trovertible.-(4) Words accented on the last syllable but three (rare). Réceptacle, régulating, tálkativeness, ábsolutely, lúminary, inévitable, &c. § 208. Emphasis.—In týrant and presúme, we deal with single words; and in each word we determine which syllable is accented. In the line, Better for us perhaps, it might appear, POPE. the pronoun us is strongly brought forward. An especial stress or emphasis is laid upon it, denoting that there are other beings to whom it might not appear, &c. This is collected from the context. Here there is a logical accent, or emphasis. CHAPTER III. ORTHOEPY AND ORTHOGRAPHY. § 209. ORTHOEPY, a word derived from the Greek orthos (upright), and epos (a word), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthöepy determines words, and deals with a language as it is spoken; orthography determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a language as it is written. This latter term is derived from the Greek words orthos (upright), and graphé (writing). Orthography is less essential to language than orthöepy; since all languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are written. Orthography presupposes orthöepy. Orthography addresses itself to the eye, orthöepy to the ear. Orthöepy deals with the articulate sounds that constitute syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by which such articulate sounds are expressed in writing. A letter is a sign of a sound. § 210. Principles of a perfect orthography.—A full and perfect system of orthography consists in two things :— 1. The possession of a sufficient and consistent alphabet. 2. The right application of such an alphabet. § 211. First in respect to a sufficient and consistent alphabet. Let there be, in a certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the number of forty, whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of them, amount to no more than thirty. In this case the alphabet is insufficient. It is not full enough: since ten of the simple single articulate sounds have no corresponding signs whereby they may be expressed. An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a given language two simple single sounds, such as the p in pate, and the f in fate. Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a given sign, for instance (as is actually the case in Hebrew), stand for the p in pate; and let a second sign be required for the f in fate. Concerning the nature of this latter sign, two views may be taken. One framer of the alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere modifications of each other, may argue that no new sign is at all necessary, but that the sound of f in fate may be expressed by a mere modification of the sign, and may be written thus, or thus D'or ', &c., upon the principle that like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The other, contemplating the difference between the two sounds, rather than the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of the sign, but a letter altogether new, such as f, or 9, &c., upon the principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude should be expressed by corresponding signs. In this stage of the inquiry, the expression of the sounds in point is a matter of convenience only. No question has been raised as to its consistency or inconsistency. But this begins under conditions like the following:-Let there be in the language in point the sounds of the t in tin, and of the th in thin; which are precisely in the same relation to each other as the p in pate and the f in fate. Let each of these sounds have a sign, or letter, expressive of it. Upon the nature of these signs or letters will depend the nature of the sign or letter required for the f in fate. If the letter expressing the th in thin be a mere modification of the letter expressing the t in tin, then must the letter expressive of the ƒ in fate be a mere modification of the letter expressing the p in pate, and vice versa. If this be not the case, the alphabet is inconsistent. In the English alphabet we have the following inconsistencies:-The sound of the f in fate, in a certain relation to the sound of the p in pate, is expressed by a totally distinct sign; whereas, the sound of the thin thin (similarly related to the t in tin) is expressed by no new sign, but by a mere modification of t; viz. th. § 212. A third element in the faultiness of an alphabet is the fault of erroneous representation. The best illustration of this we get from the Hebrew alphabet, where the sounds of and, mere varieties of each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar signs, whilst and ♫, sounds specifically distinct, are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter. ת § 213. The right application of an alphabet.—An alphabet may be both sufficient and consistent, accurate in its representation of the alliances between articulate sounds, and in no wise redundant; and yet, withal, it may be so wrongly applied as to be defective. Of defect in the use or application of the letters of an alphabet, the three main causes are the following:: (a) Unsteadiness in the power of letters.—Of this there are two kinds. In the first, there is one sound with two (or more) ways of expressing it. Such is the sound of the letter f in English. In words of Anglo-Saxon origin it is represented by a simple single sign, as in fill; whilst in Greek words it is denoted by a combination, as in Philip. The reverse of this takes place with the letter g; where a single sign has a double power. In gibbet it is sounded as j, and in gibberish as g in got. (b) The aim at secondary objects.-The natural aim of orthography, of spelling, or of writing, is to express the sounds of a language. Syllables and words it takes as they meet the ear, translates them by appropriate signs, and so paints them, as it were, to the eye. That this is the natural and primary object is self-evident; but beyond this natural and primary object there is, with the orthographical systems of most languages, a secondary one, viz. the attempt to combine with the representation of the sound of a given word, the representation of its history and origin. Thus the sound of the c, in city, is the sound that we naturally represent by the letter s, and if the expression of this sound were the only object of our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (sity). The following facts, however, traverse this simple view of the matter. The word is a derived word. It is transplanted into our own language from the Latin, where it is spelt with a с (civitas). To change this c into s conceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason the c is retained in our alphabet, although, as far as the mere expression of sounds is concerned, it is a superfluity. In cases like the one adduced, the orthography is bent to a secondary end, and is traversed by the etymology. (c) Obsoleteness. It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one time may have been correct, may, by a change of pronunciation, become incorrect; so that orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling. § 214. From the foregoing remarks we arrive at the theory of a full and perfect alphabet and orthography, of which a few (amongst many others) of the chief conditions are as follow: 1. That for every simple single sound, incapable of being represented by a combination of letters, there be a simple single sign. 2. That sounds within a determined degree of likeness be represented by signs within a determined degree of likeness; whilst sounds beyond a certain degree of likeness be represented by distinct and different signs, and that uniformly. it. 3. That no sound have more than one sign to express 4. That no sign express more than one sound. 5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words, and not their histories. 6. That changes of speech be followed by corresponding changes of spelling. § 215. With these preliminaries we may proceed to detail. The vowels belonging to the English language are the following twelve: |