This last sound is most incorrectly expressed by the single letter i.

The consonantal sounds are (1) two semivowels; (2) four liquids; (3) fourteen mutes; (4) ch in chest, and j in jest, compound sibilants; (5) ng as in king; (6) the aspirate h. In all, twenty-four.

§ 216. The vowels being twelve, the diphthongs four, and the consonantal sounds twenty-four, we have altogether as many as forty sounds, some being so closely allied as to be mere modifications of each other, and others being combinations rather than simple sounds; all, however, agreeing in requiring to be expressed by letters or by combinations of letters, and to be distinguished from each other. This enables us to appreciate our alphabet's

Insufficiency-(a) In respect to the vowels.-Notwithstanding the fact that the sounds of the a in father, fate, and fat, and of the o and the aw in note, not, and bawl, are modifications of a and o respectively, we have, still, six vowel sounds specifically distinct, for which (y being a consonant rather than a vowel) we have but five signs. The u in duck, specifically distinct from the u in bull, has no specifically distinct sign to represent it. (b)* In respect to the consonants.-The th in thin, the th in thine, the sh in shine, the z in azure, and the ng in king,

five sounds specifically distinct, and five sounds perfectly simple, require corresponding signs, which they have not.

Inconsistency. The ƒ in fan and the v in van, sounds in a certain degree of relationship to p and b, are expressed by signs as unlike as f is unlike p, and as v is unlike b. The sounds of the th in thin, the th in thine, the sh in shine, similarly related to t, d, and s, are expressed by signs as like t, d, and s, respectively, as th and sh. The compound sibilant sound of j in jest is spelt with the single sign j, whilst the compound sibilant sound in chest is spelt with the combination ch.

Erroneousness. (a) The sound of the ee in feet is considered the long sound of the e in bed; whereas it is the long sound of the i in pit. (b) The i in bite is considered as the long sound of the i in pit; whereas it is a diphthongal sound. (c) The u in duck is looked upon as a modification of the u in bull; whereas it is a specifically distinct sound. (d) The ou in house and the oi in oil are looked upon as the compounds of o and i and of o and u respectively; whereas the latter element of them is not i and u, but y and w. (e) The th in thin and the th in thine are dealt with as and the same sound; whereas they are sounds specifically distinct. (f) The ch in chest is dealt with as a modification of c (either with the power of k or of s) whereas its elements are t and sh.

one

;

Redundancy.-(a) As far as the representation of sounds is concerned, the letter c is superfluous. In words like citizen it may be replaced by s; in words like cat by k. In ch as in chest, it has no proper place. In ch as in mechanical, it may be replaced by k. (b) The compendium q is superfluous; cw or kw being its equivalent. (c) The compendium x also is superfluous; ks, gz, or z being equivalent to it. (d) The diph

thongal forms a and æ, as in Eneas and Croesus, except in the way of etymology, are superfluous and redundant.

Unsteadiness.-Here we have-(1) the consonant c with the double power of s and k; (2) g with its sound in gun, and also with its sound in gin; (3) x with its sounds in Alexander, apoplexy, Xenophon.

In the foregoing examples a single sign has a double power; in the words Philip and fillip, &c., a single sound has a double sign.

§ 217. On certain conventional modes of spelling.-In the Greek language the sounds of o in not and of o in note (although allied) are expressed by the unlike signs (or letters) 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. All these are orthographic expedients in which the English language abounds. Thus

(a) The reduplication of a vowel, as in feet, cool, is an orthographic expedient. It merely means that the syllable is long. The juxtaposition of two different vowels, as in plain, moan, generally means the same.

(b) The addition of the e mute, as in plane, whale (whatever may have been its origin), is, at present, but an orthographic expedient. It denotes the lengthening of the syllable.

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

§ 218. Historical Sketch of the English Alphabet.It is, chiefly, by the history of an alphabet, that its defects are accounted for.

With few, if any exceptions, all the modes of writing

in the world originate, directly or indirectly, from the Phoenician, and, at a certain period, the alphabet of Phoenicia consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters.

§ 219. In this state it was imported into Greece. Now, as it rarely happens that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to another, and be found to suit. When such is the case, alterations are required. The extent to which these alterations are made at all, or (if made) made on a right principle, varies with different languages. Some adapt an introduced alphabet well: others badly. The Greeks adapted the Phoenician alphabet well, or, at any rate, tolerably.

§ 220. The Roman alphabet was not taken directly from the Phoenician. Nor yet was it taken, in the first instance, from the Greek. It had a double origin. It was Old Italian and Etruscan in the first instance, Greek afterwards. The Roman alphabet expressed the language to which it was applied tolerably-not well. Thus

(a) It is a matter of regret, that the difference which the Greeks drew between the so-called long and short e and o, was neglected by the Latins; in other words, that w was omitted entirely, and ʼn changed in power.

(6) It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessary compendium as q=cu, or cw, should have been retained, and, still more so, that the equally superfluous x = cs, or ks, should have been re-admitted.

(c) It is a matter of regret, that the Greek 0, although expressive of a simple sound, became th. This was a combination rather than a letter; and the error which it engendered was great. It suggested the idea, that a simple sound was a compound one-which was wrong. It further suggested the idea, that the sound of differed from that of by the addition of h—which was wrong also.

§ 221. The Anglo-Saxon had, even in its earliest stage, the following sounds, for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs or letters.

1. The sound of the th in thin.

2. The sound of the th in thine.

It had certainly these: probably others.

Expressive of these, two new signs were introduced, =th in thin, and th in thine.

viz. p

W, also, evolved out of u, was either an original improvement of the Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of the allied languages of the Continent.

§ 222. This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, although not originally meant to express a German tongue at all, answered the purpose to which it was applied tolerably. Change, however, went on; and the orthography which suited the earlier AngloSaxon, would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not suit the language which had become, or was becoming, English. During the Anglo-Norman period, the signs p and became obsolete; the sounds which they represented being foreign to the French language. Other French details crept in; orthographical expedients became common. Add this to the want of uniformity amongst copyists, the original insufficiency of our alphabet, and the acknowledged faultiness of our orthography is, to a great extent, accounted for, the English being, at the present time, the worst spelt language in the world. There are reasons for its being so: but this is another question.