PART I.

ORTHOGRAPHY.

ORTHOGRAPHY treats of letters, syllables, separate words, and spelling.

CHAPTER I.-OF LETTERS.

A Letter is an alphabetic character, which commonly represents some elementary sound of the human voice, some element of speech.

An elementary sound of the human voice, or an element of speech, is one of the simple sounds which compose a spoken language.

The sound of a letter is commonly called its power: when any letter of a word is not sounded, it is said to be silent or mute.

The letters in the English alphabet, are twenty-six; the simple or primary sounds which they represent, are about thirty-six or thirty

seven.

A knowledge of the letters consists in an acquaintance with these four sorts of things; their names, their classes, their powers, and their forms. The letters are written, or printed, or painted, or engraved, or ebossed, in an infinite variety of shapes and sizes; and yet are always the same, because their essential properties do not change, and their names, classes, and powers, are mostly permanent.

The following are some of the different sorts of types, or styles of letters, with which every reader should be early acquainted:

1. The Roman Aa, Bb, Cc, D d, Ee, F f, G g, H h, I i, Jj, K k, L 1, M m, N n, O o, P p, Qq, Rr, Ss, T t, Uu, V v, W w, X x, Y y, Z z.

2. The Italic Aa, Bb, Cc, Dd, Ee, Ff, G g, II h, I i, Jj, K k, L1, Mm, Nn, Oo, P p, Qq, Rr, Ss, r, Ss, Tt, U U u, V v, Ww, Xx, Y y,

Z z.

3. The Script: a, B l, C c, Dd, E c, A

Oo,

F f, G g p

P

Y y

Zz.

H h, I i, J j, Hk, Ll, M m, No n,
Qq, Rr, Sfs, T 1, U u, V v, Wow, X a,

ро

4. The Old English: A a, B b, C c, D d, E c, F f, G 9, 4 h), I i, I j, K k, £ 1, M m, N n, O o, P p, Q q, R r, S s, T 1, U u, bv, W w, X x, V v, Z z.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.-A letter consists not in the figure only, or in the power only, but in the figure and power united; as an embassador consists not in the man only, or in the commission only, but in the man commissioned. The figure and the power, therefore, are necessary to constitute the letter; and a name is as necessary, to call it by, teach it, or tell what it is. The class of a letter is determined by the nature of its power, or sound; as the embassador is plenipotentiary or otherwise, according to the extent of his commission. To all but the deaf and dumb, written language is the representative of that which is spoken; so that, in the view of people in general, the powers of the letters are habitually identified with their sounds, and are conceived to be nothing else. Hence any given sound, or modification of sound, which all men can produce at pleasure, when arbitrarily associated with a written sign, or conventional character, constitutes what is called a

letter. Thus we may produce the sounds of a, e, o, then, by a particular compression of the organs of utterance, modify them all, into ba, be, bo, or fa, fe, fo; and we shall see that a, e, and o, aro letters of one sort, and b and f, of an other. By elementary or articulate sounds, then, we mean not only the simple tones of the voice itself, but the modifying stops and turns which are given them in speech, and marked by letters: tho real voices constituting vowels; and their modifica tions, consonants.

OBS. 2.-A mere mark to which no sound or power is ever given, cannot be a letter; though it may, like the marks used for punctuation, deserve a name and a place in grammar. Commas, semicolons, and the like, represent silence, rather than sounds, and are therefore not letters. Nor are the Arabic figures, which represent entire words, nor again any symbols standing for things, (as the astronomic marks for the sun, the moon, the planets,) to be confounded with letters; bccause the representative of any word or number, of any name or thing, differs widely in its power, from the sign of a simple elementary sound: i. e., from any constituent part of a written word. The first letter of a word or name does indeed sometimes stand for the whole, and is still a letter; but it is so, as being the first element of the word, and not as being the representative of the whole.

OBS. 3. In their definitions of vowels and consonants, many grammarians have resolved letters into sounds only; as, "A Vowel is an articulate sound," &c.-"A Consonant is an articulato sound, &c.-L. Murray's Gram., p. 7. But this confounding of the visible signs with the things which they signify, is very far from being a true account of either. Besides, letters combined are capable of a certain mysterious power which is independent of all sound, though speech, doubtless, is what they properly represent. In practice, almost all the letters may occasionally happen to be silent; yet are they not, in these cases, necessarily useless. The deaf and dumb also, to whom none of the letters express or represent sounds, may be taught to read and write understandingly. They even learn in some way to distinguish the accented from the unaccented syllables, and to have some notion of quantity, or of something else equivalent to it; for some of them, it is said, can compose verses according to the rules of prosody. Hence it would appear, that the powers of the letters are not, of necessity, identified with their sounds; the things being in some respect distinguishable, though the terms are commonly taken as synonymous. The fact is, that a word, whether spoken or written, is of itself significant, whether its corresponding form be known or not. Hence, in the one form, it may be perfectly intelligible to the illiterate, and in the other, to the educated deaf and dumb; while, to the learned who hear and speak, either form immediately suggests the other, with the meaning common to both.

Ors. 4.-Our knowledge of letters rises no higher than to the forms used by the ancient Hcbrews and Phoenicians. Moses is supposed to have written in characters which were nearly the same as those called Samaritan, but his writings have come to us in an alphabet more beautiful and regular, called the Chaldee or Chaldaic, which is said to have been made by Ezra the scribe, when he wrote out a new copy of the law, after the rebuilding of the temple. Cadmus carried the Phoenician alphabet into Greece, where it was subsequently altered and enlarged. The small letters were not invented till about the seventh century of our era. The Latins, or Romans, derived most of their capitals from the Greeks; but their small letters, if they had any, were mado afterwards among themselves. This alphabet underwent various changes, and received very great improvements, before it became that beautiful series of characters which we now use, under the name of Roman letters. Indeed these particular forms, which are now justly preferred by many nations, are said to have been adopted after the invention of printing. "The Roman letters were first used by Sweynheim and Pannartz, printers who settled at Rome, in 1467. The earliest work printed wholly in this character in England, is said to have been Lily's or Paul's Accidence, printed by Richard Pinson, 1518. The Italic letters were invented by Aldus Manutius at Rome, towards the close of the fifteenth century, and were first used in an edition of Virgil, in 1501."Constable's Miscellany, Vol. xx, p. 147. The Saxon alphabet was mostly Roman. Not more than one quarter of the letters have other forms. But the changes, though few, give to a printed page a very different appearance. Under William the Conqueror, this alphabet was superseded by the modern Gothic, Old English, or Black letter; which, in its turn, happily gave place to the present Roman. The Germans still use a type similar to the Old English, but not so heavy.

OBS. 5.-I have suggested that a true knowledge of the letters implies an acquaintance with their names, their classes, their powers, and their forms. Under these four heads, therefore, I shall briefly present what seems most worthy of the learner's attention at first, and shall reserve for the appendix a more particular account of these important elements. The most common and the most useful things are not those about which we are in general most inquisitive. Hence many, who think themselves sufficiently acquainted with the letters, do in fact know but very little ⚫ Strictly speaking, an articulate sound is not a simple element of speech, but rather a complex one, whether syllable or word; for articulate literally means jointed. But our grammarians in general, have applied the term to the sound of a letter, a syllable, or a word, indiscriminately: for which reason, it seems not very suitable to be used alone in describing any of the three. Sheridan says, "The essence of a syllable consists in articulation only, for every articulate sound of course forms a syllable."-Lectures on Elocution, p. 62. If he is right in this not many of our letters-or, perhaps more properly, none of them-can singly represent articulate sounds. The looseness of this term induces me to add or prefer an other. "The Rev. W. Allen," who comes as near as any of our grammarians, to the true definition of a letter, says: 1. "The sounds used in language are called articulate sounds." 2. “A letter is a character used in printing or writing, to represent an articulate sound."-Allen's Elements of E. Gram., p. 2. Dr. Adam says: 1. "A letter is the mark of a sound, or of an articulation of sound." 2. "A vowel is properly called a simple sound; and the sounds formed by the concourse of vowels and consonants, articulate sounds."-Latin and English Gram., pp. 1 and 2.

about them. If a person is able to read some easy book, he is apt to suppose he has no more to learn respecting the letters; or he neglects the minute study of these elements, because he sees what words they make, and can amuse himself with stories of things more interesting. But merely to understand common English, is a very small qualification for him who aspires to scholarship, and especially for a teacher. For one may do this, and even be a great reader, without ever being able to name the letters properly, or to pronounce such syllables as ca, ce, ci, co, cu, cy, without getting half of them wrong. No one can ever teach an art more perfectly than he has learned it; and if we neglect the elements of grammar, our attainments must needs be proportionately unsettled and superficial.

I. NAMES OF THE LETTERS.

The names of the letters, as now commonly spoken and written in English, are A, Bee, Cec, Dee, E, Eff, Gee, Aitch, I, Jay, Kay, Ell, Em, En, O, Pee, Kue, Ar, Ess, Tee, U, Vee, Double-u, Ex, Wy, Zec.

OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.-With the learning and application of these names, our literary education begins; with a continual rehearsal of them in spelling, it is for a long time carried on; nor can we ever dispense with them, but by substituting others, or by ceasing to mention the things thus named. What is obviously indispensable, needs no proof of its importance. But I know not whether it has ever been noticed, that these names, like those of the days of the week, are worthy of particular distinction, for their own nature. They are words of a very peculiar kind, being nouns that are at once both proper and common. For, in respect to rank, character, and design, each letter is a thing strictly individual and identical—that is, it is ever one and the same; yet, in an other respect, it is a comprehensive sort, embracing individuals both various and numberless. Thus every B is a b, make it as you will; and can be nothing else than that same letter b, though you make it in a thousand different fashions, and multiply it after each pattern innumerably. Here, then, we see individuality combined at once with great diversity, and infinite multiplicity; and it is to this combination, that letters owe their wonderful power of transmitting thought. Their names, therefore, should always be written with capitals, as proper nouns, at least in the singular number; and should form the plural regularly, as ordinary appellatives. Thus: (if we adopt the names now most generally used in English schools:) A, Aes; Bee, Bees; Cee, Cees; Dee, Dees; E. Ees; Eff, Effs; Gee, Gees; Aitch, Aitches; I, les; Jay, Jays; Kay, Kays; Ell, Ells; Em, Ems; En, Ens; 0, Oes; Pee, Pees; Kue, Kues; Ar, Ars; Ess, Esses; Tee, Tees; U, Ues; Vee, Vees; Double-u, Double-ues; Ec, Exes; Wy, Wies; Zee, Zees.

OBS. 2.-The names of the letters, as expressed in the modern languages, are mostly framed with reference to their powers, or sounds. Yet is there in English no letter of which the name is always identical with its power: for A, E, I, 0, and U, are the only letters which can name themselves, and all these have other sounds than those which their names express. The simple powers of the other letters are so manifestly insufficient to form any name, and so palpable is the difference between the nature and the name of each, that did we not know how education has been trifled with, it would be hard to believe even Murray, when he says, "They are frequently confounded by writers on grammar. Observations and reasonings on the name, are often applied to explain the nature of a consonant; and by this means the student is led into error and perplexity."-L. Murray's Gram., 8vo, p. 8. The confounding of names with the things for which they stand, implies, unquestionably, great carelessness in the use of speech, and great indistinctness of apprehension in respect to things; yet so common is this error, that Murray himself has many times fallen into it. Let the learner therefore be on his guard, remembering that grammar, both in its study and in its practice, requires the constant exercise of a rational discernment. Those letters which name themselves, take for their names those sounds which they usually represent at the end of an accented syllable; thus the names, A, E, I, O, U, are uttered with the sounds given to the same letters in the first syllables of the other names, Abel, Enoch, Isaar, Obed, Urim; or in the first syllables of the common words, paper, penal, pilot, potent, pupil. The other letters, most of which can never be perfectly sounded alone, have names in which their powers are combined with other sounds more vocal; as, Bee, Cee, Dee,-Ell, Em, En,-Jay, Kay, Kue. But in this respect the terms Aitch and Double-u are irregular; because they have no obvious reference to the powers of the letters thus named.

OBS. 3.—Letters, like all other things, must be learned and spoken of by their names; nor can • Of this sort of blunder, the following false definition is an instance: "A Vowel is a letter, the name of which makes a full open sound."-Lennie's Gram., p. 5; Brace's, 7; Hazen's, 10. All this is just as true of a consonant as of a vowel. The comma too, used in this sentence, defeats even the sense which the writers intended. It is surely no description either of a vowel or of a consonant, to say, that it is a letter, and that the name of a letter makes a full open sound. Again, a late grammarian teaches, that the names of all the letters are nothing but Roman capitals, and then seems to inquire which of these names are vowels, thus: "Q. How many letters are in the alphabet? A. Twenty-six. Q. What are their names? A. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. Q. Which of these are called Vowels?"-Fowle's Common School Gram., Part First, p. 7. If my worthy friend Fowle had known or considered what are the names of the letters in English, he might have made a better beginning to his grammar than this.

they be spoken of otherwise; yet, as the simple characters are better known and more easily exhibited than their written names, the former are often substituted for the latter, and are read as the words for which they are assumed. Hence the orthography of these words has hitherto been left too much to mere fancy or caprice. Our dictionaries, by a strange oversight or negligence, do not recognize them as words; and writers have in general spelled them with very little regard to either authority or analogy. What they are, or ought to be, has therefore been treated as a trifling question: and, what is still more surprising, several authors of spelling-books make no mention at all of them; while others, here at the very threshold of instruction, teach falsely-giving "he" for Aitch, "er" for Ar, "oo" or "uu" for Double-u, "ye" for Wy, and writing almost all the rest improperly. So that many persons who think themselves well educated, would be greatly puzzled to name on paper these simple elements of all learning. Nay, there can be found a hundred men who can readily write the alphabetic names which were in use two or three thousand years ago in Greece or Palestine, for one who can do the same thing with propriety, respecting those which we now employ so constantly in English:* and yet the words themselves are as familiar to every school-boy's lips as are the characters to his eye. This fact may help to convince us, that the grammar of our language has never yet been sufficiently taught. Among all the particulars which constitute this subject, there are none which better deserve to be everywhere known, by proper and determinate names, than these prime elements of all written language.

OBS. 4. Should it happen to be asked a hundred lustrums hence, what were the names of the letters in "the Augustan age of English literature," or in the days of William the Fourth and Andrew Jackson, I fear the learned of that day will be as much at a loss for an answer, as would most of our college tutors now, were they asked, by what series of names the Roman youth were taught to spell Might not Quintilian or Varro have obliged many, by recording these? As it is, we are indebted to Priscian, a grammarian of the sixth century, for almost all we know about them. But even the information which may be had, on this point, has been strangely overlooked by our common Latin grammarians. What, but the greater care of earlier writers, has made the Greek names better known or more important than the Latin? In every nation that is not totally illitcrate, custom must have established for the letters a certain set of names, which are the only true ones, and which are of course to be preferred to such as are local or unauthorized. In this, however, as in other things, use may sometimes vary, and possibly improve; but when its decisions are clear, no feeble reason should be allowed to disturb them. Every parent, therefore, who would have his children instructed to read and write the English language, should see that in the first place they learn to name the letters as they are commonly named in English. A Scotch gentleman of good education informs me, that the names of the letters, as he first learned them in a school in his own country, were these: "A, Ib, Ec, Id, E, Iff, Ig, Ich, I, Ij, Ik, Ill, Im, In, O, Ip, Kue, Ir, Iss, It, U, Iv, Double-u, Ix, Wy, Iz;" but that in the same school the English names are now used. It is to be hoped, that all teachers will in time abandon every such local usage, and name the letters as they ought to be named; and that the day will come, in which the regular English orthography of these terms, shall be steadily preferred, ignorance of it be thought a disgrace, and the makers of school-books feel no longer at liberty to alter names that are a thousand times better known than their own.

OES. 5.-It is not in respect to their orthography alone, that these first words in literature demand inquiry and reflection: the pronunciation of some of them has often been taught erroneously, and, with respect to three or four of them, some writers have attempted to make an entire change from the customary forms which I have recorded. Whether the name of the first letter should be pronounced "Aye," as it is in England, "Ah," as it is in Ireland, or "Aw," as it is in Scotland, is a question which Walker has largely discussed, and clearly decided in favour of the first sound; and this decision accords with the universal practice of the schools in America. It is remarkable that this able critic, though he treated minutely of the letters, naming them all in tho outset of his "Principles," subsequently neglected the names of them all, except the first and the

By the colloquial phrase, "to a Tee," we mean, "to a nicety, to a tittle, a jot, an iota." Had the British poet Cawthorn, himself a noted schoolmaster, known how to write the name of T," he would probably have preferred it in the following couplet:

"And swore by Varro's shade that he

Conceived the medal to a T."-British Poets, Vol. VII, p. 65.

Here the name would certainly be much fitter than the letter, because the text does not in reality speak of the letter. With the names of the Greek letters, the author was better acquainted; the same poem exhibits two of them, where the characters themselves are spoken of:

"My eye can trace divinely true,
In this dark curve a little Mu;
And here, you see, there seems to lie

The ruins of a Doric Xi."—Ibidem.

The critical reader will see that "seems" should be seem, to agree with its nominative “ruins.”

Lily, reckoning without the H, J, or V, speaks of the Latin letters as "twenty-two;" but says nothing concerning their names. Ruddiman, Adam, Grant, Gould, and others, who include the H, J, and V, rightly state the number to be twenty-five;" but, concerning their names, are likewise entirely silent. Andrews and Stoddard, not admitting the K, teach thus: "The letters of the Latin language are twenty-four. They have the same names as the corresponding characters in English."—Andrews and Stoddard's Latin Gram., p. 1. A later author speaks thus: The Latin Alphabet consists of twenty-five letters, the same in name and form as the English, but without the w."-Bullions's Latin Gram., p. 1. It would probably be nearer to the truth, to say, “The Latin Alphabet, like the French, has no W; it consists of twenty-five letters, which are the same in name and form as the French." Will it be pretended that the French names and the English do not differ?

last. Of Zee, (which has also been called Zed, Zad, Izzard, Uzzard, Izzet, and Iz.)* he says, "Its common name is izzard, which Dr. Johnson explains into s hard; if, however, this is the meaning, it is a gross misnomer; for the z is not the hard, but the soft s;t but as it has a less sharp, and therefore not so audible a sound, it is not impossible but it may mean s surd. Zed, borrowed from the French, is the more fashionable name of this letter; but, in my opinion, not to be admitted, be cause the names of the letters ought to have no diversity."— Walker's Principles, No. 483. It is true, the name of a letter ought to be one, and in no respect diverse; but where diversity has already obtained, and become firmly rooted in custom, is it to be obviated by insisting upon what is oldfashioned, awkward, and inconvenient? Shall the better usage give place to the worse? Uniformity cannot be so reached. In this country, both Zed and Izzard, as well as the worse forms Zad and Uzzard, are now fairly superseded by the softer and better term Zee; and whoever will spell aloud, with each of these names, a few such words as dizzy, mizzen, gizzard, may easily per ceive why none of the former can ever be brought again into use. The other two, Iz and Izzet, being localisms, and not authorized English, I give up all six; Zed to the French, and the rest to oblivion. OBS. 6.-By way of apology for noticing the name of the first letter, Walker observes, "If a diversity of names to vowels did not confound us in our spelling, or declaring to each other the component letters of a word, it would be entirely needless to enter into so trifling a question as the mere name of a letter; but when we find ourselves unable to convey signs to each other on account of this diversity of names, and that words themselves are endangered by an improper utterance of their component parts, it seems highly incumbent on us to attempt a uniformity in this point, which, insignificant as it may seem, is undoubtedly the foundation of a just and regular pronunciation."-Dict., under A. If diversity in this matter is so perplexing, what shall we say to those who are attempting innovations without assigning reasons, or even pretending authority? and if a knowledge of these names is the basis of a just pronunciation, what shall we think of him who will take no pains to ascertain how he ought to speak and write them? He who pretends to teach the proper fashion of speaking and writing, cannot deal honestly, if ever he silently prefer a suggested improvement, to any established and undisturbed usage of the language; for, in grammar, no individual authority can be a counterpoise to general custom. The best usage can never be that which is little known, nor can it be well ascertained and taught by him who knows little. Inquisitive minds are ever curious to learn the nature, origin, and causes of things; and that instruction is the most useful, which is best calculated to gratify this rational curiosity. This is my apology for dwelling so long upon the present topic.

OBS. 7.-The names originally given to the letters were not mere notations of sound, intended solely to express or make known the powers of the several characters then in use; nor ought even the modern names of our present letters, though formed with special reference to their sounds, to be considered such. Expressions of mere sound, such as the notations in a pronounc ing dictionary, having no reference to what is meant by the sound, do not constitute words at all; because they are not those acknowledged signs to which a meaning has been attached, and are consequently without that significance which is an essential property of words. But, in every language, there must be a series of sounds by which the alphabetical characters are commonly known in speech; and which, as they are the acknowledged names of these particular objects, must be entitled to a place among the words of the language. It is a great error to judge other wise; and a greater to make it a "trifling question" in grammar, whether a given letter shall be called by one name or by an other. Who shall say that Daleth, Delta, and Dee, are not three real words, each equally important in the language to which it properly belongs? Such names have always been in use wherever literature has been cultivated; and as the forms and powers of the letters have been changed by the nations, and have become different in different languages, there has necessarily followed a change of the names. For, whatever inconvenience scholars may find in the diversity which has thence arisen, to name these elements in a set of foreign terms, inconsistent with the genius of the language to be learned, would surely be attended with a tenfold greater. We derived our letters, and their names too, from the Romans; but this is no good reason why the latter should be spelled and pronounced as we suppose they were spelled and pronounced in Rome.

OBS. 8.—The names of the twenty-two letters in Hebrew, are, without dispute, proper words; for they are not only significant of the letters thus named, but have in general, if not in every instance, some other meaning in that language. Thus the mysterious ciphers which the English reader meets with, and wonders over, as he reads the 119th Psalm, may be resolved, according to some of the Hebrew grammars, as follows:

& Aleph, A, an ox, or a leader;

Beth, Bee, a house; a Gimel, Gee, a camel; ▾

The Scotch Iz and the Craven Izzet, if still in use anywhere, are names strictly local, not properly English, nor likely to spread. "IZZET, the letter Z. This is probably the corruption of izzard, the old and common name for the letter, though I know not, says Nares, on what authority."-Glossary of Craven, w. Izzet. "Z z, zed, more commonly called izzard or uzzard, that is, s hard."-Dr. Johnson's Gram., p. 1.

"And how she sooth'd me when with study sad

I labour'd on to reach the final Zad."—Crabbe's Borough, p. 228.

+ William Bolles, in his new Dictionary, says of the letter Z: "Its sound is uniformly that of a hard S." The name, however, he pronounces as I do; though he writes it not Zee but zé; giving not the orthography of the name, as he should have done, but a mere index of its pronunciation. Walker proves by citations from Profes sor Ward and Dr. Wallis, that these authors considered the sharp or hissing sound of s the "hard" sound; and the flat sound, like that of z, its "soft" sound. See his Dictionary, 8vo, p. 53.