o and w, respectively. In most other languages the difference between the sounds is considered too slight to require for its expression signs so distinct and dissimilar. In some languages the difference is neglected altogether. In many, however, it is expressed, and that by some modification of the original letter.

Let the sign () denote that the vowel over which it stands is long, or independent, whilst the sign () indicates shortness, or dependence. In such a case, instead of writing not and not, like the Greeks, we may write not and nōt, the sign serving for a fresh letter. Herein the expression of the nature of the sound is natural, because the natural use of ( ̄) and () is to express length and shortness, dependence or independence. Now, supposing the broad sound of o to be already represented, it is very evident that, of the other two sounds of o, the one must be long (independent), and the other short (dependent); and as it is only necessary to express one of these conditions, we may, if we choose, use the sign (*) alone; its presence denoting length, and its absence shortness (independence or dependence).

As signs of this kind, one mark is as good as another; and instead of (-) we may, if we choose, substitute such a mark as (') (and write nót not not note); provided only that the sign (') expresses no other condition or affection of a sound. This use of the mark ('), viz. as a sign that the vowel over which it is placed is long (independent), is common in many languages. But is this use of (') natural? For a reason that the reader has anticipated, it is not natural, but conventional. It is used elsewhere not as the sign of quantity, but as the sign of accent; consequently being placed over a letter, and being interpreted according to its natural meaning, it gives the idea, not that the syllable is long, but that it is emphatic or accented. Its use as a sign of quantity is an orthographical expedient, or a conventional mode of spelling.

The English language abounds in orthographical expedients; the mode of expressing the quantity of the vowels being particularly numerous. To begin with these:

The reduplication of a vowel where there is but one syllable (as in feet, cool), is an orthographic expedient. It merely means that the syllable is long (or independent).

The reduplication of a consonant after a vowel, as in spotted, torrent, is, in most cases, an orthographic expedient. It merely denotes that the preceding vowel is short (dependent).

The use of th with the power of the first consonantal sound in thin and thine, is an orthographic expedient. The combination must be dealt with as a single letter.

X, however, and q are not orthographic expedients. They are orthographic compendiums.

The mischief of orthographic expedients is this :-When a sign, or letter, is used in a conventional, it precludes us from using it (at least without further explanation) in its natural sense. Thus the double o in mood constitutes but one syllable. If, in a foreign language, we had, immediately succeeding each other, first the syllable mó, and next the syllable od, we should have to spell it mo-od, or möod, or mo-id, &c. Again, it is only by our knowledge of the language that the th in nuthook, is not pronounced like the th in burthen. In the languages of India the true sound of t + h is common. This, however, we cannot spell naturally; because the combination th conveys to us another notion. Hence arise such combinations as thh, or t, &c., in writing Hindoo words.

A second mischief of orthographic conventionalities, is the wrong notions that they engender, the eye misleading the ear. That th is really t + h, no one would have believed had it not been for the spelling.

§ 308. The e mute—the juxta-position of different vowels.— Two important modes of spelling still stand over for notice.

(1.) By adding a second vowel, and so giving the appearance of a diphthong (red, read); and (2) by adding at the end of the word the letter e, which, from the circumstance of its not being sounded, is called the e mute (băt, bāte); we get, for the present stage of the English language, the same results that come from the reduplication of the vowel, as in feet and cool; i. e. we get a sign to the eye that the vowel is long or independent. Such, at least, is the general inference from these combinations. At

VOL. II.

F

the same time it is doubtful whether either of these is a true orthographic expedient; inasmuch as it is highly probable that they once represented (or approached the representation of) a real sound; e. g. the e now called mute was once sounded.

Again, the provincial pronunciation of such a word as wheat is whee-ut (there or thereabouts). This, which is provincial now, may easily be archaic, i. e. belong to the written language in an older stage. If so, the second vowel is no true orthographic expedient. Whatever it may be now, it originally expressed a real sound; a real sound which has changed and simplified itself during the interval.

§ 309. Long as is the list of the different powers of the different letters of the English Language, the greater part of them finds an explanation in one of the above-mentioned principles.

The etymological principle explains much; for the English is a language which pre-eminently recognises it; and it is also a language which, from the complex character of its organisation, has a large field for its application.

Change between the first use of a given mode of spelling and the present time explains much also;

Orthographic expedients explain more;

Fourthly, the juxta-position of incompatible sounds explains much (see remarks on d and s).

B.-The b in debtor, subtle, doubt, agrees with the b in lamb, dumb, thumb, womb, in being mute. It differs, however, in another respect. The words debtor, subtle, doubt, are of classical, the words lamb, dumb, &c. are of Angle origin. In debtor, &c. the b was undoubtedly at one time pronounced, since it belonged to a different syllable; debitor, subtilis, dubito, being the original forms. I am far from being certain that, with the other words, lamb, &c. this was the case. With them the b belonged (if it belonged to the word at all) to the same syllable as the m. I think, however, that instead of this being the case, the b, in speech, never made a part of the word at all; that it belongs now, and that it always belonged, to the written language only; and that it was inserted in the spelling upon what may be called the principle of imitation.

D.—The reason for d being often sounded like t, is as follows:

The words where it is so sounded are either the past tenses or the participles of verbs; as plucked, tossed, stepped, &c.

Now the letter e in the second syllable of these words is not sounded; whence the sounds of k, of s, and of p, come in immediate contact with the sound of the letter d.

But the sound of the letter d is flat, whilst those of k, s, and p are sharp; so that the combinations kd, sd, and pd are unpronounceable. Hence d is sounded as t.

In the older stages of the English Language the vowel e (or some other vowel equivalent to it) was actually sounded, and in those times d was sounded also.

Hence d is retained in spelling, although its sound is the sound of t.

K (C).—1. Before e, i, and y, the letter c is pronounced as s-cetaceous, city, Cyprian;

2. Before a, o, and u, it is sounded as k―cat, cool, cut ; 3. Before a consonant it is so sounded-craft.

On the other hand-1. K rarely comes before a, o, or u— 2. But it is used before e, i, or y; because in that position c would run the chance of being sounded as s.

Hence at the end of words k is used in preference to c. We write stick, lock, rather than stic, loc, or sticc, locc.

And the reason is clear; the sound of c is either that of k or that of s.

Which of these sounds it shall represent is determined by what follows.

If followed by nothing, it has no fixed sound; but

At the end of words it is followed by nothing;

Whence it has, at the end of words, no fixed sound; and Therefore, being inconvenient, has to be replaced by k. But, besides this, k is rarely doubled. We write stick rather than stikk. This is because it is never used except where c would be pronounced as s; that is, before a small vowel. If kid were spelt cid, it would run the chance of being pronounced sid.

Now, the preference of c to k is another instance of the influence of the Latin language. The letter k was wanting in

Latin; and as such was eschewed by languages whose orthography was influenced by the Latin.

Hence arose in the eyes of the etymologist the propriety of retaining, in all words derived from the Latin (crown, concave, concupiscence, &c.), the letter c to the exclusion of k. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, being taken from the Roman, excluded k, so that c was written even before the small vowels, a, e, i, y; as cyning, or cining, a king. C then supplants k upon etymological 'grounds only. In some of the languages derived from the Latin this dislike to the use of k leads to several orthographical inconveniences. As the tendency of c before e, i, y, to be sounded as s (or as a sound allied to s), is the same in those languages as in others; and as, in those languages as in others, there frequently occur such sounds as kit, ket, kin, &c., a difficulty arises as to the spelling. If spelt cit, cet, &c. there is risk of their being sounded sit, set. To remedy this an h is interposed-chit, chet, &c. This, however, only substitutes one difficulty for another, since ch is, in all probability, already used with a different sound: e. g. that of sh, as in French; or that of k guttural, as in German. The Spanish orthography is thus hampered. Unwilling to spell the word chimera (pronounced kimera) with a k; unable to spell it with either c or ch, it writes the word quimera. This distaste for k is an orthographic prejudice. Even in the way of etymology it is but partially advantageous: since in the other Gothic languages, where the alphabet is less rigidly Latin, the words that in English are spelt with a c, are there written with k-kam, German; komme, Danish; skrapa, Swedish came, come, scrape.

That the syllables cit, cyt, cet, were at one time pronounced kit, kyt, ket, we believe: 1. from the circumstance that if it were not so, they would have been spelt with an s; 2. from the comparison of the Greek and Latin languages, where the words cete, circus, cystis, Latin, are κητή, κίρκος, κύστις, Greek.

In the words mechanical, choler, &c. derived from the Greek, it must not be imagined that the c represents the Greek kappa or к. The combination c + h is to be dealt with as a single letter. Thus it was that the Romans, who had in their language neither the sound of x, nor the sign к,