The Grammar of English Grammars Part 17

But _Kirkham_ has lately learned his letters anew; and, supposing he had Dr. Rush on his side, has philosophically taken their names for their sounds. He now calls _y_ a "_diphthong_." But he is wrong here by his own showing: he should rather have called it a _triphthong_. He says, "By p.r.o.nouncing in a very deliberate and perfectly natural manner, the letter _y_, (which is a _diphthong_,) the _unpractised_ student will perceive, that the sound produced, is compound; being formed, at its opening, of the obscure sound of _oo_ as heard in _oo_-ze, which sound rapidly slides into that of _i_, and then advances to that of _ee_ as heard in _e_-ve, _and_ on which it gradually pa.s.ses off into silence."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 75.

Thus the "unpractised student" is taught that _b-y_ spells _bwy_; or, if p.r.o.nounced "very deliberately, _boo-i-ee_!" Nay, this grammatist makes _b_, not a l.a.b.i.al mute, as Walker, Webster, Cobb, and others, have called it, but a nasal subtonic, or semivowel. He delights in protracting its "guttural murmur;" perhaps, in a.s.suming its name for its sound; and, having proved, that "consonants are capable of forming syllables," finds no difficulty in mouthing this little monosyllable _by_ into _b-oo-i-ee!_ In this way, it is the easiest thing in the world, for such a man to outface Aristotle, or any other divider of the letters; for he _makes_ the sounds by which he judges. "Boy," says the teacher of Kirkham's Elocution, "describe the protracted sound of _y_."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p. 110. The pupil may answer, "That letter, sir, has no longer or more complex sound, than what is heard in the word _eye_, or in the vowel _i_; but the book which I study, describes it otherwise. I know not whether I can make you understand it, but I will _tr-oo-i-ee_." If the word _try_, which the author uses as an example, does not exhibit his "protracted sound of _y_,"

there is no word that does: the sound is a mere fiction, originating in strange ignorance.

OBS. 6.--In the large print above, I have explained the princ.i.p.al cla.s.ses of the letters, but not all that are spoken of in books. It is proper to inform the learner that the _sharp_ consonants are _t_, and all others after which our contracted preterits and participles require that _d_ should be sounded like _t_; as in the words faced, reached, stuffed, laughed, triumphed, croaked, cracked, houghed, reaped, nipped, piqued, missed, wished, earthed, betrothed, fixed. The _flat_ or _smooth_ consonants are _d_, and all others with which the proper sound of _d_ may be united; as in the words, daubed, judged, hugged, thronged, sealed, filled, aimed, crammed, pained, planned, feared, marred, soothed, loved, dozed, buzzed. The _l.a.b.i.als_ are those consonants which are articulated chiefly by the lips; among which, Dr. Webster reckons _b, f, m, p_, and _v_. But Dr. Rush says, _b_ and _m_ are nasals, the latter, "purely nasal."

[95] The _dentals_ are those consonants which are referred to the teeth; the _nasals_ are those which are affected by the nose; and the _palatals_ are those which compress the palate, as _k_ and hard _g_. But these last-named cla.s.ses are not of much importance; nor have I thought it worth while to notice _minutely_ the opinions of writers respecting the others, as whether _h_ is a semivowel, or a mute, or neither.

OBS. 7.--The Cherokee alphabet, which was invented in 1821, by See-quo-yah, or George Guess, an ingenious but wholly illiterate Indian, contains eighty-five letters, or characters. But the sounds of the language are much fewer than ours; for the characters represent, not simple tones and articulations, but _syllabic sounds_, and this number is said to be sufficient to denote them all. But the different syllabic sounds in our language amount to some thousands. I suppose, from the account, that _See-quo-yah_ writes his name, in his own language, with three letters; and that characters so used, would not require, and probably would not admit, such a division as that of vowels and consonants. One of the Cherokees, in a letter to the American Lyceum, states, that a knowledge of this mode of writing is so easily acquired, that one who understands and speaks the language, "can learn to read in a day; and, indeed," continues the writer, "I have known some to acquire the art in a single evening. It is only necessary to learn the different sounds of the characters, to be enabled to read at once. In the English language, we must not only first learn the letters, but to spell, before reading; but in Cherokee, all that is required, is, to learn the letters; for they have _syllabic sounds_, and by connecting different ones together, a word is formed: in which there is no art. All who understand the language can do so, and both read and write, so soon as they can learn to trace with their fingers the forms of the characters. I suppose that more than one half of the Cherokees can read their own language, and are thereby enabled to acquire much valuable information, with which they otherwise would never have been blessed."--_W.

S. Coodey_, 1831.

OBS. 8.--From the foregoing account, it would appear that the Cherokee language is a very peculiar one: its words must either be very few, or the proportion of polysyllables very great. The characters used in China and j.a.pan, stand severally for _words_; and their number is said to be not less than seventy thousand; so that the study of a whole life is scarcely sufficient to make a man thoroughly master of them. Syllabic writing is represented by Dr. Blair as a great improvement upon the Chinese method, and yet as being far inferior to that which is properly _alphabetic_, like ours. "The first step, in this new progress," says he, "was the invention of an alphabet of syllables, which probably preceded the invention of an alphabet of letters, among some of the ancient nations; and which is said to be retained to this day, in Ethiopia, and some countries of India. By fixing upon a particular mark, or character, for every syllable in the language, the number of characters, necessary to be used in writing, was reduced within a much smaller compa.s.s than the number of words in the language. Still, however, the number of characters was great; and must have continued to render both reading and writing very laborious arts. Till, at last, some happy genius arose, and tracing the sounds made by the human voice, to their most simple elements, reduced them to a very few _vowels and consonants_; and, by affixing to each of these, the signs which we now call letters, taught men how, by their combinations, to put in writing all the different words, or combinations of sound, which they employed in speech. By being reduced to this simplicity, the art of writing was brought to its highest state of perfection; and, in this state, we now enjoy it in all the countries of Europe."--_Blair's Rhetoric_, Lect. VII, p. 68.

OBS. 9.--All certain knowledge of the sounds given to the letters by Moses and the prophets having been long ago lost, a strange dispute has arisen, and been carried on for centuries, concerning this question, "Whether the Hebrew letters are, or are not, _all consonants_:" the vowels being supposed by some to be suppressed and understood; and not written, except by _points_ of comparatively late invention. The discussion of such a question does not properly belong to English grammar; but, on account of its curiosity, as well as of its a.n.a.logy to some of our present disputes, I mention it. Dr. Charles Wilson says, "After we have sufficiently known the figures and names of the letters, the next step is, to learn to enunciate or to p.r.o.nounce them, so as to produce articulate sounds. On this subject, which appears at first sight very plain and simple, numberless contentions and varieties of opinion meet us at the threshold. From the earliest period of the invention of written characters to represent human language, however more or less remote that time may be, it seems absolutely certain, that the distinction of letters into _vowels and consonants_ must have obtained. All the speculations of the Greek grammarians a.s.sume this as a first principle." Again: "I beg leave only to premise this observation, that I absolutely and unequivocally deny the position, that all the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are consonants; and, after the most careful and minute inquiry, give it as my opinion, that of the twenty-two letters of which the Hebrew alphabet consists, five are vowels and seventeen are consonants. The five vowels by name are, Aleph, He, Vau, Yod, and Ain."--_Wilson's Heb.

Gram._, pp. 6 and 8.

III. POWERS OF THE LETTERS.

The powers of the letters are properly those elementary sounds which their figures are used to represent; but letters formed into words, are capable of communicating thought independently of sound. The simple elementary sounds of any language are few, commonly not more than _thirty-six_;[96]

but they may be variously _combined_, so as to form words innumerable.

Different vowel sounds, or vocal elements, are produced by opening the mouth differently, and placing the tongue in a peculiar manner for each; but the voice may vary in loudness, pitch, or time, and still utter the same vowel power.

The _vowel sounds_ which form the basis of the English language, and which ought therefore to be perfectly familiar to every one who speaks it, are those which are heard at the beginning of the words, _ate, at, ah, all, eel, ell, isle, ill, old, on, ooze, use, us_, and that of _u_ in _bull_.

In the formation of syllables, some of these fourteen primary sounds may be joined together, as in _ay, oil, out, owl_; and all of them may be preceded or followed by certain motions and positions of the lips and tongue, which will severally convert them into other terms in speech. Thus the same essential sounds may be changed into a new series of words by an _f_; as, _fate, fat, far, fall, feel, fell, file, fill, fold, fond, fool, fuse, fuss, full_. Again, into as many more with a _p_; as, _pate, pat, par, pall, peel, pell, pile, pill, pole, pond, pool, pule, purl, pull_. Each of the vowel sounds may be variously expressed by letters. About half of them are sometimes words: the rest are seldom, if ever, used alone even to form syllables. But the reader may easily learn to utter them all, separately, according to the foregoing series. Let us note them as plainly as possible: eigh, ~a, ah, awe, =eh, ~e, eye, ~i, oh, ~o, oo, yew, ~u, . Thus the eight long sounds, _eigh, ah, awe, eh, eye, oh, ooh, yew_, are, or may be, words; but the six less vocal, called the short vowel sounds, as in _at, et, it, ot, ut, put_, are commonly heard only in connexion with consonants; except the first, which is perhaps the most frequent sound of the vowel A or _a_--a sound sometimes given to the word _a_, perhaps most generally; as in the phrase, "twice _~a_ day."

The simple _consonant sounds_ in English are twenty-two: they are marked by _b, d, f, g hard, h, k, l, m, n, ng, p, r, s, sh, t, th sharp, th flat, v, w, y, z_, and _zh_. But _zh_ is written only to show the sound of other letters; as of _s_ in _pleasure_, or _z_ in _azure_.

All these sounds are heard distinctly in the following words: _buy, die, fie, guy, high, kie, lie, my, nigh, eying, pie, rye, sigh, shy, tie, thigh, thy, vie, we, ye, zebra, seizure_. Again: most of them may be repeated in the same word, if not in the same syllable; as in _bibber, diddle, fifty, giggle, high-hung, cackle, lily, mimic, ninny, singing, pippin, mirror, hissest, flesh-brush, t.i.ttle, thinketh, thither, vivid, witwal, union,[97]

dizzies, vision_.

With us, the consonants J and X represent, not simple, but complex sounds: hence they are never doubled. J is equivalent to _dzh_; and X, either to _ks_ or to _gz_. The former ends no English word, and the latter begins none. To the initial X of foreign words, we always give the simple sound of Z; as in _Xerxes, xebec_.

The consonants C and Q have no sounds peculiar to themselves. Q has always the power of _k_. C is hard, like _k_, before _a, o_, and _u_; and soft, like _s_, before _e, i_, and _y_: thus the syllables, _ca, ce, ci, co, cu, cy_, are p.r.o.nounced, _ka, se, si, ko, ku, sy_. _S_ before _c_ preserves the former sound, but coalesces with the latter; hence the syllables, _sca, sce, sci, sco, scu, scy_, are sounded, _ska, se, si, sko, sku, sy_. _Ce_ and _ci_ have sometimes the sound of _sh_; as in _ocean, social_. _Ch_ commonly represents the compound sound of _tsh_; as in _church_.

G, as well as C, has different sounds before different vowels. G is always hard, or guttural, before _a, o_, and _u_; and generally soft, like _j_, before _e, i_, or _y_: thus the syllables, _ga, ge, gi, go, gu, gy_, are p.r.o.nounced _ga, je, ji, go, gu, jy_.

The possible combinations and mutations of the twenty-six letters of our alphabet, are many millions of millions. But those cl.u.s.ters which are unp.r.o.nounceable, are useless. Of such as may be easily uttered, there are more than enough for all the purposes of useful writing, or the recording of speech.

Thus it is, that from principles so few and simple as about six or seven and thirty plain elementary sounds, represented by characters still fewer, we derive such a variety of oral and written signs, as may suffice to explain or record all the sentiments and transactions of all men in all ages.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.--A knowledge of sounds can be acquired, in the first instance, only by the ear. No description of the manner of their production, or of the differences which distinguish them, can be at all intelligible to him who has not already, by the sense of hearing, acquired a knowledge of both. What I here say of the sounds of the letters, must of course be addressed to those persons only who are able both to speak and to read English. Why then attempt instruction by a method which both ignorance and knowledge on the part of the pupil, must alike render useless? I have supposed some readers to have such an acquaintance with the powers of the letters, as is but loose and imperfect; sufficient for the accurate p.r.o.nunciation of some words or syllables, but leaving them liable to mistakes in others; extending perhaps to all the sounds of the language, but not to a ready a.n.a.lysis or enumeration of them. Such persons may profit by a written description of the powers of the letters, though no such description can equal the clear impression of the living voice. Teachers, too, whose business it is to aid the articulation of the young, and, by a patient inculcation of elementary principles, to lay the foundation of an accurate p.r.o.nunciation, may derive some a.s.sistance from any notation of these principles, which will help their memory, or that of the learner. The connexion between letters and sounds is altogether _arbitrary_; but a few positions, being a.s.sumed and made known, in respect to some characters, become easy standards for further instruction in respect to others of similar sound.

OBS. 2.--The importance of being instructed at an early age, to p.r.o.nounce with distinctness and facility all the elementary sounds of one's native language, has been so frequently urged, and is so obvious in itself, that none but those who have been themselves neglected, will be likely to disregard the claims of their children in this respect.[98] But surely an accurate knowledge of the ordinary powers of the letters would be vastly more common, were there not much hereditary negligence respecting the manner in which these important rudiments are learned. The utterance of the illiterate may exhibit wit and native talent, but it is always more or less barbarous, because it is not aided by a knowledge of orthography. For p.r.o.nunciation and orthography, however they may seem, in our language especially, to be often at variance, are certainly correlative: a true knowledge of either tends to the preservation of both. Each of the letters represents some one or more of the elementary sounds, exclusive of the rest; and each of the elementary sounds, though several of them are occasionally transferred, has some one or two letters to which it most properly or most frequently belongs. But borrowed, as our language has been, from a great variety of sources, to which it is desirable ever to retain the means of tracing it, there is certainly much apparent lack of correspondence between its oral and its written form. Still the discrepancies are few, when compared with the instances of exact conformity; and, if they are, as I suppose they are, unavoidable, it is as useless to complain of the trouble they occasion, as it is to think of forcing a reconciliation. The wranglers in this controversy, can never agree among themselves, whether orthography shall conform to p.r.o.nunciation, or p.r.o.nunciation to orthography. Nor does any one of them well know how our language would either sound or look, were he himself appointed sole arbiter of all variances between our spelling and our speech.

OBS. 3.--"Language," says Dr. Rush, "was long ago a.n.a.lyzed into its alphabetic elements. Wherever this a.n.a.lysis is known, the art of teaching language has, with the best success, been conducted upon the rudimental method." * * * "The art of reading consists in having all the vocal elements under complete command, that they may be properly applied, for the vivid and elegant delineation of the sense and sentiment of discourse."--_Philosophy of the Voice_, p. 346. Again, of "the p.r.o.nunciation of the alphabetic elements," he says, "The least deviation _from the a.s.sumed standard_ converts the listener into the critic; and I am surely speaking within bounds when I say, that for every miscalled element in discourse, ten succeeding words are lost to the greater part of an audience."--_Ibid._, p. 350. These quotations plainly imply both the practicability and the importance of teaching the p.r.o.nunciation of our language a.n.a.lytically by means of its present orthography, and agreeably to the standard a.s.sumed by the grammarians. The first of them affirms that it has been done, "with the best success," according to some ancient method of dividing the letters and explaining their sounds. And yet, both before and afterwards, we find this same author complaining of our alphabet and its subdivisions, as if sense or philosophy must utterly repudiate both; and of our orthography, as if a ploughman might teach us to spell better: and, at the same time, he speaks of softening his censure through modesty. "The deficiencies, redundancies, and confusion, of the system of alphabetic characters in this language, prevent the adoption of its subdivisions in this essay."--_Ib._, p. 52. Of the specific sounds given to the letters, he says, "The first of these matters is under the rule of every body, and therefore is very properly to be excluded from the discussions of that philosophy which desires to be effectual in its instruction. How can we hope to establish a system of elemental p.r.o.nunciation in a language, when great masters in criticism condemn at once every attempt, in so simple and useful a labour as the correction of its orthography!"--P. 256. Again: "I _deprecate noticing_ the faults of speakers, in the p.r.o.nunciation of the alphabetic elements. It is better for criticism to be modest on this point, till it has the sense or independence to make our alphabet and its uses, look more like the work of what is called--wise and transcendent humanity: till the pardonable variety of p.r.o.nunciation, and the _true spelling by the vulgar_, have satirized into reformation that pen-craft which keeps up the troubles of orthography for no other purpose, as one can divine, than to boast of a very questionable merit as a criterion of education."--_Ib._, p. 383.

OBS. 4.--How far these views are compatible, the reader will judge. And it is hoped he will excuse the length of the extracts, from a consideration of the fact, that a great master of the "pen-craft" here ridiculed, a noted stickler for needless Kays and Ues, now commonly rejected, while he boasts that his grammar, which he mostly copied from Murray's, is teaching the old explanation of the alphabetic elements to "more than one hundred thousand children and youth," is also vending under his own name an abstract of the new scheme of "_tonicks, subtonicks_, and _atonicks_;" and, in one breath, bestowing superlative praise on both, in order, as it would seem, to monopolize all inconsistency. "Among those who have successfully laboured in the philological field, _Mr. Lindley Murray_ stands forth in bold relief, as undeniably at the head of the list."--_Kirkham's Elocution_, p.

12. "The modern candidate for oratorical fame, stands on very different, and far more advantageous, ground, than that occupied by the young and aspiring Athenian; especially since a _correct a.n.a.lysis of the vocal organs_, and a faithful record of their operations, have been given to the world by _Dr. James Rush_, of Philadelphia--a name that will _outlive_ the unquarried marble of our mountains."--_Ibid._, p. 29. "But what is to be said when presumption pushes itself into the front ranks of elocution, and thoughtless friends undertake to support it? The fraud must go on, till presumption quarrels, as often happens, with its own friends, or with itself, and thus dissolves the spell of its merits."--_Rush, on the Voice_, p. 405.

OBS. 5.--The question respecting the _number_ of simple or elementary sounds in our language, presents a remarkable puzzle: and it is idle, if not ridiculous, for any man to declaim about the imperfection of our alphabet and orthography, who does not show himself able to solve it. All these sounds may easily be written in a plain sentence of three or four lines upon almost any subject; and every one who can read, is familiar with them all, and with all the letters. Now it is either easy _to count_ them, or it is difficult. If difficult, wherein does the difficulty lie? and how shall he who knows not what and how many they are, think himself capable of reforming our system of their alphabetic signs? If easy, why do so few pretend to know their number? and of those who do pretend to this knowledge, why are there so few that agree? A certain verse in the seventh chapter of Ezra, has been said to contain all the letters. It however contains no _j_; and, with respect to the sounds, it lacks that of _f_, that of _th sharp_, and that of _u_ in _bull_. I will suggest a few additional words for these; and then both all the letters, and all the sounds, of the English language, will be found in the example; and most of them, many times over: "'And I, even I, Artaxerxes, the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers' who 'are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the G.o.d of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily' and faithfully, according to that which he shall enjoin." Some letters, and some sounds, are here used much more frequently than others; but, on an average, we have, in this short pa.s.sage, each sound five times, and each letter eight. How often, then, does a man speak all the elements of his language, who reads well but one hour!

OBS. 6.--Of the number of elementary sounds in our language, different orthoepists report differently; because they cannot always agree among themselves, wherein the ident.i.ty or the simplicity, the sameness or the singleness, even of well-known sounds, consists; or because, if each is allowed to determine these points for himself, no one of them adheres strictly to his own decision. They may also, each for himself, have some peculiar way of utterance, which will confound some sounds which other men distinguish, or distinguish some which other men confound. For, as a man may write a very bad hand which shall still be legible, so he may utter many sounds improperly and still be understood. One may, in this way, make out a scheme of the alphabetic elements, which shall be true of his own p.r.o.nunciation, and yet have obvious faults when tried by the best usage of English speech. It is desirable not to multiply these sounds beyond the number which a correct and elegant p.r.o.nunciation of the language obviously requires. And what that number is, it seems to me not very difficult to ascertain; at least, I think we may fix it with sufficient accuracy for all practical purposes. But let it be remembered, that all who have hitherto attempted the enumeration, have deviated more or less from their own decisions concerning either the simplicity or the ident.i.ty of sounds; but, most commonly, it appears to have been thought expedient to admit some exceptions concerning both. Thus the long or diphthongal sounds of _I_ and _U_, are admitted by some, and excluded by others; the sound of _j_, or soft _g_, is reckoned as simple by some, and rejected as compound by others; so a part, if not all, of what are called the long and the short vowels, as heard in _ale_ and _ell, arm_ and _am, all_ and _on, isle_ or _eel_ and _ill, tone_ and _tun, pule_ or _pool_ and _pull_, have been declared essentially the same by some, and essentially different by others.

Were we to recognize as elementary, no sounds but such as are unquestionably simple in themselves, and indisputably different in quality from all others, we should not have more sounds than letters: and this is a proof that we have characters enough, though the sounds are perhaps badly distributed among them.

OBS. 7.--I have enumerated _thirty-six_ well known sounds, which, in compliance with general custom, and for convenience in teaching. I choose to regard as the oral elements of our language. There may be found some reputable authority for adding four or five more, and other authority as reputable, for striking from the list seven or eight of those already mentioned. For the sake of the general principle, which we always regard in writing, a principle of universal grammar, _that there can be no syllable without a vowel_, I am inclined to teach, with Brightland, Dr.

Johnson, L. Murray, and others, that, in English, as in French, there is given to the vowel _e_ a certain very obscure sound which approaches, but amounts not to an absolute suppression, though it is commonly so regarded by the writers of dictionaries. It may be exemplified in the words _oven, shovel, able_;[99] or in the unemphatic article _the_ before a consonant, as in the sentence, "Take the nearest:" we do not hear it as "_thee nearest_," nor as "_then carest_," but more obscurely. There is also a feeble sound of _i_ or _y_ unaccented, which is equivalent to _ee_ uttered feebly, as in the word _diversity_. This is the most common sound of _i_ and of _y_. The vulgar are apt to let it fall into the more obscure sound of short _u_. As elegance of utterance depends much upon the preservation of this sound from such obtuseness, perhaps Walker and others have done well to mark it as _e_ in _me_; though some suppose it to be peculiar, and others identify it with the short _i_ in _fit_. Thirdly, a distinction is made by some writers, between the vowel sounds heard in _hate_ and _bear_, which Sheridan and Walker consider to be the same. The apparent difference may perhaps result from the following consonant _r_, which is apt to affect the sound of the vowel which precedes it. Such words as _bear, care, dare, careful, parent_, are very liable to be corrupted in p.r.o.nunciation, by too broad a sound of the _a_; and, as the multiplication of needless distinctions should be avoided, I do not approve of adding an other sound to a vowel which has already quite too many. Worcester, however, in his new Dictionary, and Wells, in his new Grammar, give to the vowel A _six_ or _seven_ sounds in lieu of _four_; and Dr. Mandeville, in his Course of Reading, says, "_A_ has _eight_ sounds."--P. 9.

OBS. 8.--Sheridan made the elements of his oratory _twenty-eight_. Jones followed him implicitly, and adopted the same number.[100] Walker recognized several more, but I know not whether he has anywhere told us _how many there are_. Lindley Murray enumerates _thirty-six_, and the same thirty-six that are given in the main text above. The eight sounds not counted by Sheridan are these: 1. The Italian _a_, as in _far, father_, which he reckoned but a lengthening of the _a_ in _hat_; 2. The short _o_, as in _hot_, which he supposed to be but a shortening of the _a_ in _hall_; 3. The diphthongal _i_, as in _isle_, which he thought but a quicker union of the sounds of the diphthong _oi_, but which, in my opinion, is rather a very quick union of the sounds _ah_ and _ee_ into _ay, I_;[101] 4. The long _u_, which is acknowledged to be equal to _yu_ or _yew_, though perhaps a little different from _you_ or _yoo_,[102] the sound given it by Walker; 5.

The _u_ heard in _pull_, which he considered but a shortening of _oo_; 6.

The consonant _w_, which he conceived to be always a vowel, and equivalent to _oo_; 7. The consonant _y_, which he made equal to a short _ee_; 8. The consonant _h_, which he declared to be no letter, but a mere breathing, In all other respects, his scheme of the alphabetic elements agrees with that which is adopted in this work, and which is now most commonly taught.

OBS. 9.--The effect of _Quant.i.ty_ in the prolation of the vowels, is a matter with which every reader ought to be experimentally acquainted.

_Quant.i.ty_ is simply the _time_ of utterance, whether long or short. It is commonly spoken of with reference to _syllables_, because it belongs severally to all the distinct or numerable impulses of the voice, and to these only; but, as vowels or diphthongs may be uttered alone, the notion of quant.i.ty is of course as applicable to them, as to any of the more complex sounds in which consonants are joined with them. All sounds imply time; because they are the transient effects of certain percussions which temporarily agitate the air, an element that tends to silence. When mighty winds have swept over sea and land, and the voice of the _Ocean_ is raised, he speaks to the towering cliffs in the deep tones of a _long_ quant.i.ty; the rolling billows, as they meet the sh.o.r.e, p.r.o.nounce the long-drawn syllables of his majestic elocution. But see him again in gentler mood; stand upon the beach and listen to the rippling of his more frequent waves: he will teach you _short_ quant.i.ty, as well as long. In common parlance, to avoid tediousness, to save time, and to adapt language to circ.u.mstances, we usually utter words with great rapidity, and in comparatively short quant.i.ty. But in oratory, and sometimes in ordinary reading, those sounds which are best fitted to fill and gratify the ear, should be sensibly protracted, especially in emphatic words; and even the shortest syllable, must be so lengthened as to be uttered with perfect clearness: otherwise the performance will be judged defective.

OBS. 10.--Some of the vowels are usually uttered in longer time than others; but whether the former are naturally long, and the latter naturally short, may be doubted: the common opinion is, that they are. But one author at least denies it; and says, "We must explode the pretended natural epithets _short_ and _long_ given to our vowels, independent on accent: and we must observe that our silent _e_ final lengthens not its syllable, unless the preceding vowel be accented."--_Mackintosh's Essay on E. Gram._, p. 232. The distinction of long and short vowels which has generally obtained, and the correspondences which some writers have laboured to establish between them, have always been to me sources of much embarra.s.sment. It would appear, that in one or two instances, sounds that differ only in length, or time, are commonly recognized as different elements; and that grammarians and orthoepists, perceiving this, have attempted to carry out the a.n.a.logy, and to find among what they call the long vowels a parent sound for each of the short ones. In doing this, they have either neglected to consult the ear, or have not chosen to abide by its verdict. I suppose the vowels heard in _pull_ and _pool_ would be necessarily identified, if the former were protracted or the latter shortened; and perhaps there would be a like coalescence of those heard in _of_ and _all_, were they tried in the same way, though I am not sure of it. In protracting the _e_ in _met_, and the _i_ in _s.h.i.+p_, ignorance or carelessness might perhaps, with the help of our orthoepists, convert the former word into _mate_ and the latter into _sheep_; and, as this would breed confusion in the language, the avoiding of the similarity may perhaps be a sufficient reason for confining these two sounds of _e_ and _i_, to that short quant.i.ty in which they cannot be mistaken. But to suppose, as some do, that the protraction of _u_ in _tun_ would identify it with the _o_ in _tone_, surpa.s.ses any notion I have of what stupidity may misconceive. With one or two exceptions, therefore, it appears to me that each of the pure vowel sounds is of such a nature, that it may be readily recognized by its own peculiar quality or tone, though it be made as long or as short as it is possible for any sound of the human voice to be. It is manifest that each of the vowel sounds heard in _ate, at, arm, all, eel, old, ooze, us_, may be protracted to the entire extent of a full breath slowly expended, and still be precisely the same one simple sound;[103]

and, on the contrary, that all but one may be shortened to the very minimum of vocality, and still be severally known without danger of mistake. The prolation of a pure vowel places the organs of utterance in that particular position which the sound of the letter requires, and then _holds them unmoved_ till we have given to it all the length we choose.

OBS. 11.--In treating of the quant.i.ty and quality of the vowels, Walker says, "The first distinction of sound that seems to obtrude itself upon us when we utter the vowels, is a long and a short sound, according to the greater or less duration of time taken up in p.r.o.nouncing them. This distinction is so obvious as to have been adopted in all languages, and is that to which we annex _clearer ideas than to any other_; and though the short sounds of some vowels have not in our language been cla.s.sed with sufficient accuracy with their parent long ones, yet this has bred but little confusion, as vowels long and short are always sufficiently distinguishable."--_Principles_, No. 63. Again: "But though the terms long and short, as applied to vowels, are pretty generally understood, an accurate ear will easily perceive that these terms do not always mean the long and short sounds of the respective vowels to which they are applied; for, if we choose to be directed by the ear, in denominating vowels long or short, we must certainly give these appellations to those sounds only which have _exactly the same radical tone_, and differ only in the long or short emission of that tone."--_Ib._, No. 66. He then proceeds to state his opinion that the vowel sounds heard in the following words are thus correspondent: _tame, them; car, carry; wall, want; dawn, gone; theme, him; tone_, nearly _tun; pool, pull_. As to the long sounds of _i_ or _y_, and of _u_, these two being diphthongal, he supposes the short sound of each to be no other than the short sound of its latter element _ee_ or _oo_. Now to me most of this is exceedingly unsatisfactory; and I have shown why.

OBS. 12.--If men's notions of the length and shortness of vowels are the clearest ideas they have in relation to the elements of speech, how comes it to pa.s.s that of all the disputable points in grammar, this is the most perplexed with contrarieties of opinion? In coming before the world as an author, no man intends to place himself clearly in the wrong; yet, on the simple powers of the letters, we have volumes of irreconcilable doctrines.

A great connoisseur in things of this sort, who professes to have been long "in the habit of listening to sounds of every description, and that with more than ordinary attention," declares in a recent and expensive work, that "in every language we find the vowels _incorrectly cla.s.sed_"; and, in order to give to "the simple elements of English utterance" a better explanation than others have furnished, he devotes to a new a.n.a.lysis of our alphabet the ample s.p.a.ce of twenty octavo pages, besides having several chapters on subjects connected with it. And what do his twenty pages amount to? I will give the substance of them in ten lines, and the reader may judge. He does not tell us _how many_ elementary sounds there are; but, professing to arrange the vowels, long and short, "in the order in which they are naturally found," as well as to show of the consonants that the mutes and liquids form correspondents in regular pairs, he presents a scheme which I abbreviate as follows. VOWELS: 1. _A_, as in _=all_ and _wh~at_, or _o_, as in _orifice_ and _n~ot_; 2. _U--=urn_ and _h~ut_, or _l=ove_ and _c~ome_; 3. _O--v=ote_ and _ech~o_; 4. _A--=ah_ and _h~at_; 5.

_A--h=azy_, no short sound; 6. _E--=e=el_ and _it_; 7. _E--m=ercy_ and _m~et_; 8. _O--pr=ove_ and _ad~o_; 9. _OO--t=o=ol_ and _f~o~ot_; 10.

_W--vo=w_ and _la~w_; 11. _Y_--(like the first _e_--) _s=yntax_ and _dut~y_. DIPHTHONGS: 1. _I_--as _ah-ee_; 2. _U_--as _ee-oo_; 3. _OU_--as _au-oo_. CONSONANTS: 1. Mutes,--_c_ or _s, f, h, k_ or _q, p, t, th sharp, sh_; 2. Liquids,--_l_, which has no corresponding mute, and _z, v, r, ng, m, n, th flat_ and _j_, which severally correspond to the eight mutes in their order; 3. Subliquids,--_g hard, b_, and _d_. See "Music of Nature,"

by _William Gardiner_, p. 480, and after.

OBS. 13.--Dr. Rush comes to the explanation of the powers of the letters as the confident first revealer of nature's management and wisdom; and hopes to have laid the foundation of a system of instruction in reading and oratory, which, if adopted and perfected, "will beget a similarity of opinion and practice," and "be found to possess an excellence which must grow into sure and irreversible favour."--_Phil. of the Voice_, p. 404. "We have been willing," he says, "_to believe, on faith alone_, that nature is wise in the contrivance of speech. Let us now show, by our works of a.n.a.lysis, how she manages the _simple elements_ of the voice, in the production of their unbounded combinations."--_Ibid._, p. 44. Again: "Every one, with peculiar self-satisfaction, thinks he reads well, and yet all read differently: there is, however, _but one mode_ of reading well."--_Ib._, p. 403. That one mode, some say, his philosophy alone teaches. Of that, others may judge. I shall only notice here what seems to be his fundamental position, that, on all the vocal elements of language, nature has stamped duplicity. To establish this extraordinary doctrine, he first attempts to prove, that "the letter _a_, as heard in the word _day_,"

combines two distinguishable yet inseparable sounds; that it is a compound of what he calls, with reference to vowels and syllables in general, "the radical and the vanis.h.i.+ng movement of the voice,"--a single and indivisible element in which "two sounds are heard continuously successive," the sounds of _a_ and _e_ as in _ale_ and _eve_. He does not know that some grammarians have contended that _ay_ in _day_ is a proper diphthong, in which both the vowels are heard; but, so p.r.o.nouncing it himself, infers from the experiment, that there is no simpler sound of the vowel a. If this inference is not wrong, the word _shape_ is to be p.r.o.nounced _sha-epe_; and, in like manner, a mult.i.tude of other words will acquire a new element not commonly heard in them.

OBS. 14.--But the doctrine stops not here. The philosopher examines, in some similar way, the other simple vowel sounds, and finds a beginning and an end, a base and an apex, a radical and a vanis.h.i.+ng movement, to them all; and imagines a sufficient warrant from nature to divide them all "into two parts," and to convert most of them into diphthongs, as well as to include all diphthongs with them, as being altogether as simple and elementary. Thus he begins with confounding all distinction between diphthongs and simple vowels; except that which he makes for himself when he admits "the radical and the vanish," the first half of a sound and the last, to have no difference in quality. This admission is made with respect to the vowels heard in _ooze, eel, err, end_, and _in_, which he calls, not diphthongs, but "monothongs." But in the _a_ of _ale_, he hears _=a'-ee_; in that of _an, ~a'-~e_; (that is, the short _a_ followed by something of the sound of _e_ in _err_;) in that of _art, ah'~-e_; in that of _all, awe'-~e_; in the _i_ of _isle, =i'-ee_; in the _o_ of _old, =o'-oo_; in the proper diphthong _ou, ou'-oo_; in the _oy_ of _boy_, he knows not what.

After his explanation of these mysteries, he says, "The seven radical sounds with their vanishes, which have been described, include, as far as I can perceive, all the elementary diphthongs of the English language."--_Ib._, p. 60. But all the sounds of the vowel _u_, whether diphthongal or simple, are excluded from his list, unless he means to represent one of them by the _e_ in _err_; and the complex vowel sound heard in _voice_ and _boy_, is confessedly omitted on account of a doubt whether it consists of two sounds or of three! The elements which he enumerates are thirty-five; but if _oi_ is not a triphthong, they are to be thirty-six. Twelve are called "_Tonics_; and are heard in the usual sound of the separated _Italics_, in the following words: _A_-ll, _a_-rt, _a_-n, _a_-le, _ou_-r, _i_-sle, _o_-ld, _ee_-l, _oo_-ze, _e_-rr, _e_-nd, _i_-n,"--_Ib._, p. 53. Fourteen are called "_Subtonics_; and are marked by the separated Italics, in the following words: _B_-ow, _d_-are, _g_-ive, _v_-ile, _z_-one, _y_-e, _w_-o, _th_-en, a-_z_-ure, si-_ng_, _l_-ove, _m_-ay, _n_-ot, _r_-oe."--_Ib._, p. 54. Nine are called "_Atonics_; they are heard in the words, U-_p_, ou-_t_, ar-_k_, i-_f_, ye-_s, h_-e, _wh_-eat, _th_-in, pu-_sh_."--_Ib._, p. 56. My opinion of this scheme of the alphabet the reader will have antic.i.p.ated.

IV. FORMS OF THE LETTERS.

In printed books of the English language, the Roman characters are generally employed; sometimes, the _Italic_; and occasionally, the [Font change: Old English]: but in handwriting, [Font change: Script letters] are used, the forms of which are peculiarly adapted to the pen.

Characters of different sorts or sizes should never be _needlessly mixed_; because facility of reading, as well as the beauty of a book, depends much upon the regularity of its letters.

In the ordinary forms of the Roman letters, every thick stroke that slants, slants from the left to the right downwards, except the middle stroke in Z; and every thin stroke that slants, slants from the left to the right upwards.

Italics are chiefly used to distinguish emphatic or remarkable words: in the Bible, they show what words were supplied by the translators.

In ma.n.u.scripts, a single line drawn under a word is meant for Italics; a double line, for small capitals; a triple line, for full capitals.

In every kind of type or character, the letters have severally _two forms_, by which they are distinguished as _capitals_ and _small letters_. Small letters const.i.tute the body of every work; and capitals are used for the sake of eminence and distinction. The t.i.tles of books, and the heads of their princ.i.p.al divisions, are printed wholly in capitals. s...o...b..lls, painted signs, and short inscriptions, commonly appear best in full capitals. Some of these are so copied in books; as, "I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN G.o.d."--_Acts_, xvii, 23. "And they set up over his head, his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS."--_Matt._, xxvii, 37.