Vowels and consonants. (says he) "est ipsa pronunciatio, litera autem elementi nota; sed abusivè alterum pro altero ponitur.' "The Element is the uttered sound itself; the letter is the mark of an element; but by an abuse of language the same term is used both for the one and the other." 122. Secondly, and what is still more annoying to the student in Glossology, eminent writers differ as to the very fundamental distinction between articulate sounds. The earliest and most generallyreceived distinction of them is into vowels and consonants. This doctrine may, with great probability, be ascribed to ARISTOXENUS, who was a pupil of Aristotle, and wrote a treatise on the Elements of Harmony,' still extant. PRISCIAN, who wrote in the fourth century, ALDUS MANUTIUS in the fifteenth, and all subsequent grammarians, till very recent times, adopted this distinction; but in our day there have not been wanting individuals who have called it in question. "Grammarians," says M. Majendie, "distinguish letters into vowels and consonants; but this distinction cannot suit physiologists."3 "Whatever motive," says Dr. Rush, "connected with the vocal habits of another nation, or the etymologies of another tongue, may have justified the division into vowels and consonants, it does not exist with us. Accordingly, the former author divides letters into "those which are truly modifications of the voice, and those which (as he thinks) may be formed independently of the voice."5 And the latter arranges the elements of articulation under three heads, which he designates as tonics, subtonics, and atonics. Other grammarians introduce a peculiar element which they call a breathing; and in Greek a distinction is even made by some between a rough and smooth breathing; whereas others contend that the mark of the smooth was only meant to imply that the rough was not to be used. Now, as all articulations are modifications of the breath, the so-called breathing does not differ in this respect from a consonant, and is in fact the consonant h in the English word hat, the French halle, the German hand, hund, &c. "It is beyond all doubt" (say the Port Royal Grammarians) that the Romans sounded the h with a strong breathing;" and they prove this by the indisputable authority of Catullus and St. Augustine-the former ridiculing a person who pronounced insidias as if it were written hinsidias; and the latter remarking on the error of pronouncing hominem as if it were written ominem. Still the Port Royal writers say that h is only a breathing." But it is justly observed by BEAUZÉE, that "the breathing is a real articulation, and the letter h, which represents it, is a true consonant." "When we say, for instance, la halle, the second a is distinguished from the former as perceptibly by the breathing h, as it is by the 1 Inst. Gram. p. 18. 66 3 El. Sum. Physiol. vol. i. P. 154. 9 Lat. Gram. b. ix. c. xii. 6 994 consonant (b) when we say la balle.' The primary and simple distinction of letters, and consequently of articulate sounds, into vowels and consonants, is not peculiar to the Greek and Latin languages and their derivations; but is recognized in many tongues of very different origin. In the spoken language of the Chinese, consonants are called Tsee-Moo (mother sounds), and vowels Nyeh (auxiliaries), answering to the German Hauptlaute and Hulfslaute. It is also the main distinction in the Sanskrit letters depicted by HALHED. And it is substantially that of the Hebrew alphabet; for the Jewish grammarians call vowels "the souls of letters," and consonants "the bodies of letters.' Substantially, too, it is admitted by GIRARD and BEAUZEE; only they confine the term "articulations to the consonants, and designate the vowels by that of "sons" (sounds.) And lastly, the great Teutonic Glossologist, GRIMM, founds his whole scheme of phonetics (lautenlehre) on this basis. "All the sounds of speech" (says he) "divide themselves into vowels and consonants. The former are more flowing, the latter more solid; we may call consonants the bones and muscles of speech; the vowels are that which penetrates and animates the firmer portions; they are the blood and breath. Again, consonants seem to represent the body; vowels the soul. On consonants depends the form, on vowels the colouring: without vowels speech would be destitute of light and shade; without consonants it would want the substance on which light and shadows rest. 976 66 123. Even those Grammarians, who divide all letters into vowels Confounded together. and consonants, are not always agreed, as to the class in which a particular articulation should be placed. In the Sanskrit arrangement, HALHED observes that the mark to which he ascribes the sound ung, though it be not a vowel is always reckoned in the vowel series." 997 So in Hebrew, Dr. ANDREW says that the Jews of Tiberias in the tenth century "boldly disavowed the old vowels, Alef, He, Vau, Jod, and Aign, sinking them under the ungrammatical and absurd title of quiescent consonants." On the other hand, SPINOSA says of the letter Vau, "Nec tamen vocalis est, sed litera indicans soni principium in labiis audiri." "It is not a vowel, but a letter indicating that a commencement of sound is to be heard in the lips.' Now Vau and Jod answer to our w and y, which Dr. RUSH ranks among subtonics :9 and Dr. LATHAM treats among consonants, 1 Gram. Génér. vol. i. p. 67. 2 Marshman, Chin. Gram. 88. 8 Gentoo Laws, pl. i. 4 Spinos. Gram. Hebr. p. 1. 5 Gram. Gen. vol. i. p. 5. Alle Laute der Sprache zerfallen in Vocale and Consonanten, jene sind flüssiger, diese fester. Man darf die Consonanten Knochen und Muskeln der Sprache nennen: die Vocale sind was die festen Theile durchströmt und belebt, blut und athem: Consonanten scheinen gleichsam den Leib; Vocale die Seele herzugeben: auf den Consonanten beruht die Gestalt, auf den Vocalen die Färbung: ohne sie würde die Sprache des Lichts und Schattens, ohne consonanten des Stoffes ermangeln, an den Licht und Schatten sich setzt.-Deut. Gram. i. 30. 8 Compend. Gram. Hebr. p. 2. 7 Gentoo Laws, pl. i. 9 Phil. Hum. Voice, p. 74. Specific term. 1 as a separate class of semivowels. ADELUNG reckons the German j 14 13 124. The specific terms employed to characterize the respective articulations, both vowel and consonantal, afford nothing like a uniform systematic nomenclature. The vowels are distinguished sometimes by the organs supposed to conduce to their production, as guttural, palatal, labial ;o pharyngal, lingua-palatal; sometimes by their duration, as long, short, doubtful;10 sometimes by their effect on the ear, as broad or slender;" full or small," crassus or exilis," εunxos, or duonxès; flat, &c.;15 and sometimes by their relation to other sounds, as independent or dependent; perfect or imperfect." The terms used as descriptive of the specific consonantal articulations are no less numerous and equally destitute of systematic uniformity. They also are named (like the vowels) sometimes from the organs; as labial, palatine, guttural;18 pulmonary, lingual, dental;1o nasal, oral, lingua-dental, lingua-palatal, lingua-palato-nasal, pharyngal; cerebral;22 sometimes from the time occupied in their utterance, as continuous or explosive,23 sometimes from their effect on the ear, as sweet, harsh, noble, unpleasant, smooth, rough, sharp or flat, hard or soft, lene or aspirate, mute or liquid,25 muette or sifflante, forte or 1 Eng. Lang. p. 112. 3 Eng. Gram. p. 4. 10 Vossius, A. G. lib. i. c. xii. 18 Wallis de Loq. s. 3. 24 1+ Dion. Halic. de verb. col. s. 18. 19 Adelung, i. 1, 6. 17 Ibid. 111. 20 Beauzee, i. 51. 23 Müller, 1052. 25 Latham, 103-108. 20 1 foible, sibilant or buzzed ;2 and sometimes, from their relation to other sounds, as semi-vowels or semi-mutes.3 It is not to be understood that all these expressions are incorrect. Many of them are properly applied in certain instances, though not in others; and some have no relation at all to the power of articulation. articulations. 125. Grammarians differ widely, too, in their estimate of the Number of number of distinct articulations, both in the vowel and consonantal sounds: the former are stated by The Sanskrit Grammarians 14 or 16. And with each of these authorities some others may be found to agree. Nor does less diversity occur in the enumeration of consonantal articulations; in so far, at least, as we may judge from the various alphabetic systems which have existed in the world. Thus we find the consonants reckoned, in But it must be remembered, that these distinctions are formed on very different principles: that in some cases double articulations are marked by a single character, and vice versa; that some letters are deemed at one time vowels, and at another consonants; and that the consonants in most Asiatic systems include (unless otherwise marked) an inherent short vowel, which they do not in any European system. 126. Most persons, on first turning their thoughts to this subject, No fixed are apt to suppose that the articulate sounds of the voice are reducible number. to that particular number which the usage of their country has determined: and if their experience is extended to foreign languages, they still think that the number is definite; that every articulation is an integer naturally divided by a fixed limit from every other. But this is a delusion. We articulate by certain vibrations of the muscular fibres in the vocal organs, and we hear by correspondent vibrations of similar fibres in the auditory organs. The fibres of the tongue, fauces, palate, and lips, are put in motion on the one hand, and those of the 3 Wallis, p. 16. 1 Beauzee, i. 54, 58. 2 Bishop, p. 39. G Structure of organs. tympanum and ossicula (the drum of the ear and its small bones) on the other. A similar correspondence of effect indeed takes place between the vibrations of the glottis and those of the ear; but in the latter case the vibrations are measurable, because they depend simply on the greater or less tension of a single organ; whereas articulation always puts in motion several organs at the same time. Hence it is, that a natural scale of musical notes is furnished by the glottis singly; while the combined organs of articulation can furnish no scale of proportionate sounds. Hence too, as Mr. Bishop has observed, "it requires an ear well practised in articulate sounds to be able to detect their acoustic differences with any degree of precision." A rational glossologist, therefore, will not assume any fixed number of articulate sounds, as established by a law of nature for a mankind; but will content himself with endeavouring to ascertain, in any given language, how many practical distinctions are to be found in the articulations of the natives. 991 127. The confusion which is apparent, as well in the terms em ployed to describe articulate sounds, as in the opinions concerning them, chiefly arises, I am persuaded, from that imperfect knowledge of the structure of the vocal organs, which has hitherto prevailed among glossologists. No doubt, it could not but be perceived in the very earliest times, that some organs were employed on certain articulate sounds and not on others; that t, for instance, was properly called a dental letter, and b a labial. No doubt, too, very able men had framed systems distinguishing articulate sounds more or less accurately by certain organs obviously employed in their production. AMMAN, HALLER, BISHOP WILKINS, WALLIS, HOLDER, and others, had written, so early as the latter part of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century, their respective treatises, which may still be consulted with advantage. But if we examine them minutely, we shall find not only that the authors differed on many important points, but that there were facts, of great moment to the accuracy of their researches, on which they confessed themselves in want of further information. In this, too, as in many other sciences, technical terms have been employed with much vagueness, and even to this day the same words are often applied to very different conceptions. Thus, in the ancient Greek we find pápu, rendered pharynx, larynx, and fauces. Again, in German, Rachen is rendered by Wachter, “fauces, palatum ;" and by Hilpert, "the jaws or mouth of a beast, the mouth or throat of a person." In pursuing this subject, I shall endeavour as much as possible to use words in their popular sense; but to avoid confusion it will be absolutely necessary sometimes to confine them to their signification in modern anatomical works. 128. It is remarkable how ignorant the ancients were of these parts the ancients. of the human frame. Homer, indeed, in describing the death of Ignorance of Bishop, Artic. Sounds, p. 13. |