A Handbook of the English Language, Robert Gordon Latham [some good books to read txt] 📗

§ 165. It should be observed, that, in the Latin, the letters have no longer any names (like beth, bæta), except such as are derived from their powers (be, ce).

§ 166. The principles which determined the form of the Roman alphabet were, upon the whole, correct; and, hence, the Roman alphabet, although not originally meant to express an Italian tongue at all, expressed the language to which it was applied tolerably.

On the other hand, there were both omissions and alterations which have had a detrimental effect upon the orthography of those other numerous tongues to which Latin has supplied the alphabet. Thus—

a. It is a matter of regret, that the differences which the Greeks drew between the so-called long and short e and o, was neglected by the Latins; in other words, that ω was omitted entirely, and η changed in power. Had this been the case, all the orthographical expedients by which we have to express the difference between the o in not, and the o in note, would have been prevented—not, note, moat—bed, bead, heel, glede, &c.

b. It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessary compendium as q = cu, or cw, should have been retained from the old Greek alphabet; 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 θ was not treated like the Greek ζ. Neither were wanted at first; both afterwards. The manner, however, of their subsequent introduction was different. Zæta came in as a simple single letter, significant of a simple single sound. Thæta, on the contrary, although expressive of an equally 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 θ differed from that of τ, by the addition of h—which was wrong also.

§ 167. The Greek language had a system of sounds different from the Phœnician; and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.

The Roman language had a system of sounds different from the Greek and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.

This leads us to certain questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon. Had it a system of sounds different from the Roman? If so, what modifications did the alphabet require? Were such modifications effected? If so, how? Sufficiently or insufficiently? The answers are unsatisfactory.

§ 168. 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.

§ 169. Expressive of these, two new signs were introduced, viz., þ = th in thin, and ð = th in thine.

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. Probably the latter was the case; since we find the following passage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid's "Krist:"—"Hujus enim linguæ barbaries, ut est inculca et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticæ artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto quærit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente."

This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered the purpose to which it was applied tolerably.

§ 170. Change, however, went on; and the orthography which suited the earlier Anglo-Saxon would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not suit the language which had become or was becoming, English; wherein the sounds for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs increase. Thus there is at present—

1. The sound of the sh in shine.

2. The sound of the z in azure.

How are these to be expressed? The rule has hitherto been to denote simple single sounds, by simple single signs, and where such signs have no existence already, to originate new ones.

To combine existing letters, rather than to coin a new one, has only been done rarely. The Latin substitution of the combination th for the simple single θ, was exceptionable. It was a precedent, however, which now begins to be followed generally.

§ 171. It is this precedent which accounts for the absence of any letter in English, expressive of either of the sounds in question.

§ 172. Furthermore, our alphabet has not only not increased in proportion to our sound-system, but it has decreased. The Anglo-Saxon þ = the th in thin, and ð = the th in thine, have become obsolete; and a difference in pronunciation, which our ancestors expressed, we overlook.

The same precedent is at the bottom of this; a fact which leads us to—

§ 173. The Anglo-Norman alphabet.—The Anglo-Saxon language was Gothic; the alphabet, Roman.

The Anglo-Norman language was Roman; the alphabet, Roman also.

The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source; his writing from another.

The Anglo-Norman took both from the same.

In adapting a Latin alphabet to a Gothic language, the Anglo-Saxon allowed himself more latitude than the Anglo-Norman. We have seen that the new signs þ and ð were Anglo-Saxon.

Now the sounds which these letters represent did not occur in the Norman-French, consequently the Norman-French alphabet neither had nor needed to have signs to express them; until after the battle of Hastings, when it became the Anglo-Norman of England.

Then, the case became altered. The English language influenced the Norman orthography, and the Norman orthography the English language; and the result was, that the simple single correct and distinctive signs of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, became replaced by the incorrect and indistinct combination th.

This was a loss, both in the way of theoretical correctness and perspicuity.

Such is the general view of the additions, ejections, changes of power, and changes of order in the English alphabet. The extent, however, to which an alphabet is faulty, is no measure of the extent to which an orthography is faulty; since an insufficient alphabet may, by consistency in its application, be more useful than a full and perfect alphabet unsteadily applied.

§ 174. One of our orthographical expedients, viz., the reduplication of the consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical languages: terra, θάλασσα. Nevertheless, the following extract from the "Ormulum" (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have met with.