. As the Romans retained
it, it still keeps its place in the alphabets of Latin origin, with a
change of power and form ; in other words, it is the Digamma
which is the origin of our own letter/, its name ef being from the
original vav.
(b) The Hebrew kof, koph, quof, orquoph. This, also, from having
been retained by the Romans, has become the -English q.
(c) The history of the letter known as the Doric san is more com-
plex. Word for word, it seems to be the Hebrew sin, which is the
name of the ordinary s, its place being between r and t. The Greek
letter, however, which has this place and power is not called san
but sigma, which seems to be, word for word, the Hebrew samech.
Samech, however, is the name of another letter, one which has its
place between n (nun) and o (ayn), and which, in Greek, so far as
its place is concerned, is represented by xi (H |). This samech,
which in the Greek alphabet is thus transformed, seems, in the
Latin to have been, at first, either rejected or allowed to become
obsolete afterwards, however, to have been admitted ; its place,
however, was at the end of the alphabet, where it now does duty
as x.
4. A fourth letter underwent a more important change than any
of the preceding. In the Hebrew alphabet it stood eighth. If
we count the Digamma, it stands eighth in the Greek as well.
Eighth, also, it is in the Latin, in the English, and, probably, in all
alphabets of Latin origin. Its Hebrew name is heth, its English
aitch, the two being, as word and word, the same. Now, whatever
may have been the exact sound of this Hebrew heth, it is universally
admitted to have been one akin to that of the modern h, that is, a
breathing, an aspiration, or the like; or, if not this exactly, some
40 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
such sound as the German ch, at any rate a sound of the Jc, g, Ti
series. The name of this letter the Greek converted into heta ; its
shape they put into the form of the present H, but its sound, or
power, they absolutely transformed. The Greek (H 17) is a vowel ;
the ee in feet, or the long sound of the Epsilon (E <) or e in fen. On
this change from a consonantal or semi-consonantal, to an undoubt-
edly vocalic sound, more will be said hereafter ; inasmuch as heth
was not the only letter thus transmuted.
5. But there is a further innovation connected with this same heth.
As a letter under the name of heta it did, for the Greeks, the work
of a vowel. What, however, did it do in its capacity of an aspiration
or breathing, or as the origin of the Latin h 1 It became a mark.
Perhaps we may call it a diacritical mark. At any rate it became
an appendage to a letter rather than the body of the letter itself.
As an appendage, its proper place was before the vowels : and the
vowel upsilon (T v) was always preceded by it. Moreover, with a
slight extension of its powers, it became a regular concomitant of
consonant r, just as if, in English, we never wrote ra or re, etc.. but
always rka or rhe. There can be but little doubt that, here, it de-
notes a vibration of the tongue rather than a simple breathing.
Now, with the power of an h, this sign ( ' ) was, to a great extent, a
letter also. It was, doubtless, very abnormal and exceptional in its
form. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the conception of either a
letter or an alphabet which prevents any two signs being of different
sizes : though, at the same time, every alphabet requires some
approach to symmetry. Still, ( ' ) never passed for a letter in
Greece ; because, as the letters were numerals also, a disturbance
in the order would have been the result.
That it was amply sufficient for the purpose it was meant for is
evident. Practically, a vowel is either preceded by a breathing or
it is not ; so that when once we have a sign for the presence of one
we have no need of a second in order to denote its absence. Upon
this principle, the ( ') itself might have been dispensed with ; for a
mark attached to the vowel of the non-aspirated division would have
made it unnecessary.
6. The Greeks, however, thought otherwise, the result being
that a second mark of the same kind was adopted. This was the
same comma-shaped prefix with its tail turned. Hagios was written
07105 ; and ago appeared as a-yw. Unwilling as we may be to impute
error to the Greek orthographists, we can scarcely commend this
superfluity of signs indicative of h and no h.
7. The Greeks saw, or seem to have seen, the true nature of
the sounds of the ph in Philip, the th in thick, and the ch (kh) in
the German auch, nock, etc. We call them Aspirates, and as an
aspirate is a breathing, and as a breathing is represented by h, and
as the three sounds are, respectively, connected wiihp, t, and Jc, we
see nothing wrong in writing them as if they were j9 + h, t + k, and
k-rh: an egregious blunder which we may lay to the charge of the
Derivation of Alphabets. 41
Latin alphabet, as may be seen ere long. And this is why I say
that the Greeks " saw, or seemed to have seen, the true nature," etc.
Of the h they saw nothing at all. Of its equivalent the ' they saw
a good deal. But whether they saw that + ' was not <j> (the sign
for/) is doubtful. What they really saw of this supposed aspira-
tion which converted the sound of p into that of f, etc., was just
nothing at all. And this was the very best thing that could be
seen. They corrected no blunder. They rose above no confusion.
They simply formed their alphabet before either blunder or confu-
sion had taken birth.
8. They recognised the principle of compendiums ; for they
wrote E | and "V <J> for Ics and ps. The two signs, however, are not
in the same class. E | belongs to the main body of the alphabet,
for it stands in the place of the Hebrew samech, between omikron
or ayn. V, relegated to the end of the alphabet, was a later addition.
9. Their crowning merit, however, was that, in the case of e and
o they drew a distinction between the long and the short vowel : and
well had it been had they gone further in this direction. As it is, the
differences between the long and short o, t, and v, are unexpressed.
11. For expressing the shortness of a vowel of doubtful length
or quantity they doubled the consonant that followed, Thalassa or
QaXaffffa = sea.
11. The last great change made on the original alphabet by the
Greeks, is, perhaps, one which outweighs all the other improve-
ments. It has already been foreshadowed, but due prominence
must now be given to it. Whatever may have been the actual
sounds of the Hebrew vowels out of which a, e, i, o, and u origina-
ted, they were not decidedly and universally vocalic. They were
rather breathings, gutturals with the character of an exaggerated
breathing, or nasals.- They were, perhaps, as much consonantal as
vocalic. At any rate, we have seen that in the Hebrew Bible for
ordinary reading they have the signs of the true and genuine vowel
superadded. Whatever may have been its nature, there was a
shortcoming in the orthography in this respect which needed
amendment ; and this the Greeks made. The heth, which they
converted into an unequivocal long e, is with us h. The other
vowels, however, have preserved their character, and that to the
infinite benefit of mankind.
The Greeks have certainly done great things in the history of
the alphabet. The incidental errors such as that of the V, the two
breathings, and the expression of the shortness of the preceding
vowel by the doubling of the consonant by which it is followed, are
venial offences. The elimination of useless letters, the partial com-
pletion of the alphabet by the formation of new letters, and above
all, the unequivocal character given to the vowels are great and
unmixed benefits.
It is almost invidious to ask what they did not do : nor, with our
imperfect knowledge of the more minute details of their system of
42
A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
sounds can be we say with certainty how much" or how little they
neglected, This, however is certain that, if the vowel o had a third
power, if a i oru had a second, if the language contained the sounds
of v, of the th in thine, of gh ; of the sh in shine, or of the z in azure,
(and some of them, it doubtless, had) they constructed no signs by
which they might be expressed. Thus far, then, and no farther, go
their sins of either commission or omission.
Let due attention be paid to the four letters & u, * <j>, X x, * <!'
They are the first instances, in any derived alphabet, of any new
character, f)
Number.
Greek Letter.
Greek Name. Hebrew Letter. Hebrew Name.
1
a
Alpha
S
Aleph (Alef)
2
ff
.. Beta
2
Beth
3
y'
. . Gamma . . .
2
Gimel
4
5'
.. Delta
1
Daleth
5
e
. Epsilon ...
n
He
*6
F
Digamma . . .
1
Vau
7
.. c
,. Zeta
t
Zavn
8
V
.. Eta
n
Heth(orKheth
9
tf
.. Theta
is
Teth
10
x
.. Iota
i
Yod
11
,0'
12
.. y .
13, etc.,
,5', etc..
20
K'
. . Kappa
3
Kaph (Kaf)
21, etc..
KO.'
_
__
30
\'
Lambda . . .
b
Lamed
31
fJ.'
.. Mu
a
Mem
50
I/
. Nu
3
Nun
60
1'
.. Ksi (Hi) ...
D
Samech
70
o'
Oraikron ...
3?
Avn
80
IT'
.. Pi
D
Pe
*j
Tsaddi
*90 '.
$
.. Koppa
P
Koph
100
p
.. Rho
1
Resh
200
. . Sigma
tt7
Sin (or Shin)
300
T'
.. Tau
n
Tau
400
v'
.. Upsilon ...
500
<f>'
.. Phi (Fi) ...
600
... x' .
.. Chi(Khi)...
700
V
.. Psi
800
0,'
.. Omega
*900
^
Sampi
1,000
a
__
2,000
'fi
^_
3,000, etc
y
10,000
20,000, etc.
,K
100,000
,P
2. Without the mark (
' ) these signs are
letters ;
with it, numerals.
Derivation of Alphabets. 43
The first language to which the Greek alphabet was extended was
the Coptic or Egyptian ; the Coptic being the oldest language of
Greek origin. It consists of thirty-one letters, of which the first
twenty-four are Greek both inshape and name Alpha, Bita, Gamma,
Dalda, etc. In respect to their power as numerals there is a curious
change. The Greek sign for 90 was the letter which corresponded with
the Hebrew Qo/, that is, Koppa ; but this, as the sign of a sound, was
obsolete in the Greek. The Egyptians, then, who only adopted the
true letters had no numeral for 90. So they expressed it by the
second of their additional ones, that is, by the twenty-sixth, thus
throwing the agreement between their letters and numerals out of
form. It was as if in English we counted thus
Letter 15 ... = 70
16 ... P = 80
Q, (Supposed to be wanting.)
17 ... R = 100
18 ... S = 200
19 ... T = 300
20 ... U=400
21 ... V = 500
22 ... W = 600
X (Supposed to be wanting.)
23 ... Y = 700
24 ... Z = 800
25 (In Coptic, no numeral power at all.)
26 90
The remaining signs having no numerical power at all, there is no
letter expressive of 900. There was one in Greek : but like the
sign for 90 it had dropped out of the alphabet as a letter before it
was introduced into the Egyptian. This is the only clue we have
as to the date of the Coptic alphabet. The two languages came in
contact with one another as early as the seventh century B.C.,
when Gyrene was colonized by the Greeks. The only compositions
however, which have come down to us are subsequent to the intro-
duction of Christianity.
The second alphabet formed after the model of the Greek was the
Armenian : yet, if we look at the shape of the letters only we see no
signs of the connexion. They are not Greek. They have no re-
semblance to the Greek. They have no resemblance to anything of
Greek extraction. Sign for sign, they are as unlike those of Greece
as the Greek letters are unlike the Sanskrit. They are thirty-six in
number. Their names, however, are of Greek origin ; and these,
along with the circumstances connected with their history, point to
Greece. Besides which, they are equally unlike anything else. If
so, the system is that of an absolute metamorphosis or transmuta-
tion ; so complete as to exclude the very notion of identity. Yet
the Greek origin of the Armenian alphabet is universally admitted.
These thirty-six letters are evidently the construction of a single
44 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
workman ; and he who made the signs, probably effected the analy-
sis of the language to which they applied. But the great difficulty
in doing this, as is abundantly shown by our numerous missionary
alphabets, is only wonderful when it is done for the first time.
Its great element is the conception that such a thing is possible. As
for the letters themselves we can only say, when we look at them,
that such a man as the constructor of the Armenian alphabet is just
the very one that is now wanted : the man who would meet and
rebut and perhaps anticipate, what Mr Ellis calls the strange-ap-
pearance objection. It is certain, however, that he would disappoint
our expectation.
Miesrob, for that is the name of this Armenian Cadmus, had he
an alphabet like the English to deal with, would probably have failed
in constructing a single letter ; for he would have had to make it in
harmony with those already made. It is possible that, individually,
I exaggerate the difficulty of doing so. At any rate, I feel sure that
Miesrob felt it. The whole to him seems to have been easier than
the part. What, then, did he do? He made a whole alphabet of
thirty-six letters at once ; and I firmly believe that, in so doing, he
found his work comparatively easy.
The Georgian alphabet, letter for letter, is as unlike the Armenian
as the Armenian is unlike the Greek ; yet it is the Armenian on
which it is founded. It has the same number of letters, for nearly
the same sounds. In shape, however, the letters are curvilinear,
whereas the Armenian are angular. Like the Armenian, it seems
to be the work of a single constructor. These two alphabets, so far
as the number and the adequacy of their letters are concerned, are
two of the best in existence. The Armenian, however, is very try-
ing to the eye ; the interspaces between the lines that form the let-
ters being but little wider than the lines themselves. Of late, the
Georgian has been used by the Russian philologues in their alpha-
bets for the numerous, hitherto, unwritten languages of Caucasus.
These abound in strange gutturals and sibilants ; and when the or-
dinary letters and diacritical marks are exhausted, recourse is had
to the Georgian.
We now come to the alphabets of the Slavonic languages. Where
the creed is that of the Eastern Church the Greek Church as it
is often called the alphabet is of Greek origin. Such are the
Cyrillian and the Glagolitic. The first belongs to the Servian and
Bulgarian languages ; the construction of which is attributed to the
missionary Cyrillus in the seventh century, and is the foundation of
the Russian. The second is, at present, obsolete : since the dia-
lects to which it applied, those of Dalmatia, Carinthia, and the Sla-
vonic districts of the old Roman province of Illyricum, are Roman
Catholic.
The Slavonic alphabets of Greek origin are formed upon the
capital rather than the small letters, and are by no means so plea-
sant to read as the Greek itself. On the other hand they are all
General View of the Four Classes of Alphabets. 45
formed on the principle of new signs for new sounds : so that they
rank among the best for completeness. Notwithstanding this, the
Greek alphabet itself has uot been adapted to the changes which
several of its letters have undergone. Thus the Beta and Delta
have long been sounded as v and dh, (that is, as the th in thine) :
yet for b and d, when they occur in words of foreign origin, there
are no better signs in modern Greek than M0, and NT. Again,
certain vowels and diphthongs have merged their originally inde-
pendent powers into that of the ee in feet ; nevertheless, the full
number is still kept up. Hence, though we know how to sound a
word when we read it, we doubt as to the spelling of it when heard.
The Greek alphabet, with diacritical marks, is extended to the
language of Albania.
In like manner, the Servian is used for the language of the Danu-
bian Principalities ; a language of Latin origin. Of the Moeso-gothic
notice will be taken hereafter.
SECTION XVIII.
GENERAL VIEW OF THE FOUR CLASSES OF ALPHABETS
THE PHOENICIAN GROUP.
We may now look back and take a general view of the three pri-
mary classes into which the alphabets of the world are reducible ; and,
at the same time, by anticipating, take notice of the fourth ; though,
as this last is the one which bears exclusively and directly on our
subject, the full understanding will be best got from the working of
it. To appreciate, however, its relations to the other three, some-
thing must be said about it now.
The characteristics of the Phoenician family are palpably con-
spicuous. It is only in this class that we find, after their earliest
infancy, the system of writing from left to right. Here, too, and
here only, occurs the still more eccentric practice of writing rer-
tically, or from the top to the bottom of the page. Here, too, do
we find oftener than elsewhere alphabets consisting of capitals only,
or of small letters only. Here, also, we find the earliest sylla-
barium : at any time a rare form. Above all, here it is where we
find an alphabet originally consisting of consonants, or imperfect
vowels only, and, as a result of this, the whole system of vowels dele-
gated to a system of supplementary (we must not call them diacritical)
marks, points, dots, or what not. The details of this system are
admirably given in theMasoretic text of the Hebrew Bible; indeed
they have never been given better or so well. But their merits are
more than counterbalanced by the mere fact of their being supple-
mentary. They are no integral parts of the system of writing.
They can be, and are dispensed with. In the derivative alphabets
only, a few of them are retained. In fact, the recognition of the
paramount importance of the vowels is exceptional throughout
46 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
the whole Phoenician family or group. The original defect of the
alphabet, which was, at once, consonantal and incomplete even in
its consonantality, seems never, except in one exceptional instance,
which will be noticed hereafter, to have been remedied : for, though,
as in the Arabic, the number of letters may be nearly doubled, there
is no thoroughly new sign. One old one is made into two or more
new ones, new enes by diacritical marks ; and these are so much
part and parcels of the several letters to which they appertain that
they can scarcely be called diacritical.
SECTION XIX.
GENERAL VIEW OF THE GREEK GROUP.
There is no comparison between the Greek and the Phoenician
in respect to the number of secondary alphabets to which they have
given origin ; nor yet in respect to the geographical area over which
they have spread. The single fact of the Arabic being the alphabet
of the Koran, has extended its domain from the Straits of Gibraltar
to Sumatra ; has carried it, as the medium of the Hindostani lan-
guage, into the Very heart of India ; and, as that of the Turkish,
into the South-eastern parts of Europe. The only language that
has a tendency to increase in area, to which an alphabet of Greek
origin has been applied, is the Russian ; and this is, doubtless, an
important one. The Coptic language is no longer a spoken one ;
while the Georgian, the Armenian, and the Albanian are spoken
over small areas only.
The difference in respect to the figures of the letters in the diff-
erent languages of this group is great. The Coptic makes the near-
est approach to the original. The Georgian and the Armenian re-
cede the farthest from it.
It is the Greek group in which the most new signs have been con-
structed ; we may say, indeed, that it is here, and here only, that
freedom has been the rule, and restriction the exception. So it was
when the modern Russian, the latest member of the class, was
constructed ; so it was when the signs T v, * </>, X x, V $, and & were
added to the primitive Phoenician. So, too, it was when the distinc-
tion betWeen the long and short es and o's was first indicated.
SECTION XX.
GENERAL VIEW, ETC. THE ALPHABET CONCERNING THE ORIGIN
OF WHICH OPINION IS DIVIDED.
The class, in so far as it is characterized by a negative element,
is convenient rather than natural. Neither is it, for the present
question, important. The alphabets which belong to it are mainly
connected with the Brahminic and Buddhist religions ; the Sanskrit
and the Pali being the chief of them.
Alphabets of Latin Origin. 47
They are old ; the earliest application of an alphabet of the class
dating from B.C. 280.( 3 )
With the alphabets of Latin origin, or those of the class to which
our own belongs, they have no direct relation : except so far as the
transliteration of the languages of India is ajmatter of importance
to the rulers of India. With those of Greek and Phrenician origin
the relations are closer. The Zend and Pehlevi, or Huzvaresh, the
alphabets of the Parsee religions are so Sanskritic in respect to their
vowel-system as to invest them with a character at variance with
that of the class to which they belong, or the Phoenician.
The Sanskrit is the only language of this class which will again
be referred to.
SECTION XXI.
GENERAL VIEW, ETC., ALPHABETS OF LATIN ORIGIN.
The alphabets of Latin origin are simply the Latin alphabet it-
self, with certain omissions and modifications ; for genuine additions
there are none. The diphthongs " as " and " ce " are the nearest ap-
proaches to a new letter ; but they are only approaches. The cedillac
" c " and other variations of figure are the same. Of these, how-
ever, and the like of them, along with diacritical and other marks,
there is an abundance.
They are, in respect to their geographical distribution, the alpha-
bets of Western Europe ; but this means the Europe of the West-
ern division of the Roman Empire, which again means the Europe
of which the Christianity is that of the Western Church. In this
we have the reason of their uniformity. They were extended from
one language to another on a system, and under similar conditions ;
the influence being in most, perhaps in all cases, that of the Church.
In writing then, we of course, take no cognizance of those languages
and countries to which the extension of this alphabet is of wholly
recent date ; the cases which here present themselves being mere
details in the history of some modern language, Spanish, French,
Dutch, or English, as the case may be.
The languages which are thus represented belong to the following
families
1. The Latin itself these being the Italian, the Spanish, the Por-
tugese, and the French ; and, of less importance, the Provenal and
the Eomane (Rumonsch) of the Grison districts of Switzerland.
The Rumany of the Danubian Principalities belongs to this group.
Its alphabet, however, is of Servian ; that is, of Greek, origin. An
attempt to change it for a modified form of the Latin is going on at
the present moment ; indeed it is in the Danubian Principalities
3. For the alphabet and the coins of this period in the north of Persia and
the north-western parts of India, the reader is referred to Wilson's "Ariana
Antiqua."
48 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
that the greatest experiments connected with phonetic spelling is
going on. At the same time, it is an experiment in Transliteration,
or Metagraphy, rather than in pure Phoneticism.
2. The British and Irish Gaelic of the Keltic class.
3. The German, Dutch, English, and Scandinavian forms of
speech ; the class to which they belong being the Teutonic.
4. The languages of the Roman Catholic populations of the
Slavonic family, that is, the Bohemians, the Poles, the Carinthians
and Dalmatians, etc.
5. The Lett and Lithuanic of Livonia, Curland, and Lithuania.
6. The Magyar language of Hungary ; the word Magyar meaning
Hungarian in the most limited sense of the term. The languages
of Hungary, if we use the word in either its geographical or its po-
litical sense, are. taken collectively, other than Magyar : and so are
the alphabets. Thus the Slovak of the North "West is Tshek, or
Bohemian, in respect to its writing, and nearly so in respect to its
spoken language ; in other words it is a provincial form of speech of
which the Bohemian is the standard. On the North East the Ru-
thenians, whose language is that of Little Eussia are numerous.
On the South East there is a strong Servian element; while, in
Croatia the language is akin to that of Dalmatia, and, when it is
written at all, written like the Dalmatian and the Carinthian. Be-
sides these, there is the German of the towns, and the Wallachian
of the country districts of Transylvania. The Magyar, then, is the
language of the Hungarians Proper ; and it has long been known as
a language of the Fin or Illyrian family ; with its nearest congeners
in Northern Europe and Siberia.
The alphabet, however, is more Slavonic than the language. Its
letters are Latin ; but the principles by which they are combined
into diagraphs is more Slavonic than aught else. In the use, how-
ever, of the letter *, the Magyars stand alone. It is sounded as
sh ; so that in order to denote the ordinary sound, recourse is had
to a combination ; and this is sz.
7. Of the Fin, Lap, and a few other alphabets of this class, notice
will be taken hereafter.
SECTION XXII.
THE LATIN ALPHABET.
The Phojnician prototype from which the Greek originated, was
also the original of the Latin ; the Latin, however, was only one al-
phabet out of four, or perhaps five or six, which extended beyond
the Adriatic. There are inscriptions in Spain which indicate what
is properly called an Iberian form of the Phoanician. There was,
probably, a similar modification of it for Gaul ; unless this, as is
very probable, was simply the Greek of Marseilles. There was an
Etruscan alphabet for Italy ; the language to which it was applied
The Latin Alphabet the Order of the Letters. 49
being of uncertain origin ; but which, from no point of view, was
Latin. Lastly, there were either three alphabets, or three modifi-
cations of the same alphabet, for the allied dialects of the Oscan,
the Umbrian, and the Latin ; and besides these, certain alphabets
for certain inscriptions, the language and import of which have yet
to be determined.
The two points connected with the Latin which are, at one and
the same time, sufficiently general and sufficiently separated from
what follows to claim notice here, are
1. The separation of the numerical from the phonetic power of the
letters. A was simply, in Latin, the sign of a sound. In Greek it
was the numeral 1 as well. How much the notation of the number
lost by the practice of the Italian method of substituting such
clumsy signs as I, II, III, IV, etc. for letters, it is for the mathema-
tician to decide. It was certainly a gain to the alphabet ; indeed,
the alphabet for the first time, now came to be purely alphabetic.
The result of this was, that, in the Latin alphabet, the condition of
order or sequence in the arrangement of the A, B, C ceased to be im-
perative. As the Latin arrangement is that of ninety-nine diction-
aries and Encyclopaedias out of a hundred, we may say that the
" dictionary alphabet " is the Latin alphabet.
2. The Latin is the alphabet of the printing-press.
All beyond this will show itself as we follow the other character-
istics of the Latin in the investigation of the details of its application.
SECTION XXIII.
THE LATIN ALPHABET THE ORDER OF THE LETTERS.
Both the Greek and the Latin alphabets must be supposed to
have originally ended with the letter tau, or t : for so the Hebrew
alphabet ends. But beyond t there are the five additional letters
T v, * <j), X X) V ty, H ta, in Greek ; and in Latin, U, u : V, v : X, x ;
Y, y ; Z, z. How the Greek got them is doubtful ; for the doctrine
that they can be ascribed to certain specified inventors is insuffi-
ciently supported by evidence ; though the claims of Simonides to
have been an innovator or improver, deserve attention. In Latin
the last four seem to have been introduced from the Greek ; and,
as they formed no part of the original alphabet, to have been rele-
gated to the end. This is manifestly the case with z, as the Greek
Zeta, or the Hebrew Zain, stands seventh in those alphabets.
The Romans could venture on an alteration of this kind with im-
punity ; inasmuch as their alphabet consisted of letters only, whereas
those of the Greeks and Hebrews consisted of both letters and nu-
merals ; or rather, of signs which served in both capacities ; and for
which some regular order was a necessity.
Z, z, is the letter to which this explanation applies most con-
spicuously. With Y, y, the case is less clear. Y agrees exactly
4
50 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
with the Greek ^ in place. It agrees, to some extent, in form. In
power it disagrees altogether. Nevertheless, the two signs are
connected in origin, though signs of a different import. X, x, iz
the Greek { (xi) the Hebrew Samech, which, in the first instance,
the Latin alphabet either ignored or neglected to keep. It took the
form, however, of X, x (Khi,) the letter with which it corresponded
in place, though with a different import. For the two remaining
letters, *, $, and V, v and T, v, U, u we may probably claim an inde-
pendent origin in each alphabet, or, at any rate, an early one of
obscure origin ; for notwithstanding the extent to which U, u and
V, v seem to be mere varieties of the same letter, (one for the pur-
poses of ordinary writing, the other for inscriptions,) I cannot but
think that they stand in the same relation to one another as ti and
<f> in Greek.
More important, however, than the consideration of the order, is
that of
SECTION XXIV.
THE MERITS OF THE LATIN ALPHABET.
The merits of the Latin Alphabet are as follows =
1. It emancipated itself from the connexion with the numeral
system ; but the freedom thus created for the classification of the
letters according to their affinities was never carried onward toward
its legitimate results. A thorough classification of this kind is found
in the Sanskrit only.
2. It improved the diacritical mark ( c ) as the sign of a breathing,
or as an aspirate, into the truly alphabetic letter IT, h. This is the
only, genuine new letter it has given us. It was, however, bought
at a price. By gaining a sign for the aspirate they lost one for the
short e (Epsilon.)
3. It kept the letter wanted thus preserving, for subsequent use
in Western Europe, the letter F.f; which was the Hebrew Vau,
which the Greeks allowed to become obsolete as a letter, though
they kept it as a numeral.
4. It rejected, in the first instance at least, the compendium X, x :
though, under Greek influence, it took it back afterwards. Upon
Q, q more will be said hereafter.
Subject to these reservations, all these were movements in the
right direction.
SECTION XXV.
THE DEMERITS OF THE LATIN ALPHABET.
The very fact of new letters being introduced from the Greek for
the purpose of spelling words of Greek origin, tells us, in unmistake-
able language, that the Etymological Principle has now been
recognized.
Tlie Dements of the Latin Alphabet. 51
The loss of the sign for the Greek Epsilon was, as has just been
stated, the price of the letter H, h. The difference between the
long and short O, o ; the Omikron and Omega of the Greek, was in
like manner left unexpressed.
The letter H h, so long as it kept its proper place, was a good
servant ; when it got beyond it, a bad master. The misapplication
of it has been the source of three serious evils ; for it has spread
from the Latin to most of the languages derived from it ; where it
has aifected not only the native words, but even such Greek ones
as may have been introduced into it ; words in the spelling of which
it is singularly inappropriate.
1. Simple misrepresentation. For this it is when we imagine that
the sound of the ph in philosophy, etc., is really the result of a bona
fide combination of^> + h, etc. That it is allied to the sound of p is
true ; but it is equally true that, neither wholly nor in part, is it
the same. Nor is the difference the result of any addition of h ;
though the prolongation of the breathing has something (much in-
deed) to do with it. The sound, in short, is a simple one ; one in-
capable either of being decomposed into its parts, or built-up out of
the combination of any two independent articulations. If it were
otherwise, and if the letter h accurately represented the difference,
the sound which stands in the same relation to b should be spelt
on the same principle ; and v be expressed by bh ; in which case
vase would be written bhase even asfase \s phase. We know that,
practically, this is not the case with b ; but we should, also, know
that it is not the case, theoretically, with^>.
2. TJie diversion of the combination from its real power. When
the real sound of a consonant followed by h has to be represented,
confusion arises. Such is the case in words like haphazard, inkhorn,
nuthoolc and hogshead ; where the second element begins with anas-
pirate. That this ambiguity can be abated by the insertion of a hy-
phen between the two contiguous letters is certain ; for we can write
hap-hazard, nut-hook, and the like. The expedient, however, simple
though it be, is one which is unnecessarily forced upon us.
In compounds where not only the second element begins with an
h, but the first ends in one, the objection is stronger. In words like
Sathampton (so far as the elements are Bath and Hampton),
Southampton, the h does double duty ; and, in more cases than one,
uncertainty as to the true elements of the compound has arisen.
3. The establishment of a precedent for digraphs. This is
the head and front of the offending.
The preceding evils have been mere matters of detail. The one
now under notice is the establishment of a vicious and pernicious
principle. The combinations ph, th, and ch, as the Latin equivalents
to *, 0, and X, are the fathers of all subsequent digraphs ; the pro-
toplasts of the famDy of the Makeshifts.
fc*
52 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
SECTION XXVI.
THE SUBSTITUTION OP THE LETTER C FOR K K AND S
AS SOUNDS.
How c came to be used in the Latin Alphabet to the practical
exclusion of k is a matter connected with the history of the alphabet
which need not at present be gone into. We shall best appreciate
the full import of the substitution by seeing what it has led to.
C by no means stands alone. This we cannot too closely attend
to. What applies to c applies to other letters as well : in short, c
as a letter, is pre-eminently a representative one.
In both the compendiums of the English alphabet, q and x, the
sound of c enters.
In most digraphs we have either c or h, or both.
In the system of orthographical expedients, c is more conspicuous
than all the other letters put together.
Let us begin with what is a good groundwork in all questions
of the kind, provided that we can get it ; a fact of Language ; of
Language itself as opposed to spelling, or the mere representation
of language ; a fact in the history of speaking, not merely of writing.
a fact appertaining to the real object rather than to the picture of
it. Let the language be what it may, it is a fact that wherever we
have the sound of the k as in king, it is always likely, sooner or
later, to be converted into the sound of the s in sing ; or if not this
exactly, into something akin to it, into that of the ch in chest, or the
j in jest, or something wherein the sound of * or its fellow-sibilant sh,
enters. For what is the ch in chest but tsh, and what is the j in jest
but dzh ; and what is sh but s with a modification, or zh but a modi-
fication of z which is a sonant s 1 To s, then, in some shape or
other every sound of k in existence has a tendency to be reduced.
The process may be slow, or it may be quick. There are words in
which it has not yet been completed ; there are words in which it
has not yet begun ; and there are words in which it never may be-
gin, or words which will be sounded with k until the language to
which they belong is extinct. Still there is the tendency ; while, on
the other hand, there are words in which the k may have been
changed three thousand years ago, or before the oldest alphabetical
record in existence.
The change, then, or the tendency towards it, is a fact in language ;
the representation of it is a fact in orthography. The two may or
may not coincide. If they do not, there is the risk of confusion
sooner or later. At present, however, the fact in language is the
only one under notice.
The first step in the investigation of this lies in the difference be-
tween the broad k and the small vowels a, o, u on the one side, and
e i, (and y) on the other. We know what happens to these em-
pirically. Before the broad ones, c is sounded as k ; before the small
The Substitution of the letter C for K. 53
ones as $. But they were not always so pronounced. If they were,
why was the s used in spelling ? The * sign existed. "Why was the
c necessary ? Because words which once had the sound of k no
longer retained it ; and because words which now have that of s had
it not when they were first spelt. There is something, then, non-
-natural in this use of c = s : and the reason of it lies in the fact
that the change of sound and the expression of it in spelling have
not coincided. At present, however, the difference between a broad
and a small vowel upon the sound of the letter by which they are
preceded is the question in hand. ,
K before a small vowel has a tendency to become s. Has Tc the
same tendency before a broad one ? I think not. Kop will not
directly become sop, shop, or tshop (chop) ; and the same applies to
lea and kit not directly. But here comes in the influence of the semi-
vowel y. Now there is a tendency to say kyard for kard (card) ;
and kyind for kind, even with a small vowel. The result may be
a vulgarism, a Cockneyism, or the like. But, be it what it may, the
change may be either introduced or kept up by so many speakers
as to constitute a difference of dialect ; and if that dialect happen
to become the dialect out of which the literary language is devel-
oped, it becomes an error which corrects itself, a wrong which, by
precedent and prescription, ends in constituting a right. It is a
prophecy which fulfils its own accomplishment. Such, with the
letter h, is the case with no smaller a language than the Italian.
The literary Italian is the Florentine or Tuscan. But the Floren-
tines (so to say) dropped their h's (Aitches). Before, however, the
practice was noted and condemned as a vulgarism the dialect had
become predominant, and the practice established. Hence, while it
is a shocking thing to " exasperate " an aitch in English, it is equally
objectionable to sound one in Italian.
But y after k comports itself as a small vowel ; so that, when once*
kard (card) is sounded kyard, it is in the same predicaments kird.
That the subsequent details of the change are different for the two
combinations will be shown in the sequel : nor will the whole of them
be exhibited. Kyard, does not, directly, become sard. It rather
becomes ksard and tshard. It is submitted, however, that, as a fact
in language, this is an adequate notice of the principle by which it
is determined.
What we have now to investigate is the result of these tenden-
cies, and the extent to which they may affect a language. This
depends, mainly, upon the proportion which the sounds of k and s
bear to those of the rest of the alphabet. The greater the share
they take in the formation of any particular tongue the greater is
the amount of their possible changes ; so that here again we are
about to be engaged with a fact of language as opposed to one of
orthography.
C has already been called a representative letter. But it is this
mainly on the strength of its two-sided relations towards k and s.
54 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
*
It is in these that we must seek the realities of the question before
us. K and s represent actual articulations, true elementary sounds,
genuine consonants. C merely stands for s or k as the case may be.
C, taken by itself, has no reality ; and, except so far as its sounds
are those of k or s it has no relations to any other letters. On the
other hand, however, the relations of k and s are those of c also : and
we shall now see that these are numerous. _SThas its congeners, and
so has s, so that each forms part of a system.
Herein, k stands to g (as in gate), as p stands to b, and as t to d.^)
But ^7 and b, t and d have, respectively, and as pairs, certain rela-
tions toy, v and th (both in thin and thine). Such relations, also,
have k and g to a specific pair of sounds, to which they stand, each
to each, as p iof, and b to v, etc. These sounds are not found in
the English language : neither are they the sounds of the so-called
gutturals ch and gh. What they are will soon be seen.
The P-series, as we may conveniently call it, runs through v into
IP, and thence, into u and the broad vowels.
The .fiT-series runs, through the two un-English sounds, intoy, and
thence, into i and the small vowels.
More than this, the aspirate h is allied to both k and g. In Eng-
lish, then, we have the sequence ha, ka, ga, ( ), ( ), and ya ; allied
sounds. They are five in number ; and, if we had the analogues of
yand v, they would amount to seven. Now every member of this
group shares with k its tendency to change according to the charac-
ter of the sounds with which it comes into contact.
S stands alone as little as k ; being part of the series sa, sha, za,
zha.
Followed by y, s and z have a tendency to become sh and zh ; as
syoor=shure, zyoor=zhure. This is common in English, though the
spelling conceals it. U, however, in sure, and z in azure, are sounded
yoo. K+y, andy +y have a tendency to become ksh and gzh. This,
nowever, is not well exemplified in English ; though the change is
so important that it will command much of our attention in the se-
quel. T+y has a tendency to become tsh. The u in nature=yoo,
and the sound is na-tshur.
D + y has a tendency (though not so strong as it was in the pre-
ceding instance) to become dzh (ofj). The diphthong ew, when pro-
nounced yoo, gives us not unfrequently the sound jew for dew.
This is a vulgarism ; but the allied change in nature is very good
English, or if not, the change by which it is brought about is a gen-
uine process of language in general, and not a peculiarity of any one
dialect or language in particular.
Such, then, is the basis in philology of the changes which the
sound of k may undergo, and of the extent to which an adequate or
inadequate, accurate or inaccurate, representation of them by letters
may affect the orthography of a language. It is manifest that in
4. Here, as elsewhere, there is sacrifice to conciseness. K,g, orp, etc., means
the sound of k, g, orp, etc.
The Substitution of C for jST. 55
k and s, taken separately, we have the elements of a series of changes
which may extend itself to more than half the consonants of the
alphabet ; a change which, without any additional elements of dis-
order is one of vast magnitude.
For the orthographical expression of this the one thing needful is
simplicity and singleness of purpose ; by which I mean an absolute
neglect of every secondary aim : such as that of indicating the his-
tory or origin of a word as well as its sound. The simple represen-
tation of this would tax the resources of the very best of alphabets.
For anything beyond anything in the way of etymology, a price
must be paid, and the little that is gained on the one hand is more
than counterbalanced by a loss on the other.
If k and s, then, even when they stand alone, create difficulties ;
what will it be when a third letter, c, is introduced (so to say) be-
tween them ; and, with no definite power of its own, is sometimes
the equivalent of the former, sometimes of the latter ? It will rep-
resent each of them in their numerous relations to the other mem-
bers of the sound-system ; and, in doing it, it will just become a
letter of more importance than all the others of the alphabet put to-
gether. I do not wish to have either the credit or the contrary,
of deducing that enormous amount of disorder and confusion which
is the undoubted opprobrium of the English system of spelling,
from any single cause ; or, indeed, from a few causes. I have no
ambition of showing that everything which the orthographical re-
formers complain of is the misfortune rather than the fault of our
alphabet, which if it had not been derived so exclusively from the
Latin, and if the speakers of that language had not been so preju-
diced against the letter k, would have been a very tolerable one.
Least of all do I imagine that by simply ejecting c. or by using it
with a change of import, the thousand-and-one chronic and compli-
cated evils of our orthography would be dispelled. All I pretend
to indicate is the extent to which a single letter may contain within
itself the faults and demerits of many. This means that having
dealt with the power of k and * as sounds, we have now to consider
f. as a letter ; by which, under certain conditions, sometimes the one,
and sometimes the other of the two is represented.
SECTION XXVII.
THE SUBSTITUTION OF C FOR K C AS A. LETTER.
"We shall see, to some extent, what c is as a letter by contrasting
it with any of the ordinary ones, let us say with b. B is b always
and everywhere. It is this at both the beginning and the middle
of Babel. It is this at both the beginning and the end of blab.
Having nothing to do with what it either precedes or follows, it is
always a self-sustained and self-supporting letter, just what a letter
should be. The most that can be said against it is, that it is some-
56 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
times silent, as in subtle, and debtor. Even here, however, it is
either b or nothing : in other words it has nothing equivocal or am-
biguous about it. C, on the contrary, is nothing of the kind. It
depends on its place and its relations for its power : the letter
with which it may best be compared being q.
Q, if we take it as we find it, as a mere letter in the alphabet,
(spelt cue,) is nothing as a part of a word. Its power, as such, de-
pends upon what follows : and it is always followed by u. This is,
perhaps, the only rule in English spelling to which there is no ex-
ception. Q, then, is no genuine letter. It is merely a part of a
combination. But it is scarcely even this. The u must be followed
by a vowel. We can pronounce queen, or quick ; but we cannot pro-
nounce qun, or quck. Q then is not exactly q + u. It is rather q
plus half of to. Should this seem a piece of over-refinement, the
main fact still stands out conspicuously. Q is no self-sustained and
self-supporting letter. It is a part of a sign which depends upon
what follows it.
And so it is with c, though, of course, with a difference of detail.
C, by itself, is nothing ; or, what is much the same, it is one of two
things. Followed by a, o, or u (a broad vowel) or by a consonant, it
is k. Followed by a narrow, slender, or small vowel, that is, by e, i,
or y, it is #. It is nothing when it stands alone ; nothing without
its determinant. C, writes Johnson, " has no determinate sound
and never ends a word," a statement which has been enlarged on by
JS'ares in his Orthoepy, and by Todd who criticises Nares. 2sares,
after remarking that Johnson reduces his own theory to practice,
and always writes frantick, musick, etc., suggests that the better rea-
son is to be found in the old habit of writing e at the end of words as
sticke, blocke, and musicke. But this does not account for the final
e itself. In words of French origin it may be attributed to the e
mute. In words of Anglo-Saxon origin it may be the sign of the
dative case in substantives ; or it may represent the -an of the
definite adjective ; for the adjective in the language of Al-
fred and jElfric ended in -an when it was preceded by the
definite article ; a point of great importance in the reading of Chau-
cer. This became -en, and later still e. Eventually it became
mute : but not till after the time of Chaucer. Still there was no
final e in the nominative case, and in many other situations ; so
that, when it is found here, it must be considered as the extension,
by a false analogy, of the sign of the dative termination. How-
ever, Nares writes, " As long as that vowel retained any sound, its
regular effect, without the intervention of k, would have been the
softening of the c, even if doubled." Hence, he finds in ck " a com-
promise between the sound and etymology." ^Nevertheless, the
principle, as he ventures to prophecy, is not destined to stand against
the power of custom ; so that he approves the forms demoniac, pro-
saic, music, antic, etc. The longer the word the sooner the change
will prevail ; because in monosyllables, like stick, sick, etc., where
The Substitution of C for K. 57
" a single letter forms the fourth or fifth part of a word, the eye is
not easily reconciled to the loss of the k." He, then, gives a list
of ^syllables, arrac, barrack, haddock, paddock, etc., observing
that most of them end in -ock ; and that in trisyllables the k is wholly
dropped : compounds like candlestick, laughingstock, planetstrucTc,
etc., being, so far as the final s is concerned, monosyllabic. This,
upon the whole, is sound criticism ; and, what is more, the remarks are
suggestive. When Nares tells us that Johnson kept his own rule
in practice, he tells us something of the extent to which the lexicog-
rapher wrote as a logician rather than as a philologist. He is
uniform in the use of the k after the c in words like " frantic^,
music!', comick," and the like. The practice, of course, was what
he found, but he applied it consistently. As a scholar, however,
he did it with his eyes open. He well knew the valid philological
reasons against it. He knew that, whether derived directly or not
from the Latin, the words, as members of a class, were radically,
fundamentally, and originally Greek. He knew that -ic was a
Greek formative. He knew that, as the representative of a Greek
sound, k was the right and c the wrong sign or letter. He knew
that the 1 was short ; and that, on both Greek and Latin principles,
the fact of its being followed by two consonants would make it long
by position. Yet, for all this, he used the two letters ; one of which
was a Greek one. It is impossible to say that he may not have
thought that this was the best method of showing that the 2 was
short : and that if he had written " coim'c, musz'c," etc., the words
might have been read "comeek, museec ;" a danger by no means
imaginary ; inasmuch as the French (Latin at second, and Greek at
third, hand) orthography gave us " comique and musique." All
this, I say, he may have'^thought. He appears, however, to have
acted (as has been suggested) on the logical principle. If c has no
determinate sound of its own, and if the doctrine to that effect is to
be of general application, it must always be followed by something
even at the end of a word : since c without a following is c with-
out a determinant. Hence, even when not wanted, something must
be tacked on to it : so that, when final or followed by nothing, it
must not be allowed to exist. This seems to me to have been John-
son's principle. At present, however, we write " music, comic,
frantic," atfd the like ; having so far departed from Johnson's rule,
as inferred from his language and practice (for we do not find it
totidem verbis,) as to treat c when followed by nothing, as if it were
followed by a broad vowel, i.e., as k. K, then, we may consider
to be its natural sound ; as is, doubtless, the case.
I have called N area's views suggestive; and the remark which
has just been criticised suggests Johnson's way of looking at the
question ; and the opinion of Johnson is no small matter. We should
do our best to see what it rests on ; especially when, as in the case
before us, his practice has been set aside. It is just possible that if
some timid innovator, from the north of the Tweed, or from the sis-
58 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
ter island, had ventured to suggest that the simple c best preserved
the etymology, and had received for an answer some such sentence
as, " Nonsense sir ; clear your head of cant, sir ; you don't see your
way, sir ; c has no determinate power as a letter, sir, and when there
is no determinant there is no letter for you to talk about ;" and if
such an answer had come down in the pages of Boswell, we might
be writing " musie&," and " cornicle," and " franticAr," and what not,
at the present moment. It is not what is right or wrong, but what
certain men choose to say about them that (for a time at least) deter-
mines greater events than the use of c at the end of a word.
In his remarks on the combination ck at the end of a monosyllable,
Nares saw something beyond the mere fact of the word in which it
occurred being a short one. A vowel followed by a single consonant
looks longer than one followed by two ; inasmuch as it constitutes
a larger part of the syllable. In tic or tik the i is one-third of
the whole combination ; in tick it is a fourth. It is only to the
reader that it does this, and it is only to the eye that the difference
is made sensible. To the ear, tic, tik, and tick are identical. It is
to the eye, however, to which spelling, writing, or orthography, ad-
dresses itself; and in the investigation of the origin of the practice
of indicating the shortness of the vowel by doubling the consonant
which follows, the visible relation of a vowel to the remainder of the
syllable is a very important consideration. Whether Nares's sugges-
tion applies to the particular words under notice is another question.
Unfortunately for the reader the question is one on which there
is much more to be said. It is necessary, however, to put the real
conditions of it in their true form. There is something indeed,
there is a great deal in N area's distinction between monosyllables
and the longer words. It is referrable, however, to another class of
facts. As a general rule the monosyllables and dissyllables in c or
k belong to different languages, and are amenable to different rules
in the way of grammar. As a general rule, the monosyllables are
English ; and as a universal rule they are radical, fundamental, or
(if we prefer the term) crude, forms : or in other words, they have no
secondary elements attached to them. Yet to the attachment of
such elements they are pre-eminently liable. The commonest of
these are ish and y for adjectives ; ing (as in the present participle)
for verbs. Now these three begin with a small vowel, and they
constitute, with a few more, nearly the whole class. It follows then
that if bleak or break be converted into " bleak-isA " or " break-ing,"
etc, and be spelt with a simple c, they run the risk of being read
" bleas-wA, bre&s-ing-," whereas if they be written " bleach," or
" breack," we have a conflict between the two opposing principles ;
of that by which we indicate the longness of a vowel by either
doubling it or combining it with another, and that by which we in-
dicate its shortness by doubling the consonant which follows it.
"When the vowel is actually short we must, perforce, do this, hence
" thick, thick-i*A."
The Substitution of C for JT. 59
The words of more than one syllable however, are, as a rule, of
Latin or Greek origin, and the second syllable is non-radical : as
(for example,) " com-z'c," the adjectival derivative of nypy. Here,
then, we have the adjective ready made : and the only danger that
lies before us is that of a secondary affix being required which shall
begin with i or e. Such would be the comparative or superlative
degree ; " coraic-er, comic-est " wherein there is a danger of their
being sounded as s. The danger, however, is unreal. We abstain
from such comparatives and superlatives. We eschew them. We
ignore them. We say " more comic," or " most comic," instead. The
degrees of comparison, however, are not the rocks on which we may
possibly split. From every adjective we may get an adverb to
match. What if it begin with a small vowel ? The danger threat-
ens us again. But the sign of the English adverb does not so be-
gin. It is the affix ly ; so that we may say if we like, comicly ; and
that without fear of risks. But we do not, though we may, do this.
We say "comic-ally;" taking as our basis, not the actual Greek
form KUII.IKOS, but the possible Latin form comicalis ; a form which
may or may not exist.
There is nothing to fear then, in letting ^syllables end in c, but
a great deal to fear in letting wzowosyllables do so.
It is scarcely necessary to guard the reader against taking the
last statement at more than it is worth. It is, in no respect, a de-
fence of the c in words like " comic " in general. It neither states
nor hints that c is as good a letter as Tc. All that it means is, that
" comic " is a better spelt word than " comicfc :" and the illustration
it supplies is one of the text of Nares exclusively. C is better than
cTc. This is what applies to the particular question under notice ;
and it applies to nothing else directly, So far as it has any second-
ary application it must be taken with what accompanies it, and with
much of what will follow it. It is an instance of what is required
if the short-comings of the present manner of spelling are to be made
good by the exposition of rules. That they are reducible to rules is
admitted. But the rules themselves, even in the most compendious
expositions, would take up more space than the whole of the rest of
the grammar. Neither are they either applicable or intelligible
without much previous knowledge of a wide and discursive charac-
ter. Hence, when we get them, the only students whom they help
are those to whom help is superfluous. So far, however, as the ex-
position of the complex and unmanageable character of the system
of orthographic expedients goes a system which first gives us c in
place of Tc for the sake of indicating a fact in etymology, and then
an artificial combination to prevent it being sounded like s, and then
a host more of the same kind, we are far from the end of it. When
the vowel is short, as in thick, we must use two letters ; since either
"thic-wA" or "thik-zsA" would run the risk of being sounded
" tbikeish." Akin to this are words like " convoke," " provoke,"
etc., where there is but one vowel and that a long one. Write
60 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
" convofc " (or " convoe ") " provofc " (or " provoc ") and the length
of the vowel is uncertain. The result is the choice of certain expe-
dients. You may double the o ; but the o so doubled has every
chance of being sounded as a. You may prefix an a as in " coal ;"
and so get " provoak," a form which has actually existed, though
now obsolete. " Provoke," etc., has superseded it ; so that it and
its congeners stand, at the present moment, as monuments of the
vitality, usefulness, and indispensability of the irrepressible k.
Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.
You may, however, take refuge in q, and after the French fashion,
write " provoque," There are plenty of expedients. The best use,
however, we can put them to, is to leave them alone to make our-
selves independent of them. The real remedy for complications of
this kind is the sign for a short vowel, as opposed to a long one.
This relative or conditional power of c is a fact which affects other
languages besides the English : indeed, the disposition to use it at
the expense of k is no genuine characteristic of any German lan-
guage. Taken by ourselves we have no prejudice against k.
When we avoid it, it is because Latin influences have warped our
natural impartiality. The extent, however, of this predilection for
one letter, combined with the eschewal of the other, will show that,
in some cases, at least, it has not been in favor with the etymologi-
cal, derivational, or historic principle in spelling. In some languages
the rule that c before a broad vowel, is k, and before a small one s,
is absolute, or nearly so : so that " can, con," or " cun," is always
" &an, &on," or " &un," and " cen, cin," or " cyn," always " sen. sin,"
or " syn." When this is the case all goes smoothly. But sometimes
c before a is sounded as *, and sometimes before z or e as k. We
have seen what comes of this in the French. In order to spell sa
with a c, recourse is had to the cedilla " 9 :" and in order to spell ki
at all, nothing short of qu will suffice, as in qui, quitter, etc.
Such is our notice of c so far as it displaces k. But it also does
the same with s, though only exceptionally, accidentally, and in. a
few cases. The words which illustrate this change fall into two
small classes :
1. Those like " once " and " whence."
2. Those like " mice " and " pence." Each of these divisions is
subdivided.
1. (a) Once, tvoice, and thrice are simply misspelt forms of ones,
twies, and thries, the ordinary genitive or possessive cases of one,
two, and three. In syntax they are of course adverbs, but adverbs
originating in cases have long been recognised. " Unawares,
towards, backwards, needs," (of necessity, as in " Needs must go
when the devil drives,") are words of the same class.
(b) In like manner " whence, hence," and " thence " are from
" whennes " (or " whannes "), " hennes " and " thennes," the only
difference between them and "once," etc., being that the numerals
The Substitution of C for K. 61
are derived from the root itself ; the words denoting direction in
place from a previous case when, hen, and then.
2. (a) In mice and lice, the plurals of mouse and louse, the s
which the c represents is not the s of " fathers, books," etc., i.e., not
the s which stands as the sign of the plural number. The plural,
or rather collective, character of the form is denoted by the i, or
rather by the change of vowel in general : the c is the s of the root.
(b) In " dice " and "pence " the origin of the c is different, for it
is the sign of the plural or collective number, as truly as if the
words were written dyes and pennies.
The explanation of this substitution of c for s is not very distant.
If the words under notice, after the loss of the vowel e, etc., were
spelt in the ordinary manner, i.e. as on's, two's, three's, when's, hen's,
thens, lyes, myes, dyes, and penns, they would run the chance of
being pronounced on'z, two'z, threez, whenz, penz, thenz, lyez, myez,
dyez, and pennz, like the sound, though not the spelling, of boys,
hens, and a whole host of other words. Now c suggests no such
confusion. But c standing alone is either k or nothing. To fit it,
then, for doing duty, the mute e is appended, the result being that
-ce spells s.
The result of all this is manifest. The true pronunciation of the
adverbs and the first two plurals is preserved, while dice and pence
are, respectively, differentiated from dyes (for coining) andpennies :
in other words, a collective rather than plural form is developed.
Such being the results, we infer from them something like conscious
contrivance on the part of some one ; yet so dark is the history of
it that we are almost tempted to look upon it as the growth of
language itself, working through some such abstraction as the soul,
spirit, or organic force of its orthography : in other words, some
such an abstraction as an orthography without orthographists.
Now if this unnecessary use of -c- were abolished, it would not
rise to the dignity of a Phonetic reform. On the other hand, it would
be something better than the mere correction of a blunder. Upon
ordinary principles the spelling is defensible : inasmuch as, upon
ordinary principles, the only objection to it is that it is an unneces-
sary expenditure of power. As it happens, se would have done as
well ; for onse, whense, and mise, would have been pronounced like
geese ; in which the s retains its true power. We do not call geese
geeze, nor should we call mise mize.
Most of these forms may be condemned at once, simply on the
ground of being unnecessary and gratuitous. But we may go fur-
ther, and denounce them as violations of the etymological system.
This, however, at the first view, we are forbidden to do ; for of that
system we are the impugners rather than the upholders. Be it so.
We denounce them, nevertheless, as blunders ; as violations of the
system to which they are meant to be subservient. But this is not
all. It is not pretended that the etymological principle is an evil in
itself. On the contrary, if out of two ways of spelling a word pho-
62 A Defence of Plionetic Spelling.
netically, one will give us the etymology as well as the sound, the
one which does so is the better of the two : the only condition being
that nothing in the way of Phonesis be sacrificed to it. With the
words under notice, however, there is not only a sacrifice, but an
unnecessary one ; indeed one which, according to its own principles,
has a tendency to mislead us. " Whose " stands for the genitive,
or possessive case of who : the real spelling, according to existing
principles, is " who'* " or (perhaps) " whoe* :" for 's is the sign of
the genitive case all the world over, and it is, to say the least, a
rery strange etymology to spell as if it ended in e.
When c before a small vowel is preceded by s, the combination,
so far as its sound is concerned, is simply that of ss, which is that of s
singly. Sciatica, science, sciolist, etc., may, as sounds, be spelt with s
alone, or c alone : i.e. either ciatica, cience, ciolist, or siatica, sience,
statist. The function of c, however, is to suggest the Latin or Greek
origin of the words ; though when the word is directly from the
Greek it is out of place. The pronunciation here is pretty regular,';
indeed when the word is actually Latin, as in scire facias, scintilla,
etc., the c is silent. The second letter, no matter whether c or s, is
merely a superfluity ; and its presence is noted simply because it
gives us a piece of etymological spelling with a minimum sacrifice
of the primary object of orthography. It is an example of the com-
bination of the two principles in its most harmless form : and as such
it has been recognized. Even here, however, it involves the neces-
sity of a rule. Is sc always equal to s ? Only before the small
vowels. We can do nothing, then, without a qualification ; nothing
even in the least obnoxious of combinations.
This, then, though the simplest and the most innocent of all the
agents in the etymological system, requires a preliminary statement
of certain conditions before it can be put into operation. But, even
here, there are complications. It is only in the more modern or-
thography that this uniformity is preserved. When skeleton was
spelt with a c, as it was in the days of men who were scholars as
well as anatomists, and who knew that it came from the Greek word
<TK(\OS, as well as they knew the names of the bones of which it was
composed, there was a notable difference between the powers of the
first two letters. At that time c was sounded as k ; and the forego-
ing rule was inoperative ; or, at least, had a certain exception to it ;
a fact which makes it no rule at all. However, the men who used
the word kept up the connexion with the Greek, not by the means,
but in spite, of the orthography ; and now the k has come out in its
proper form. The mathematicians held less closely to the tradition
and the etymology : and an isosceles is called an i-sosseles triangle.
Yet both the name of the triangle, and the name of the bony frame-
work of the body, come from the same source. It is, probably, by
the association of ideas as determined by the identity of subject-
-matter that sull, originally scull, is now spelt with a k. It would
be difficult to reduce this to a rule of any practical value. The
The Substitution of C for K. 63
reason for it a very different matter has perhaps been suggested.
At any rate, it gives us another instance of the irrepressibility of k.
SECTION XXVIII.
THE SUBSTITUTION OF C FOR K CONTINUED C AS THE
ELEMENT OF A DIGRAPH-
It is now time to consider c as the element of a digraph. Followed
by h it gives us the combination ch as in churl, chest, each, etc. In
pitch, itch, etc., it has exactly the same sound ; though preceded by
a t ; in other words the combinations ch and tch are pronounced
alike. In witch as opposed to which, the t serves to distinguish the
name of a female wizard from that of the relative pronoun. In
pitch, etc., we have no such differentiation.
In expressing the sound under notice by a combination of letters ra-
ther than by a single sign no harm is done, and no error committed :
for there is no doubt as to its double character. For the c in " witch "
write s and the real elements present themselves : viz., tsh, giving
tshest for chest, tshurl for churl, and eatsh for each. For the digraph
sh substitute a single sign and the word is spelt properly. It is only,
however, in one language of the class under notice that this can be
done ; for there is only one in which sh is expressed by a single let-
ter ; that being the Magyar or Hungarian. Here t has its ordinary
power ; while s = sh. Hence ts = tsh, or the tch in witch. On the
other hand, in German, where the equivalent to the English sh is
sch, the combination runs up to four letters, and what we write
Dutch appears in the fuller form Deutsch. In French, where sh is
written ch, the combination ich is rare ; indeed, it is only found in
foreign words. When found, however, it represents the sound un-
der notice. In Dutch and Swedish it is spelt tj ; so that we may
safely say not only that the real elements are t and sh, but that the
t element, at least, is pretty generally recognized.
If this be the case why is it in Russian, and in more phonetic
alphabets than one, treated as a single sound, and expressed by a
single sign Efin Russian, and &, g in the alphabet of the Phonetic
Journal ? The answer to this is part of a more general question
than the one now under notice : and for the discussion of this it is
reserved. All that is of present importance is the analysis of the
combination, and the recognition of the sound of t as its chief ele-
ment. It is tsh beyond doubt : though whether it should be treated
as tsh, a single sound, or as t + sh, two sounds, is not so indubitable.
If such be the case, what, in the digraph ch, is represented by the
c, and what by the h ? Place for place, c = t ; and place for place,
h = sh or its equivalent. The connexion on either side is obscure.
A connexion, however, actually exists, though it lies somewhat far
back. It is founded upon a fact of generality in language, and not
upon a mere arbitrary orthography.
64 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
Let us remember what often happens in words like kind, kin, cow,
and others, where the sound of k is followed by a vowel. There
are few of us who have not heard some one among our acquaintance
insert the sound y, and say kyind, kyin, kyow and the like. Public
men, especially on the stage, indulge in the practice, and Punch,
with his fraternity, has more than once bantered them for doing so.
Now when once this habit has fairly set-in, and spread itself over
a considerable portion of a language, a further change takes place,
and the sound of^ becomes that of sh. Hence, words like kyind,
kyow, etc., become kshind, kshow. That this, at present, is a very
rare combination in English is manifest : indeed we can scarcely get
it at all without picking the c out of one syllable and the sh out of
another: as is sometimes done with election e\-ek-shun. In
the Sanskrit, where one letter is thus sounded, election thus dissected
(ele-kshun) is, in more than one grammar at least, the word which
supplies the example.
The best, however, are to be found in the Scandinavian ; not,
however, the Danish of Denmark : though in the Danish of both
Denmark and Norway the combination Icj ( = ky, or cy) is common
indeed conspicuously so. Its power, however, varies with the
language.
There is not much room for rules here ; nor, perhaps, much need
of them; inasmuch as the words themselves thus spelt are not nu-
merous ; and, as such, may be learned in detail as easily as through
the comprehension of a principle ; the inculcation of which has never
been, and apparently never will be, a favorite method with teach-
ers. Nevertheless, the character of the combination is worth a short
notice, the power attached to it being two-fold. The analysis, of
course, gives us the sound of s + that of ch. But ch has, at least,
two sounds, that of the ch in " patriarch," and that of the ch in
" chest," the former being that of the simple Jc, the latter that of t + sh.
Now as the ch which is sounded k, is held to represent the Greek
X Khi (Chi, x) it is fair to suppose that, to those at least who know
Greek, the true pronunciation will present itself both naturally and
uniformly ; and such, indeed, is to a great extent, the fact. Words,
however, like " archbishop," tell us that even here there are excep-
tions. Saving these, however, we may see our way to something
like a rule : and we know how to pronounce the word school. We
may, indeed, congratulate ourselves in keeping closer to the Greek
than the Germans, who sound it shool ; though, like ourselves, they
spell with a ch = schule. It is only, however, when the vowel is
broad (a, o, u) that this pronunciation prevails. What is the prac-
tice when the vowel is a small or slender one, when it is e, or i, or
y ? At the first view of this question it seems an easy matter to
say that, in such a position, the sound of k disappears, and that the
original rule as to the sound of c before a small vowel re-asserts
itself, and takes its course ; so that whatever else the digraph ch
may denote under other conditions, it denotes nothing at all here.
The Substitution of C for JT. 65
It stands in the spelling, no doubt, but it has no orthographical
function whatsoever ; indeed, it addresses itself to the eye only, and
to the eye it suggests a connection with the Greek letter X x ( Chi,
Khi). If to this statement any explanation of the principle upon
which the combination sic (spelt sch) when followed by a broad
vowel is stable, whereas when followed by a small one, it is variable
or evanescent, could be added, something like a rule, something in-
deed like a principle, would be arrived at.
The example by which this doctrine is illustrated is, of course, the
word schism, with its derivatives schismatic and schismatical : and
it is amply sufficient for an illustration. But will it give us a rule P
Certainly not. The word scheme tells us this. The very most that
schism gives us* is a rule for the sound of sch before the particular
vowel i. It is no rule for its power in other combinations. It is
not even a rule for the small vowels ; since it will not even apply
to the e in scheme. How, then, does ch preceded by s comport itself?
In schism it is simply ejected. When and under what conditions
does it take its place ? If it keep its place, what will be its power ?
If it disappear will it go alone, or will it carry with it the h by which
it is followed ?
In respect to the first part of the question, it may be said at once,
that it will not retain its ordinary sound oftsh; though thereis novery
cogent reason why it should not do so. Stshool, and stsholar are,
by no means, unpronounceable words ; and although it is the prac-
tice in the English language to eschew the combination of the sim-
ple and compound sibilants, it is common enough in Russian, Polish,
and their congeners of the Slavonic family. The German forms of
speech, however, avoid the combination. This is well illustrated by
the Swedish, where the combination tj is sounded tsh. In words, how-
ever, like stjerna star, where it is preceded by s, the obnoxious
combination presents itself: the result being that the three letters are
pronounced like the English sh, that is, stjerna sherne. It is not
easy to say what has really been the fate of the tj in this change.
It has not vanished wholly. If it had, the word would be sounded
seme. It has not been changed into an h ; for the h itself would be
a piece of cacography. Somehow or other it has converted the sound
of the first consonant, s, into that of the first in shire, and that is all
that can be said about it. Such is the process in the Swedish : and
it is to a certain extent a double one. It gives the sound of sh,
but it might also give us the simple s. It may be, indeed, that such
is actually the case ; for it is quite possible that the practice of the
Swedish language is not uniform, and that sometimes stj may de-
velop sh and sometimes s. If so, it is so much the worse for those
who learn to read Swedish ; in other words, there is one complexity
more ; and the orthography is, pro tanto, the worse for it. How-
ever, in the Swedish this is not the case : so that in Swedish the
reader who can spell out the sound of stjerna can spell out that of
the words like it. Is this the case in English ? The rule itself is
66 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
not unlike the Swedish one. In pronouncing schism and schismatic
as sizm and sizmatic we ignore the h and sound the so as in scissors.
But does this establish a rule ? We have seen that it fails to do
this with scheme where the ch = k. Will these two words between
them give us a rule ; that is, will scheme tell us the power of sche
wherever it may occur ? We naturally expect that it will. But it
will not. What do we learn from the word schedule ? We certainly
learn that the power of sch is very variable. The ordinary pronun-
ciation gives, I believe, shedule ; but both sJcedule after the manner
of scheme and seddule have their supporters. Schist, a geological term,
and as such, one of recent introduction, is certainly sounded shist ;
though, as in schism, the ch is followed by i. It is probable that the
time at which the particular word was introduced into our language,
the language from which it was directly and immediately taken, and
the class of speakers who first approved and promulgated it, have
more to do with the particular power which this unmanageable com-
bination assumes, than anything relating to the constitution of the
language itself. These, however, are just the conditions which it is
most difficult to reduce to rule.
SECTION XXIX.
THE SUBSTITUTION OF C FOE K CONTINUED. THE PABALLELI8M
BETWEEN C AND G, CH AND J.
Having hitherto treated c in its capacity of a substitute for Jc, as
a single letter, we have said as much as is required concerning it ;
and, evidently, we have said a great deal. And we can see the rea-
son why. We can see that if c had never come into the alphabet at
all, a great many complexities and contrivances would have been
avoided. We may believe that if it had come in concurrently with
k, some of these might have been avoided. We may see, moreover,
that either with k or without k, it would have been less effective,
for bad, if it had been admitted without any reference to its use in
indicating the connection of words like city, etc., with civitas, etc.,
that is, made subservient to the secondary object of etymology.
We have seen, however, that neither k nor s stands alone ; and,
also, that the nearest congeners of k are g and z respectively. Of
these the former most especially commands our attention, because,
to a certain extent, its history is parallel to that of c, and in certain
points of deia^ diverges from it. Both c and g, however, change
their sound according to the broadness or slenderness of the vowel
which follows them. The change, however, of c is the more con-
stant. In gig and gibberish for instance, the g is sounded as in gun.
Again, c as we know, changes to s (city = sity), and if the parallel-
ism were perfect g would become z. On the contrary, however, it
becomes t or dzh, which I hold to be the same in both cases. With
The Substitution of C for K. 67
this we must compare tsh, or the sound of the ch in chest. And
here I hold that the changes in the two cases run parallel :
1. Ka, Icy a, ksha, tsha.
2. Ga, gya, gzha, dzha.
Now, I ainnot at present investigating the actual history of either
of the English sounds ch or j. I am merely indicating the extent
to which the sounds of Tc and g are affected by the character of the
vowel by which they are succeeded. Each gives birth to a com-
pound sibilant ; and, I believe, each, when it does this, goes through
the same sequence of changes : by which I mean that every k which
ends in becoming tsh has been, during the process of transformation,
both ley and ksh ; and that every g in like manner becomes, in the
first instance, gy, and in the second, gzh. I do not, however, hold
that every tsh and every dzh have been originally k and g respect-
ively, inasmuch as they can be developed out of t and d as inde-
pendent roots. For instance :
1. Ta, tya, tsha.
2. Da, dya, dzha.
Now we have tsh's and dzh's of both kinds in English, but they
are treated very differently in our orthography. The sound given
to u, yoo, and ew, after t and d as in nature, verdure, dew, when pro-
nounced natshur, verdzhur, and dzhew, has already been noticed.
That this is condemned as a vulgarism I admit. I may also add
that, according to the information of Mr Pitman, who, from having
exhibited the so-called vulgarism phonetically, and subsequently
recognised the ordinary pronounciation, is a good authority on the
matter, the practice of so sounding the combination is on the de-
crease perhaps passing away altogether. It may be so. It is pos-
sible that with so many of us reading and writing and cultivating our
pronunciation, the influence of the orthoepists may succeed in check-
ing the tendency to change ; and if they do this they will, to some
small extent, have succeeded in what is called the fixation of some
part of the language. I do not care to prophecy upon this point.
I only know that ka and ga, ta and da at the beginning of the series,
and that tsha and dzha at the end, are, comparatively speaking,
stable combinations ; and that ky and ksh, gy and gzh, ty and dy, in
the middle, are, comparatively speaking, remarkably wwstable ones.
If then, I were to prophecy at all, it would be in favor of the vulgar
pronunciation eventually winning. Hitherto, however, the compound
sibilants, (thech'sandj's,) which have arisen out of t and d, have
been left alone ; indeed we may say that their claim to a spelling of
their own has been ignored. The existence, however, of two con-
verging series of phonetic processes by which we get a double ori-
gin for our compound sibilants should be recognised. Thus much,
however, may probably be said with safety, and to the credit of ch
andj, namely, that wherever we find them we may assume that the
original simple consonants out of which they were developed were k
and g, not t or d.
68 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
The lines, however, which we have just traced are, by no means,
the only ones. From the sound of k we get that of *, simply.
From that of g we get, in an equally simple form, the sound of z.
In their tendencies to undergo this kind of change the two sounds
vary. Both, as we have seen, pass into the compound sibilants. t*h
and dzh. K, however, passes into * as well. G, on the other hand,
has no such tendency to become z. There is want, then, of parallel-
ism here. It can, however, be explained. G has an affinity which
s has not ; one which attracts it in another direction. The tendencies
of g, when they are not towards dzh, are towards y, (ga, ya).
With this view of the phonesis it is mere surplusage to condemn
the use of ch and^' on philosophical grounds. One of them is a di-
graph ; the other a single letter ; and it is impossible that both can
be right. Each, indeed, may be wrong.
C enters into the composition of both our compendiums x and q ;
and, in each, it is brought in comparison with g. Of x, the sound
is that of ks or gz, as the case may be. At the beginning of sylla-
bles, where it is found in only a few words, such as Xenophon, Xerxes,
Xylography, it is sounded as z. The charge of ambiguity against a
compendium like x, is a grave one. ILS we can understand, and gz
we can understand, when they are written separately. X, too, as a
single sign, we can understand when we know that it represents
either ks or gz exclusively. But we cannot understand it when it
sometimes stands for the one, and sometimes for the other. And
this is what x does in English. The action and re-action between
c and g is shown in the words which end in ue, as " antique," and
" unique " on the one side, and " rogue " or " -prorogue " on the other.
The qu in these combinations represents cu ; so that the two forms run
parallel. The use of these forms is purely conventional, artificial, and
non-natural ; especially that in which g appears. It is, also, as far as
our own language is concerned, of French origin. The precedent was
established by the forms in c (q) ; which in words like loquor, liquor,
and others, belonging to the Latin language, seemto have represented
a real sound, seem to have had a basis in reality ; and the words just
quoted may have been sounded nearly as they are spelt. The same
was, probably, the case with the gu in anguis. Still, the g was
separable from the u ; which the q was not. The tendency of this
was to invest qu with the character of a single letter when it pre-
ceded a small vowel as in que, qui, (ke, ki) ; with that of the combin-
ation cic when followed by a broad one, as in quoi, quand, etc. This,
again, is an assertion of the old law, by which the character of the
subsequent vowel, determines the power, or import, of c. One step
more, however, is wanted, before the parallelism between the final
c and the final qu becomes complete. This is a determinant, like the
k in " frantic^," as it has been explained in Section 25. It has
no sound of its own ; but it fixes the sound of the consonant which
precedes. The mute e does this : making words like " anti^e,
prolo^M," etc., sound as if they ended in -ic, -dg. At the same time
Rules of Little Practical Value. 69
the combination indicated the longness of the vowel. Such is the
history of the terminations -oque and -ique. Mutatis mutandis, it is
that of -ogue and -igue (intrigue) also.
Now this we may take as the typical instance of what we have
called an orthographical expedient ; a remedy for, or a palliation of,
some fundamental deviation from the plain straightforward line of
phonetic representation. I do not think that the word non-natural
is too strong a term for such manoeuvres or manipulations. There
are, doubtless, expedients and expedients : there are expedients of
different degrees of conventionalism, artificiality, or non-naturalness.
Of these the combination sc, may, possibly, be the most innocent.
The forms in que and gue are certainly the least so. One merit, in-
deed, they possess. They are un-English. They are French. So
that we got them ready-made ; and when we have said this in their
favor we have said all. Let us measure the non-naturalness of the
combinations before us. If any rule in phonetic spelling be thorough -
-going, it is that the number of syllables should, in no case, exceed
the number of vowels. The diphthongs are no exception, inasmuch
as in the sounds of?' (a + i), ow (a + u), ew (i + w), and oi (o~i), the
second sound is not that of the fundamental vowel, but of a corres-
ponding semi- vowel, y or w as the case may be. This, of course,
gives us ay, oy, iw, and aw ; so that the rule is adhered to. In the
Phonetic Journal this is not the orthography. Taking his cue from
the old alphabet, Mr Pitman prints I and u by single letters, and
ou, oi by two letters. Granting these two exceptions, which arose,
I am informed, from the difficulty of inventing new and homogeneous
forms of letters, and the necessity of not extending the alphabet be-
yond the number of letters absolutely necessary for the phonetic
representation of English, the number of the vowels and the sylla-
bles agree. What, however, are we to say to such a form as antique,
where the number of syllables is two, that of the vowels four ? In
Greek, the word would be spelt avrn/t ; and what can be done in
Greek can be done in English, " antik."
Now it is not too much to say, that every detail that can be found
in this and the preceding sections on the subject, every detail con-
nected with the substitution of c for k, is non-natural. The details
themselves are numerous and complex enough ; but their badness
lies less in the number than in their non-natural character. Such,
indeed, is the predominant character of everything connected with
the letter under notice.
SECTION
THE EEDUCIBILITY OF NON-NATURAL MODES TO RULE, OF LITTLE
PRACTICAL VALUE.
But it may be said that all these expedients can be reduced to
rule. Be it so. We have hitherto said much of certain vowels
70 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
which are called broad, and others which are called small or slender.
We have not, however, done so as if the terms were merely indica-
tive of some abstract quality. We have generally told the reader
that the broad vowels are a, o, and u ; the small, or slender ones, '
and e. The lettery belongs to the same class ; but as it is not always
a true vowel, it has not, as a rule, been mentioned. It is a semi-
-vowel as well ; and as it takes its place in a dictionary as such it
has been classed, along with w, (which is never a vowel) as a con-
sonant ; at any rate, as something intermediate between the two
classes. I believe that the number of true vowels in English is gen-
erally counted as five. We make it six by counting y ; but, then,
there will be only one semi-vowel ; and of these there are two, w
and y. Hence, y is an occasional or accidental vowel not a true,
not a thorough-going, not an invariable one. Be this, however, as it
may, we have the fact that a, o, and u belong to one class, i and eto
another ; and that broad and small (or slender), indicate these classes.
I use, then, these words ; and instead of naming five vowels in
detail, give the names of two classes over which they may be distri-
buted ; the one of which consists of three members, the other of
two. But, before I can make any use of the more general term,
I must explain what it means. This, however, is not done in a mo-
ment. Perhaps, between the explanation and the remembrance of
it, it takes up, between the teacher and the learner, more time than
would be taken up by the simple exhibition of details ; which, after
all, are only five in number. What, then, is the value of the rule ;
or how far is it more compendious or general than the items which
it comprehends in detail ? I answer this by saying that it is better
or worse as the case may be. In a treatise like the present it is
better ; because the present treatise is addressed to those who, to
some extent, know beforehand what the terms mean ; and who take
them without either explanation or definition. But when we teach a
child to spell they are worse. To him, who sees the letters for the first
time, it is far easier to remember that before a, o, or , c is pro-
nounced as k, and before i and e as *, than to understand how a dif-
fers from e, or o from i. Generally speaking, rules save trouble ; but
this implies that they are known beforehand, and are specially ap-
plied as the case presents itself. It also implies that they cover
more details than could be remembered with equal ease without the
rule. But what is a rule to a child ? What, indeed, is the value to
an educated adult when it covers only five cases ? But what if nei-
ther the rule nor the details which it comprises are wanted ? What
if the supposed necessity for them be wholly artificial, unnecessary,
and gratuitous ? What if the exposition of either one or the other,
be the mere result of something which only wanted to be left alone ?
What if the evil be created, or kept-up, for mere sake of the abate-
ment ; or the disease for the mere trial of the remedy ? Such a
thing would be strange. Yet it is no more than what we find in
the case before us.
Demerits of the other Consonants compared with C. 71
The argument upon this point is simple. Let the question be one
of simply teaching the art of reading ; and let Jc mean Ic, and s mean
s, nothing beyond, nothing short of this. Let c be nowhere ;
either absolutely ejected from the alphabet, or used with another
power. At least, let it be made wholly independent of both k and
s. Let each word beginning with the proper sound of these two
letters be spelt accordingly, or in the natural manner : or. changing
the expression, let can and contrary, be spelt like kill and kettle, as
Jean and kontrari. In like manner let city and cider be spelt siti
and sjder. What happens when the child is taught to spell these
words ? Simply what happens when he is taught to spell tabby or
tippet, lily or loving. E is to him as t; and s as 1. What knows
he, or cares to know, or ever dreams of being expected to know,
anything about any difference between the vowels which may, or
may not, follow ? Enough if he knows i or a, e or o ; for what they
are in and of themselves. Whether they affect the sound of the con-
sonant which precedes them, he never thinks of asking. And it is
well that he does not. Provided that the alphabet and the ortho-
graphy are merely what they are meant to be, phonetic, he has
no need to ask.
It is clear that, in this case, k and s are simply in the position of
b and t, p and d, or any other letters : and it is equally clear that
when c is introduced it is in a different one, and this a non-natural
one.
Now once again be it stated that it is not in behalf of readers,
but for children learning to read, that this treatise is written.
Phonetic spelling, and phonetic spelling alone, suits these. It suits
others besides : but it is enough to show that for those who learn
to read it is a necessity. Yet the arguments are not addressed to
children. True, they are addressed to those in whose hands the
education of the present generation of the children lies ; and among
them it may (it is hoped) be said without discourtesy that there are
many objections, which, to say the least, require to be reconsidered.
SECTION XXXI.
THE DEMERITS OF THE OTHER CONSONANTS COMPARED WITH
THOSE OF C. NONE OF THEM NON-NATURAL-
The fault of non-naturalism is co-extensive with the influence of
the c as a substitute for k : and is limited by it. The other con-
sonants are, one and all, open to exceptions ; but they are of a dif-
ferent and a more venial kind. Let us take them in order, begin-
ning with the Liquids.
The Liquids, as a class, are very regular in their import, and
where they are not so the explanation of their irregularity is evi-
dent. Thus, whenjeither I or r loses, or changes, its natural sound,
it is when it follows a vowel ; the sound of which has been, to some
72 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
extent, modified by the contact. With I we find this in such words
as falcon and salmon. "We know here that, though the presence of
I, according to the current pronunciation of these words is, phoneti-
cally, objectionable, it was at some earlier (ahd that not a very dis-
tant) period not only justifiable but natural and necessary. The
consonantal sound has since been softened down, and that of the
vowel only remains In " fa/con" (faucon) it is in the first stage of
its change ; in " saZmon (summon) the change has gone further. To
those, however, who say saumon the two Vs are in the'same category.
_R as has just been stated, agrees with Z in changing its con-
sonant character for that of a vowel. But this is, also, a natural,
and explicable change.
The sound of the a in " father," or of the a of the French and Ger-
man languages, differs from that of the a in fate and the a in fat, in
the same way that the sound of aw in bawl differs from that of the
o in note or not. The e, too, at the end of such words as meine, deine,
etc., in German = mine, thine, is of this character. It is not mute
like the French e. It is not sounded like y, as it would be, were it
sounded at all, in English. It is not sounded like er, as the Germans
sound it ; for between the pronunciation of meine and meiner they
make a decided and important difference ; and one that often puz-
zles an Englishman. Nine Englishmen out often, especially if they
come from the southern counties, think that, if they are told to pro-
pounce the -e in meine, but not to pronounce it as meini, meinee, or
meiny, they have no alternative but to pronounce it as meiner.
And, in one sense, then* opinion is correct. The sounds of the two
words are alike ; but it is not the vowel -e which he pronounces as
er ; but the liquid r which he pronounces so lightly as to make it
^indistinguishable from the simple vowel.
Against the other two liquids, m and n, the little that can be said
is that one of them is occasionally mute. They might both be so ;
if it were not for a mere accident in the English language. N after
m is silent ; and " condemw " is sounded as if it ended in m only. The
combination nm happens not to occur in English, otherwise m would
be mute also ; and the statement that m and n could not come to-
gether at the end of the same syllable might take a place in our
grammars.
This, again, is bad spelling that has once been good. When con-
demn was a Latin word, it was, at least, a word of three syllables ;
in which case, m and n which are now crowded together might be
what we may call distributed ; e.g. " condem-o, condem-natu*.
However, as the -o and -atu$ here are no parts of the original root,
but removeable or changeable affixes, and as in the English language
they are ignored, the contact of m and n gives an unpronounceable,
or, at least, an inconvenient combination.
The next class consists of the three sonants b, v, and d. At the
present time there is nothing at all against v ; whatever may have
been the case when it was written instead of u. Nor is there more
Demerits of the oilier Consonants compared with C. 73
than one charge against b ; and this is the fact that in certain words
like " suitle, debtor, dumS," it is mute. This, however, like the
combination mn is obsolete rather than vicious orthography. D
would be as unexceptionable in its character as v and b if it were
not the fact of being what would be called by a Hebrew grammarian
a servile letter ; i.e., a letter which is not only found in the body of
a word but is made subservient to its inflection. Such is the case '
with d in " plant-erf, mov^erf, call-erf," etc., i.e. in the past tense and
in the passive participle of our verbs, of which it is what is called
the sign. How this affects the steadiness and regularity of its
sound is best considered when we come to the notice of s.
To the three surds p,f, t, we may add s; for although this
last letter, being connected with c, is, strictly speaking, foreign to
the present notice, it touches the present group at a point too im-
portant to be overlooked. Of p, taken by itself, it may be said that,
like b, it is occasionally silent, as in psalm : to which it is scarcely
necessary to add that in psalm, as in debtor, it is only out of place in
the present stage of the language. Ofp, t, and s, collectively, it
may be said that in the combinations ph, th, and sh (the so-called
aspirates) they are out of place altogether. Of t, in particular,
something more may be said ; viz., that when it is sounded as in
the, thine, etc., it is doubly so: inasmuch as if the combination with
h were legitimate, the combining consonant should be here not t but rf.
Now here we have a rough sketch of the elements in the way of
spelling of no less than ten letters of the English alphabet ; against
which we set those of the nine connected with c : and we see, at
once, that the difference between the two classes is enormous. In
some sense, indeed, it is a balancing of c, by itself, against nearly
half the consonants ; inasmuch as the other letters of the class whicn
it represents are, to a great extent, what they are, on account of
the connection. The exact nature, however, of the comparison is
not worth either enlarging or refining on. The reader has a general
view of the relations of the two classes with which it deals ; and it
may safely be said that no undue charge has been laid against the c
series. We can scarcely say as much of the other. In this series
have been placed the three non-natural combinations ofp, t and s,with
h, so as to form three digraphs for sounds that should only be denoted
by single signs. It is probable, however, that this is not the right
place for them. It is not with the three mutes that the offence lies.
It is rather to be charged upon the h : indeed of the consonants which
precede it, each is in its right place, provided only that h be ; i.e., if
/is to be spelt by means of h and any second letter, p is the letter
that is required. And so it is with sh. It is the h, then, that has
no business to be where it is. If, however, it were otherwise, the*
would stand where it ought to do. In th as a sign for the first sound
in thine (dh), there is a genuine error ; since t is in a place where, un-
der any circumstances, it is an intruder.
And other abatements may be added. With both I and r it is
74 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
a question of orthoepy rather than of orthography : and there are
many who may argue that words like falcon and salmon are not so
much mis-spelt as mispronounced. At any rate, there are plenty
of speakers who say saumon ; and this is one degree nearer to the
spelling. Meanwhile, the naturalist, who has often to deal with the
word in its more primitive form, always pronounces the I in
"sa/mo" and " safrnonidae." So long, then, as there is a notable
portion of the community which says saumon, where the remain-
der says sammon ; or a similar body of speakers which calls afaucon
& falcon, the question of spelling is merely one of choosing between
two pronunciations. A wrong choice may be made ; yet, neverthe-
less, the spelling may be strictly phonetic. This applies in a still
greater degree to r as it is sounded, or rather not sounded, in far-
ther. They are many who absolutely make no appreciable differ-
ence between this word and father. The same persons, in most
cases, if they have no knowledge of any language but their own,
would, if required to write down the sound of the French, German,
and Italian a, write ar. Foreigners who have asked for my own
initials, and on being told that it is R. G., have, more than once,
written A. G. On being corrected the answer has been, " Oh, yes !
it is err." The evidence, however, as to the fact is ample. Nor is
the explanation that the difference between the a \nfather, and the aw
in bawl, and ar and or, is merely a matter of degree, difficult.
"With the exception of the tongue, the different parts of the mouth
are in the same position in respect to each other. With r, however,
the tongue vibrates between the lower part of the mouth and the
palate. These vibrations may be of any degree of strength or weak-
ness ; and when they become evanescent the sound of r disappears.
After a short vowel, the same result may be expected ; so that er
as sounded in the German " mein-er," becomes (the German)
"meine," in the mouth of an Englishman who speaks without due
care. And, what is worse, u, and \ are sounded as e, giving ber as
the sound of both bur and fir. This is a fact which embarasses the
phonetic reformer ; for it is a serious thing to eliminate the r, yet
it must be done if we will carry out phoneticism to the extreme.
At present it is enough to say that this softening, or reduction, of
the sound of r till it absolutely disappears is not universal, however
widely it may be prevalent.
There is, then, no undue over-weighting of the c series ; but
rather the contrary. The c series is non-natural : the other,
faulty, but natural. Let us measure the comparative ease or diffi-
culty with which these several details can be explained, by asking
how they would strike an intelligent child, or anyone, indeed,
learning to read ; the special persons who have a paramount interest
in the matter. Should he have before him a word like debtor, or climb,
and ask how it came to pass that, though the b was not to be pro-
nounced, it was still used in the spelling, a very moderate amount
of common sense on the part of the teacher would furnish an intel-
Demerits of the oilier Consonants compared with C. 75
ligible answer. The inquirer could be told that, when the word was
first spelt, the b was actually sounded, but that, in the course of time,
some persons left off pronouncing it, and then others, and, at last,
everybody contrived to pass it over. This he could certainly un-
derstand ; and he would, also, when he tried to say " d-e-\>-t-o-r"
and " c-l-i-m-b," letter for letter, see that the b was really in the way,
and that, as it was an awkward sound to utter in certain situations,
the easier forms dettor and clime took the place of the others. He
might probably say " Just what I should do myself. If I were
talking in a hurry, I should certainly drop the b." The omission,
then, of the silent letter he could understand ; nor would it be diffi-
cult to complete the explanation. It is not to be expected that the
changes in spelling and writing can be accommodated at once to those
of speaking and pronunciation : especially when it is not likely that
all the people in England would agree upon a change at the same
time. The process is gradual. The change in speech comes first,
that in spelling follows after. I do not say that this is the clearest
way of putting the matter ; nor yet that every learner would fix his
attention upon the explanation at length. There are degrees on
both sides. There are teachers who are indifferent at explanations,
and there are learners who can never attend. I only submit that
the difficulty is one in which a very simple appeal to the under-
standing is sufficient. The same applies to the r in farther and the
a in father ; though in this case it is possible that no questions
would be asked. They are few who, in the first instance, are con-
scious of sounding the two combinations alike. The eye misleads
them ; and they believe in the difference because they see it, and
because the meanings of the words are different. At any rate the
answer is easy. It is simply true that the habit of identifying them
is, by no means, general, and that, thousands and thousands, sound
the r fully, and differentiate the sounds. Some, without doubt, do
it with an effort, on the strength of their studies in orthoepy.
But many do it unconsciously. Well, the answer to this is
that the difference is real, but that so many people neglect it,
that it looks as if the spelling were in fault. With slight
variations, an explanation of this kind will carry us over nine-tenths
of the difficulties created by these mute or silent letters, when the
fact of their being obsolete is the cause of their being mute. Now
this is the simplest explanation of a Tzcw-phonetic form of spelling in
the whole domain of orthography ; and it applies to the consonants
of the class under notice generally. On the other hand, no rule
of equal simplicity applies to c and its congeners. Here the rules
rest on two wholly distinct bases ; (1) the fact of three- signs being
used in the expression of two sounds, one that, of itself, requires
explanation ; and (2) the conditions under which each of them is
used. That this is far more complex, and far less capable of being
elucidated by a mere appeal to the common-sense of the learner
than the other, is evident ; and it cannot be argued that the simpli-
76 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
city of details makes up for the complexity of the original question.
In these the fact which carries us the farthest is the difference be-
tween the broad and small vowels ; and, though it is not denied that
perhaps every detail connected with them can be reduced to some-
thing like a rule, the subject is so cut-up into divisions and sub-
-divisions, and each rule covers so few instances, that the whole
machinery is of little practical value. The character of a few of the
orthographical expedients, the result of this system, has been already
indicated. Now this applies to the present system of spelling ; and
it is meant to show not only that there are degrees in its imperfec-
tions, but that the imperfections are so connected with certain
classes of letters, as to be susceptible of a natural arrangement : in-
deed this is so natural that, we may to some extent, arrive at it a
priori. We know upon what letters the chance of being dropped
in pronunciation will fall ; for, independent of other causes, we
know that certain combinations are practically unpronounceable,
and that even out of combinations originally pronounceable the loss
of a vowel may reduce them to an unpronounceable condition.
Thus it is that condem-no becomes condemn ; and domino, if the i be
ejected becomes domn. K is as subject to this as b or p ; and, con-
sequently c, when it represents k, is the same, e.g., in " victuals."
We know, too, that, let the third letter be what it may, when two
sounds have to be distributed between three signs, something like
a system of orthographical expedients will be the result. But the
domain of orthographic expedients reaches far beyond the influence
of the letter c. When we express the shortness of a vowel by
doubling the consonant that follows, we betake ourselves to a make-
shift, an orthographical expedient. When we denote its longness
by doubling the vowel itself we do the same. When we use a sec-
ond and a different vowel, as in coal or bait, we are again playing a
variation on the same familiar instrument. So we do when we eschew
such a doubling of the consonant as thikk, and, writing thick,
yield to the interfering influence of c. When we affix a mute e, as in
note, as if in love with variety and ambiguity for their own sakes,
we apply a third expedient when one would be sufficient. When
we keep up both systems, and, having one way ofindicatiiig shortness,
tack on another to denote longness, we again abuse the variety and
multiplicity of our resources ; for common-sense tells us that when
we have one sign for either shortness or longness, (no matter which,)
no second one is needed ; inasmuch as what is not the one must
needs be the other. Yet we do all this : and when the very num-
ber of our expedients makes one neutralise another, we get such
combinations as antique and prorogue, and " all that ends in que or
flue." And what, when we have done all this, if certain old com-
binations lose their original power ? Why, then, we get such re-
sults as the well-known powers, or want of power, of the combina-
tion -ough, which may be sounded as in enough, cough, plough,
through, and what not : the result of which is the English orthog-
Demerits of the other Consonants compared with C. 77
raphy, (no harder name need be given to any form of cacography,)
and that for the language of Hooker and Milton.
It is plain, then, that the foregoing sketch of a classification of
two classes in our system of consonants, though certainly natural,
and, to some extent general, has no pretence, and is never meant to
be considered exhaustive. Nor is it meant to be a mere vehicle of
attack upon the unfortunate letter c ; still less as one upon the Latin
language.
One of the commonest letters that finds a place at the end of
words in English is y. It is not the letter we expect when we treat
it as a semi-vowel. On the other hand, as a vowel it has no very
definite import. When sounded as 1, (the German ei,) it is a diph-
thong. In French it is "the Greek y" "y Grec." In Latin it
represents the Greek v rather than any native sound. In Danish it
is the German il, where it is pre-eminently vocalic ; an exceptional
circumstance in its application to language in general. In our
tongue, its sound in quantity and quality is that of * ; or, as we
write it, e. In quantify and qualify, it sounds as ei (in German).
So it does in fortify, magnify, etc. With the first sound it rep-
resents the French e : with the second, the French -ier : which points
to the Latin fio, and the root offac-io. Whether, however, it giv^s
us the substantive or the verb, the spelling is the same, though the
sound is different. In mighty, twenty, and other words of English
origin, it is sounded as in the substantive quantity, etc. There is
something to reflect upon here. So far as it stands for the French
e, it gives us an orthographical expedient ; inasmuch as the accented
e is foreign to our language, while the unaccented e would run the
risk of being dropped as a mute. But this is not the case with the
verb qualify. Here, we ought, on English principles, to write i.
But we do not. This is an orthographical fancy. Why do we es-
chew i at the end of a word ? The English examples help us to our
answer. The y in twenty, mighty, etc., represents a " g " (German
zwanziy, machtig) : and the tail or flourish of the so-called y with
which we round-off our final syllables is really the tail of the Anglo-
-Saxon and old English " g " (in form " 3"). The precedent being
thus established, seems to have extended itself to the substantive
and the verb ; as an orthographical expedient in the former, as a
piece of ornamentation in the latter. In some of the manuscripts
of the fifteenth century, we find this " 3 " in the shape of " z " at
the beginning of words. Here the tail is cut off, and it takes the
shape of another letter, " z." Hence zong, which is, word for word,
young, has been read as if it began with that letter ; and grave
scholars have treated the change from " g " to z, as a real change of
sound ; and attributed it to a peculiarity of some specific dialect.
There are ambiguities then, in the form of, at least, one letter.
Now in this use of y at the end of words, where e or i would be
the better sign, we find something that bears on what Mr Ellis calls
the " strange-appearance " objection. I think that if we ejected it,
78 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
and substituted for it the proper vowels, the eye would be offended.
I think it would be as much offended as if we substituted a wholly
new letter: provided always (and the proviso must not be under-rated,)
that the substitute tallied with the other letters as well as i or e does.
At present, however, I believe that such a new letter is impossible
at first. After a time a worse sign might pass without shocking
us. It is not, then, the actual form of any suggested letter, and
its relations to the rest of the alphabet, that alone constitute the
difficulty ; though it has much (very much) to do with it. The mere
difference of the distribution of an existing letter would, to some
extent, disturb our sense of sight.
So much, then, for the prejudice against the two small vowels at
the end of a word ; though the two which compose the class are in
different predicaments. The exclusion of i is a mere fancy. For
that of e there is a better reason. This is an expedient. The dan-
ger of its being treated as a mute, so that quantity would be sounded
quantile, is a reason of some kind or other ; not, indeed, a valid one,
but still a reason. Be this, however, as it may, between the two
between the fancy and the expedient both the small vowels (for y
is a semi-vowel,) are forbidden to be final ; and, as this looks some-
thing like a rule, it may suggest that the broad vowels are not so
excluded ; in other words, that the prejudice or fancy is extended to
only a certain division of the vowels. Let us ask how far this is the
case ? Perhaps we shall find that the prejudice, fancy, or whatever
else we may call it, extends to the whole system. We may limit
ourselves, however, to the consideration of the monosyllables ; for
what applies to the shorter, will apply to the longer words as well.
And the monosyllabic combinations we may exhaust ; as ba, be, bi,
bo, bu ; sla, sle, sli, slo, slu, etc. Now, read phonetically, nearly all
these constitute real words : words as they are sounded, or as they
are recognised by the ear. "What are they, however, to the eye ? Ba
and bo, as extempore interjections, may be said to be capable of being
spelt as they are spelt here ; but great authorities (if there are such
things in so small a matter,) probably agree in writing baa, to de-
note the bleating lamb, and say boh to a goose. Upon matters,
however, of this kind, it behoves us to speak with caution.
Now what are monosyllables that are really spelt with a vowel
for their last letter ? We can take them in order.
1. Be, the verb substantive. In bee, the insect, the second e is
the e in fate, or the mute e, rather than the e in seek, which is the
double e. It seems to distinguish the two words from one another.
This is, certainly, its use, and it may have been its object.
2. To, the preposition. In toe, the e is mute. The o in too (too
much) gives the sound of " u."
3. .Do = the Latin facio. Here the sound is that of" u" as in
too. The e in doe is the e in toe. Now here, if anywhere, there is
a call for the principle of differentiation. Yet it is wholly over-
looked. The do which = the Latin facio, is one word. The do
Demerits of the other Consonants compared with C. 79
which equals the Latin valeo = be sufficient, be Jit, suit, ia another.
He does this that he may succeed, gives us the first ; this does well
enough, the second. The former is the German thun, the latter the
German taugen ; and, also, the Danish duge. There is, in Danish,
no such word as do =facio. The word in that language is gjore ;
in Scotch gar ; as It gars me greet = It makes me weep. The past
tense of thun is that = did. The past tense of taugen is taugede ;
which in English is do-ed, a form which no longer exists. Yet, by
analogy, it is a right word ; though he would be a bold man who
either uttered or wrote it. The fact is that, in English, the two
words have been hopelessly and irretrievably confounded. It can-
not, however, be said that phonetic spelling would have succeeded
in keeping them asunder.
4. 27*o exists only as short for though.
5. Go stands on its own merits.
6. 7, 8. So does the same, as do lo and no.
Where two consonants precede, the vowel ending is never found.
We write sloe and throe ; not slo and thro.
It is safe, then, to say, that for some reason or other, the presence
of any vowel at the end of a word is exceptional. There are, doubt-
less, reasons why it should be so; and none better than that of
the sound itself being rare ; in other words, there is a fact in
language for it to rest upon. There is no doubt about this ; since
even where the spelling gives us such forms as slow, blow, lay, say,
and the like, the semi-vowel represents an original consonant ; and
this is, perhaps, the fact which suggested the exclusion. Whether
the retention of the consonantal element can be justified on the ety-
mological principle is another question. On the first view we are
inclined to answer in the affirmative. But, a fact which seems to
be either overlooked or ignored is that of the etymological principle
being an instrument which cuts in two wajs. It professes- to help
us to the history of a word. But it does so in one direction only.
By investing a dead sound with a posthumous show of life, it pre-
serves likeness ; but by neglecting the record of a change it conceals
difference. The assumption that the one object is to be studied to
the exclusion of the other, is wholly -gratuitous. That we cannot
get both, is self-evident. The real etymologist, however, can
scarcely say which of the two should be sacrificed for the sake of the
other. More upon this point will be said in the sequel. At pres-
ent, it is sufficient to suggest that the phonetician has nothing to
say to either process. He invests his alphabet and his orthography
with only one function, that of representing the sounds of words as
he finds them ; and, so long as he holds to this, his position is im-
pregnable.
All this prejudice, whatever may have been its foundation, is of
comparatively recent origin. It is a growth rather than a fabrica-
tion. In the Anglo-Saxon it was simply impossible ; since, in the
Anglo-Saxon, a whole series of words, such as steorra, tunga = star,
80 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
tongue, etc., not only ended in a broad vowel, but is classed by gram-
marians in a separate declension. Others formed their plural in u,
as scip = ship, scipu = ships. Earlier still, certain verbs formed
their first persons singular in o and u. In the Northumbrian dia-
lect, the terminations in a were conspicuously numerous ; for one
of the commonest terminations of the ordinary Anglo-Saxon of
Wessex was -an ; and this, in Northumberland, became a. In both
the north and south, however, as the language grew more modern,
each ending changed into e ; and when the Norman Conquest in-
troduced the French, and, with it, the mute e, the distinction between
the original e of England which was sounded, and the exotic e of
France which became silent, created a confusion ; the extent of which,
known to many, is pre-eminently well known to the investigators
of the 1 metres of our older poets ; and a great deal of trouble it has
given them, as anyone who opens a commentary upon Chaucer may
see.
But neither the rarity of vowel endings (especially when the
vowel is broad,) in the more modern stages of the language, nor the
frequency of them in the older, is peculiar to the English. They
are common in the Mceso-gothic, and in the Icelandic ; and here
the spelling represents them clearly, visibly, and naturally. In the
German and the Danish they are now fused into the sound of e ; and
both in the Danish and the German, the letter e (not mute,) is com-
mon ; though a, o, u, and i are rare. In the Swedish only, where
the change has been less rapid, does the broad vowels appear at the
end of words, and show their real strength and their true proportion
to the other sounds of the language ; the result being that the Swe-
dish looks to the eye as it sounds to the ear : a language of less
massiveness than the German, but a language of more freedom,
breadth, and volume.
Of the semi-vowels little need be said ; indeed, one of them, y, has
already had its full share of notice. "We have seen what it is at the
end of words. Here it is either a vowel or diphthong, never a
semi-vowel ; though often, as in lay, say, etc., silent. Here, however,
it represents a consonant ; g or k as the case may be. At the
beginning it is used invariably as a semi-vowel. In the middle it has
no place except in words of Greek origin, where it represents v or
hypsilon.
W, like the mutes, is often silent ; as in write, wrist. C, or
rather k, is the same, and under the same conditions, that is, at
the beginning of words, knight, knife. In both cases their pre-
sence is defensible on the etymological principle ; and can. more-
over, as torite, rite, wright, right ; knight, night ; be defended on
the principle of differentiation. At the end of words, as in blow,
swallow, etc., it represents an obsolete consonant,^) , or g for the
most part. It is in its proper place in the diphthongs, ow and eio,
though not combined with the proper vowel.
The vowels still stand over- for notice; and the vowels, as we
Demerits of the oilier Consonants compared with C. 81
shall soon see, have a great deal to answer for. They are, however,
best considered in detail when we treat this part of the subject
historically. The little that need be said about them, at present,
applies to the general character of their demerits, which, in the
great majority of cases, are referrable to two heads.
1. The common, indeed, the universal fault of the vowel system,
in England, as in other countries, is its primary and original incom-
pleteness. Of a and o there are the three sounds, allied, yet different ;
capable of being exemplified, described, and classified. They are,
also, susceptible of being named ; though there is so little uniform-
ity and system in the terms applied to them that I hesitate to use
them. The a and o in fat and not are called short ; the a and
o in fate and note are called long : and these are words which
are pretty generally adopted. But the difference between the a
in father and aw in bawl, when compared with the a va. fate and
the o in note (with which it agrees in being long.) is not very uni-
formly denoted. Let us call it, for the present, the open sound
of certain vowels ; though the term is one which, in the French and
Italian languages we must either abandon or use in a different
sense. Now for each of these three modifications, a separate sign
is required. It may be a wholly different letter, or it may be the
original letter modified in form. We have, however, nothing
nearer than eta and epsilon, and the omega and omicron of the
Greek. This is as much as need be said about the original incom-
pleteness of the vowel system. It is less deficient in some languages
than in others, but, more or less, it is deficient in all. So far, then,
as it occurs in English it is, by no means, a fault peculiar to that
language. It is rather one which we share with the rest of the
world. This is not the case with the faults of the second group.
It is one thing to have no signs at all for a pair of allied sounds ;
it is another thing to have, and to misdistribute, them. Thus, the
Greeks have the four signs 17, e, , and o for e, e, d, and o, and they
know how to use them. What, however, if t\ were treated as the
long sound of o, and e as the short sound of <> ? This would be an
abuse, a blunder ; a blunder and an abuse arising out of a misconcep-
tion of their true affinities. Now some languages make this blunder,
and some do not. What orthography is the freest from it, is doubt-
ful. It is certain, however, that English is the most affected by it.
The best example of it is our treatment of the sound in " fine." It
is really a diphthong, as in the German feine. With us it is the long
form of the \ \o.fin.
Now, in calling combinations like these orthographical expe-
dients, I do not say that they are contrivances ; or, at any rate,
that they are always such. I hold that, in most cases, they were
not framed with a definite sense of their future functions, or, that
they were not consciously constructed as means towards an end.
merely state that their effect and operation is just what it would
have been if they had been so constructed. They are expedients to
82 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
all practical intents and purposes. They need not have been meant
as such ; they need not have been made at all. They seem to have
grown : though how we get the results of design with nothing but
the mere growth of a system of spelling as the designer I do not
pretend to say : nor do I think anyone could explain it without
getting within the region of abstractions.
In like manner, I do not consider that in calling these expedients
non-natural I make them artificial. In many cases their oriiu has
been, as has just been stated, spontaneous. They developed them-
selves under certain conditions of language ; rather than out of the
conscious working of any particular individual ; though of this they
may be instances. The process by "which letters become mute is
one of a much simpler character, and the explanation of them may
generally be found within the words wherein they occur. Most of
the expedients are connected with the letter c. That part of our
spelling which lies within the immediate and remote influence of this
exotic and unnecessary letter we may liken to a tree of foreign origin
and southern growth, transplanted on the soil of England : that has
brought with it a parasite, by which it is encumbered. The para-
site may not be without its uses ; for it may indicate to the observer
the original country of the tree. It may serve, too, for some subor-
dinate purposes of ornament. But it checks the natural growth of
the tree ; warping, nipping and distorting both trunk and branch,
and weakening their fibre till the whole tissue becomes fragile, cor-
rupt and mouldering. On the other hand, the parts constituted by
the original consonants, though neither undying, nor self-renewing,
are free from such an incubus as this. The worst that can befall
them are the ordinary evils of growth, old age, and decay. Here
and there a branch loses its vitality, and, so long as it remains in its
place, encumbers the tree. The remedy, however, is occasional in-
spection ; and a clearing away of the dead wood is all that is needed
for a strong, healthy and natural revival of their true vitality.
We have thus exhibited, in a general way, the characteristics of two
classes of letters according to their use and power in the spelling of the
English language, as illustrative of the principles of the present ortho-
graphy; in doing which great stress has been laid upon the fact of each
group being a natural one : inasmuch as the faults of each division
not only differed in number and gravity according to the letters upon
which they were charged, but were referrable to a different origin,
and amenable to different remedies. There were degrees, then, of
faultiness, and, in these degrees, varieties as to the extent to which
the faults were more or less easily abated. Nevertheless, under
the most favorable view of the more favored of the two classes there
was a certain amount of deficiency, redundancy, and inconsistency,
of which the best that could be said was that there were certain
principles at the bottom of them ; that, on these, certain rules could
be constructed ; and that, above all, there were connected with the
system, certain secondary advantages which might be considered as
Dements of the other Consonants compared with C. 83
a set-off to the admitted evils of the system. That there are
some such advantages is admitted by the advocate of the Phonetic
system ; just as his opponent admits that there are some demerits
in the existing system. The demerits are both numerous and im-
portant. Hence, the question is one of comparison. What is the
price at which the advantages of the present system are bought P
The phonetician insists that there is no equality, nor even an approach
to it, between them.
Now, however much it may be the case, that the complexity of
the present system is different for the different parts into which it
is divided, and that in one of them it may be much less than in
the other, the phonetic system is wholly free from complexity of
any sort. In this it differs from the existing orthography not
merely in degree but in kind. The extent to which this is the case
is so great that it almost degrades the Phonetic principle to a
truism. It is too simple, and too natural, to be really a system at
all. And, perhaps, such is actually the case. Yet it is purely,
simply, and absolutely neither more nor less than the present system
divested of its extension to secondary and subordinate purposes. It
is simply a translation of the audible sounds of which the ear is the
organ that takes cognizance, into the visible signs which appeal to
the eye, and which, by so doing, are made permanent. Surely this
is sufficient. Surely this is something that can be allowed to stand
or fall by its own merits. Surely this is an aim and object which
wants no recommendation from any secondary aims to which it may
be made subservient. If it cannot stand alone it cannot, and ought
not to stand at all.,
Let, then, the simplicity and singleness of this aim be the charac-
teristic ; and, as an expansion of this, let the utter absence of all
secondary aims be taken as the result. Under these conditions
spelling is reduced to the three following operations :
1. The resolution of any word, as the speaker utters it, to its ele-
mentary articulate sounds. This, however, as far as the speaker is
concerned, is already done ; and the signs which denote them are
letters.
2. A familiar knowledge of the forms of them.
3. The way of putting them together.
The result is a spelt word : the spelling of which is as pure a
matter of certainty as the sum in a series of numbers in arithmetic.
This process with letters as the symbols, is not, does not profess to
be, easier than the corresponding process in arithmetic. It requires
care, and a sustained attention ; probably to the same degree. It
is not learned with equal ease by every learner. But it is equally
simple, and its results are equally sure.
Does it then make bad spelling impossible ? It does so in the
way that bad addition is impossible. The operator may be careless ;
or he may manage his tools in an unworkmanlike manner. This,
however, is his fault ; not that of the system : and for faults of this
6*
84 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
kind we must allow in our teaching just as we do in the teaching of
the rule of addition. Can as much be said of the present system ?
But the learner may pronounce his words wrongly. Be it so. All
that the phonetic system requires is that given the right pronun-
ciation of a word, the right spelling of it shall follow as a matter of
course. With a learner from the provinces there are many pronun-
ciations, which, as a matter of standard orthoepy, are wrong. With
the best educated men in England the pronunciation of a certain
number of words is doubtful. Phonetic spelling does not profess to
teach pronunciation or orthoepy. It merely professes to supply an
orthography. It takes a certain pronunciation, whether right or
wrong, and represents it. The present system does the same ; but
it misrepresents it. The difference between the two is a matter not
of degree but of kind.
SECTION XXXII.
THE PHONETIC PRINCIPLE.
We have hitherto considered the principles of phonetic spelling
exclusively in respect to its opposition to the existing systems now
prevalent, 'both in England and elsewhere : and it may, probably,
have struck some of our readers that it is only so far as it is antag-
onistic to something else that it has any existence, or, at any rate,
any claim upon our attention. This, however, is far from being the
case. If phonetic spelling were as prevalent as it is now excep-
tional, indeed if it were dominant throughout the whole domain of
language, and if the opposite systems were non-existent, there would
still be more than one question of some practical importance con-
nected with it. The rule that the representation of the sounds of
language is not only the primary but the exclusive function of or-
thography, though it carries us far, does not carry us all the way.
Lpon the analysis of sentences into words, of words into syllables,
and of syllables into their ultimate elementary articulations or
breathings the whole basis of spelling and writing rests. No analy-
sis, no letter. This is the rule. But analysis, wherever it occurs,
or whatever it may be applied to, is essentially a matter of degree.
It may stop after the first subdivisions of the subject matter, or it
may be carried onwards and onwards, and farther and farther, until
not only nothing remains to be separated from anything, but until
the last sign of composition has disappeared. At the same time, it
by no means follows that this extreme form of analysis is necessary :
and, when this is needless, the extension of the phonetic notation
is equally so.
Now the reduction of a sentence into its constituent parts may
stop at words ; or it may go on to the analysis of the constitution
of an elementary sound. How far, then, are we to follow it in our
notation ? There may be sounds that, while they vary from one
The Phonetic Principle. 85
another, vary so slightly as not to be worth the sign that should ex-
press their difference. There may be sounds that though manifestly
compound have their parts combined with different degrees of
closeness. In the one case there may be contact, and contact only.
In another the contact may amount to continuity, unity, conflu-
ence, or fusion : so that when two sounds come into juxtaposition,
the combination, to borrow an illustration from chemistry, may be
either mechanical or chemical. There are limits, then, to the appli-
cation of the principle under notice ; and it is better that they should
be indicated by an upholder of the system than by an impugner.
We must not expect to get much out of any definition of the term
phonetic ; neither must we argue too much from its derivation. In
ordinary conversation, in controversial discussion, and even in scien-
tific investigation, the several derivatives of the Greek word q><arn
= voice, have, by no means, exactly the same import. That such
laxity should exist in the use of so important a series of words is,
doubtless, a matter of regret : but such laxity throughout the whole
length and breadth of both the English and the other languages of
the civilized world is the rule rather than the exception. Those
who merely think in a general way that the difference between the
spoken and the written language of their countrymen is an evil
which should be abated may use the word with the proper amount
of generality, and call any alphabet which brings us nearer to the
actual phonesis of our language Phonetic. But if, besides doing
this, he be familiar with the question from the controversial point of
view, and, learn from it, as he cannot fail to do, the extent to which
the English letters are forced to represent something other than the
sounds of the English language ; and that the chief reason for so
forcing them is the supposition that certain etymological, historical,
or grammatical facts are, thereby, obtained, he soons forms the habit
of attaching to the word phonetic a meaning which is little more than
the opposite to etymological. It is probable that when the term is
applied to our orthography in general, and when we talk or write
about phonetic spelling, this use of the word is the most usual one.
Then, there are those who neither know nor care to know any-
thing about either Phonesis or Etymology ; and these ignore both
words. Their name is legion. On the other hand, there are the few
who employing themselves in the study of the elementary sounds ei-
ther of one language in particular or of language in general,look at the
term from a purely scientific point of view. The relation which the
elementary sounds bear to each other ; their classification, the names
applied to their divisions and subdivisions ; the purely anatomical
question of the conditions of the speech-forming organs required for
the formation of each particular sound ; and, higher still, the purely
physical investigation of the nature of tone, pitch, and all that be-
longs to the theory of vibrations, all this suggests such a word as
Phonetics ; a word which is no adjective at all but a substantive;
a substantive, too, in the same class with Mathemathics, Physics, and
86 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
more especially, Acoustics with which it is connected in respect to
its subject-matter as well as its form. Questions of phonetics con-
sist, in the first place, of an application of Acoustics and Physiology
to a particular point in the formation of articulate sounds ; and,
in the second place, of the particular relations of such sounds to
one another, and the general character of the system that results
from them. INow all this is very independent of spelling, or the
notation of sounds ; so much so that a man may care a great deal
about Phonetics, but very little about phonetic spelling. On the
other hand the connection between phonetic spelling and phonesis,
or the sound-system of a language is of the closest : indeed the two
terms stand to one another as Orthoepy and Orthography. No one
should know better the differences between an all-sufficient, or a
scientific, alphabet for the English language, and a practical, or an
adequate one, than the present reformers. And, indeed, they know
it well. If it were not so, they would never have done a tenth part
of the work that has been done by them. An alphabet that shall
represent the whole compass of the Phonesis of our language must
deal with our provincial dialects ; and everyone knows that in these
we find sounds absolutely foreign to those of the written, or rather
the literary, language of our country. Sometimes they are as alien
to the classical or standard English as the German ch or the French
eu, and we know that the accurate pronunciation of these is not
learnt from mere inspection, not learnt in an hour or day ; sometimes,
when either the teaching or the ear is deficient, never learnt at all.
Nevertheless, we find something very like the one in our northern,
and something very like the other in our western, forms of English.
Yet for these sounds we find, both in the literary German and the
literary French separate expressions ; not, indeed, in the shape of
new letters but of special and appropriate combinations. Fjr the
more refined departments of pure Phonetics a still greater amount
of refinement is needed. In short, an alphabet for the ordinary
purposes of primary education is one thing ; one for the English
Phonesis of the language in its fulness and integrity, another ; while
different from both is the one that is required for the more abstruse
questions in Phonetics. Now what is wanted for the purposes of
the present treatise is the first ; and that only. Its principle is that of
the other two, but it is not to be carried so far. It may, indeed, be
said that, in this case, the language and its medium should coincide ;
indeed, the practical test of phonetic spelling is given the right
pronunciation of a word, its accurate representation by spelling
should follow as a matter of course ; or, to put the case more
strongly given a correct orthoepy, an incorrect orthography shall
be impossible. But this implies that the orthoepy should be that
of the standard pronunciation. We know, however, that this is
not the case, and we also know that if we wait until it is, we shall
wait till the Greek Kalends.
I will now illustrate, perhaps over-amply, the distinction, already
The Phonetic Principle. 87
foreshadowed, between mere contact and fusion ; and it shall be by
a combination which, as it is pretty common in our own language,
carries with it a presumption in favor of its being of some practical
importance. Whether, in the matter of spelling, and for the purpose
of teaching, is the easiest, to add so many new letters to an alpha-
bet, and to lay them before the learner as such, or to spell their
respective sounds by a pair of letters, already known as parts of the
English language, and to show that, by putting the same together
the same sound is adequately expressed ? The word adequately is,
of course, used with foresight. The answer, on the first view, is at
hand. A single letter in the place of two is only the old story of
the compendiums over again. It is merely x instead of ks ; and
this we have rejected. It is merely k + s written short: and
that x is k + s every one can see : indeed it is seen so plainly that x
is already unanimously banished in Phonetics.
This is making short work of the matter. But what if the work be
too short ? Why is it wrong, in spelling, that it is simply phonetic
to write words like philosophy and Philip with ph to represent f?
The fact of the letters not being the result of the combination p + h.
The fact that there is no combination at all. The fact that the
sound, being a simple one, is properly represented by/, or by some
equivalent sign equally simple. F is allied to ph ; but it is not
made up out of p and h, nor yet out of p and anything else.
Let us now consider the sound of the ch in chest. It has, doubt-
less, a fair claim to be put in the same category with ph for/. It
is spelt by means of a single letter in Russian, and that with prac-
tical advantage. On the other side, either it or something so like it
as to be distinguished from it by only a trained ear, is spelt in Ger-
man by no fewer letters than four. The German for " German"
is " Deutsche." The -tsch is the -tch in Dutch; which is the -tchin
in icitch ; which is the -ch in which ; which is tsh. Of these two ex-
treme forms, which is the better ? The German form, before it can
be compared with our own, must be, so to say, purified, or reduced
to its lowest terms, by the ejection of the c. This brings it to Deutshe,
which when the c in witch is reduced to s, makes the two words
alike, according to the ordinary English spelling. Phonetically,
however, the sh is /.- so that the true orthography becomes tf,
(tfest = chest) : and of the t in tin and the sh in shin the sound is,
indubitably, made. But it is written in the most advanced ortho-
graphies by a single letter, in the Russian and in the phonetic Eng-
lish as we have seen. Why is. it thus exceptional ? Why is the
rule which, without a second thought, eliminated our x, thus appar-
ently transgressed ? Why, too, is the rule violated under which ph
was converted into/"?
The reason lies in the fact that, though the sound is as truly com-
pound as that of x, the compound is of a different character ; or
rather in x we have no compound at all. Instead of this, we have a
combination. In x we have k + s in a single sequence. The s fol-
88 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
lows the Ic. The s touches the Ic. But sequence with simple con-
tact is one thing ; sequence with partial fusion another. And with
the ch in chest we hare fusion : and this it is which differentiates
the x = k + s, and, ch = t + sh.
There are few ears which cannot distinguish between the two
sounds ; few that fail to appreciate some difference between the
t-sch in Deutsh, as pronounced by a German and the tch in Dutch
as pronounced by an Englishman. How it is effected will be seen
hereafter.
As the ch in chest is to t + sh so is the j in jest to d + zh sound
for sound. Both are what are called sibilant or hissing letters. S,
z, sh, and zh are the simple, and tsh and dzh the compound, sibilants ;
and in these six sounds there is either a system or the part of one.
Now this is merely given as an example of the difference between
mere contact, and fusion more or less complete. Whether the rep-
resentation of the sounds of the ch in chest, and of the j in jest, be
best given by two letters or one, is a matter of adequacy, upon which,
at present, I commit myself to no opinion ; leaving it to those who
have more familiarity than myself with the practice of primary
education.
I add, however, that what applies to the compound sibilants
among consonants applies also to the diphthongs among vowels ;
indeed, the combinations are, in each case diphthongal, and I see
no reason against the recognition of consonantal, as well as vocalic,
diphthongs.
SECTION XXXIII.
LIMITATIONS OF THE PHONETIC PEINCIPLE CONTINUED ITS
INFLUENCE ON A LARGE SCALE.
We have hitherto considered the limitations of the phonetic sys-
tem from one point of view only ; or only so far as we were led to
them by the process of analysis ; only so far as they shewed them-
selves, so to say, in minimis : i.e., in the resolution of certain com-
binations wherein we could discover the elements, but found them
so blended together that they took the garb of simple sounds. But
the process may be reversed ; and we may take the subject from a
different point of view. What if, instead of being found in the ulti-
mate elements of a word, this process of amalagation be found to
affect two different words ? Is this a real or an imaginary case ?
We shall find it to be real. We find, indeed, something like it in
English. W r e find syllables affected by it. Let us take a word begin-
ning with con-. They are certainly numerous enough for all intents
and purposes. Betake yourself to a dictionary ; and count the
words (all of which are compounds) which begin with this favored
prefix. Count even the columns ; count even the pages that are
required to contain them. They are more than all the entries under
Limitations of the Phonetic Principle. 89
several of the less important letters put together. Then take the
compounds beginning with com ; i.e., after counting the words like
contend, count those like combustion; remembering, at the same
time, that when con- comes before the sound of k, and is accented,
it is sounded as -ng. Observe, too, that before r it slips out of the
word altogether, and the r is doubled ; the same being the case
when it is followed by -I or -m, as collect, correct, command, etc.
The rules tbat regulate these changes need only to be indicated.
The fact, which is here only applied for the purposes of illustration,
is universally recognized. The words thus beginning are, as a rule,
of Latin origin ; and the meaning of their first syllable is with. Its
form, as a separate word, is cum. Before, however, words beginning
with t the m becomes n ; before k, ng ; before m, I, or r it becomes
silent, but doubles (to the eye at least) the consonant which it pre-
cedes. This is a law of what is called euphony, or harmonious
speech ; and, as we have seen, is at least common to the Latin and
English languages. But it exists, in a more developed form in the
Greek as well ; and probably, in every language under the sun ;
provided only that the necessary apparatus of changeable consonants
be at hand ; that the combinations be sufficiently close to constitute
a single compound word ; and, thirdly, that the compound be of
sufficiently long standing in the language where it is found to have,
so to say, shaken down into its true form. They have done this in -
English, French, and other tongues ; whether taken up as Latin
words, or put together after the precedents of the earlier examples.
They have, also been recognized in the spelling ; and both the spel-
ling and the speaking are the better for it.
But what if this practice of euphonic accommodation, adaptation, or
assimilation be extended from syllables of the same word, to differ-
ent words ? What if the letters at the end of one word affect those
at the beginning of another ? The least that can be said of such a
case is that it would disguise the real nature of the second ; and
make the references to an ordinary dictionary a matter of some
difficulty.
It may be said, however, that this is a case beyond the pale of
the English language ; that it does not affect us ; and that it is an
extreme, if not an imaginary instance. It is not the latter : though
it is the former. For general statements, however, extreme instru-
ments are the legitimate and recognized tests : and the principle
now under discussion is the universality of the application of the
phonetic system in orthography.
Now the language in which this process of spelling is recognized
is no less a one than the magnificent, venerable, and well-spelt
Sanskrit. The following extracts, illustrative of this, are from two
of our most recent grammars. The process, however, is equally
recognized in the older ones.
The change illustrated by the sentence, Rara avis, etc., and the
change illustrated by the words a\rrtv<e^i\, are essentially the
90 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
same : and, as the connexion, as we shall see, is called sandhi, there
are two kinds of it, (] ) the internal which affects the middle, and (2)
the external which affects the extremities of words.
We are accustomed in Greek and Latin to certain euphonic changes of
letters. Thus rego makes, in the perfect, not regsi, but reksi (rexi), the soft g
being changed to the hard k before the hard s. Similarly, -ceho becomes rtksi
(vexi). In many words a final consonant assimilates with an initial ; thus ffvv
with yvfafnq becomes trvyyvcofiri ; iv with \dfnvu, f\\dfj.v(a. . These laws for
the euphonic junction of letters are applied throughout the whole range of the
Sanskrit grammar ; and that, too, not only in uniting different parts of one word,
but in combining words in the same sentence. Thue, if the seneence Sara avis
in terris were Sanskrit, it would require by the laws of Sandhi or combination,
to be written Edracirins tirrih ; and might even be joined together thus, Edra-
virinsterrih. The learner must not be discouraged if he is unable to understand
all the laws of combination at first. To attempt to commit to memory a number
of rules, the use of which is not fully seen till he comes to read and construct
sentences, must only lead to a loss of time and patience. 3Ionier Williams;
Practical Qrammar of the Sanskrit Language. Chapter 2.
In Sanskrit every sentence is considered as an unbroken chain of syllables.
Except where there is a stop, which we should mark by interptinction, the final
letters of each word are made to coalesce with the initial letters of the following
word. The coalescence of final and initial letters) of vowels with vowels, of con-
sonants with consonants, and of consonants with vowels) is called San'lhi.
As certain letters in Sanskrit are incompatible with each other, i.e., cannot be
pronounced one immediately after the other, they have to be modified or assimi-
lated in order to facilitate the pronunciation. The rules, according to which either
one or both letters are thus modified are called the Itules of Sandhi. Max
Miiller ; Sanskrit Grammar for Beginners. Chapter 2.
The Sanskrit is a dead language ; so that the exact appreciation
of the extent to which this system of Sandhi either helped or im-
peded the reader is impossible. Much, however, as its novelty may
strike us, the practice is more or less common in many languages ;
though, as Wilson remarks, the change is prosodial rather than
grammatical.
Contrivances for avoiding the concurrence of harsh or incongruous sounds, or
the unpleasing hiatus which arises from keeping sounds apart that are disposed
to coalesce, are not wanting in all languages. They are in general, however, rather
poetical or prosodial than grammatical ; such as the elision of a final e before^an
initial e, in such a concurrence as ' the etherial height of heaven," which it was
formerly the fashion to write, as the measure demanded. " th' etherial;" to say
nothing of the synalepha and ecthlipsis of the Latin verse "Monstr' horrend'
inform' ingens," etc. Other instances of regard for euphony, however, do occur,
independent of prosody, and especially in Greek, in which many of the euphonic
changes are analogous to those provided for in Sanskrit. H. H. Wilson; Intro-
duction to the Grammar of the Sanskrit Language. Chapter 2.
The Phonetic System. 91
SECTION XXXIV.
THE PHONETIC SYSTEM ITS OCCASIONAL LIABILITY TO BE
APPLIED PREMATURELY. ITS INFLUENCE UPON THE FIXATION
OF A LANGUAGE. HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE TWO SERIES
K-TSH AND G-DZH.
The question as to the extent of the applicability and the uni-
versality of the application of the Phonetic System has thus far
been illustrated by two classes of facts ; those that relate to the
analysis of certain combinations, and those that relate to the effects
of the Euphonic Principle : and it is clear that the two groups are
very different. The limitations that they illustrate are what we
may call Formal ; inasmuch as it is with the particular forms which
such or such an orthography may take that they are specially con-
nected. In the division of the subject now coming under notice the
question of Form will be wholly out of sight : for the question will
be one of Time rather than aught else : time meaning that particu-
lar stage in the development that date in the lifetime of a language
for which the application of the phonetic principle is, compara-
tively speaking, well or ill adapted. The introduction of an alpha-
bet, and along with it, a reduction of the language to which it applies
to writing is, of itself, a boon of such unparagoned value that there
is no possible time or season at which it can, under any circum-
stances, be other than a good. It is one of those blessings which
can never come either too early or too late. At the same time, the
period during which the language, either wholly or partly, is, more
or less, in a transitional state, is not the best time for its introduc-
tion. There are, probably, in all languages, at every period, certain
words of which the pronunciation is not absolutely fixed ; and
that, not so much because certain speakers have not come to an
agreement as to the way in which certain doubtful words are to be
sounded, as because there are (as facts of language) certain com-
binations of an unstable character : unstable, be it noted, being a
word which we have seen before, and one which we shall see again ;
a word of no slight importance in both this and the following sec-
tion. The term was applied to the series
1. Kia, Icya, ksha, tsha:
2. Gia, ffya, gzha, dzha,
and no series better illustrates it : and no series better shows what
would happen to an orthography which was introduced either just
when the pronunciation of lea or ga, began to grow unsteady, or
just when kya or gya was beginning to change into ksha or gzha ;
or these sounds, one or both, into tsha or dzha where, for the
first time we get a stable combination. The least that can be said
of them is that they would run a chance of being very soon al-
tered : and though this is an objection of very little weight it is
sufficient to show that there are certain times in the lifetime of a
92 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
language, when either the introduction of a new, or the change of an
old, combination, is less likely to be permanent than at others : a re-
mark which we may now conveniently illustrate by the actual his-
tory of these two series not, however, for a reason which may have
already suggested itself, so closely and so exactly as we wish.
Nevertheless, by referring to one language for one, and to another
for another, part of the process, we arrive at a reasonable conclusion ;
and invest a sequence of changes which has hitherto been based on
a priori notions, with something like the reality of history.
We begin with the two extremes. There was a time when the c
in words like chest and Chester, was sounded as k : and of this time,
there is, in most cases, ample and superabundant evidence. Had
the c to which we now give the power of *, always been so sounded,
it would never have been introduced in any language where a sign
for the genuine and original * existed. "What, indeed, would have
been its use ? If words like city, had always, or when they were
first derived from words like civis, been sounded sity, how would
they differ from words like save, slave and the like ; and, if not dif-
fering, why would they require a special sign or letter ? Again, if
the original sound were not that of k why would the letter c be
assignee! to them ? For c, to a great extent, is the same as k. It
it needless, however, to limit ourselves to the consideration of the
presumptions of the case when there is evidence enough to make
them unnecessary. It is admitted that the c in such a word as city,
was once sounded as k. Thus much, perhaps, would hardly have
been denied by a respectable philologue in the days of our distant
ancestors. At the present time it is insisted upon ; in some instances
to the extent of changing the existing pronunciation of English-
-Latin ; or Latin as it is taught in England. Upon this, it is need-
less to enlarge.
Now if the evidence of the Latin language be condemned as in-
sufficient there is that of the Greek in the background. With words
like KTJTOS and mj to give us the old sound of the c in cetaceous and
chest, we may, if necessary, dispense with the evidence of the Latin
language altogether. Do I hold, then, that in the Italian where
the c before i is sounded just as it is the English chest, it has grown
out of that of the k in KKTTII, and that the connection between these
two extreme forms is that of the sequence Ice, kye, ksh, tsh, with an
unstable, transitory, or even ephemeral ksh, as a missing link, may
have had a function and played a part a short but important one ?
Such is my belief : indeed, it is already to be found, implicitly, in
what I have already written. If tsh, then, have been ksh, and ksh
have been ky, and ky have been k, and the changes from one sound
to the other have gone on more rapidly than the corresponding
change in the spelling, it is possible that one or more than one of
the intermediate forms may never have been recorded ; never, in-
deed, indicated or even hinted at. It is more than possible. It is
almost certain that such has been the case.
The Phonetic System. 93
That the c in Latin, at some comparatively early period, was sound-
ed as k, is certain ; certain, too, it is that at a comparatively late pe-
riod (i.e. the present time) it is sounded both as tsh (in Italian) and as s
(in French and English). The power, however, of the letter during
the intermediate period is by no means certain ; and the longer that
period is the greater the chance of some intermediate stage falling
within it. It does not, then, follow that because the Latin c = k at
one era of the Latin language, it may not have been something else
at another, namely, tsh or ksh as the case may be tsh at a late date,
ksh at an intermediate one. In our own language I hold that in
some words we have the series of changes in full ; from simple k to
complex tsh. The simple k we get in the Latin castrum or castra.
The West-Saxon spelling, however, is " ceaster ;" where the e = the
German and Scandinavian i orj; which, in its turn, is equivalent
to English y. Hence, ceaster = cyaster = kjaster in Norse and
German. But the Norwegian reading of a word thus spelt is
(approximately) kshaster, which, in Swedish, is tshaster. At one
time the word under notice was sounded kyaster, at another kshas-
ter, at another tshester the change from a to e being no part of the
present question. That Chester is now called Tshester is certain.
That the poet Ceadmon called himself either Kyadmon or Kshadmon,
and that his contemporaries said either kyaster or kshaster, I hold
to be nearly certain. But, how some scores of words were sounded
in this or that district, at this or that time, during the intervening
period, I cannot say. I cannot say when an older form died out, nor
yet when a newer one started into life.
If g stands to dzh, as k to tsh, the history of the two series
Ka, kya, ksha, tsha
Ga, gya, ffzha, dzha
may be expected to run parallel to each other. But we have already
said that this is the case only on the first view of the subject. In
reality the lines diverge ; the reason being, as has already been
stated, the affinity, in an opposite direction, between g and y. Hence,
while ka almost always runs through kya to ksha, aa often runs
through gya to ya.
Now the actual exhibition of these changes is not an easy matter :
and we know the reason why. The chances are that a sound which
changes quickly may pass away without ever being recorded ; and
without leaving any visible sign of its existence ; more especially
is this likely in languages where there is no sign for the sound of
sh ; as is often the case. The best illustration known to me is to
be found in the triple history of the combination k+y in the three
countries of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The ordinary spelling
is kj ; j being, as in German, the sign for the semi-vowel y. In
Denmark this is sounded sometimes as k simply, sometimes as ky.
In Norway it is ky, and something very like ksh. In Sweden it is
tsh. Whether, or when, the Danish will go farther in the direction of
tsh, remains to be seen. The Swedish has attained that final goal.
94 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
The Norwegian gives the transitional form. But there is no use in
concealing the complications of the question. The transitional
character of the Norwegian kj is itself transitional : and it is only
dealing fairly with the reader to show the extent to which this in-
termediate sound is, or is not, found in Norway. The present writer
may, also, add that, upon the nature of it, he is not only an expo-
sition, but a witness, and not a mere second-rate authority. The
connection of the Norwegian kj, with ksh cannot be seen by mere
inspection. The Norwegian language, unlike the Swedish, has no
specific grammar of its own ; because, though the Swedish is treated
as a different language from the Danish, the Norwegian, so far as
the written, literary, classical, or standard language is concerned, is
simply Danish. The explanation of this is found in the political
history of the two countries ; a point which needs only being indi-
cated. There is, indeed, at the present moment, a movement in
Norway to develop out of the provincial dialects an eclectic form of
speech which shall, at one and the same time be non-Danish, non-
-Swedish, Sandinavian, Norse, Norwegian aad national ; in short an
artificial language : an attempt upon which we pass no opinion.
Hence, as literary languages, the Norwegian and Danish are the
same : and, though such may exist, I know of no grammar which
makes the peculiar Norwegian sound of kj, the object of any special
treatment. It is not, then, on the surface that this peculiarity is
to be found. Yet everyone who has any practical knowledge of the
Norwegian Danish knows that in words like kjdre = drive, and
Kj'obenha'on = Copenhagen, etc., the sound of the first two letters is
different in the two languages, dialects, forms of speech or whatever
we choose to call them. Sometimes, indeed, they are identical, but,
in this, the influence of the written language plays a part. But, even
when the difference is manifest, the pronunciation of the differenti-
ated combination is not constant. Sometimes it is that of the true
continuous surd of the k series ; a rare sound. Upon the whole,
however, it is a sound which is to ksh as the ch in chest is to tsh. I
speak upon the point as a witness, because I am not aware of this
very important fact in phonetics having hitherto had more than a
cursory notice if it has had this. But, at the same time, I speak
with the diffidence of one who is pronouncing upon a sound foreign
to his own tongue ; and as I make no secret of being suspicious of
other persons in such cases, it is only right I should, to some extent,
draw attention to an opinion of my own. I have, however, made a
point of checking it by that of natives ; and, although I cannot say
that an Englishman who sounds kjdre exactly as kshore will speak
exactly like a Norwegian, I have no hesitation in saying that he will
utter the sound into which ky ran, and out of which the Swedish
tsh arose. This I believe, in the special pair of languages before us,
it preceded, as a cause precedes an effect. I believe, also, that it
has done so in many other languages ; in other words that the order
of sequence is a fact of very general occurrence. Upon its univer-
The Phonetic System. 95
sality I see no need of delivering an opinion. Practically, however,
I hold that the presence of tsh, connected with the ^-series, implies
a previous Icy ; and that ky, wherever it occurs, is a tsh in posse.
Yet the evidence to the reality of this sequence of changes is so in-
definite that, even in the best illustration I have been able to hit
upon, the line of argument is circuitous and indirect. No wonder.
The same fact in language which makes ky and ksh unstable com-
binations, exposes them to the risk of not being orthographically
represented.
But the Norwegian forms of the Scandinavian or Norse, tell us
something more. Instead of gy running parallel with Icy it diverges.
Instead of running into gzh it runs into y ; so that, while kjore =
kshore, gjente (wench) yente : a difference which has already been
indicated.
There are two other sounds of the k series which still require
notice : viz., the two which stand to those of k and g, respectively,
as/" and v stand to p and b ; or as the th in thin and thine stand to t
and d. There is much more to be said about them than is to be
found in the ordinary grammars ; in many of which there is much
that requires correction. Neither is it very easy to write about
them concisely ; inasmuch as the terms which apply to them are
less definite than they should be. In describing or classifying
the mutes of either the English or any other language, it is barren
work to talk of them as lenes and aspirates, or as hards and softs.
But, as they actually form a system, and as that system must be
exhibited, four terms at least are required. Explosive and continuous
(sometimes, more conveniently, explodent and continuant) ; sonant
and surd will be the terms used here : the last two from the gram-
mars of the Sanskrit grammas, explosive and continuous from the
older writers in general ; especially those who treated the classifica-
tion of articulate sounds as anatomists or physiologists. The b in ba,
when pronounced separately from the vowel, is explosive, and
sonant ; explosive because the sound, as that of a consonant only,
cannot be continued ; and sonant because its sound is uttered at the
ordinary pitch of the voice. J? on the other hand is continuous and
surd ; for the sound itself can be prolonged ; but, whether prolonged
or not, it is uttered as a whisper. Hence the following system :
EXPLOSIVE. CONTINUOUS.
Surd. Sonant. Surd. Sonant.
p b f v
t d th (in thin) th (in thine)
k g P
8 Z
sh zh.
In the s series there are no explodents ; so far, however, as sonancy
and surdness go, it agrees with that of p, t, and k. If it were other-
wise, and if we could add the surd and sonant continuants of the k se-
ries, or, changing the expression, the sounds which stand to k and g as
96 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
/"and v top and b, etc., we should have a full and perfect quarternion ;
or four series of four similarly modified forms. As it is, we hare only
an approach to it. The class, however, as far as it goes, is natural.
The sounds which constitute it are more closely allied with each
other than they are with the sounds of any other group ; yet, at the
same time they have relations with the rest of the alphabet V, re-
lated to/, on the one side, is related to to on the other ; through
to to u ; and, finally, through u to o and the vowels in general. Then
there is an affinity between m and b ; so that the full sequence runs
m i b,p,f, v, to, u, etc.,
with a liquid at one end and a vowel at the other.
We have nearly the same sequence in the series beginning with k ;
and, if we had, on our language, the continuants of k and g, we
should have it entirely. Now what are these sounds ? They are
not those of the so-called gutterals, i.e., kh (or ch) and^A,- sounds
which, though foreign to our own language are common enough
elsewhere : as in the German, the Welsh, and the Gaelic. These
are not the continuants here under notice ; though often confounded
with them. The place of the continuants in the sequence is that of
/and v in the p series ; and that is between the explosives and the
semi-vowels ; a fact which connects them with y, just as f and v are
connected with w. Now these are conditions which are not fulfilled by
the so-called gutturals.
The sound is a rare one. It is certainly found as one of the pro-
nunciations of the Norwegian kj. It may be heard occasionally, and
sporadically, in England. There are certain speakers who, when
they use the word h-u-m-o-r never say, exactly, either " hetc-mor,"
or " yoo-raor," but something like oo preceded by a sound interme-
diate to that of k and y. With stammerers, as far as my own ob-
servation goes, this practice is common. Now this is the sound in
question, or the continuant of k. It is not, of itself, an easy sound ;
still less so when we have to compare it with its nearest congener,
the continuant of g. In fact, the latter generally runs into y. It
may be heard, however, in more than one of the Low German dia-
lects. Like ky and gy, to which it is closely allied, it is a very un-
stable sound ; and, as such, rare.
Thus much has been written upon the question of Unstable Com-
binations ; and it has been written with a special view to the follow-
ing question. Admitted, that an alphabet with its corresponding
orthography is, in and of itself, an undeniable benefit to a language,
can there be such a thing as certain times, dates, or stages in the
growth, or development of that language in which the introduction
of it is less opportune at one season than at another ? Instances
have been given to show that something of this kind exists. The
next question is whether they be the only ones ; and then follows
the question, as to the extent to which they occur in English ; and,
if they do, what they account for in the way of objectionable spelling.
The English Language and a Phonetic Orthography. 97
SECTION XXXV.
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AS ADAPTED FOR A PHONETIC
ORTHOGRAPHY.
Over and above the particular stage of a language into which a
phonetic alphabet is introduced, is there anything in the structure
of the language itself, upon which either an objection or a recom-
mendation can be grounded ?
We have said already much about the facts of language ; treating
them as potent, influential, and sometimes irresistible forces which
determine certain results .independent of any artificial or sponta-
neous conventionalities in the way of representation. It would,
then, be a suicidal argument to hold that any language in the world
was so constituted as to make a natural and simple orthography, an
orthography limited to the mere representation of sounds and com-
binations as they actually exist, impossible. On the other hand,
however, it would be a wilful neglect of patent and well-known facts
to deny that, in the adaptibility of languages to such an expression,
there are degrees. Some languages lend themselves to it spontane-
ously, others are not amenable to its treatment ; except at the price
of a contrast between one modification of a word and another.
Thus, a language that, for instance, forms its genitive in the syllable
es or is is less disturbed in the spelling of its inflections than one
which merely adds the single letter s. This is because, in the for-
mer case, it does not matter in what kind of a consonant the radical
part of the word ends. Whether the root end in b orp, tor d, k or g,
we can add is without superinducing any further change. If, how-
ever, we merely add the sound of s, a change must take place, and
one of the two consonants must be accommodated or assimilated to
the other; in other words, we must, if the word be slab, write either
slabz or slaps ; if knot either knots or knodz. Combinations like
Tcnotz or knods can be, without doubt, written and seen, but they
can neither be heard nor uttered. Such is our first instance of the
Law of Assimilation, and we shall see that it goes a long way. Now
the operation of this gives us one of the commonest and most prom-
inent facts in the English language. It is the rule of the formation
of both the genitive case and the plural number of our substantives.
Yet we dispense with the phonetic exhibition of it, and write stags
for stagz. Here, then, is a fact which would undoubtedly compli-
cate the rules for the formation of two of the most important inflec-
tions in our language if they extended to our spelling; but it is,
also, one which, as far as several centuries of experience teach us,
we may ignore in our speaking. Doubtless, it is neither more nor
less than an instance of the insufficiency of our orthography. As
far, however, as it goes, it is evident that we can get a large
amount of work out of an insufficient one ; and this is an argument
that a conservative may fairly make use of. But the antagonism
98 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
may go farther. There may be cases where the letter * (that is, the
sound represented hy it) may be tacked-on, immediately, to a word
in b or d, while the sound of z is wholly wanting to the language it-
self. In such a case it is evident that the latter of the two sounds
cannot exist ; so that no change, accommodation or assimilation can
be effected in that direction. Hence the b must be changed into^o,
and the d into t. But this affects the radical, or fundamental, part
of the word, and, by so doing, does much towards disguising its na-
ture ; since the combination must now come out slaps, etc. The
English language does not, indeed, go so far as this. If it did,
however, the result would be as has been indicated. Is ow this is
the way by which the last part of a word, if such be the habit of the
language, may be metamorphosed.
Let us now ask whether the middle part of a word can be thus af-
fected ? The best way of illustrating this is to take some language
which gives us such affections as a general rule. By this we measure
the extent of its influence. The folio wing is from Euren's " Finlandic
Grammar." It is not exactly an extract : it is rather an abstract.
It gives us, however, the real details of a very important and rele-
vant process.
The hard (this is the Swedish term) vowels are, a-, o, u ; the mild, d, o, y ; the
light, e, i.
The Vocal Harmony (vokal harmoni) means that the hard vowels (a, o, )
can never follow or precede any mild one (d, o, y), in a non-compound word.
The light ones (e, i) can follow or precede both ; but a light vowel in the radical part
of the word requires to be followed by a mild one: as talolla, ottatat ; tylsdlld,
kyntdvdt ; and, from tie, mies, tie-lid, miehe-nd. Hence, words have two kinds
of endings ; one with a hard, and another with a mild vowel ; i.e., with hard
vowels in the root a hard ending, and with mild ones either a mild or a light
one.
The light vowels are our old friends the small or slender ones.
Here the character of the vowel which follows is determined by
that of the vowel which precedes.
But in the Gaelic the influence is reversed, and small endings
give rise to small vowels in the root : a process which affects the
middle syllable. Thus
A, o, are called broad vowels, . . . e and i small . . . The poets, in latter ages,
devised a rule, which prescribes that the vowel which goes before a consonant, must
be of the same class with that which follows that consonant, i.e., both broad or both
small. Neilson's Introduction to the Irish Language.
That this assimilation is not found in the older manuscripts is
specially stated ; but it is not stated that this is not a fact in the
spoken language as well as in the existing orthography. And in
both it is a fact. The same change, in a more artificial form,
occurs in the German under the names of " tmlaut," or " about-
sound ;" and this, like the Irish assimilation, is not found in the
Moeso-gothic, or the German in its oldest known form.
This, then, tells us how ike middle part of a word may be affected.
The English Language and a Phonetic Orthography. 99
Now let us ask what the Keltic languages teach us as to the altera-
tions of the next beginnings of words. Any elementary work on the
Welsh (where there are no true case-endings) tells how the first con-
sonant of a word is modified according to its place in a sentence.
Thus
Car, kinsman.
dy Gar^tty kinsman.
fy Xghar = my kinsman.
ei Char = er kinsman.
Pen, head.
dy Ben, thy head.
fy, Mhen, my head.
ei Phen, her head.
and so on, with variations according to the consonant with which
the word begins. Now the Welsh, phonetically, is one of the best-
-spelt languages in the world. But, if we can bring ourselves to
imagine what it would have been had it been written in the manner
of the English, and (what is a lighter effort) imagine that the reform
had been deferred till the present moment, it is evident that the
Welsh conservative might appeal to the etymological doctrine with
more cogency than the English one. There are degrees, then, in
the validity, or, as the Phonetician would say, in the plausibility of
the objections on the score of etymology ; the etymology being that
which is limited to the single language to which it applies. There
is nothing in any one of these instances which touches the question
of the propriety of spelling city with a c on the ground of its repre-
senting the c in the foreign word cimtas. Of the ground, however,
to which it is limited, it covers a great deal.
Now the orthography of an allied language, the Irish, has not
been reformed ; and here we find an attempt to combine the ety-
mological principle with the phonetic. The Welsh sacrifices the
former to the latter, and changes the radical consonant. The Irish
preserves it ; but prefixes the letter, or its equivalent, (which in Welsh
displaces it,) and gives us a rule by which it is said to be eclipsed ;
i.e., written, but treated in speaking, as if it were non-existent.
Hence, the following table,
b~] (~m, ar mbaile, our town, sounded ar maile
c j ^ \ g, ar gceart, our right, sounded ar geart
d ,Q I n, ar ndia, our God, sounded ar nia
f[ 8 j bh, ar bhfearran, our land, sounded, ar bhearran
g | .) n, ar ngearran, our complaint, sounded ar nearran
p j o I b, ar bpein, our punishment, sounded ar bein
s I .2 | t, ar tslat, our rod, sounded ar flat
tj Ij2, ar dteine, our fire, sounded ar deine
Now, however meanly we may think of the value of the etymol-
ogy which connects two words from different languages, like city
and cimtas ; we must allow that, when we come to changes within
the same languages, the etymological objection improves ; and when
we see such transformations in the radical parts of words as the pre-
7*
100 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
ceding, we must admit that its validity, or, to say the least, its
plausibility, may vary with the language. I am not writing this to
show that in any language it is actually valid. I am only showing
that different languages are in different predicaments in respect to
its applicability. And I only do this with the view of asking how
the English stands in this respect. I submit that in respect to any
of the above-mentioned languages, or as tested by any of the
above-mentioned processes, it stands high. So far as the mixed
character of its vocabulary goes, it is in a worse position. The
phonetician condemns the etymological system in toto. It is well,
however, that he should know how his own language, in the eyes
of an opponent, and from his point of view, comports itself. The
English is fitter for the application of the phonetic system than
most languages ; and, even when we weigh its demerits against its
merits, as fit as any.
SECTION XXXVI.
ANALYSIS OP THE ETYMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE.
The bearing of the instability of certain combinations, and certain
points connected with the structure of numerous and important lan-
guages, has now received its full share of consideration ; and, it is
evident that upon the most important of the current objections to Pho-
netic Spelling the Etymological they have a very decided bearing.
The number of scholars who hold that, though the phonetic system
may suit some languages it is but ill-fitted for the English, is con-
siderable. Now just so far as the English is a language in which
there is a foreign element, this objection is plausible ; and, as there
is an inordinate proportion of foreign words in our tongue it has,
to say the least, sufficient importance to command attention. Be-
yond this, there is but little in it. I have, perhaps, gone farther in
this same etymology than usual ; but I now wish to show that I
have not gone farther than is necessary. Much that has been
written, as the contents of the last four sections, has, perhaps, ap-
peared irrevelant. But it is not this. The facts exhibited and the
trains of reasoning suggested may, perhaps, have some import in
themselves. But the main object of their exhibition is to show that
they are only parts of a whole ; only means to an end. However
much they may, at the first view, appear to be something different,
they are, in fact, preliminaries to the question as to the value of the
etymological objection.
It will now be submitted to the reader that the ordinary objec-
tions which are involved in the word etymological, as it is generally
applied, are mere fractions of the import of the term in its more
general and more legitimate sense. The current objections are
etymological so far as they hang loosely on the great subject of ety-
mology ; but as the representatives of etymology in its wider sense
Analysis of the Etymological Principle. 101
they are mere chips in porridge. Nay, I will go farther than this ;
and add that they are objections which many an adept or master in
the subject would hesitate to acknowledge. The distinction thus
suggested, is of no small importance. There are two obstacles to
Phonetic Reform which are of sufficient weight to counterbalance
all the rest : and these are (1) the practical objection based upon the
antagonism of an existing system ; and (2) the theoretical, or scien-
tific objection the name of which has already been often enough
before us.
1. The first is so purely practical that the motto of its defenders
might be, " Possession is nine parts of the law." There is an alpha-
bet with its corresponding orthography that we are asked to either
unlearn, or allow to fall into desuetude. This is a question of eject-
ment ; a question with which the abstractions of the proposed sys-
tem have less to do than the number and strength of the supporters
of the principle, which they propose as a substitute. These will be
considered ; but not at present.
2. The Etymological Principle, on the other hand, is one which
is only criticized for the sake of disarming, or neutralizing, a certain
amount of opposition. Its upholders are more remarkable for their
influence than their numbers. They are, as a rule, men who speak
with authority ; and it cannot be denied that some of them have
spoken both plainly and decidedly. The man who knows neither
Latin nor Greek may oppose any innovation on the simple grounds
of conservatism : pleading his unwillingness either to learn a strange,
or to unlearn a familiar, alphabet : and against such a one there is
but little room for argument. The etymologist, on the other hand,
urges that the alteration is a bad thing in itself: that, it violates
one of the conditions under which the present system works advan-
tageously. He may, or may not, object to what Mr Ellis calls the
" Double-trouble " difficulty. And, just in the same way, the man
to whom etymology is only known as a name, may invoke it so far
as it suits his own supineness. But these are mere accidents in the
determination of both of them. Each goes on a different principle ;
and each on one which is characterized by the class to which its
supporters belong.
Now etymology is a very wide field, and it will not be denied that
the most of those who have been the readiest with the etymological
objection have cultivated but a very small corner of it. Whether
they would speak in the same tone if they were familiar with the
whole domain is doubtful. Those who are inclined to speak of the
ordinary strictures of the movement in favor of Phonetics with res-
pect, and even tenderness, cannot but admit that nine-tenths of the
current criticism is of a very insignificant and common-place charac-
ter. It is compatible, indeed, as we know from experience, with
considerable acumen, respectable powers of argument, and accu-
rate scholarship : but it is also found in company with mere dilettan-
teeism and sciolism ; sciolism and dilettanteeism in which a little
102 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
Latin and less Greek go a long way. Now it is the authority which
rests upon such grounds as these that we wish to reduce to its proper
dimensions : and that by showing that it is the result of that dan-
gerous and two-edged tool a little learning. Let us see what it is ;
and then ask what we find in Etymology in its wider and fuller
sense.
It is not urged by even the most zealous etymologist (so-called)
that any appreciable advantage is derived from the existing system
for more than three languages ; the French, the Greek, and the
Latin the three foreign languages which most affect the English
vocabulary : and a little consideration will tell us that, essentially,
these three are one the Latin. It is from the Latin that we finally
deduce the greater part of our French, and through the Latin that
we deduce the greater part of our Greek words. In nine cases out
of ten when, by some sacrifice of the representation of an English
sound, we make the French origin of a word a visible fact, we are
only half-way in our history ; since it has to be traced from the
French to the Latin. If the spelling of the characteristic letter re-
main as in ci^from civitas, unaltered and visibly recognizable well
and good. If, as in chaine from catena, it undergoes a change it
is not so well. Hence, between the Latin and the French we get
an imperfect representation in our etymology. " Only, however,"
it may be answered " in a slight degree. Though we change the
representation of the sound from ch to c, we preserve the c ; and
the c is the great Latin characteristic ; the very key to the connec-
tion, the outward and visible sign of the ancestry, the blazon of the
pedigree. How much better this than spelling chain with a wholly
new combination ; such as ch in English, or by some new invention
of a single sign!"
We get the same thing over again when, from the Latin, we trace
a word upwards to the Greek. Sometimes the characteristic letter
is retained ; but, sometimes, it is changed. This is notably the
case with words which in their older form are written with Greek K
(Kappa). These in Latin are written with c. In this case the ety-
mological principle, certainly, suffers an abatement : in fact it ends
in merely giving us the language from which the word was directly
and immediately introduced : a fact M'orth taking as a gift, but
scarcely worth buying at a price.
But even if we are prepared to pay for it, by making the connec-
tion between the sound and the sign by which it is expressed obscure,
who gains by it? Certainly not the reader who knows neither
French nor Latin, neither Latin nor Greek. To him the change is
merely gratuitous, or, in the original meaning of the word, imper-
tinent. To him who knows the particular language from which the
word is derived it is, unless his ear is so deficient as to need the
help of his eye, a superfluity. This is a point upon which we cannot
too strongly insist. In order to get any real or supposed advantage
out of any orthographical expedient in the way of etymology of this
Analysis of the Etymological Principle. 103
kind, a certain amount of an etymological character is required :
and, in most cases, the amount of this is such as to make the supple-
mentary aids and helps unnecessary. It is not, perhaps, always
the case ; for there are, doubtless, some who have raised the voice
in defence of what is to them a real necessity ; some who actually
want the little extra assistance which a piece of unphonetic spelling
may, occasionally, drop on their way. I do not, however, find that
they tell us so : and it is possible that many of them might not like
to be accused of being personally interested in the matter. It is in
behalf of others that they profess to fight the battle. The others,
however, are, as a rule, neither the better nor the worse for their
advocacy. Upon the whole, however, we may say that those who
cry most for these aids to etymology least require them.
But when we get them, to the extent (at least) that we have them
in English what do they amount to. We have seen, or rather we
have tried to see, whom they benefit. But what are they in them-
selves ? It is not pretended that they extend to more than three
languages ; and we have seen how inconsistently they present them-
sent themselves in these. With every language, where the alphabet
is wholly different from ours, they are, of course, out of the question :
and, all what are called the oriental languages are in this predica-
ment. The one, among these, which is of most importance is the
Arabic ; because from this we get several words connected with chem-
istry and astronomy : and, besides these, a few, through Spanish or
Portuguese of general meaning, e.g., alcove. Now, small as this
latter class is, it is large enough to raise a question, and to intro-
duce a distinction : for alcove, on etymological principles should be
spelt with a c -. inasmuch as though Arabic in origin, it comes to ua
via Spain. But how are we to write Alkali ? Speaking in the
present year, we may, probably, say that the orthography is settled,
and that k is the right letter. But we could not have said so at the
beginning of the century ; nor, indeed, for many years later : since
c was then in favor. But even this will carry us no great way.
What are we to do with the guttural variety of the letter? I
cannot say. I only know that alcohol and almanac are perplexing
words.
Surely then, we may say that the etymological objection, as we
find it in the arguments of most of the objectors, is applied to, and
based upon, a very small portion of the subject. Now the evidence
upon this point is what the last four sections have prepared us for.
They have been far more etymological in their character than they
look. More than one of the limitations of the phonetic system has
been thoroughly so, for instance, the transformation of avis into
avir in Monier Williams's illustration of the Sanskrit rule of Sandki.
The whole question of Unstable Combinations has the same charac-
ter. They both deal with the changes that certain parts of certain
words undergo, and what is this but a question of etymology, of
history, and of descent ; or, to put it in a more general form, of
104 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
the likeness or unlikeness with which different degrees of descent are
accompanied ?
Now, for readers who are wholly ignorant of any language but their
own, the etymological system is useless ; except so far as by degrad-
ing certain conventional modes of spelling (e.g., the ch in archdeacon,
the sch in schism and a few others) to the rank of a prompter's cue,
or a printer's catchword, and telling the reader that, whenever these
combinations are found he may lay odds in favor of the word in
which they occur being of Greek origin, we get a little rough infor-
mation out of them : and this we now remark, is the characteristic
of that particular form of etymology which deals with words be-
longing to more languages than one. The class is natural ; as we
see by the contrast it exhibits with its opposite in this very respect.
"Where the connection lies within the limits of a single language
that language being, of course his own there is an etymology which
an unlearned man may understand ; for etymology here means the
different forms which the same word may take according to its
change of meaning. But it is just this kind of etymology that few
care to defend. The connection between Icen and can is left to take
care of itself : whereas, that between chain and catena must be taken
care of by its friends. There is inconsistency in this. But it is not
wholly inexplicable. There is a difference between a common-place
piece of knowledge and an accomplishment. There is a difference
between useful work and dilettanteeism. There is a difference be-
tween the kitchen furniture and articles of virtu. There is a differ-
ence between the useful arts and the fine arts. Now it is with the
fine arts and with the objects that interest the virtuoso that classical
scholalship takes its place ; and the class is a high one. It may be
said, however, without offence, that in the fine arts there is more dis-
play than in the useful ; and the same is the case with classical, as
opposed to domestic, etymology.
This difference, then, between domestic and foreign etymology is,
if not overlooked, at least undervalued. The former, which is of
twice the importance of the latter, gets less than half the considera-
tion. Domestic, however, is a term which with a little latitude we
may conveniently extend to the languages of the German family in
general, the languages more especially allied to our own. Of these
we may say that what applies to ken and can, applies to can and
Icennen (German} and kjende (Danish). But it is simply a waste of
time and paper to show that, in the case of c and k, the precedents
established by the Teutonic and Scandinavian languages in favor of
the latter sign far outweigh those deducible from the Latin in support
of the former.
Again, it has been already stated that when we go out of our way
and divert orthography from its proper function of symbolizing a
sound to that of suggesting an etymology ; and when we flatter our-
selves that, in so doing, we are preserving the history and register-
ing the changes that such or such a word has undergone, we simply
Analysis of the Etymological Principle. 105
deceive ourselves with a half truth. We preserve the likeness ; but
we conceal the difference : a preservation which, of course, gives us
only half the real history of the word. The spelling which will
give us the whole has yet to be discovered. This, however, is
certain, that when we betake ourselves to a letter which has no
value as the sign of an existing sound, for the sake of showing that
the word in which it occurs has preserved enough of its former self
to be recognizable, we use the alphabet for a secondary purpose ;
and, when we do this to the detriment of its proper functions ; we
misuse it. On the other hand, when we simply take a word as we
find it, we have no need of any such detrimental makeshift. We
have simply to spell a word as it is sounded. It may have gone
through many, or it may have gone through few changes. It may
not have been changed at all. At any rate, so long as we have
nothing beyond its present pronunciation to express we have nothing
to do but to put our alphabet to its proper use.
Now it is possible that, with the whole field of etymology before
us, we might find good reasons not only for not upholding
the ordinary etymological objection the objection founded on the
concealment of likeness but for condemning it as one-sided and
injurious ; in which Phoneticism would be enlisted on the side of
etymology. I cannot say to what extent this view will actually be
taken ; for, at present, it commands little attention. I am only sure
of this ; that those who take it will take from their knowledge
rather than their ignorance ; and that it will not be defended by argu-
ments which can be contemptuously set aside. " I," says Caius,
" condemn the proposed innovations because they would obliterate
the connection between the different stages in the history of a word ;
and, by so doing, fail to give us those permanent characters which
indicate its origin." And " I," says Titius, " condemn the existing
system because, by concealing the full extent of the change that
such words have undergone, it invests a combination with a show of
permanence as a fact in language, which is wholly unreal." There
are two aspects, then, for this part of the subject.
The bearing of the remarks upon the instability of combinations
still stands over for explanation. They are closely connected with
the etymological principle ; and through this they lead to a question
of some difficulty that of the Fixation of a language. It is clear
that if the tendencies, not only towards change but towards change
in a certain direction, which were pointed out in the series ka, kia,
kya ; ga, gia, gya, etc., be true, and still more if they are capable of
being generalized, we have something like the means of guessing
with some approach to accuracy not only what a word has been,
but what it will be ; or, to use the words of a great scholar, we may
say not only whence a word is come but whither it is going. There
is, then, the etymology that simply reads the past history of words,
and the etymology which constructs their future. In respect to the
results of the two methods, there is not so much difference as we
106 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
may expect. The prospective etymology i s more conjectural ; but,
with the present deficient record, there is plenty of conjecture in
our retrospects. Neither is there much difference between the
amount of acquired knowledge and mental aptitudes required for the
respective studies of the prophet and the historian. It is possible
that the prophetic may be the higher faculty. It p is manifest, however,
that the etymologist who looks in both directions is a better judge
of what is good and bad in an alphabet in respect to its application
or non-application to his subject, than the etymologist who sees
only what lies behind him. I may do the objectors injustice ; but
the faculty of looking both towards the past and the future has not
yet made itself conspicuous in their objections.
SECTION XXXVII.
REPRESENTATION AND FIXATION.
When the phonetic system is carried on to its ultimate results
there is nothing to be said about such a thing as the Fixation of a
language. Representation is the sole function of phoneticism. It
is representative or nothing : and, when it is exclusively represen-
tative, fixation is simply a contradictory term. On the other hand,
if representation mean, purely and simply, the reproduction to the
eye of the sounds that fall upon the ear ; and that without respect
to the number or the influence of the speakers that utter them ;
and, also, without respect to their permanence, we can scarcely call
this the representation of a language. Those who most love indi-
viduality well know that for a language to be worth spelling at all,
it must possess some unity and so me permanence. With fluctuating
pronunciations it will have something to do : with transitional ones
much. Ephemeral ones it will treat as such. Obsolete ones it knows
how to deal with. With premature ones it has a difficult task.
The general tendencies of a language will, sooner or later, get their
own way. What comes from interference with them them is better
shown than I can show it, in the following extract ; which gives us
the opinions of two critics. There is more in Dr Ingleby's notice
than in Morgan's letter (for it is founded, partly, on one to the
Athenaeum) ; but I have the best authority for saying that, while it
represents the opinion of the author of the notice, it does not mis-
represent that of the subject. A premature stereotype of a tran-
sitional pronunciation has a re-action as well as an action ; for it
helps to fulfil its own accomplishment. It interferes with the natu-
ral tendencies of the language in all cases, I believe, for a time
only. But the interference, itself, is an interruption. It is not,
however, an unmixed evil. It gives, as a set-off, a register of the
change. This, however, is a sacrifice to etymology.
I think that, with this admission, the pro's and cons of this very
perplexing case are fairly weighed against one another. The ex-
The Early Alphabets of the British Islands. 107
tract is from " Modern Logicians The late Augustas de. Morgan,"
by C. M. Ingleby, and it runs thus
The practical had a charm for De Morgan. Many projects he viewed with
favor, to which, however, he would give no support, because he regarded them
as impracticable. The decimal system of coinage received his advocacy because
he believed it was feasible, as well as theoretically good. To duodecimals, he gave
no encouragement, because he believed that they could never be made to supersede
decimals, notwithstanding his conviction that, if adopted, they would prove more
convenient than the prevalent numerical system. Though strongly given to the
archaeological parts of literature, he was no blind opponent to the system of pho-
netic spelling, inaugurated by the Phonetic News. As a practical man he recog-
nized but one objection, viz., the existence of the present system. His way of
explaining himself was that on the theoretical side of the question there were no ob-
jections ; if the thing could be got it should be got. He not only looked with
favor on the scheme of visible speech put forth by Mr A. Melville Bell, but joined
with Sir David Brewster and Mr Alex. J. Ellis in recommending its adoption.
He was not imposed upon by the extremely shallow objection to any phonetic
scheme, that its adoption would endanger the historical continuity of the lan-
guage it is employed to represent. De Morgan saw plainly that the English
language is undergoing a revolution of the worst kind ; not so much from the
introduction of vulgarisms, Americanisms, or neologisms, as from pedantic ortho-'
episms. Every child who is taught to read augments the prevailing tendency to
pronounce strictly according to the spelling in vogue, i.e., to introduce arbitrary
sounds never heard before in any stage of development of the language. Such
sounds are not determined by the laws of speech, but by a remote chain of causes,
acting through the laws of combination of certain written symbols, and therefore
not adapted for the purposes of speech. The only two courses by which this
mischievous tendency can be arrested are these to prevent children from learning
to read ; or to give them a phonetic literature.
Now in cases of this kind the Man for the Hour is the one who
looks forwards as well as backwards. He cannot tell us, for the ac-
tual moment, which pronunciation prevails. But he can tell us
which (if we must do anything in the way of fixation) is the one to
choose. One gives us the language of, at least, some of our con-
temporaries, and, perhaps, some of our ancestors ; the other gives
us that of our posterity. Neither may be permanent. Which,
however, will last the longest is self-evident.
SECTION XXXVIII.
THE EARLY ALPHABETS OF THE BRITISH ISLANDS.
Here begins a new division of our subject ; one mainly historical'
It treats of the conditions of time and place when the first alphabet
of Latin origin was introduced into \Vestern Europe. We must
look for the country of its introduction in the west and north, rather
than in the south and east ; because, in the latter, the language or
at least the literary one, was more or less Latin. This brings us to
Germany and the British Isles. The oldest German alphabet (of
which more will be said in the sequel) was Greek : but this applies
only to the German of the continent. In the British Isles there
108 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
was a British Church, and this, whatever else it may have been,
was earlier than the Anglo-Saxon.
We may, then, safely begin with the statement that the language
of Western Europe which has the oldest alphabet, exclusively of
Latin origin, is either the Welsh or the Irish ; in other words, the
oldest alphabet of this class that we know is that which is due to
the British Church in its most general form ; i.e., the church of the
British Islands, the church of the insular Kelts, the church of the
Britons or the Gaels one or both. This is, in the first instance,
(save certain exceptions standing over for notice) an inference from
the universal connection between the introduction of Christianity and
the introduction of the alphabet, but it is strengthened by the evi-
dence of history, and by the agreement between the Keltic and the
Anglo-Saxon alphabets. In continental Germany we find the letter
k instead of c. In the British Isles, whether Great Britain or
Ireland, we find c in the place of k. We find the same in the ear-
lier Icelandic manuscripts ; though, at present, as the result of Ger-
man influences, k has superseded it. Whether this Anglo-Saxon
alphabet was taken from the Latin direct or from one of the British
forms of it is a question upon which we may profitably pause a little ;
for it suggests a distinction. The actual form of the letters is one
thing, the principle upon which they were extended from the Latin
to the Keltic is another. The first of these points is unimportant :
for the independent existence of the Irish as a separate alphabet
had not lasted long enough to engender any notable discrepancies
between the copy and the prototype. The principles, however, of
of its application to either the Irish or the British language are
matters upon which much depends.
We must not, now, be surprised if the two irrepressibles again
display themselves k and c : if between two alphabets of Latin
origin there may be a difference : inasmuch as one may have been
formed upon a model so purely and exclusively Latin as to ignore
the k altogether, whereas the other may have been formed under
circumstances where the recognition of the k was possible.
Now it is submitted that it was upon a Latin model of the extreme
and exclusive character that rejected the k, that the Anglo-Saxon
alphabet was founded ; while that of the Germans was founded upon
one which contained it : and this means that what we may call a
false start at the very beginning is one of the main causes of the bad
conditions of the English orthography in the present advanced stage
of its history. It was framed upon the worse of two imperfect
models, the Greek and the Latin ; and, in the Latin group, from
the least fit of its members. This was the case whether the Anglo-
-Saxon alphabet was derived directly from the Latin, or indirectly,
i.e,, through the alphabet of what we may call the Keltic Church ;
British or Irish as the case may be.
Now, at the present moment, both the Irish and the English have,
as far as the details connected with the shape of the letters go, two
The Early Alphabets of the British Islands. 109
alphabets one old, the other new. There are Anglo-Saxon works,
which institutions so modern as the Society of Antiquaries and the
Record office, have printed in the Anglo-Saxon characters ; though
the less conservative publishers write Anglo-Saxon with the excep-
tion of the two distinctive letters, J? = th, and = dh ; and print in
the ordinary English letters ; just as some of the Germans and
Danes print in both the old black letter, and the more modern italic.
The Swedes, however, have nothing to say to the black letter, and
use the italic either exclusively or as the rule. The Irish do the
same as the Germans and the Danes ; and sometimes print in the
older, sometimes in newer type. It is, I believe, a sign of nation-
ality to use the former ; and sometimes we may see the strange con-
trast in nominally English printing, of the words common to both
languages in the modern, or Saxon, and the proper names, character-
istic of Ireland, in the old, or native type. Whether the result be a
handsome page or the contrary is another question. The fact to
which attention is directed is that of the old Irish type and the
Anglo-Saxon being convertible. It would not, perhaps, be difficult
to say whether a work of King Alfred were printed in type meant
for the meridian of Dublin, or in one for that of London. The
general form, however, of the letters is so nearly identical, that
Anglo-Saxon may be read in Gaelic and Gaelic in Anglo-Saxon types.
The native Irish, Erse, or Gaelic alphabet has
1. No h. No Irish word begins with it ; and, though we find
more than enough of it, in the Anglo-Irish type as a sign of the so-
-called aspiration, it is only in this equivocal character that it presents
itself. What the Anglo-Irish type gives as bh, etc., the true Irish
of the manuscripts gives as 6'. This, at first, looks like the Greek
(') : but this it is not. It came in by degrees ; i.e., some letters took
it before others.
2. Noy.
3. No approach, from first to last, to a k.
4. No q.
5. Nothing beyond u.
This, which reduces the Irish letters to seventeen, suggests that
the framers of the alphabet took from Latin just the unequivocal and
unambiguous letters ; just the letters they could not do without ; the
letters which they could manage, without difficulty, and without
either refinements or expedients. This, though a good principle to
begin with, is a bad one to go on with. We have seen how the ()
over certain consonants, came to pass as a sign of aspiration, and out
of this the later grammarians devised a class of mutable consonants,
from which only I, n, and r were excluded. Then came the dis-
tinction between broad and small vowels ; and then the law of
assimilation : upon which we have already enlarged. Then came,
what has also been enlarged on, the expedient of ecthlipsis : in all
of which we see the elements of a very complicated orthography.
The necessity of the alternative between phonetic spelling and
110 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
some such expedient as the one just mentioned was the misfortune
rather than the fault of the Irish orthography. It was due to the
nature of the language. But the worst of all was the particular form
of the vocalic assimilation. The law of assimilation for the vowels of
different syllables, following or preceding one another, was Small
and Small, Broad and Broad. If this only meant that one vowel was
to be substituted for another the case would have been neither better
nor worse than that which we illustrated from the Finlandish.
But instead of simple substitution the original vowel was, in many
cases, retained, and an adventitious or supererogatory vowel added
to it. The effect of this was to convert half the vowels in the lan-
guage, so far as the eye was concerned, into diphthongs : and when,
at point of contact between the two syllables we get, at the same
time, an ecthlipsis, the result is startling. Thus lam 1 , or lamh =
hand; while geal = white ; and the Gaelic for white-handed is
laimheal. The effect of this was, (so to say) to make vowels cheap :
one or two more or less in a syllable being of no great consequence.
No wonder, then, that in an Irish grammar (Neilson's is the one I
quote from, which, for this purpose, is all the better for being an
old one) we have such entries as the following.
There are thirteen diphthongs :
Sound. Example,
ae long, as ni in pain lae, of a day
at long and distinct cain, a fine
short, as i injight, etc. mait, good, etc.
Now, as the short vowels are not counted in the thirteen, the whole
number amounts to twenty-one.
Then, there are five triphthongs, aoi, eoi, iai, iui, and uai : the
great merit of which is that they are always long.
The vowel part is the worst part of the Irish alphabet. There
are no rules for it. Ecthlipsis, indeed, is bad enough ; but for this
there are rules.
The cause of all this imperfection is manifest. There was no
misappropriation of letters. There was no sacrifice to the etymolo-
gical principle as taken in its ordinary sense. There was simply
incompleteness of the alphabet. Yet, as compared with the English,
the Irish is almost a well-ordered orthography, and this is mainly
because the etymological principle was eschewed. It took c no
doubt ; but it excluded, and still excludes, Jc. In this it has its ad-
vantage over the English. In having no antiquated forms to re-
tain, it has the advantage over the French.
Early Alphabets of the German the Moeso-gothic. Ill
SECTION XXXIX.
THE EARLY ALPHABETS OF THE GERMAN THE MCESO-GOTHIC
ALPHABET.
We now turn from the early alphabets of the British Isles to those
of Germany ; where we shall find a noble landmark in our chron-
ology the Ulphiline Gospels. TJlphilas was born between A.D.
325, the year of the Council of Nice, and A.D. 348 ; and he died at
Constantinople A.D. 388. He was a bishop of the Goths. These
Germans were the Germans of the districts on each side of the
Lower Danube. They had cut their way thus far eastward. They
had firmly fixed themselves in parts of Moldavia and Wallachia,
and had founded a kingdom, or, at least, under Hermanrik had
become a formidable and independent nation. But they were
pressed upon by the Huns, and in the reign of Valens, A.D. 376,
were, either wholly or to a great extent, constrained to cross the
Danube. Here they spread themselves over the province of Mcesia,
from which they afterwards extended themselves, either as Visigoths,
or as Ostrogoths, to Italy, to Gaul, and to Spain ; in all three of
which countries they founded kingdoms.
Of these Goths, TJlphilas was the bishop ; and to some extent he
was their missionary as well ; thongh the details of their conversion
as a nation, are obscure. They were Arians.
Of the languages of Germany the first that was reduced to writing
was that of these Goths the Goths of Moesia as they are often
called ; their language being called the Moeso-gothic. And the one
great Mosso-gothic writer is Ulphilas. Of a translation, by him, of
the whole or a large part of the Bible, though much is lost, the Gos-
pels, in an incomplete state, have come down to us. There are
other portions of the Scripture as well ; but these are mere frag-
ments. Over and above these there are a few other fragments ;
chiefly referrable to the times of the Ostrogothic rule in Italy.
The language and the alphabet are the same throughout : and, upon
the latter, there is much to be said. The manuscripts which contain
the Uphiline gospels, the pride and glory of the library of the Uni-
versity of Upsala. is one of the most famous in the world. It is en-
tirely in capitals large, bold, and standing apart from each other
like "those of a well-cut inscription. So marvelously regular is the
writing that it has been supposed that each letter was separately
stamped ; and, although the evidence of those who are familiar with
printing has set aside this doctrine, it required more than ordinary
care to discover any difference between them. The manuscript
itself is a tinted vellum of a purple or mulberry colour. The let-
ters themselves are silvered, and at the beginning of sections, gilded
over with great care and regularity. Such is the famous Codex
Argenteus, which contains the Ulphiline translations of the Gospels
in the language of the Goths of Mossia.
112 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
The language itself is old not only in respect to the age of the
writing by which it is illustrated, but old in respect to its structure ;
though the statement that it stands to the modern German and Dutch
in the same relation as the Latin to the Italian and Spanish is an exag-
geration. It ceased, however, to be cultivated, and, possibly to be
spoken, after the middle of the seventh century ; and, as we know
it only as the language of certainjdistricts conquered by the Goths,
we are unable to say, to a certainty, from what part of Germany
it was derived. The dialects which come nearest to it are held to
be those of Thuringia ; but there are none which stand to it in a
direct and undoubted line of descent.
Neither Mcesia, then, nor the country beyond the Danube (Mol-
davia and Bessarabia) was the native country of its German occu-
pant ; and as both lay within the limits of the Eastern Empire,
and were governed from Constantinople rather than from Eome, the
Moeso-gothic alphabet is of Greek origin. The Goths, however,
who adopted it on the Danube might easily have carried it with them
westwards, even to the Rhine : for we know that in Italy, Spain and
Gaul, there were Gothic kingdoms. Now the recognition of the k
in the Frank alphabet as opposed to its exclusion from the Anglo-
Saxon, I mainly refer to the existence of the Mceso-gothic literature,
(scanty as it was,) and the connection between the histories of France
and the districts on the Lower Danube in which the first Gothic
converts to Christianity were settled.
Not much later than the Goths of Mcesia, the Burgundians re-
ceived Christianity ; and, then, the Franks. The Burgundians were
Arian ; the Franks orthodox. Of the Burgundian alphabet we know
nothing ; indeed we only infer its existence from the fact of Bur-
gundy being Christian. It is possible, then, that the Franks may
have learned the art of writing from the tribe which, though Arian,
had an earlier orthography than their own. But it is also possible
that they may have taken it direct from the Latin ; ignoring their
brethren as heretics. This question, will repeat itself in Britain.
We thus see that the Christianization of Germany and that of
Britain, must have run nearly parallel in time : and this, with the
alphabet which is assumed to be concurrent with it, would give us
an incipient British literature, as early as the fifth century.
The names of the Moeso-gothic letters are unknown. Their or-
der is that of the Greek ; and, as dependent upon this, their value
as numerals. The Greek Digamma was represented by a letter of
which the sound was that of q; the Greek Eta by H a Latinism.
Theta, 0, was written V, and Psi, or the letter that stood in its
place, as O ; a pair of forms which suggest a transposition. In
the place of xi, 60 as a number, stood a letter with the shape of
the cursive capital G ; and the sound of either that letter or of y.
Omicron, with a change of form, had the power of u so that we
now see that between this letter and H for Eta, the Greek distinc-
tion between the long and short vowels has disappeared. For q
The Anglo-Saxon Alphabet. 313
stood a letter, like the Russian 5f, of uncertain import. "We know,
however, its position by its numerical power 90. Sigma was writ-
ten S as in Latin. Hypsilon, with its pointed base, was more like a
V than a U, and, is considered to have been so sounded ; or, if not
as v, as w. S has the form of the Latin letter.
Now Ulphilas, to whom these Goths owed their alphabet, died
during the fourth century ; and within the first ten years of the
fifth, the Visigoths had founded their kingdoms in the south of
Gaul and in Spain. The conquerors of Italy about fifty years later
were the Ostrogoths, and it is universally admitted that the lan-
guage of this division was that of the Ulphiline Gospels. The evi-
dence that the language of the Visigoths, in Gaul and Spain was
the same is less conclusive. There is no reason, however, to doubt
the fact of its having been so. The conversion of the Anglo-Saxon
population of Britain is referred to the last year of the fifth century,
and to the influence of Frank teachers. But before this there was,
in Britain considered as a country, the Christianity of the British
Church. Now in connecting this old British alphabet Welsh and
Irish with the Anglo-Saxon, I do not do so as against the Latin.
The Anglo-Saxon might, doubtless, have been founded exclusively
on the Latin. It might, also, have been founded on the British ;
but subjected to modifications from the Latin. This implies a sec-
ond influence ; and, in respect to this, I merely urge that this sec-
ond influence, if it existed, was not Frank, but British. I hold that
the early alphabets of Germany, of which the Frank must have
been the most important, had Greek elements which the British and
Anglo-Saxon had not.
SECTION XL.
THE ANGLO-SAXON ALPHABET.
There are two ways by which an alphabet may make its way into
a country. It may, like the Mceso-gothic or Armenian, be intro-
duced as a systematic whole ; or it may grow up imperceptibly, with-
out any definite system, and with no particular constructor. In our
own time this latter mode of development is scarcely possible, be-
cause it is the practice of missionaries to address their hearers, as
much as possible, in the language of the country to which they be-
long. Neither do they press upon them their books in English, so
much as tracts and translations in their own vernacular. The mission-
ary system of Rome was different. Such reading as was taught was
in Latin ; and the reading of anything other than Latin was excep-
tional. This practice was unfavorable to the composition of purely
native works. There was a way, however, by which Latin compo-
sition could be partially popularized : and this was by something par-
taking of the nature of a translation, but yet falling short of one ; a
system of interlining, in which there was every degree of closeness or
114 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
laxity. Sometimes there was a full translation of a sentence : some-
times the mere interspersion of an occasional Gloss. A very little
system would suffice for an alphabet of this kind. The form and
power of a certain number of letters might be picked out of the
Latin text : and used just as the occasion presented them. The com-
monest would be most in use ; and rarer ones wholly unrecognized.
In this way a systematic alphabet would be a long time in growing ;
and, so doing, exist in its rudiments long before it came to be rec-
ognized in its integrity.
Between A.D. 400, when the Moeso-gothic alphabet may have
been known in Gaul, and A.D. 600, when the Frank missionaries
preached to the Anglo-Saxons, there was room for the gradual for-
mation of more alphabets than one ; though of none is the exact
origin known : the Moeso-gothic of which alone this can be predi-
cated being of Greek origin. The earliest specimens of both the
Irish and the British vernaculars are in the form of Glosses ; and
very nearly the same may be said of those of the German and
Anglo-Saxon.
The following table enables us to compare the four alphabets :
English. Latin. Anglo-Saxon. Irish.
1. A a ... a ... a ... a
2. B b ... b ... b ... b
3. C c ... c ... c ... c
4. D d ... d ... d ... d
5. E e ... e ... e ... e
6. F f ... f ... f ... f
7. G g ... g ... g ... g
8. H h ... h ... h ... h
9. I i - ... i ... i ... i
10. J j ... j ... - ... -
11. Kk ... k(rare) ...
12. LI ... 1 ... 1 ... 1
13. M m ... m ... m ... m
14. N n ... n ... n ... n
15. O o ... o ... o ... o
16. P p ... p ... p ... p
17. Q q ... q ... ...
18. R r ... r ... r ... r
19. S s ... s ... s ... 3
20. T t ... t ... t ... t
21. U u ... u ... u ... u
22. V v ... i ... ...
23. W w ... w ... w ...
24. X i ... x ... x ...
25. Yy ... y ... y ... -
26. Z z ... z . . ...
27. ... \>
28. ...
29. ffi
The Anglo-Saxon Alphabet. 115
The sufficiency, or insufficiency, of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet
must be measured by the number and nature of the sounds which it
had to represent. This is scarcely to be done without a certain
amount of hypothesis and speculation. The opinion of the present
writer who, unwillingly, differs from many of his predecessors, is
that the proportion of letters to the sounds is not below that of
the average alphabets ; certainly above that of Irish ; and, perhaps,
comparable with that of the Mceso-gothic. But this view implies
that about the seventh century the sounds which we now represent
by j and z, were, then, either non-existent or rare : in other words
that they have been developed in the interval. With the sound of
tsh the same is held to have been the case ; and, unless several of
the preceding sections have been written in vain, the process by
which a word spelt Ceaster has now become Chester has been fore-
shadowed. But this is not even now spelt with a single letter. J
and z at the beginning of words, are now confined to those of for-
eign origin : and z, which is only a common sound as the sign of
number in the plurals like stagz, and the existence of which is
ignored in the present spelling, has been accounted for. Y, prob-
ably, existed in the oldest forms of our language ; but the differ-
ence between such a combination as ee-o and yo is of the slightest.
Besides this, y grows out of g. So much for the sibilants, both
simple and compound.
The guttural sounds of kh and gh, have, probably, been lost : at
least, in the literary English.
!F as a semi-vowel seems to have been unknown. As a vowel it
appears interchangeable in spelling with i and e, &s in gyt=yet,
qehyrsam and gehirsam (in German gehorsam) = obedient. Whether
it had the sound of the French u, German ii, and Scandinavian y is
doubtful. The analogy of the allied languages is more in favor of
this than the orthographical conditions under which it occurs. So
far as it is a semi-vowel it seems to have been represented by e
eow=you, eorl = earl = Danish jarl, where the j=y. This is a
point upon which I unwillingly differ from Mr Ellis. He argues
against the semi-vowel power of e from its interchangeability with
ea. But this assumes that it had only one power. He also argues
against it from the small number of words beginning" with e, fol-
lowed by a vowel, where the sound is now that of y. This is true.
But it is not from e as an initial that the point is to be deter-
mined. It is rather from the combination ofe with *, c, and sc preced-
ing it as in seo = she ; sceat = shot, (as in pay your shot ; in scot
and lot, the k sound is preserved,) and Ceaster = Chester. It is
on this that the present writer mainly insists. Mr Ellis, however,
is so far consistent that he thinks that the change to sh and tsh can
be accounted for differently ; by what he calls palatisation. This is
the point upon which we are at issue. Q, was expressed by cw ;
and k, in the original alphabet, was nowhere. The difference be-
tween/and v was not represented. Though q was ejected as super-
8*
116 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
fluous, x was not. It had its present power of Ics ricsian, being
sometimes written rixian.
The unsteadiness of the two sounds by which we denote the th in
thin and the th in thine is a serious charge. So far as the signs
were separate from one another, and both single, all was well.
There were two sounds, and each of them was a simple one. There
were, also, two letters ; and each of them was simple also. But
there was no steadiness in their import : inasmuch as either sign
might be used for the expression of either sound ; so that, of the
two continuants of t and d, each had two signs. This is the very
last inconsistency that we expect ; for the origin of 6 is, evidently,
the letter d. Yet so it is. Of the two sounds the sonant is, in the
present stage of language, the rarer : being, at the beginning of
words, nearly limited to the words that, these, those, thy, they, theirs,
them, then, there, and the article the. Yet in the Anglo-Saxon and
Icelandic the spelling is with" \>, as \>ii = thou, \>&r there. Are we
to suppose, then, that the sound has changed ? Eask answers in the
affirmative ; for he remarks that though \>at, = that, when written
at length, is spelt both ways (i.e., \>cet and $<et) the abbreviated form
is always -p. Upon this he lays more stress than, in my mind, it
will bear. That \> is always found at the beginning of words, and
that both in Anglo-Saxon and Icelandic, is more important : but
even this fails to carry us over the whole difficulties of the question.
" Some," writes Eask, " have considered one of these letters as super-
fluous, and Lye, who, however, bows to the opinion of Spelman and
Somner, that 5 was the b.ard (surd), and \> the soft (sonant) th,
nevertheless considers them as the same letter." Later, indeed
within the last two years, Mr Ellis admits the difficulty of the ques-
tion. "What," he writes, " were the precise meanings of b, 5, or
rather how the meanings (th, dh) were distributed over them, it
does not seem possible to elicit from the confused state of existing
manuscripts."
If these views be true the demerits of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet
are, so far as the consonants go, not above the average. In the
vowels there seem to be some very serious deficiencies, both of
omission and commission ; and one, probably, as serious as all
put together in the matter of mistribution ; by which I mean
classing two widely different sounds under the same head ; or as
the (so-called) long and short sounds of one another. This ap-
plies to the vowel t. I said probably ; because as the case stands
it is, by no means, certain. If we only knew how the contempor-
aries of Alfred sounded such words as tid and win, all would be
clear : but he would be a bold man who would answer the question
in either one way or another. Individually, I think that the words
were sounded as we now sound them ; or as tide and wine. So they
are sounded in Germany zeit and icein. But in Scandinavia the
pronunciation is teed, and veen ; or tid and vin, tid and v'm. In
the Scandinavian languages the diphthong (ei in German, / phoneti-
The Anglo-Saxon Alphabet. 117
cally) is rare as an independent sound : though it is common enough
as an educt from -eg : but this is only a secondary diphthong.
We know that it has originated in a combination of a vowel
and a consonant ; and we know what the consonant is. We have
no knowledge of the origin of the i in tid and win : and there are
numerous words besides of which we may say the same. Whether,
however, the mistribution be Anglo-Saxon or not, it is certain that
we have it in the present English and a very grave one it is.
Then there was a minor sort of confusion between i and y, already
noticed ; and another, also already noticed, between i and e.
With all three of the broad vowels there was also confusion.
Whether the language, or whether the ear of the framers, or up-
holders of the alphabet was at fault is uncertain : but between either
the actual sound of the vowels or the representation of them,
there was great indistinctness somewhere. It, probably lay with
the language. In respect to a, the Scotch say bane and stone,
the English bone and stone. In the Anglo-Saxon the spelling was
ban and stdn. When the vowel was short, there was the same in-
distinctness, and hand was, and has long continued to be, written
hand and hond. In one of the latest contributions on the pro-
nunciation of the Runes, the late Professor Munch of Christiana
has shown that, even in the oldest, there was the same ambigu-
ity. In both the present Danish and the present Swedish the
sound of what is meant to be the genuine o is spelt with a in
Danish staae, in Swedish sta, bal. Meanwhile the ordinary o is
intermediate to the English o and oo.
A notice of the Latin alphabet as the foundation of either the
Anglo-Saxon or the German of the continent would be incomplete
without a recognition of certain letters to which influential authorities
have assigned a higher antiquity, and a more independent origin,
than is here allowed ; though, here and elsewhere, considerable
importance is attached to them the German and Scandinavian,
or Norse, Eunes. The Runes (and it is in Scandinavia where they
are best studied) fall into two classes ; those which are anterior to
the introduction of Christianity, and those which are subsequent to
it. The former are sixteen in number. The latter are the same as
the older ones so far as they go ; but with certain additions to make
up the number of the letters of the Latin alphabet which they are
coined to represent. They are formed out of the earlier ones by
diacritical marks, generally dots ; so that the older alphabet con-
sists of the unpointed, the newer of the pointed and unpointed,
Runes. As Run means a secret, or something whispered in the ear,
it is probable that the art of reading them, was, at first, known to
but few. The earliest are assigned to the ninth century A.D. The
original Runes consist solely of straight lines ; as if they were meant
for inscriptions and for nothing else.
Of the Runes the most important is the third : fc = th ; by name
Thurs ; and also Thorn; for out of this grew the Anglo-Saxon
118 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
letter \> = the Greek e, the English th ; as we have already seen.
The sign for w is also believed to have a similar origin.
The Ogham characters, which in some degree bear the same re-
lation to the Irish as the Ktraic does to the Anglo-Saxon alphabet,
inasmuch as both are invested with a certain halo of mystery and
antiquity, are of a very artificial construction 5 and are more truly of
the nature of cyphers in the way of cryptography, or secret writing,
than their German analogues. The Ogham characters, moreover,
remind us of musical notation rather than of ordinary alphabetic
writing. There is a long straight horizontal line, like those we see
in copybooks ; and upon, under, or across (i.e., both under and over)
this are certain short ones, equally straight, which according to
their grouping by ones, or twos, or threes, etc., and by their rela-
tion to the base line, take their import as letters. Of those that lie
both above and below the line some lie across it at right angles,
others obliquely. The two alphabets which have commanded the
most attention are (1) the Beith-Luis and (2) the Bobel-Loth ;
named after the letters with which they, respectively, begin.
These letters are twenty-four in number, like the Latin ; indeed, in
this respect more so than the genuine practical vernacular one. So
far. then, as this goes, the old Irish had two alphabets. The names
of the letters are extremely fanciful. Beith =birch, and Lv.is =
mountain-ash ; and as these, so are the rest of the letters named
after trees. The Bobel-Loth, on the other hand, takes its names
from the Bible ; and Bobel, Loth, Foronn, Davith, Talemon, Qualep,
etc. = Babel, Lot, Pharaoh, David, Solomon, Caleb, etc., figure as
the names of letters.
Add to these the numerous inscriptions, both in Latin and Greek
characters, sometimes found on stone monuments, but oftener on
coins, (where we also get a date.) and we have a fair view of the
condition of the alphabets of Western Europe between the middle
of the fourth and the middle of the seventh century.
The little that need be added concerning that part of the Anglo-
-Saxon orthography which relates to accents I give in the words of
Dr Bosworth, than whom no one has paid more attention to the
subject. The evil influence of the French system of spelling, intro-
duced by the Xorman Conquest is here indicated ; and certainly it
is not exaggerated.
As the simplicity of the Anglo-Saxon accentuation has frequently been over-
looked, or involved in a complicated system, it will tend to remove false impres-
sions and to make the matter clear, by recollecting that the Anglo-Saxons only
used one accent, which always indicated the long sound of the vowel over which
it is placed. Our complicated system of English vowels arose from the Norman
scribes, who first confused the Anglo- Saxon accents, and then attempted to supply
their place by a multiplicity of vowels, which we have adopted, as will be seen by
the following examples: Cw4n, a cween; f6t,feet; %6s,gee$e, etc: Die, <
lie, like; lim, lime ; win, wine; etc: B6c, book; {(it, fore, before; god, good;
g6s, a goose; etc: Du, thou, hii, how. hus, house ; in us, mouse; etc: Bryd,
a bride; fyr, -fire; mys mice. In all the instances the Anglo-Saxon is quite
History of the Anglo-Saxon Alphabet. 119
plain and consistent, expressing the same sound by the same accented vowel,
while the English employs different vowels for the same purposes as in cween,
geese; good, goose, fore; thow, bow,, house and mow.se. The greatest complica-
tion of vowels is seen in our expression of the long open sound of o, heard in no
and bone. We use oe, oa, and o with a silent final e, while the Anglo-Saxons,
in all cases, merely accented the o as Da, a doe; f6, a foe; ta, a toe. Bat, a
boat, dc, an oak, fain, foam, etc. Ban, a bone, stan, a stone, etc. The super-abun-
dant employment of English vowels is troublesome to natives and most perplexing
to foreigners. On the contrary, the Anglo-Saxon system of accenting the long
vowels is plain and definite.
SECTION XLI.
HISTORY OF THE ANGLO-SAXON ALPHABET.
In Dr Bosworth's remark upon the ignorance of the Norman
scribes, we shall find nearly the whole of the remainder of the his-
tory of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet and orthography. We have in-
dicated the faults in the original construction of it ; we have seen
how old a system it is ; and we have hinted at the inordinate amount
of wear and tear to which it has been exposed. This constitutes its
history, as what we call a working alphabet ; and, in tracing it, the
single event of the Norman Conquest is all in all. It plays much
the same part in the history of English spelling as the well-abused
letter c does in the construction of the alphabet. I am not so much
in love with two great landmarks, and the simplicity with which they
invest our examination, as to distribute the whole mass of the or-
thographical mischief entailed upon the present generation under
these two heads exclusively. There are certain faults common to
all systems of spelling, and such when they occur in English, can-
not, of course, be imputed to either of these causes. But so long as
our spelling has nothing worse than these, it is no worse than that
of other countries. It is by the inordinate amount of faultiness pe-
culiar to itself, that it especially afflicts our language ; and of this,
I think that nine-tenths, at least, are due to these two causes. We
must understand this. There are other countries in which they use
c instead of Ic ; but there are none in which the antagonism of the two
letters exists as it exists in England ; and the antagonism, be it re-
membered, is that of two systems, the Latin, and the German. There
are other countries too, which have been conquered by an army of
foreigners, and have, therefore, had their languages inundated by
words of foreign origin ; but such a history as that of the British
Islands during the two centuries which followed the battle of Hast-
ings, we find nowhere except in England.
There is not much to be said about the influence of the Danes.
In the charters of Canute and Edward the Confessor, the use of the
k becomes conspicuous. For this there are two reasons. (1) the
original Frank influence dating from the beginning of the seventh
century, or the introduction of the Christianity of the Frank mis-
sionaries as opposed to that of the Irish, or British church ; and (2)
120 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
that of Northern Germany upon Denmark, and through Denmark
upon Scandinavia in general. Between these two we explain the
difference between the orthography of the charters immediately pre-
ceding the death of Edward the Confessor and those of Alfred,
Athelstan, and Edgar. We are not always sure of the date of the
Anglo-Saxon Charts. We may learn, however, by mere inspection,
that the derivations from the original spelling are numerous in pro-
portion as they approach the time of the Norman Conquest. We
must be careful, however, not to overvalue the Danish influence.
There is adequate evidence of this in the Codex 2Evi Saxonici. But
it must be read with the caution that, though Kemble, as a general
rule, marks the chartas of doubtful antiquity with an asterisk, he,
so far as he is other than wholly unexceptionable, favors antiquity.
Then comes the Norman Conquest our great epoch and, after
that, comes a break. For nearly two centuries there is but little
written in either English or French. Latin prevails. The excep-
tions are well known. There is the continuation of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle. This comes down to the death of Stephen. This is cer-
tainly Anglo-Saxon, as opposed to English in its orthography. But
it must be remembered that it is the continuation of an Anglo-Saxon
work ; wherein the spelling of the earlier parts may have served as
a model for that of the later ones. Under Henry I., however, the
English was depressed ; while the French was rather in a state of
formation than formed. The court, however, the nobles, the priests,
and the lawyers were French. We must see how, in the reign of
Henry II., the English emerges after its period of disgrace and
abeyance. It still passes, however, for Anglo-Saxon rather than
English ; and, though it is doubtful whether the language of the
few compositions we have of the twelfth century be that of the com-
mon people, it is certain that their spelling is that of the bookmen,
who looked backwards, rather than that of the speakers, whose
natural tendencies were to take the language as they heard it.
But we may now consider the history of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet
from a different point of view. We may ask what it would have
been if left to itself. I believe this view to be one that has either
not hitherto been taken ; or, if taken, not considered historically.
The conversion of the Anglo-Saxon orthography into an orthography
so unlike its former self as the present English, is not the only con-
tinuation of its history. It was what we call a mother alphabet ;
one out of which others were formed ; or, to say the least, one by
which others were largely influenced. For the first of these we
must look to Westphalia, This is because, in Westphalia, we are
in the old Saxon country ; in what is called Lower Saxony. The
Franks before the time of Charlemagne were Christians. The
Saxons, after his time, were Pagans. England, meanwhile, had
been Christianised. It was the business of these Christianised En-
glishmen to send missionaries into the old country Westphalia,
Friesland, and Northern Germany in general. And here their ef-
History of the Anglo-Saxon Alphabet. 121
forts were successful. In England the Northern Germans were
called the Old Saxons ; -EWrf-Seaxan, Antiqui-Saxones ; their in-
structors being the Anglo-Saxons. These last took with them their
own proper alphabet ; and out of this grew a comparatively credit-
able body of compositions. Some of them hardly deserve the name
of literature ; for they are mere muniments, or rolls of certain con-
vents, i.e., of Essen and Frekkenhorst. But the Heliand, Healer,
or Savior, a metrical harmony of the four Gospels, giving us the
history of Christ during his ministry on earth, is a work of no small
importance. Being written without any metrical divison of the lines,
it was, at first, mistaken for a narration in prose, and for one com-
posed in the Danish parts of England ; by which supposition its
divergence from the ordinary Anglo-Saxon was accounted for. It
is now known to be a poem. As for its language it is amply ex-
plained by the doctrine that it was the Old Saxon of the original
mother country in Germany. Add to this the fact that it is that of
the rolls and muniments of the Westphalian convents already men-
tioned, and the evidence is complete.
Here, then, we have the Anglo-Saxon alphabet in Germany, where
it may re-act on that of the Franks, just as that of the Franks acted
upon the English. It is essentially Anglo-Saxon with differences.
The Anglo-Saxon w is uu. The c is strictly adopted. The only
word I remember as spelt with Jc is the proper name Isaak. The
same claim, of having supplied either an alphabet as an actual model,
or a standard to which writers might refer, may be made upon
Scandinavia. In the present Icelandic, Swedish, and Danish we
know that the Jc is paramount. C appears oftenest in the Swedish ;
but it is only when it precedes a k, for the sake of indicating the
shortness of the vowel which it follows, as drivka, in Danish drikke.
Here the function of c is just what it is in thick. But in the older
Icelandic manuscripts, though c is non-existent in the print, k is
exceptional ; or rather it is found subject to the rule we can so easily
anticipate : the one connected with the broadness or smallness of
the vowel by which it is followed. Thus while the print of the
Voluspa runs :
Hljo'Ss br3 ec allar
Helgar binder,
Meiri ok minni,
Mogue Heimdallar,
Vildu at ek Valfodre
Vel framtelja,
Fornspjoll fira,
}>au er e fremst um man
The manuscript on which it is founded runs :
H Hefts bift ec allar binder meiri miNi maugo heimdalar vildo at ec ualfaj> uel
jryr telia j - orn spioli jrira J>se e' jremst u man.
But, even here, when two vowels follow, the spelling is with c as
122 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
Sol sein sunnan
A' salar steina,
\>a var grund groin
Groenum laui.
in the manuscript
Sol scein suNa a salar steina >a var grvnd groin grSno lauki.^)
The earlier Anglo-Saxon prototype and the latter modifications of
it are here manifest. In the Codex Begins, assigned to the begin-
ning of the fourteenth century, Ic appears before n as Tcna. Upon
this, however, Munch remarks that " c is used oftener than k." In
the Arne Magnusson Codex the k is exclusively used.
From the Icelandic, or Old Norse, the present alphabets of Den-
mark, Norway, and Sweden are derived. They are of average merit ;
and such we may suppose the English would have_been had there
been nothing to interfere with it.
SECTION XLII.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OP ENGLISH SPELLING SUBSEQUENT TO
THE NORMAN CONQUEST. THE MUTE E.
Though the mute e is mainly of French origin we must not sup-
pose that it is wholly and absolutely foreign to our language. It
appears, for the first time, after the Norman Conquest ; and, at
present, it is in words introduced from France that it chiefly occurs.
So far, then, as it is conspicuous and prominent it is French ; but it
is probable that, even if no such an event as the Battle of Hastings
had occurred, we might have mute e's to some extent at least, of na-
tive origin and independent growth. In all words where the penut-
tinate vowel is long, and the-last is the letter e, (which in this case
is sounded.) there is always a chance of the e becoming, sooner or
later, obsolete ; in which case it drops out of the pronunciation. If
then, as generally happens, the spelling fail to keep pace with the pro-
nunciation, and if the vowel be preserved in writing after it has been
dropped in speaking, a mute e is the natural result ; and as the syllable
which precedes it is already long, the connection between the two
vowels in the way of orthography, is invested witha characterto which
it has no claim. The two vowels look as if they belonged to a system,
or a method, or had some connection with a principle, or a function,
namely, that of indicating longness. The combination, however,
has, as we have seen, a different origin ; and is in fact, so far as the
expression of quantity is concerned, merely accidental.
Now the extent to which a final e became thus obsolete in the
earlier stages of our language was inordinately great ; greater, per-
haps, than in French, as may be seen by the merest inspection of an
5. Den Jildre Edda P. A. Munch. Christiania. 1847.
Historical Sketch of English Spelling. 123
Anglo-Saxon grammar. In our language anterior to the Norman
Conquest, there was a whole declension of substantives, in which
the nominative case ended in -n, and the oblique cases in -e ; an e
which was as clearly sounded as it is in the present German, or
Danish. This was the case with heortan, tungan, eage, hearts, ton-
gues, eyes, etc. Here the first step in the change was the ejection
of the sound of the final consonant ; then came that of e ; which was
long preserved in writing.
Besides this, there was a double inflection of the adjective.
When it followed the definite article, -n or -e was the ending. Hence,
there came a Definite, as opposed to an Indefinite, Declension ; and
this, also, at the present moment occurs in German. So important
is this real and organic -e with its subsequent disappearance in
speech, that it gives us one of the rules for the pronunciation of the
adjective in Chaucer ; where (whatever may be the case in other
words) we are safe in treating it, for the purposes of metre, as
sounded where it is Definite, or preceded by the. In this, then, to
go no farther, we get a measure of the degree to which the Anglo-
Saxon orthography had, within itself, the germ of what we may call
the mute e system ; for it is the doctrine of the present writer that
the final vowel was written, at least, as long as it was pronounced, and
the hypothesis (we may almost say the certain fact) that it was re-
tained in the writing after it had been dropped in the pronunciation
are equally legitimate deductions from the history of our orthography.
Hence, when, from two different causes the one derived from our
own language, and the other from the French, the two modes of
spelling became confluent or united, the predominance of what looks
like a very artificial way of expressing the length of a vowel, is ex-
plained by the very natural process of a change in language preced-
ing the appropriate change in spelling ; or the retention of a letter
in writing after its proper function had become, both literally and
figuratively, a dead letter. Then, when e final was made mute, the
necessity of expressing it when sounded, led to orthographical expe-
dients ; and this, (as was shown in our remarks on the words
quantity, quality, etc., which are spelt in French with an accented
e, whereas with us, the accent was not recognised,) to say the least,
favored the practice of writing y at the end of words ; a thoroughly
non-natural termination.
As for the mute e itself with a consonant between it and the vowel
with which it was supposed to be associated, the orthographic pro-
cess in which it plays its part is so exceptional, that the English and
the French are the only two languages in which it is found. Its
origin (as has been shown) was, to some extent, natural. It soon,
however, became artificial ; consciously, and designedly artificial.
One of the worst instances of this is the word whose. The Anglo-
Saxon was hw(Bs. Here, the e presented itself in the diphthong.
Then came htcaes ; then the transposition ; in which there is nothing
natural ; nothing even French. It is purely and simply artificial ;
124 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
and when considered with reference to its natural import, a combin-
ation of which the true signification is as different as can be from
its conventional ; in other words, it is an artifice of the worst kind.
Pence is much such another word as whose, i.e., an example of the
mute e in its most objectionable state.
SECTION XLIII.
HISTORICAL SKETCH, ETC. (continued). THE APOSTROPHE (') AS
A SIGN OF THE GENITIVE CASE.
The e mute, which presented itself at the end of words was
dropped ; or fell off. The e which preceded the s in words like
scipes = ships, and served as part of the sign of the genitive case,
was elided ; i.e., it lay in the middle of two other letters and slipped
out from between them. Hence, it became obsolete as a sound .-
and so long as it was used in spelling was, as a letter, mute. In the
plural number where there was the same termination in -*, the orig-
inal vowel which preceded it was a ; as wulfas = wolves. Both
vowels, however, suffered elision : the result being the use of the
so-called apostrophe ; as in the mans hat, the children s father, the
ships' sails, three different forms, each of which is a bad one, and
each bad in a manner peculiar to itself. They deserve, however,
notice : because of all the orthographical expedients with which the
English language is overloaded, this use of the apostrophe has the
least foundation in anything like a philological fact ; while it pres-
ents on the other hand, the most decided signs of a conscious adap-
tation, invention, or construction. It is not, however, a mere sign
of elision in general ; for, if it were so, we should find it in the
nominative and accusative plural as well as in the genitive singular.
But in the plural it is conspicuous from its absence ; and is meant
to be so : for it is a sign not only of elision but of differentiation or
distinction between two elided sounds. It is not, then, so much
the sign of a vowel in the genitive case which has dropped out,
as that of a difference in case and number between the word lions
in such clauses as the following (1) the lions den and (2) the lions
are let loose. Now in respect to this expedient we may fairly say
that, supposing an expedient of any kind to be needed, it is, as we
here see it before us, one of more than average merit. All expedi-
ents, in the eyes of the Phonetic speller, are bad. But this is among
the least bad. As a construction it is simple and natural ; and as
a sign adequate to the work it has to do ; so that the only objection
to it is its superfluousness.
Here, however, we must stop. Its extension to the genitive plural
is utterly indefensible. Except in the few words like men, women,
children, oxen, where we actually say the men's memories, the women's
children, the children's parents, the oxen's horns, the s has no real
Historical Sketch of English Spelling. 125
existence : and as there is no genitive in 's there is no elision ; and
that for the simple reason that there is nothing to be elided. Hence
the s' represents nothing. No one supposes that there -were ever
such words as ships-es,fox-es-es and the like ; or that such a sen-
tence as " the genitive plural is formed from the nominative by the
addition of -es " ever existed as a real rule. The Anglo-Saxon geni-
tive plural ended in -a, and when this became narrowed into -e, and
the -e became mute, there was no sign of any case in the plural num-
ber except the nominative. This, however, is by no means, an intol-
erable condition for a language to be reduced to. The French has
no sign for a genitive case in either number ; and, by means of the
preposition de, does very fairly without one. By a similar applica-
tion of q/Ve might have done the same : indeed, it is the opinion of
the present writer, that in nine cases out of ten this is what we do.
Still we have such constructions as the children's bread and the ships'
sails ; and the explanation of them is easy. Taken by itself, the notion
that the genitive plural may stand to the nominative of that number
in the same relation that genitive and nominative cases singular stand
to each other, is one which when a language is (so to say) in difficul-
ties and reduced to an alternative, naturally presents itself. The ac-
tual formation, however, of the new cases is, by no means, so simple.
Thus the English nominative plural has already a sign ; stone,
stones, just like the Latin lapis, lapides ; and before we can substi-
tute another for it (for the the process is one of substitution rather
than of addition) this sign has to be got rid of; for, it is clear, that
we can no more say stones-es, than the Latin can say lapides-um ;
though something like it is done with the word its ;- where t is the
sign of the neuter gender, and s, the sign of the genitive case, is
tacked on to it. Let this difficulty, however, be got over, a second
remains. The signs of the cases, the nominative plural and the
genitive singular, are alike ; both ending in s. Yet we do not
say ships'es, and still less fox-es-es. What then does this 's re-
resent ? The best that can be said of it is that it represents a con-
fluence, fusion, amalgamation, or unification of two ss'es, with dif-
ferent powers, and belonging to different numbers, and though this,
being a purely historical fact, is not capable of being represented in
speech, it is the high prerogative of orthography, in cases like these,
to make good the want of a real distinction by an artificial one ;
and that, in the case before us, the apostrophe of the genitive singu-
lar with its change of position in respect to the s, does this. With
the few words in n (men's, oxen's) the addition is real ; and, so far
as there is a genitive plural at all, these are the words in which it
occurs, Here, however, no (') is wanted. There has been no elision ;
and there is nothing with which the forms can be confounded : the
singular genitives being man's, woman's, child's, ox's.
The apostrophe, then, in the genitive plural is much less defensible
than that of the genitive singular. Neither is laudable ; though
the latter is less blameworthy than the former. It is the misfor-
126 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
tune, however, of this unlucky sign to have been woefully misinter-
preted. We all know what it was for a long time supposed to rep-
resent ; viz. : the pronoun his. We know, too, the chief texts,
(" Christ his sake " and others,) upon which this belief rested. The
rectification of this error took place by degrees. The objection that
lay closest at hand was, of course, the fact that it was only for the
masculine gender of the singular number that this explanation was
available. We do not, it was urged, say " The Queen, her Majesty "
nor yet "the children, their bread." This, however, was soon con-
demned as insufficient : inasmuch as, though nothing like so common
as his, both their and her are used in the corresponding constructions.
A better objection, however, was found in the word hi-s itself;
because, here, the s could not possibly be made (so to say) out of
itself. The most conclusive argument, however, was, at the same
time, the shortest, and this was the fact of the s in " father's " being
simply the s in the Latin " patris," the Greek irartpbj, the s, indeed, of
all the Indo-European languages.
This is as much as need be said about the two most prominent
conventionalities which followed the Norman Conquest. The rest
may be considered more briefly : indeed they need only be indicated.
(a) The doubling of the vowel, as in feet, to show that its sound
is long, is one which is so natural that we only wonder at its not
having become practical and prominent at an earlier period ; i.e., in
the Latin stage of the alphabet. It is foreshadowed by the Greek
Omega fl, , which is, really, a modified, lengthened, and en-
larged Omicron, O, o. The whole doctrine of the Greek Isochron-
ism, or Equality of Time, pointed in the same direction. The
statement that two short syllables, equalled one long one, and vice
versa, had only to be extended to the vowel, and the doubling of the
vowel as a sign of longness followed. The Anglo-Saxon, though
imperfect and inconsistent, promoted this result.
(b) The combination of different vowels in the same syllable is
due to other, and less simple causes. The Anglo-Saxon combina-
tions ea and eo (though here the smaller vowel preceded the broader
one, and was often semi-vocalic) had the effect, to say the least, of
accustoming the eye to the presence of two vowels in the same syl-
lable : and be it remarked that, in English, the sequence is that of
the Anglo-Saxon stage ; i.e., e comes before a. I, however, is rarely
found in the same place : and this is because it was, when followed
by a vowel, diphthongal ; or, in the eyes of those who failed to
recognise its diphthongal character, long ; and, as such, less likely
to suggest coalescence. In Dutch the e follows the broader vowel ;
and here is, so far as mute letters are tolerable, the mute e in its
right place ; or would be if it had a place at all.
(e) Combinations like oa as in coal are probably due to another
cause, and have no connection with the expression of longness.
They seem to be the result of the original indistinctness (already
noticed) between the sounds of a and o.
Dialects of the Anglo-Saxon and Old English. 127
(d) The same applies to oo = u, an indistinctness which has also
already been indicated.
(e) I after a, (as in snail,) in words of English origin, almost
always indicates an original g (sncegel), which is first changed into^,
and then, being eliminated, brings the two vowels in juxta-position.
There is enough in these examples to show that in the actual con-
tact of two vowels in the same syllable, much as it may offend
against one of the primary laws of Phoneticism, there is little non-
-natural or arbitrary. But is this all ? No. We have written as
if these anomalous forms of spelling were only detrimental so far as
they were anomalies. But this is not the fact. They are inconsis-
tent as well ; for the oo in foot is short : and that either the second
vowel as the sign of longness, or the second consonant (as in
spotted) as a sign of shortness is superfluous, has already been
stated. Hence we have, in addition to an inordinate amount of
anomalies, a notable amount of inconsistencies and redundancies as
well.
SECTION XLIV.
DIALECTS OF THE ANGLO-SAXON AND OLD ENGLISH.
These redundancies and inconsistencies might have been prevented
by a certain amount of rigidity or uniformity in the practice of our
spelling. But no such conditions existed. It is still a matter of uncer-
taintyas to the particular dialect which the orthoepy and orthography
of the present literary English represent. It was not that of the lit-
erarjr Anglo-Saxon ; not that of the dialect which prevailed anterior
to the Norman Conquest. Nor is it unnatural that such should be the
case. The present High German is not that of the parts which most
especially constituted the Germania of Tacitus. The Castilian of
Spain is not that of the great mass of the Spanish peninsula. The
Italian is that of Florence rather than of Rome ; the French that of
Northern France ; anything, indeed, but that of the district wherein
the first language of Gaul was both spoken and written ; indeed, so far
as the place of its first successful cultivation is concerned, the French
originated in England rather than in France. Just, then, as it would
be a mistake to suppose that the present Italian was a continuation
of some Sicilian or South Italian form of speech ; the Castilian one
of the Catalonian or Valencian ; the German one of that of West-
phalia or the parts about Cologne, and the French that of Provence ;
so it would be an error to suppose that, between the language of
Alfred and the language of Dryden, there was any literary continu-
ity. In short, in England, as elsewhere, the points which coincided
with the cultivation of the earlier and the later English literatures
shifted.
Now the cultivated dialect of the Anglo-Saxon period was the
West Saxon, or the Saxon of Wessex ; the English of the counties
128 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
of Dorset, Wilts, Berks, and Hants. The nearest approach to a
concurrent literary language was in Northumberland. We may
call this form of speech, if we choose, Angle rather than Saxon, though
the term is anything but unexceptionable. Both, however, were
English. Then there was the great intervening tract formed by the
Midland and Eastern counties, which we may call Mercia and East
Anglia. Of the Mercian, however, and the East Anglian dialects
the cultivation was, practically, nil. The little we know about them
tells us. that they differed from one another less than the West
Saxon and Northumbrian, and that they differed in small and nega-
tive, rather than in great and positive, characters.
Now as an origin of the present literary English, the claim on the
part of Northumberland is no better than that of Wessex. Nor is
there one for East Anglia as opposed to Mercia. Individually
I hold, with the generality of investigators, that the Mercian is
the dialect which the present written language most especially rep-
resents : and to Mercia 1 assign London. I prefer this to fixing
upon any particular county as the district from which we are
specially called to deduce it. Mercia gives us the counties wherein
we find the smallest amount of provincialism, and, also, those to
which the two Universities 'belong.
Be this as it may, the history of our literature gives the West
Saxon dialects a predominance until the middle of the fourteenth
century. Over and above the writers of the proper Anglo-Saxon
period we have for Wessex, Layamon, and the author of the Ancren
Riwle, Nicholas of Guildford, the author of the Ayenbite of Inwit
(a native of Kent, but a writer whose language is nearly as Devonian
as that of Devonshire itself,) Robert of Gloucester, William of
Shoreham, Langland, the author of Piers Plpwman's Vision, Trevisa,
(both these somewhat later than their predecessors) and others, either
anonymous or of less importance. Against these there is little to
be set, except the conclusion of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which
is assigned to the parts about Peterboro' ; the Onnulum, and
Havelok the Dane, which are assigned to the Danish parts of En-
gland ; Robert Manning, or Robert of Bourne, a Lincolnshire man ;
and Rolle, or the Hermit of Hampole, the author of The Prick of
Conscience, a Yorkshire man.
Chaucer and Gower and Mandeville, in the latter part of Edward
III.'s reign were Londoners. Wycliffe's language was probably that
of the university of Oxford, rather than of his birthplace, Yorkshire.
Bv the beginning of the fifteenth century there is a fair proportion
of writers from the more central districts London being included
herein. Great changes now take place. The most Northern dia-
lects of Northumberland, which, philologically, extended to the
Forth, are now the dialects of a literature of no ordinary merit ; for
just while the English is in a degenerate and chaotic state, the
Scotch is advancing. But we must not call it Scotch, not even Low-
land Scotch. We must call it what the speakers themselves called
Extension of the Phonetic Principle. 129
it, English. They were constrained, perhaps unwillingly, to do
this ; but they had no choice in the matter. It had to be distin-
guished from the Gaelic of the Highlands ; even at the cost of some
national distaste to the name. The English, however, of Northern
England is not the English of our classical writers.
In other respects, too, the first three quarters of the fifteenth cen-
tury form a notable epoch. The antagonism between the English
and the Norman French has ended in the predominance of the for-
mer. The age, too, is an age of manuscripts. Printing is about to
begin ; but just in proportion as the vocation of the copyist ap-
proaches its end, the mass of materials has accumulated ; for the
manuscript stage of our literature and orthography is now in its ninth
century ; and there is more than ever there was before to be trans-
cribed. Neither are authorship and transcription limited to any"
particular districts. We have now manuscripts from the borders of
Wales. We have now, in Capgrave and Lydgate, writers from East
Anglia ; and both these, Shropshire and Norfolk, are quarters to
which, hitherto, but little has been assigned. There is, indeed, a
diffusion of the practice of both composing and copying to an ex-
tent hitherto unknown : of uniformity, or any directing authority,
very little. It was no part of the business, then, of the transcriber
of a work in a dialect different from his own to adhere to the very
words and letters of his author. Translation from one local form
to another is too strong a word. But, though the transcriber did
not translate, he accommodated the minor details of spelling and
grammar from one part of England to that of another the one to
which he himself belonged. That this was done largely we know
from ample evidence. How much confusion it created we can
more easily imagine than calculate.
SECTION XLV.
EXTENSION OF THE PHONETIC PRINCIPLE AND SUBJECTS ALLIED
TO PHONETIC SPELLING, AS SPECIALLY APPLIED TO THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
The Phonetic Spelling, so far as it has hitherto been discussed, is
that of the English language. The term, however, has a wide im-
port ; and, there are certain varieties in the application of the pho-
netic principle which are sufficiently akin to the subject of the
present treatise to call for a slight notice.
The first of these is Metagraphy,( 6 ) or Transliteration. This
6. This is a derivative from [Afra, in its sense suggestive of action and reaction,
or interehangeableness, and ypdipw = I write. I can safely recommend the word,
inasmuch it is not one of my own construction ; but one suggested nearly forty
years ago by one of the best scholars in Cambridge. It is not held that, except
so far it is somewhat shorter, Metagraphy is a better word than Transliteration :
and it is admitted that Transliterate is a much better word than Metagraphize.
On the other hand, however, Metagraphic is a better word than Transliterational.
There is room for, and need of, both.
130 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
means the substitution, sign for sign, of some letter in an alphabet
comparatively known (say the English, or any one of "Western
Europe) for one in an alphabet comparatively strange ; as for in-
stance the Sanskrit, or the Hebrew ; indeed, any Oriental alphabet
whatever. If the latter be, itself, phonetic, the two principles coin-
cide. This, however, is merely a nappy accident. If the English
alphabet were transliterated into the Greek it would be no more
phonetic than it is at present. The Greek reader would get a series
of letters somewhat less unfamiliar to him than the English are at
present. The faulty spelling, however, would still remain. As be-
tween a Greek and an Englishman this would be but a small boon.
Where the orthography, however, is of a moderate badness, and
where the difference of the letters is considerable, the boon is a
great one : and, in all cases, there is some advantage.
We have now only to ask whether a letter which will stand for a
sound in one language, can stand for the same sound in another ;
and, if the answer be given in the affirmative, the question of a
Universal Alphabet dawns upon us. What the answer is, and what
it may lead to, is another question. The three questions have been
suggested for the sake of showing how they are connected, and how
they differ ; and further than this we are not called to go.
Out of a mixture of Metagraphy and Phonetic Spelling we get the
most difficult of the problems connected with our subject ; namely,
the transliteration of dead languages so far as their pronunciation is
known, combined with the attempt to represent the true sounds of
the letters and combinations of which the import is doubtful. In
the Latin, where the letters are the same as our own, this is merely
phonetic spelling. In the Greek it is phonetic spelling with meta-
graphy superadded. Important as these questions are, they need
not, in a treatise like the present, detain us beyond the mere indi-
cation of their place in a full view of the general system of Ortho-
graphical Reform.
For a different reason I say nothing about the extension of Long-
hand Phonography to Shorthand. I know so little of it that I am
constrained to take its merits upon trust. Nor is this the place to
publish the unanimous verdict that I have heard in favor of the ex-
tension. It is part, however, of the system, and those who know it
best put the highest value upon it.
Lastly comes the notice of what, when it was done for the first
time, was the greatest benefit ever conferred on mankind ; namely,
that analysis of sentences into words, and of words into their articu-
late elements, without which the sign that speaks to the eye is im-
possible. Here there is nothing but Progress to report. Not a
year goes by without our hearing of some language, barbarous as it
may be, being reduced to writing, generally by the missionary,
but sometimes, from the mere love of his subject, by the philologue.
To bring the results of all this into harmony, is the duty and pleasure
of the systematic student. The English and the Russian languages
Review of the Question. 131
show the greatest amount of admirable work in this field ; the En-
glish and American missionaries from every quarter of the world,
the Eussian savans from the Babels of Caucasus and Siberia. I am
unwilling to travel beyond the wide domain of the Anglo-Saxon
tongue ; but, with accumulations of new material, in all cases re-
quiring a phonetic representation, it is impossible to abstain from
the expression of a hope that it is not too late to put the whole sys-
tem of Phonesis on as broad a basis as possible. For the leading
languages of the world a universal alphabet is but the dream of an
enthusiast. For the languages recently reclaimed from barbarism,
and, still more, for those where the reduction of an alphabet is either
in progress or prospect, some approach to harmony and unity may
be effected.
SECTION XLVL
KEVIEW OF THE QUESTION.
Such is the exposition of that part of the subject which the writer
has thought himself best justified in laying before the reader ; and
it is plain that it forms but one division of the question. Upon the
general character of the defects of the most insufficient system of
writing in the world, there are works both old and new ; not, in-
deed, in excess of the demands of the subject, nor yet proportion-
ate to them ; but still numerous enough to form a small literature ;
one, however, of which it is certain that the dimensions must in-
crease. Few who have written on the matter will feel themselves
disparaged by a special reference to the work which, in conjunction
with the earliest Journal printed in phonetic types, first succeeded
in fixing public attention on the reform of which the writer was the
advocate, Mr Ellis's " Plea for Phonetic Spelling." This was,
mainly, a classification of the actual, and an anticipation of many
possible, objections to it. Between these and its successors (for the
greater part, contributions to our periodical literature) little is now
left to be done, either in the exposure of the thousand-and-one faults
of the present system, or the exposition of the advantages of a pho-
netic one. It is probable, that, as so many matters of simple fact, they
are admitted by even the foremost defenders of things as they are.
If so, the time for the enumeration of them is going by. At any
rate, I have considered myself justified in taking them for grantea.
Neither have I cared to go out of my way to denounce them : for it is
possible that, flagrant as the demerits of our spelling may be, they
have been stripped and whipped according to their deserts. I have,
then, taken them, as aforesaid, for granted. Considered as obsta-
cles in the way to knowledge no one thinks worse of them than I
do ; yet I am sensible that, at the first view, the present treatise,
may be mistaken for a palliation, perhaps, for a defence, of them.
It tries to account for them ; and to account for them is to show
9*
132 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
that they are neither less nor greater than we should expect to find
them ; or, in other words, that, given the conditions under which
they arose, they are only what they ought to be. This, however,
in the most decided way that an admission can he made, admits
their existence, so that if further proof of it were required, it would
be found in the criticism that explains it. And this method carries
us farther than it seems to do. The great theoretical objection is
the Etymological ; and this, the historical view of the origin of the
present system, most especially enables us to meet ; for what is the
etymology of a word but its history ? what its history but its
etymology ?
Important, however, as this branch of the question may be, it is
not the one which touches us the nearest. The mere theoretical
objections to a change are a trifle. The " lion in the way " is the
existing system, and those who should assail it are those whom it
most aflects the million, the masses, or whatever else they may be
called; thethousands of the present, the tens ofthousands of the rising
generation, those to whom time and money are of importance, and
that to such an extent that even a boon like primary education may
be purchased too dearly. It is these who are, or ought to be, most
in earnest in favor of a change ; and there is far more danger in
their apathy. than in the opposition of the learned. There are sev-
eral facts by which Phoneticism may be recommended ; just as there
were several upon which objections could be founded. But, just as
there was one objection, the etymological, which outweighed all the
rest as a point for theoretical discussion, so is there, also, one rec-
ommendation which for the class now addressed is all-in-all ; and
that is, its value in primary education, or, to put it in humbler lan-
guage, the teaching of reading. Symmetry and consistency, and
the rational representation of articulate sounds, and other matters
of the same kind, may gratify the scholar and the etymologist.
Etymologists, however, or comparative philologists, as they best
like to be called, unless they have either to teach the alphabet to
their own children, or have grown-up sons who may be plucked for
dictation, care much more for Metagraphy than for Phonetic Spelling
per se. Anything like enthusiasm must be got from them in their
character as educationists ; and the two attachments by no means,
of necessity, go together. The enthusiasm of Mr Ellis and the still
unabated perseverance of Mr Pitman, are not likely to be again
combined.
Not but what everyone of these subordinate applications, and
these amateur tastes, has its value in the promotion of the greater
end. They are the smaller springs, the ornamental rivulets, which
help to swell the impetus of a grand stream which must owe both
its main waters and its definite direction to a more unfailing source,
and to a stronger power. It is the business and the interest of
others to make it both broad and deep, and to direct it towards
the machinery for which it is most specially demanded. The
The Working Alphabet. 133
Glossic system of Mr Ellis is, in this respect, a good help, though a
bad substitute. Of the Shorthand Phonography of Mr Pitman I
know less ; but I can easily see that, when Mr Ellis tells us that
those who have learned shorthand phonetically, will not learn long-
hand on the present system of spelling, he simply tells us the truth.
Metagraphy, and the aspirations for a universal alphabet help us
in the same direction ; but the paramount power is the one which,
founded as it is in the value of Phoneticism for the purposes of pri-
mary education, must be derived from the union and the sagacity of
the vast masses which it interests.
SECTION XLVII.
THE WOBKING ALPHABET-
It has been no part of the present writer's aim to exhaust the sub-
ject ; still Jess has it been either within his aim, or his authority, to
wi-ite in the character of a director or an adviser. What he has
done is to exhibit the faults of the present system from a point of
view which is, to some extent, a new one. He has assumed that they
exist ; and that, to an extent which those who have most earnestly
impeached the current orthography have not over-rated. He has
assumed their existence, and, to a certain extent, excused it. But
the excuse has been a condemnation. How these inordinate faults,
both of omission and commission are to be rectified, is a matter for
the consideration of those whom it affects most. These are not the
learned Few who have got over difficulties which they have for-
gotten, but the unlearned Many who have yet to learn : and to say
this is to say that it is, solely and wholly, as a matter of Primary
Education in other words the arts of reading and writing that the
question has been treated. The treatise itself is, probably, that of
an etymologist. The object, however, is that of the educationist
that of one who looks to the value of the phonetic system in primary
education only.
The working-out of the special details of such a change as those
involved in Phonetic Reform is as different from the theoretical part
of it as Administration is different from Legislature ; the aptitudes
for one, being, by no means, synonymous with the aptitudes for the
other. Hence, I have never presumed to give advice advice, at
least, of a positive kind. " Do this " or " do that " are forms of the
imperative mood which have not found a place in the treatise ; nor
will they. At the same time there are certain things which may be
recommended not to be done. The first, and foremost of these is-
(a) Don't do nothing. It is implied in what has preceded that,
bad as is our present orthography, it is no worse than the present
generation has a right to expect. If, however, with its full know -
ledge of all these deficiencies, the present generation bequeath it to
the next ; if those who are most concerned in amending it, either
134 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
leave the work to be done by others, or to do itself, no such extenu-
ation can be pleaded. If we not only take it as we find it, but are
satisfied to keep it as we take it, it is pretty clear that, bad as it is,
it is as good a one as we deserve.
(b) Dont Tteep out of the water till you have learnt to swim : this
meaning, Don't wait until you have got a Phonetic Alphabet which
pleases ei^erybody. An Alphabet is, of all things in the world, the
most equivocal. It partly belongs to Science ; partly to Art. It
is, to a large extent, dependent upon the powers of analysis and
comparison, on the part of the constructor ; to an extent equally
large on his taste for the harmonious and the symmetrical. How
often, or rather how rarely, these two qualities in the highest degree
are combined in one and the same individual, the history of human
thought tells us very plainly. Of the two great divisions, however,
the latter presents the more important difficulties. The decompo-
sition of the several words into their articulational elements is a
point upon which, in all the cultivated languages of Europe, the work
is already done. What remains is the choice, or the invention, of
the particular signs by which these are expressed. Now, in its
most general terms, an Alphabet of this kind is one of which a
cvnical sciolist might say that it is an achievement which anyone
above six years of age can accomplish. " He could," he might say,
"dash down three dozen different combinations of straight lines,
curves, and dots, and the thing would be done." He might, per-
haps, if he meant to be very contemptuous, say that " the aid of
color could be invoked, and that, with only twelve original signs,
he might draw them in red, blue, or brown, by making one color de-
note one dozen of articulations, and another another, and do the whole
thing out of twelve combinations. He might, too, by bringing in
all the colors of the rainbow, reduce the number of really invented
(or applied) signs to a minimum, and so bring printing to the con-
dition of painting."
We know that this is neither more nor less than puerile trifling,
but there is excuse for introducing it ; inasmuch as it shows how
easy the construction of an alphabet is from one point of view. Al-
phabets, under such a freedom from limitations, may, possibly, be
constructed at the rate of a letter per minute.
Let us, however, take the opposite view. Then, the difficulty be-
comes as conspicuous as the ease has hitherto been. Paradoxical as
it may sound at first, the statement that, so far as the question of
new signs (letters) is concerned, construction is easier than improve-
ment, is both true and important : important because, without seeing
its full bearing on the present question, we cannot duly appreciate
the difficulties with which the modern reformer must contend.
With (say) between thirty and forty letters, all coined out of his
own brain, he can ensure a due amount of symmetry or harmony
among them ; so that he has, consequently, nothing to fear from the
perception of incongruity on the part of the reader. With a frame-
The Working Alphabet. 135
work, however, of (say) twenty characters as parts of a well-known
alphabet already in use, he has the unsatisfactory task of adapting
the new to the old ; to avoid what Mr Ellis has called the Strange-
-appearance objection ; an objection which of all the ones that have
ever been made against Phonetic Spelling is the hardest to refute.
Where a character is too complex or too cumbrous for writing ;
where it is too indistinct in its outline to be a good indicator of dif-
ference ; where, from being either so unlike the letter to which it is
allied in sound, or so like others with which it has no such affinity,
as to suggest an incorrect view of the Phonesis of the language to
which it applies, (not to mention other shortcomings of less import-
ance,) there is something definite and tangible upon which an ob-
jection may be made, or a defence founded. But the Strange-ap-
pearance objection is mainly a matter of taste ; and when, of two
disputants, one says that such or such a combination of lines dis-
pleases, and the other that it pleases, his eye, there is little more to
be said on the subject. There is something, indeed, that a dispas-
sionate looker-on might suggest ; for he might urge that familiarity
or unfamiliarity with the combination might have more to do with
its congruity or incongruity than the actual details of its outline.
This, no doubt, is true ; but the proportion which the two elements
bear to one another is not a matter that we can either weigh or
measure. Neither is the system itself with which a new letter has
to be brought into conformity a simple one : inasmuch as it gives us
a great deal more than the mere twenty-five or thirty letters of any
particular alphabet. The number of these, whatever it may be, has
to be multiplied by four i.e., for capitals and for small letters, for
printing and for manuscript. Kespect, too, must be had to the al-
phabets of other languages ; though this is not one of the more im-
portant complications : for, upon the whole, our motto in England
should be, " English principles for English spelling." Still, where
the original orthography is so peculiar as to be exceptional and ec-
centric when compared with that of other countries, a derivation
from the national principle in its strictest form is not only pardon-
able but imperative. In no part of their work have the constructors
of the Phonetic Alphabet shown a sounder judgement than in their
treatment of the English vowels. Of a, i, and u, as letters, our pro-
nunciation is pre-eminently exceptional. There is no better proof
of this than the abnormal way in which we pronounce what we may
call English- Latin, or Latin as it is taught and read in England.
General, however, as this eccentric pronunciation may be within the
Four Seas, it has been ignored ; and the ordinary power given to the
exceptional vowels on the Continent has been recognised. There
is, in this, not only an anticipation of the charge of imperfect schol-
arship, but sound sense and legitimate conservatism. When the
English is spelt properly, English-Latin will be pronounced, so
far as the vowels go, in the only way in which, out of England, it is
pronounced at all.
136 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
Be this, however, as it may, the preceding instance tells us that
there are cases where " England for the Enslish " is not an absolute
rule. It leads, however, into further complications : for it enlarges
the sphere of the system to which every new letter may have to adapt
itself. In an alternative, for instance, between two signs, the con-
structor who holds that, if one letter has a certain currency in certain
important languages, while another has not, the latter should go to the
wall, there is much to be said on both sides. For what are the langua-
ges which are of sufficient importance to demand this abatement of the
original rule ? Is the practice of the French, the Italian, the Span-
ish, the Portugese, and. above all, the Latin on one side, sufficient
to outweigh that of the German, the Dutch, the Danish, the Swedish,
the Icelandic, and the Greek on the other supposing that c or k be
the letter in question ? We know that on this point doctors have
disagreed ; and, individually, I have a strong opinion that the de-
cision in favor of k is the right one. But the question is a complex
one. Now the more comprehensive and more ambitious a reformer's
view may be, the greater the amount of the complications that em-
barrass him. No one doubts as to the advantages of a Universal Al-
phabet optandum magis quam sperandum. Other things, then, being
equal, the spelling that favors it should prevail. For the present
purpose, I am neither comprehensive nor ambitious ; but, if I were
so, I should certainly be perplexed in more cases than one, as to my
choice of a sign or letter.
Then there is another complication. It seems to be a matter of
almost instinctive unanimity that vowels within the same degrees of
longness and shortness (so called) should be represented by signs of
some appreciable similarity. No one would propose a letter like the
Greek xi (H ) for a vowel. How far is this principle to extend ? for it
if a principle, though no definite reason for its existence or its limita-
tions has been given with any adequate exposition. "What are we
to do with sounds like the ih in thin and in thine 1 Are they to be
t and d with a difference ? for such is the phonetic relation : gr are
they to be as unlike as^and^, v and b 1 I can only say, that though
it is not upon any a priori principle at all that this or that sign will
be constructed, the very suggestion of a principle of any kind sug-
gests a corresponding choice of alternatives.
Again and as I am only writing for the sake of illustration,
and that for the third and last time, what are we to do with our
superfluous letters, such as c, x, and j, which even the ordinary
grammarians admit to be redundant ? Are we to eliminate them
altogether, or are we to use them up utilise them as the word is
as old signs with a new import?
" Utilise them, by all means," says A, " because it will save the
excogitation of a new letter."
' Fling them away off-hand, and have done with them," says B,
" because the new power will give us the trouble of unlearning the
old one."
The Working Alphabet, 137
Who will decide on the .comparative value of these two recom-
mendations and the two reasons by which they are accompanied ?
Surely, then, if from one point of view the construction of an al-
phabet is a light matter, it is, from another, a very grave one. But
all this may, possibly, be got over ; for every one of the preceding
questions can be reasoned on. So can certain points connected with
the forms of the several letters. -A printer may decide that one of
a pair is better for the press ; a copyist that it is better for the pen ;
a reader may say whether it is or is not sufficiently distinct. But what
are we to say to the Strange-appearance objection ? We have al-
ready said that next to nothing can be said about it by any third
party. The common sense of the body of readers must decide upon
it ; and the decision cannot be delivered extempore.
An alphabet must have had a certain amount of existence, must
have lived so long, must have been submitted to so much trial, must
have undergone so much wear and tear before a single vote can be
given either in confirmation or condemnation of it. The inference
from this is self-evident. We must take the best working alphabet
as we find it. To wait for one which will, on mere inspection, satisfy
all the world is to wait, like the clown at the river, till the water be-
comes, of its own accord, and for his special accommodation, dry land.
This is, naturally, the introduction to what follows, viz., the prelude
to the only working alphabet, that, lying ready for us, precludes us
from any excuse for waiting till some other alphabet which shall
please everybody is constructed. To wait for this is to fold our hands
and live in expectancy sine die. It was not extemporised. On the
contrary, it is the result of much consideration and practice extend-
ing over a quarter of a century. It does not pretend to be a con-
struction which, by mere inspection, satisfies every inspector upon
every point. And this the constructors tell us implicitly ; for they
say with truth that the test is to be found in the attempt to make a
better one. It is needless to say that the primary details of the
analysis of sounds is complete, and that there is no room whatever
for improvement in this matter. Of the rest the reader must judge
for himself. It is perfectly impossible for one reader to say how
such or such a character may strike the eye of another. He has
only to urge three cautions in the criticism of the general character
of the alphabet as it is about to be presented to him ; or, rather, he
has to repeat (and the caution will bear repetition) (1) the difficulty
of improvement ; (2) the fact of the alphabet being not only ready -
-made to his hands, but in actual use ; and (3) the simple fact of
novelty and unfamiliarity ; which has nearly as much to dp with
what is called the Strangeness of Appearance, as the individual
forms of the several new letters themselves.
138 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
THE PHONETIC ALPHABET.
Tie i
likt
coli
P
B
T
D
e
j
K
G
F
V
E
a
S
z
E
S
M
N
I
ihone
' the
tmn <
CO*
p
b
t
d
j
k
g
Co
f
V
$
d
s
z
J
3
m
n
)IPH
as
tic letters in the
italic letters in the
contains the names
[SONANTS.
Mutes,
rope pi
robe bi
fate ti
first c
icords
of the
L
W
Y
H
A
R
E
8
I
T,
O
O
IS
er
u
HI
tJu,
new,
lll.l
tilt
let
1
r
(
w
y
h
a
i;
e
e
i
.i
o
er
u
ui
/run are pronounced
it follow. TJie last
'ers.
Liquids,
fall el
rare ....
. ar
loalescents.
wet ....
. we
fao'e
di
J 8
. ke
. ge
.ef
yet. .
Ye
cheap . .
edge . . .
lee. . . .
league. .
ntinuants.
safe . .
Aspirate,
hav .
. . ec
VOWELS.
Guttural.
am. . . .
, 0^
at
alms . . .
. . B
save. . . .
. vi
ell
et
wreath . .
wreathe.
.ii
. di
es
ale
. . e
ill
. . it
eel
. i
hi*
. zi
Labial.
on
. ot
vicious . .
vision. .
Nasals,
seem. . . .
seew. . . .
- 1 !
em
en
all
UTO . .
. st
ope . .
. . er
Ml
. ut
food ....
. m
THONGS :
heard in
* I*
ty,
U ou, OI oi.
now, boy.
Elementary Education. 139
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.
The writer of the following letter, which appeared in the School
Board Chronicle for 2nd September, 1871, is Mr Edward Jones,
master of the Hibernian Schools, Liverpool.
Dqrig de disk's Jonz whiq presided de pasig ov de Elementari
Edvjkejon Akt, de Rjt On. W. E. Forster, Vjs-Prezident ov de
Edqkejon Department, med de folerig stetment az tu whot qildren
ov de WOTkig popqlejon ot tu bi tot in prjmari skuilz beferr enterig
a Ijf ov lebor :
It me ba teken for granted dat wa ot not tu rest -sntil in dis (land ov ourz
everi IggliJ qjld haz an elementari eduke/on. <Iat manz radig ser dat ha kan un-
derstand whot ha radz, and digk about it, rjt ser dat it kan ba red, and sjferig ser
dat de fignrz kan ba ov ssm us. 3iz ar nesesitiz. 3en der ar de ksmforts ov
ednke/on : ssm nolej ov gramar, ssm nolej ov de erf on whig wa liv, and ssm
nolej ov de histori ov our em ksntri. Gerig a litel fsrder, tu whot me ba kold
biznes, der daz olser wil ba kold nesesari, ssm nolej ov politikal ekonomi, asm
nolej ov de ruidimentari prinsipelz ov sjens, ssm nolej ov de larjgwej nekst merst
u,sful tu ourz de Frenq. 3en it wud ba a puir skuil in whig der woz not asm
taqir) ov atenjon tu indsstri, dilijens, erbadiens, order, and poljtnes ; and, morr im-
portant dan daz, a nolej ov rjt and rog, and de mertivz tu dui rjt and tu avoid rog.
2is woz Mr Forster'z estimet ov de standard ov edi^kejon whiq
Jud bi smd at in prjmari skuilz.
In de report ov de Edi^kejon Department for last yir, whiq berz
de signatqrz ov Mr Forster and Lord Eipon, de folefig akount ov
de atenments ov de qildren in inspekted skuilz iz given : " If wd aplj
tu de Qildren atendig our skuilz eni test ov der atenments at ol prcr-
perjond tu der respektiv ejez, wi Jal ^nd dat de rez-slts ar far bole-
em standard dat kan bi aksepted az satisfaktori." 3e repert pre-
sidz tu giv de n^mberz ov qildren hui past de ekzaminejon in de
verrss gredz. 3e number hui past de Siksl Standard, in whiq de
pvipilz ar rekwjrd tu rid a Jort pasej from a nu^zpeper and tu rjt de
sem wid korekt spelig, iz given at 28,000 emaitig de od n^mberz
whig iz olme-st jdentikal wid de number ov masterz, mistresez, and
pqpil-tigerz emploid. 3at iz tu se, de tiqerz nou emploid in in-
spekted skuilz ar ebel tu t-srn out wsn p^pil apis per amsm ebel tu
rid an ordinari pasej from a nv|,zpeper wid fer intelijens, and tu spel
140 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
de sera wid akurasi. Wei me Mr Forster and Lord Eipon ekspres
der dissatisfakjon wid diz miger rez^lts !
Whj ar diz rez^lts se snsatisfaktori ? Msc;, doutles, iz erig tu
de brerken atendans ov de qildren and de erli ej at whiq de ar wid-
dron from skuil ; b^t dis wil not akount for ol de defijensi.
Ol tiqerz ar agrid, houever, in tresig tu de irregqlaritiz ov de
oriografi veri msq ov de bakward stet ov edqkejon in our skuilz.
Her Majesti'z Inspekterz from t^m tu t^m point tu dis az a serrs ov
de gretest perpleksiti tu lernerz. In de report j-sst p^blijt, Dr
More"! riiterets de oft-repited komplent on dis ssbjekt ; and it vrud
bi izi tu fil a volqm ov pro-tests agenst de anomaliz ov IggHJ spelig
bi meni ov de merst eminent rjterz in de laggwej. cEe indjtment
ov de Prjm Minister iz perhaps de merst emfatik ov ol de qarjez
whiq hav bin leveld agenst de orlografi. Mr Gladstem, in wsn ov
biz spiqez, sed :
} am afred our laggwej boderz a forener dredfuli. I ofen Hgk dat if \ wer a
forener and had tu set about lernig tu premouns Iggli/ i Jud ger mad. 1 onestli
kan se \ kanot konsdv hou it iz dat a forener lernz hou tu premouns Inglif, when
i rekolekt de total absens ov ruil, meiod, sistem, and ol de okziliariz whig papel
jenerali get when de hav tu akwjr ssmJig dat iz difikslt ov atenment.
3iz difik^ltiz, ov kers, nrsst bi enkounterd bj ol IggliJ cjildren
in lernig tu rid and tu rjt and spel der netiv t^g, and de ar not les
formidabel tu dem dan tu de "intelijent forener."
Meni atempts hav bin med tu prervjd a remedi for dis ivil, whiq iz
Universal! felt, til de p^blik ar olmorst wirid wid de kwestion ; and
yet in eni edqkejonal efort dis irrepresibel difikslti olwez krops ^p,
houever ^nwelksm and houever insolq,bel de problem me apir tu bi.
!Nou wi apir tu hav ksm tu a ded-lok, edqkej'onali spikig, for if wi
komper de {dial ov Mr Forster, kwe*ted at de komensment ov dis
peper, wid de rial stet ov iigz az Jem in de last report ov de Depart-
ment erver whicj Mr Forster ser ebli prez^dz, wi si der iz a gret gslf
betwin de ttu ; and dis wil' giv ^s an jdia ov de magnitud ov de task
whig Ijz beferr s az tiqerz, and memberz ov Skuil Berdz, and de
frendz ov edukejon jenerali.
Akordig tu de report ov de Eejistrar-Jeneral, it apirz dat about
400,000 qildren pas from de skuil ej tu de wsrk ej anqali dat iz,
from de ej ov iertin tu fertin. Ov diz, 30,000 ernli, akordig tu de
last report ov de Edqkejon Department ar tot tu rid a nqzpeper
and tu spel wid akqrasi in de Government skodz iruiout de kontri.
Elementary Education. 141
In order, den, tu erertek dis moderet standard, de efi Jensi ov de
prezent majineri nrsst bi inkrist merr dan tenferld, tu se nsiig ov de
" Iqer s^bjekts " agrid spon tu bi tot in prjmari skuilz bi de Lon-
don Berrd, whiq ol wil admit tu bi merst dezjrabel, older merst edn-
kejonists wil bi disperzd tu konsider dat ferst ov ol wi ot tu devjz
ssm minz b whig ol our qildren me bi tot tu rid ordinari buks.
Hou iz dis spelig difikslti tu bi met ? Dr Morel and Mr Mikle-
jon prerperz, bj konstrsktig skral buks in whiq de anomalss vrsrdz
ar kept out ov sjt til a leter stej ov de qjld'z prergres, tu get erver de
difik^lti in s^m mesur. Bt it iz wel nem. dat s^m ov de merst
pszlig wsrdz tu qildren ar denemz ov ligz " familiar in der moudz
az houshe-ld w^rdz," az ni, tvy, { {knee, tongue, eye), and ?der \rsrdz
inkonstant i^s, s^sq az hf, r{t, wo, tiu, st,frend, Tcof, ryf {high, right,
know, two, eight, friend, cough, rough}, ets. And it wud bi difikslt
tu frem sentensez in dat natural, flerig stil whiq qildren deljt in,
widout ksmig akros wsrdz Ijk diz.
But de fetal objek/on tu dis plan iz de tasit konfejon whig iz im-
plid in it, dat it iz becples and u,sles tu atempt eni revison ov IggliJ
ordografi. 3e ernli anser tu s^q a doktrin nided iz a kategorikal
Btetment ov whot meni p.ipel inwardli ligk dat iz tu se, dat spelig
iz a mater tu bi steriotjpt for ever in de prezent fa Jon. Tu dis w^n
s^bjekt de lo ov f^naliti iz tu bi apljd ; spelig iz akordig tu de loz ov
de Midz and Perjianz, a dig whiq qenjei not !
Gud hevenz ! cLe Jed ov Kadm^s and de gest ov Kakston wud
bi Jokt at s^q a doktrin -sterd in de later hef ov de njntinJ senturi,
and nerw^n wud bi merr s^rprizd dan Dr Samuel Jonson tu lern,
dat hi woz tu bi instold az a literari Perp in perpetniti ^nder a nq,
dogma ov leksikografikal infalibiliti. 3iz iz de merr ssrprjzig stil
when it iz konsiderd dat Iggland iz about de ernli k^ntri in Urerp
wher de or^ografi haz not bin rev jzd bj s^m rekognjzd oioriti, and
dat spelig iz about de ernli ssbjekt in Iggland whiq haz not bin
adapted tu modern rekwjrments.
Tek our sistem ov wets and mesurz. 5e adopjon ov a beter
melod iz nou emli a kwestion ov tjm and jeneral konviniens. Iz
der eni argument in fevor ov an impruivd sistem ov wets and mesurz
whiq dsz not aplj afortiwi tu impruivments in spelig ? Ar der eni
objekjonz agenst a revigon ov de orfografi whiq wud not bi aplika-
bel in a strogger degri agenst a revison ov de Skriptu,r translejon,
or, indid, agenst eni impruivment whotever P
142 A Defence of Phonetic Spelling.
3E SPELITJ DIFIKYLTI.
Mis Ejwvrd sez : " Lernig tu rid iz de merst difik-slt ov hitman atenments ; a
dredful task tu lern, and, if posibel, a mor dredful task tu taq."
Ser Sulwer Liton sez : "A merr Ijig, round-about, p-szel-heded delui3on dan
dat bj whiq wa konfqz de klar instigkts ov truiJ in our aksrsed sistem ov spelig
woz never konkokted bj de fsder ov folshud. Hou kan a sistem ov eduke/on
flsrij dat beginz bj ser monstr-ss a folshud, whiq de sens ov hirig'ssfjzez tu
kontradikt ?"
Rev. D. C. Ginsbxrg, LL. D. " I hav had msq tu dui wid spelig and literari
\rsrk, and, az ekzaminer in several liolojikal kolejez, j hav got ekzaminejon peperz
from hjli-edu.keted students sxm ov dem gradnets in de universitiz in whiq de
spelig symt jmz krieted perfekt amqzment. 5.6 spelig sjinz an inssrinountabel
difikxlti in der Ijf."
Ser C. IS. Trevelyan, K.C.S. " tie IggliJ sistem ov spelig ({ prertest agenst its
baig kold ordograji) iz a labirini, a keos, an absxrditi, a disgres tu our ej and ne-
Jon. It formz de prinsipal difikslti ov our laggwej whiq iz de merr prerverkig,
az der iz n-siig in de strskt^r ov IggliJ whiq kolz for it and kozez tu anu,ali-
-inkrasig milionz in ol de for kworterz ov de glerb an enornvss nnesesari ekspen-
ditu,r ov valu,abel tjm, and stil merr valuabel temper. 3e amount ov veksejon
and disksrejment and los ov t|m whiq iz kozd everi yir, espejali tu forenerz (and
tu m^ltit^dz ov juivenjl forenerz tu de w^rld ov leterz in our ern land), bj de
ekstramli inkorekt we ov spelig nou in rjs iz inkalkqlabel."
Maks Miiler. " i ot not tu ermit hir [" Lektu,rz on de Sjens ov Lag^wej," de-
liverd at de Roial Institujon, Lsndon,)1863, sekond saraz. 8ver., pej 97], tu men/on
de valuabel servisez renderd bj derz hui, for nirli twenti y.irz, hav ban kborig in
Iggland tu tsrn de rezslts ov sjentifik reserq tu praktikal qs, in devjzig and propa-
getig a nu, sistem ov ' Brif Kitig and Trui Spelig,' best nera snder de nem ov de
Fvnetik Reform, i am far from -snderretig de difiksltiz dat stand in de we ov
sq a reform, and j am not ser saggwin az tu indylj in eni herps ov sdig it karid
for de nekst dri or fen- jenere/onz. Bvt j fjl konvinst ov de trui^ and razonabel-
nes ov de prinsipelz on whiq dat reform rests, and az de innet regard for trui;t and
ra'zon, houever dormant or timid at tjmz, haz olwez pruivd irrezistibel in de end,
eneblig men tu part wid ol de herld merst dar and sekred, wheder korn loz, or
Stuart djnastiz, or pepal legets, or hiden jdolz, [ dout not dat de efjt and korrpt
ordografi wil folw in der tren. Nejonz hav beferr nou qenjd dpr ni^merikal figq,rz,
der leterz, der kronoloji, der wets and mesurz ; and der Mr Pitman me not liv tu
s.i de rezslts ov hiz persevdrig and disinterested ekzer/onz, it rekwjrz ner profetik
pouer tu persiv dat whot at prezent iz pui-puid b{ de meni, wil mek its we in de
end, Mill's met bi arguments strogger dan derz hidertu leveld at de Fonetik Nyz.
Wsn argument whiq mjt bi ssperzd tu we wid de stqdent ov laggwej, nemli, de
obskurejon ov de etimolojikal strsktur ov wsrdz, j kanot konsider veri formid-
abel. cle premynsie/on pv laggwejez qenjez akordig tu fikst loz, de spelig iz
qenjd in de most arbitrari maner, ser dat if our spelig folerd de prern-snsie/on ov
wsrdz, it wud in r.ialiti bi a greter help tu de kritikal stqdent ov laggwej (Ian de
prezent snserten and snsjentifik merd ov rjtig."
Out ov 1,972 felurz iu de Sivil Servis Ekzamine/onz, 1,866 kandidets wer phkt
for spelig.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
SECTION 1. Prefatory Eemarka ... ... ... ... ... 3
SECTION 2. The value of the present time for action and co-operation ... 9
SECTION 3. The Fvnetik Nqz and the " Plea for Phonetic Spelling " ... 11
SECTION 4. The English system of spelling at least twelve hundred years
old of Latin origin ... ... ... ... ... ... 14
SECTION 5. The alphabets and systems of spelling with which the Eng-
lish must be compared ... ... ... ... ... 16
SECTION 6. The pronunciative objection. The defects of French ortho-
graphy ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 18
SECTION 7. The representation of language never keeps pace with the
changes of language itself. The badness of the French system of
spelling ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 19
SECTION 8. The etymological principle ... ... ... ... 20
SECTION 9. Original insufficiency of letters orthographic expedients ... 24
SECTION 10. Wrong 'classification disturbance and confusion, etc ... 26
SECTION 11. An English Gospel transliterated into the language of the
. Koran ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 28
SECTION 12. The alphabet in its earliest forms ... ... ... 29
SECTION 13. Is there more than one primitive alphabet ? ... ... 33
SECTION 14. Capital and small letters monumental, cursive, and
printed styles ... ... ... ... ... ... 35
SECTION 15. The Phonetic as opposed to the Etymological principle ... 36
SECTION 16. Alphabets undoubtedly derived from the Phoenician.
(a) The Eastern or Asiatic Group ... ... ... ... 36
SECTION 17. Alphabets undoubtedly derived from the Phoenician.
(It) The Western or European group. The Greek and its derivatives ... 38
SECTION 18. General view of the four classes of alphabets the Phffini-
cian group ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 45
SECTION 19. General view of the Greek group ... ... ... 46
SECTION 20. General view, etc. The alphabet concerning the origin of
which opinion is divided ... ... ... 46
SECTION 21. General view, etc., alphabets of Latin origin ... ... 47
SECTION 22. The Latin alphabet ... ... ... ... ... 48
SECTION 23. The Latin alphabet The order of the letters ... ... 49
SECTION 24. The merits of the Latin alphabet ... 60
SECTION 25. The demerits of the Latin alphabet ... ... 50
SECTION 26. The substitution of the letter C for K K and S as sounds 52
SECTION 27. The substitution of C for K C as a letter ... 55
SECTION 28. The substitution of C for K continued C as the element of
a Digraph
SECTION 29. The substitution of C for K continued. The parallelism be-
tween C and G, CH and J ... ... 66
CONTENTS.
PAGE
SECTION 30. The reducibility of non-natural modes to rule, of little
practical value. ... ... ... ... ... ... 69
SECTION 31. The demerits of the other consonants compared with those
ofC. None of them non-natural ... ... ... ... 71
SECTION 32. The Phonetic principle ... ... ... ... 84
SECTION 33. Limitations of the Phonetic principle continued its influ-
ence on a large scale ... ... ... ... ... ... 88
SECTION 34. The Phonetic system its occasional liability to be applied
prematurely. Its influence upon the fixation of a language. Histori-
cal view of the two series K-TSH and G-DZH ... ... ... 91
SECTION 35. The English language as adapted for a Phonetic orthography 97
SECTION 36. Analysis of the Etymological principle ... ... 100
SECTION 37. ^Representation and Fixation ... ... ... 106
SECTION 38. The Early Alphabets of the British Islands ... ... 107
SECTION 39. The Early Alphabets of the German The Mceso-gothic
alphabet. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Ill
SECTION 40. The Anglo-Saxon alphabet ... ... ... ... 113
SECTION 41. History of the Anglo-Saxon Alphabet ... ... ... 119
SECTION 42. Historical Sketch of English Spelling subsequent to the
Norman Conquest. The mute E. ... ... ... ... 122
SECTION 43. Historical Sketch, etc. (continued). The Apostrophe (') as
a sign of the Genitive case ... ... ... ... ... 124
SECTION 44. Dialects of the Anglo-Saxon and Old English ... ... 127
SECTION 45. Extension of the Phonetic Principle and subjects allied to
Phonetic spelling, as specially applied to the English Language ... 129
SECTION 46. Eeview of the Question ... ... ... ... 131
SECTION 47. The Working Alphabet ... ... ... ... 133
Phonetic Alphabet ... ... ... ... ... ... 138
Elementary Education ... ... ... ... ... ... 139
The Spelling Difficulty ... ... ... ... ... 142
