that among all the treatises heretofore produced no such grammar is found. “Some superfluities have been expunged, some mistakes have been rectified, and some obscurities have been cleared; still, however, that all the grammars used in our different schools, public as well as private, are disgraced by errors or defects, is a complaint as just as it is frequent and loud.”–_Barrow’s Essays_, p. 83.
38. Whether, in what I have been enabled to do, there will be found a remedy for this complaint, must be referred to the decision of others. Upon the probability of effecting this, I have been willing to stake some labour; how much, and with what merit, let the candid and discerning, when they shall have examined for themselves, judge. It is certain that we have hitherto had, of our language, no complete grammar. The need of such a work I suppose to be at this time in no small degree felt, especially by those who conduct our higher institutions of learning; and my ambition has been to produce one which might deservedly stand along side of the Port-Royal Latin and Greek Grammars, or of the Grammaire des Grammaires of Girault Du Vivier. If this work is unworthy to aspire to such rank, let the patrons of English literature remember that the achievement of my design is still a desideratum. We surely have no other book which might, in any sense, have been called “_the Grammar of English Grammars_;” none, which, either by excellence, or on account of the particular direction of its criticism, might take such a name. I have turned the eyes of Grammar, in an especial manner, upon the conduct of her own household; and if, from this volume, the reader acquire a more just idea of _the grammar_ which is displayed in _English grammars_, he will discover at least one reason for the title which has been bestowed upon the work. Such as the book is, I present it to the public, without pride, without self-seeking, and without anxiety: knowing that most of my readers will be interested in estimating it _justly_; that no true service, freely rendered to learning, can fail of its end; and that no achievement merits aught with Him who graciously supplies all ability. The opinions expressed in it have been formed with candour, and are offered with submission. If in any thing they are erroneous, there are those who can detect their faults. In the language of an ancient master, the earnest and assiduous _Despauter_, I invite the correction of the candid: “Nos quoque, quantumcunque diligentes, cum a candidis tum a lividis carpemur: a candidis interdum juste; quos oro, ut de erratis omnibus amice me admoneant–erro nonnunquam quia homo sum.”
GOOLD BROWN.
_New York_, 1836.
THE GRAMMAR OF ENGLISH GRAMMARS.
Grammar, as an art, is the power of reading, writing, and speaking correctly. As an acquisition, it is the essential skill of scholarship. As a study, it is the practical science which teaches the right use of language.
_An English Grammar_ is a book which professes to explain the nature and structure of the English language; and to show, on just authority, what is, and what is not, good English.
ENGLISH GRAMMAR, in itself, is the art of reading, writing, and speaking the English language correctly. It implies, in the adept, such knowledge as enables him to avoid improprieties of speech; to correct any errors that may occur in literary compositions; and to parse, or explain grammatically, whatsoever is rightly written.
_To read_ is to perceive what is written or printed, so as to understand the words, and be able to utter them with their proper sounds.
_To write_ is to express words and thoughts by letters, or characters, made with a pen or other instrument.
_To speak_ is to utter words orally, in order that they may be heard and understood.
Grammar, like every other liberal art, can be properly taught only by a regular analysis, or systematic elucidation, of its component parts or principles; and these parts or principles must be made known chiefly by means of definitions and examples, rules and exercises.
A _perfect definition_ of any thing or class of things is such a description of it, as distinguishes that entire thing or class from every thing else, by briefly telling _what it is_.
An _example_ is a particular instance or model, serving to prove or illustrate some given proposition or truth.
A _rule of grammar_ is some law, more or less general, by which custom regulates and prescribes the right use of language.
An _exercise_ is some technical performance required of the learner in order to bring his knowledge and skill into practice.
LANGUAGE, in the primitive sense of the term, embraced only vocal expression, or human speech uttered by the mouth; but after letters were invented to represent articulate sounds, language became twofold, _spoken_ and _written_, so that the term, _language_, now signifies, _any series of sounds or letters formed into words and employed for the expression of thought._
Of the composition of language we have also two kinds, _prose_ and _verse_; the latter requiring a certain number and variety of syllables in each line, but the former being free from any such restraint.
The _least parts_ of written language are letters; of spoken language, syllables; of language significant in each part, words; of language combining thought, phrases; of language subjoining sense, clauses; of language cooerdinating sense, members; of language completing sense, sentences.
A discourse, or narration, of any length, is but a series of sentences; which, when written, must be separated by the proper points, that the meaning and relation of all the words may be quickly and clearly perceived by the reader, and the whole be uttered as the sense requires.
In extended compositions, a sentence is usually less than a paragraph; a paragraph, less than a section; a section, less than a chapter; a chapter, less than a book; a book, less than a volume; and a volume, less than the entire work.
The common order of _literary division_, then, is; of a large work, into volumes; of volumes, into books; of books, into chapters; of chapters, into sections; of sections, into paragraphs; of paragraphs, into sentences; of sentences, into members; of members, into clauses; of clauses, into phrases; of phrases, into words; of words, into syllables; of syllables, into letters.
But it rarely happens that any one work requires the use of all these divisions; and we often assume some natural distinction and order of parts, naming each as we find it; and also subdivide into articles, verses, cantoes, stanzas, and other portions, as the nature of the subject suggests.
Grammar is divided into four parts; namely, Orthography, Etymology, Syntax, and Prosody.
Orthography treats of letters, syllables, separate words, and spelling.
Etymology treats of the different _parts of speech_, with their classes and modifications.
Syntax treats of the relation, agreement, government, and arrangement of words in sentences.
Prosody treats of punctuation, utterance, figures, and versification.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–In the Introduction to this work, have been taken many views of the study, or general science, of grammar; many notices of its history, with sundry criticisms upon its writers or critics; and thus language has often been presented to the reader’s consideration, either as a whole, or with broader scope than belongs to the teaching of its particular forms. We come now to the work of _analyzing_ our own tongue, and of laying down those special rules and principles which should guide us in the use of it, whether in speech or in writing. The author intends to dissent from other grammarians no more than they are found to dissent from truth and reason; nor will he expose their errors further than is necessary for the credit of the science and the information of the learner. A candid critic can have no satisfaction merely in finding fault with other men’s performances. But the facts are not to be concealed, that many pretenders to grammar have shown themselves exceedingly superficial in their knowledge, as well as slovenly in their practice; and that many vain composers of books have proved themselves _despisers_ of this study, by the abundance of their inaccuracies, and the obviousness of their solecisms.
OBS. 2.–Some grammarians have taught that the word _language_ is of much broader signification, than that which is given to it in the definition above. I confine it to speech and writing. For the propriety of this limitation, and against those authors who describe the thing otherwise, I appeal to the common sense of mankind. One late writer defines it thus: “LANGUAGE is _any means_ by which one _person_ communicates his _ideas_ to _another_.”–_Sanders’s Spelling-Book_, p. 7. The following is the explanation of an other slack thinker: “One may, by speaking or by writing, (and sometimes _by motions_,) communicate his thoughts to others. _The process_ by which this is done, is called LANGUAGE.–_Language_ is _the expression_ of thought _and feeling_.”–_S. W. Clark’s Practical Gram._, p. 7. Dr. Webster goes much further, and says, “LANGUAGE, in its most extensive sense, is the instrument or means of communicating ideas _and affections_ of the mind _and body_, from one _animal to another_. In this sense, _brutes possess the power of language_; for by various inarticulate sounds, they make known their wants, desires, and sufferings.”– _Philosophical Gram._, p. 11; _Improved Gram._, p. 5. This latter definition the author of that vain book, “_the District School_,” has adopted in his chapter on Grammar. Sheridan, the celebrated actor and orthoepist, though he seems to confine language to the human species, gives it such an extension as to make words no necessary part of its essence. “The first thought,” says he, “that would occur to every one, who had not properly considered the point, is, that language is composed of words. And yet, this is so far from being an adequate idea of language, that the point in which most men think its very essence to consist, is not even a necessary property of language. For language, in its full extent, means, any way or method whatsoever, by which _all that passes in the mind of one man_, may be manifested to another.”–_Sheridan’s Lectures on Elocution_, p. 129. Again: “I have already _shown_, that words are, in their own nature, _no essential part of language_, and are only considered so through custom.”–_Ib._ p. 135.
OBS. 3.–According to S. Kirkham’s notion, “LANGUAGE, in its most extensive sense, implies those signs by which _men and brutes_, communicate _to each other_ their thoughts, affections and desires.”–_Kirkham’s English Gram._, p. 16. Again: “_The language of brutes_ consists in the use of those inarticulate sounds by which they express _their thoughts and affections_.”–_Ib._ To me it seems a shameful abuse of speech, and a vile descent from the dignity of grammar, to make the voices of “_brutes_” any part of language, as taken in a literal sense. We might with far more propriety raise our conceptions of it to the spheres above, and construe literally the metaphors of David, who ascribes to the starry heavens, both “_speech_” and “_language_,” “_voice_” and “_words_,” daily “_uttered_” and everywhere “_heard_.” See _Psalm_ xix.
OBS. 4.–But, strange as it may seem, Kirkham, commencing his instructions with the foregoing definition of language, proceeds to divide it, agreeably to this notion, into two sorts, _natural_ and _artificial_; and affirms that the former “is common both to man and brute,” and that the language which is peculiar to man, the language which consists of _words_, is altogether an _artificial invention_:[83] thereby contradicting at once a host of the most celebrated grammarians and philosophers, and that without appearing to know it. But this is the less strange, since he immediately forgets his own definition and division of the subject, and as plainly contradicts himself. Without limiting the term at all, without excluding his fanciful “_language of brutes_,” he says, on the next leaf, “_Language_ is _conventional_, and not only _invented_, but, in its progressive advancement, _varied for purposes of practical convenience_. Hence it assumes _any and every form_ which those who make use of it, choose to give it.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 18. This, though scarcely more rational than his “_natural language of men and brutes_,” plainly annihilates that questionable section of grammatical science, whether brutal or human, by making all language a thing “_conventional_” and “_invented_.” In short, it leaves no ground at all for any grammatical science of a positive character, because it resolves all forms of language into the irresponsible will of those who utter any words, sounds, or noises.
OBS. 5.–Nor is this gentleman more fortunate in his explanation of what may really be called language. On one page, he says, “_Spoken language_ or _speech_, is made up of articulate sounds uttered by the human voice.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p. 17. On the next, “The most important use of _that faculty called speech_, is, to convey our thoughts to others.”–_Ib._, p. 18. Thus the grammarian who, in the same short paragraph, seems to “defy the ingenuity of man to give his words any other meaning than that which he himself intends _them to express_,” (_Ib._, p. 19,) either writes so badly as to make any ordinary false syntax appear trivial, or actually conceives man to be the inventor of one of his own _faculties_. Nay, docs he not make man the contriver of that “natural language” which he possesses “in common with the brutes?” a language “_The meaning of which_,” he says, “_all the different animals perfectly understand_?”–See his _Gram._, p. 16. And if this notion again be true, does it not follow, that a horse knows perfectly well what horned cattle mean by their bellowing, or a flock of geese by their gabbling? I should not have noticed these things, had not the book which teaches them, been made popular by _a thousand_ imposing attestations to its excellence and accuracy. For grammar has nothing at all to do with inarticulate voices, or the imaginary languages of _brutes_. It is scope enough for one science to explain all the languages, dialects, and speeches, that lay claim to _reason_. We need not enlarge the field, by descending
“To beasts, whom[84] God on their creation-day Created mute to all articulate sound.”–_Milton_.[85]
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 embossed, 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: A a, B b, C c, D d, E e, F f, G g, H h, I i, J j, K k, L l, M m, N n, o, P p, Q q, R r, S s, T t, U u, V v, W w, X x, Y y, Z z.
2. The Italic: _A a, B b, C c, D d, E e, F f, G g, H h, I i, J j, K k, L l, M m, N n, o, P p, Q q, R r, S s, T t, U u, V v, W w, X x, Y y, Z z._
3. The Script: [Script: A a, B b, C c, D d, E e, F f, G g, H h, I i, J j, K k, L l, M m, N n, o, P p, Q q, R r, S s, T t, U u, V v, W w, X x, Y y, Z z.]
4. The Old English: [Old English: A a, B b, C c, D d, E e, F f, G g, H h, I i, J j, K k, L l, M m, N n, o, P p, Q q, R r, S s, T t, U u, V v, W w, X x, Y y, 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 ambassador 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 ambassador 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_, are letters of one sort, and _b_ and _f_ of an other. By _elementary_ or _articulate_ sounds,[86] 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: the real voices constituting vowels; and their modifications, 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; because 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 articulate _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.
OBS. 4.–Our knowledge of letters rises no higher than to the forms used by the ancient Hebrews 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 made 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.”–_Constables 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 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, Cee, Dee, E, Eff, Gee, Aitch, I, Jay, Kay, Ell, Em, En, O, Pee, Kue, Ar, Ess, Tee, U, Vee, Double-u, Ex, Wy, Zee_.
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, Ies; Jay, Jays; Kay, Kays; Ell, Ells; Em, Ems; En, Ens; O, Oes; Pee, Pees; Kue, Kues; Ar, Ars; Ess, Esses; Tee, Tees; U, Ues; Vee, Vees; Double-u, Double-ues; Ex, 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, O_, 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.[87] 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, Isaac, 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 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:[88] 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.[89] 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 illiterate, 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.
OBS. 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 the outset of his “Principles” subsequently neglected the names of them all, except the first and the last. Of _Zee_, (which has also been called _Zed, Zad, Izzard, Uzzard, Izzet_, and _Iz_,)[90] 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_;[91] 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, because 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 old-fashioned, 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 perceive 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 pronouncing 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 otherwise; 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:–
[Hebrew: Aleph] Aleph, A, an ox, or a leader; [Hebrew: Beth] Beth, Bee, house; [Hebrew: Gimel] Gimel, Gee, a camel; [Hebrew: Dalet] Daleth, Dee, a door; [Hebrew: he] He, E, she, or behold; [Hebrew: vav] Vau, U, a hook, or a nail; [Hebrew: zajin] Zain, Zee, armour; [Hebrew: het] Cheth, or Heth, Aitch, a hedge; [Hebrew: tet] Teth, Tee, a serpent, or a scroll; [Hebrew: jod] Jod, or Yod, I, or Wy, a hand shut; [Hebrew: kaf] Caph, Cee, a hollow hand, or a cup; [Hebrew: lamed] Lamed, Ell, an ox-goad; [Hebrew: mem] Mem, Em, a stain, or spot; [Hebrew: nun] Nun, En, a fish, or a snake; [Hebrew: samekh] Samech, Ess, a basis, or support; [Hebrew: ayin] Ain, or Oin, O, an eye, or a well; [Hebrew: pe] Pe, Pee, a lip, or mouth; [Hebrew: tsadi] Tzaddi, or Tsadhe, Tee-zee, (i. e. tz, or ts,) a hunter’s pole; [Hebrew: qof] Koph, Kue, or Kay, an ape; [Hebrew: resh] Resch, or Resh, Ar, a head; [Hebrew: shin] Schin, or Sin, Ess-aitch, or Ess, a tooth; [Hebrew: tav] Tau, or Thau, Tee, or Tee-aitch, a cross, or mark.
These English names of the Hebrew letters are written with much less uniformity than those of the Greek, because there has been more dispute respecting their powers. This is directly contrary to what one would have expected; since the Hebrew names are words originally significant of other things than the letters, and the Greek are not. The original pronunciation of both languages is admitted to be lost, or involved in so much obscurity that little can be positively affirmed about it; and yet, where least was known, grammarians have produced the most diversity; aiming at disputed sounds in the one case, but generally preferring a correspondence of letters in the other.
OBS. 9.–The word _alphabet_ is derived from the first two names in the following series. The Greek letters are twenty-four; which are formed, named, and sounded, thus:–
[Greek: A a], Alpha, a; [Greek: B, b], Beta, b; [Greek: G g], Gamma, g hard; [Greek: D d], Delta, d; [Greek: E e], Epsilon, e short; [Greek: Z z], Zeta, z; [Greek: AE ae], Eta, e long; [Greek: TH Th th], Theta, th; [Greek: I i], Iota, i; [Greek K k], Kappa, k; [Greek: L l], Lambda, l; [Greek: M m], Mu, m; [Greek: N n], Nu, n; [Greek: X x], Xi, x; [Greek: O o], Omicron, o short; [Greek: P p], Pi, p; [Greek: R r] Rho, r; [Greek: S s s], Sigma, s; [Greek: T t], Tau, t; [Greek: Y y], Upsilon, u; [Greek: PH ph], Phi, ph; [Greek: CH ch], Chi, ch; [Greek: PS ps], Psi, ps; [Greek: O o], Omega, o long.
Of these names, our English dictionaries explain the first and the last; and Webster has defined _Iota_, and _Zeta_, but without reference to the meaning of the former in Greek. _Beta, Delta, Lambda_, and perhaps some others, are also found in the etymologies or definitions of Johnson and Webster, both of whom spell the word _Lambda_ and its derivative _lambdoidal_ without the silent _b_, which is commonly, if not always, inserted by the authors of our Greek grammars, and which Worcester, more properly, retains.
OBS. 10.–The reader will observe that the foregoing names, whether Greek or Hebrew, are in general much less simple than those which our letters now bear; and if he has ever attempted to spell aloud in either of those languages, he cannot but be sensible of the great advantage which was gained when to each letter there was given a short name, expressive, as ours mostly are, of its ordinary power. This improvement appears to have been introduced by the Romans, whose names for the letters were even more simple than our own. But so negligent in respect to them have been the Latin grammarians, both ancient and modern, that few even of the learned can tell what they really were in that language; or how they differed, either in orthography or sound, from those of the English or the French, the Hebrew or the Greek. Most of them, however, may yet be ascertained from Priscian, and some others of note among the ancient philologists; so that by taking from later authors the names of those letters which were not used in old times, we can still furnish an entire list, concerning the accuracy of which there is not much room to dispute. It is probable that in the ancient pronunciation of Latin, _a_ was commonly sounded as in _father_; _e_ like the English _a_; _i_ mostly like _e_ long; _y_ like _i_ short; _c_ generally and _g_ always hard, as in _come_ and _go_. But, as the original, native, or just pronunciation of a language is not necessary to an understanding of it when written, the existing nations have severally, in a great measure, accommodated themselves, in their manner of reading this and other ancient tongues.
OBS. 11.–As the Latin language is now printed, its letters are twenty-five. Like the French, it has all that belong to the English alphabet, except the _Double-u_. But, till the first Punic war, the Romans wrote C for G, and doubtless gave it the power as well as the place of the Gamma or Gimel. It then seems to have slid into K; but they used it also for S, as we do now. The ancient Saxons, generally pronounced C as K, but sometimes as Ch. Their G was either guttural, or like our Y. In some of the early English grammars the name of the latter is written _Ghee_. The letter F, when first invented, was called, from its shape, Digamma, and afterwards Ef. J, when it was first distinguished from I, was called by the Hebrew name Jod, and afterwards Je. V, when first distinguished from U, was called Vau, then Va, then Ve. Y, when the Romans first borrowed it from the Greeks, was called Ypsilon; and Z, from the same source, was called Zeta; and, as these two letters were used only in words of Greek origin, I know not whether they ever received from the Romans any shorter names. In Schneider’s Latin Grammar, the letters are named in the following manner; except Je and Ve, which are omitted by this author: “A, Be, Ce, De, E, Ef, Ge, Ha, I, [Je,] Ka, El, Em, En, O, Pe, Cu, Er, Es, Te, U, [Ve,] Ix, Ypsilon, Zeta.” And this I suppose to be the most proper way of writing their names _in Latin_, unless we have sufficient authority for shortening Ypsilon into Y, sounded as short _i_, and for changing Zeta into Ez.
OBS. 12.–In many, if not in all languages, the five vowels, A, E, I, O, U, name themselves; but they name themselves differently to the ear, according to the different ways of uttering them in different languages. And as the name of a consonant necessarily requires one or more vowels, that also may be affected in the same manner. But in every language there should be a known way both of writing and of speaking every name in the series; and that, if there is nothing to hinder, should be made conformable to _the genius of the language_. I do not say that the names above can be regularly declined in Latin; but in English it is as easy to speak of two Dees as of two trees, of two Kays as of two days, of two Exes as of two foxes, of two Effs as of two skiffs; and there ought to be no more difficulty about the correct way of writing the word in the one case, than in the other. In Dr. Sam. Prat’s Latin Grammar, (an elaborate octavo, all Latin, published in London, 1722,) nine of the consonants are reckoned mutes; b, c, d, g, p, q, t, j, and v; and eight, semivowels; f, l, m, n, r, s, x, z. “All the mutes,” says this author, “are named by placing _e_ after them; as, be, ce, de, ge, except _q_, which ends in _u_.” See p. 8. “The semivowels, beginning with _e_, end in themselves; as, ef, _ach_, el, em, en, er, es, _ex_, (or, as Priscian will have it, _ix_,) _eds_.” See p. 9. This mostly accords with the names given in the preceding paragraph; and so far as it does not, I judge the author to be wrong. The reader will observe that the Doctor’s explanation is neither very exact nor quite complete: K is a mute which is not enumerated, and the rule would make the name of it _Ke_, and not _Ka_;–H is not one of his eight semivowels, nor does the name Ach accord with his rule or seem like a Latin word;–the name of Z, according to his principle, would be _Ez_ and not “_Eds_,” although the latter may better indicate the _sound_ which was then given to this letter.
OBS. 13.–If the history of these names exhibits diversity, so does that of almost all other terms; and yet there is some way of writing every word with correctness, and correctness tends to permanence. But Time, that establishes authority, destroys it also, when he fairly sanctions newer customs. To all names worthy to be known, it is natural to wish a perpetual uniformity; but if any one thinks the variableness of these to be peculiar, let him open the English Bible of the fourteenth century, and read a few verses, observing the names. For instance: “Forsothe whanne _Eroude_ was to bringynge forth hym, in that nigt _Petir_ was slepynge bitwixe tweyno knytis.”–_Dedis_, (i. e., _Acts_,) xii, 6. “_Crist Ihesu_ that is to demynge the quyke and deed.”–_2 Tim._, iv, 1. Since this was written for English, our language has changed much, and at the same time acquired, by means of the press, some aids to stability. I have recorded above the _true_ names of the letters, as they are now used, with something of their history; and if there could be in human works any thing unchangeable, I should wish, (with due deference to all schemers and fault-finders,) that these names might remain the same forever.
OBS. 14.–If any change is desirable in our present names of the letters, it is that we may have a shorter and simpler term in stead of _Double-u_. But can we change this well known name? I imagine it would be about as easy to change _Alpha, Upsilon, or Omega_; and perhaps it would be as useful. Let Dr. Webster, or any defender of his spelling, try it. He never named the _English_ letters rightly; long ago discarded the term _Double-u_; and is not yet tired of his experiment with “_oo_;” but thinks still to make the vowel sound of this letter its name. Yet he writes his new name wrong; has no authority for it but his own; and is, most certainly, reprehensible for the _innovation_.[92] If W is to be named as a vowel, it ought to _name itself_, as other vowels do, and not to take _two Oes_ for its written name. Who that knows what it is, to name a letter, can think of naming _w_ by double _o_? That it is possible for an ingenious man to misconceive this simple affair of naming the letters, may appear not only from the foregoing instance, but from the following quotation: “Among the thousand mismanagements of literary instruction, there is at the outset in the hornbook, _the pretence to represent elementary sounds_ by syllables composed of two or more elements; as, _Be, Kay, Zed, Double-u_, and _Aitch_. These words are used in infancy, and through life, as _simple elements_ in the process of synthetic spelling. If the definition of a _consonant_ was made by the master from the practice of the child, it might suggest pity for the pedagogue, but should not make us forget the realities of nature.”–_Dr. Push, on the Philosophy of the Human Voice_, p. 52. This is a strange allegation to come from such a source. If I bid a boy spell the word _why_, he says, “Double-u, Aitch, Wy, _hwi_;” and knows that he has spelled and pronounced the word correctly. But if he conceives that the five syllables which form the three words, _Double-u_, and _Aitch_, and _Wy_, are the three simple sounds which he utters in pronouncing the word _why_, it is not because the hornbook, or the teacher of the hornbook, ever made any such blunder or “pretence;” but because, like some great philosophers, he is capable of misconceiving very plain things. Suppose he should take it into his head to follow Dr. Webster’s books, and to say, “Oo, he, ye, _hwi_;” who, but these doctors, would imagine, that such spelling was supported either by “the realities of nature,” or by the authority of custom? I shall retain both the old “definition of a consonant,” and the usual names of the letters, notwithstanding the contemptuous pity it may excite in the minds of _such_ critics.
II. CLASSES OF THE LETTERS.
The letters are divided into two general classes, _vowels_ and _consonants_.
A _vowel_ is a letter which forms a perfect sound when uttered alone; as, _a, e, o_.
A _consonant_ is a letter which cannot be perfectly uttered till joined to a vowel; as, _b, c, d_.[93]
The vowels are _a, e, i, o, u_, and sometimes _w_ and _y._ All the other letters are consonants.
_W_ or _y_ is called a consonant when it precedes a vowel heard in the same syllable; as in _wine, twine, whine; ye, yet, youth_: in all other cases, these letters are vowels; as in _Yssel, Ystadt, yttria; newly, dewy, eyebrow._
CLASSES OF CONSONANTS.
The consonants are divided, with respect to their powers, into _semivowels_ and _mutes._
A _semivowel_ is a consonant which can be imperfectly sounded without a vowel, so that at the end of a syllable its sound may be protracted; as, _l, n, z_, in _al, an, az._
A _mute_ is a consonant which cannot be sounded at all without a vowel, and which at the end of a syllable suddenly stops the breath; as, _k, p, t_, in _ak, ap, at._
The semivowels are, _f, h, j, l, m, n, r, s, v, w, x, y, z_, and _c_ and _g_ soft: but _w_ or _y_ at the end of a syllable, is a vowel; and the sound of _c, f, g, h, j, s_, or _x_, can be protracted only as an _aspirate_, or strong breath.
Four of the semivowels,–_l, m, n_, and _r_,–are termed _liquids_, on account of the fluency of their sounds; and four others,–_v, w, y_, and _z_,–are likewise more vocal than the aspirates.
The mutes are eight;–_b, d, k, p, q, t_, and _c_ and _g_ hard: three of these,–_k, q_, and _c_ hard,–sound exactly alike: _b, d_, and _g_ hard, stop the voice less suddenly than the rest.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–The foregoing division of the letters is of very great antiquity, and, in respect to its principal features sanctioned by almost universal authority; yet if we examine it minutely, either with reference to the various opinions of the learned, or with regard to the essential differences among the things of which it speaks, it will not perhaps be found in all respects indisputably certain. It will however be of use, as a basis for some subsequent rules, and as a means of calling the attention of the learner to the manner in which he utters the sounds of the letters. A knowledge of about three dozen different elementary sounds is implied in the faculty of speech. The power of producing these sounds with distinctness, and of adapting them to the purposes for which language is used, constitutes perfection of utterance. Had we a perfect alphabet, consisting of one symbol, and only one, for each elementary sound; and a perfect method of spelling, freed from silent letters, and precisely adjusted to the most correct pronunciation of words; the process of learning to read would doubtless be greatly facilitated. And yet any attempt toward such a reformation, any change short of the introduction of some entirely new mode of writing, would be both unwise and impracticable. It would involve our laws and literature in utter confusion, because pronunciation is the least permanent part of language; and if the orthography of words were conformed entirely to this standard, their origin and meaning would, in many instances, be soon lost. We must therefore content ourselves to learn languages as they are, and to make the best use we can of our present imperfect system of alphabetic characters; and we may be the better satisfied to do this, because the deficiencies and redundancies of this alphabet are not yet so well ascertained, as to make it certain what a perfect one would be.
OBS. 2.–In order to have a right understanding of the letters, it is necessary to enumerate, as accurately as we can, the elementary _sounds_ of the language; and to attend carefully to the manner in which these sounds are enunciated, as well as to the characters by which they are represented. The most unconcerned observer cannot but perceive that there are certain differences in the sounds, as well as in the shapes, of the letters; and yet under what heads they ought severally to be classed, or how many of them will fall under some particular name, it may occasionally puzzle a philosopher to tell. The student must consider what is proposed or asked, use his own senses, and judge for himself. With our lower-case alphabet before him, he can tell by his own eye, which are the long letters, and which the short ones; so let him learn by his own ear, which are the vowels, and which, the consonants. The processes are alike simple; and, if he be neither blind nor deaf, he can do both about equally well. Thus he may know for a certainty, that _a_ is a short letter, and _b_ a long one; the former a vowel, the latter a consonant: and so of others. Yet as he may doubt whether _t_ is a long letter or a short one, so he may be puzzled to say whether _w_ and _y_, as heard in _we_ and _ye_, are vowels or consonants: but neither of these difficulties should impair his confidence in any of his other decisions. If he attain by observation and practice a clear and perfect pronunciation of the letters, he will be able to class them for himself with as much accuracy as he will find in books.
OBS. 3.–Grammarians have generally agreed that every letter is either a vowel or a consonant; and also that there are among the latter some semivowels, some mutes, some aspirates, some liquids, some sharps, some flats, some labials, some dentals, some nasals, some palatals, and perhaps yet other species; but in enumerating the letters which belong to these several classes, they disagree so much as to make it no easy matter to ascertain what particular classification is best supported by their authority. I have adopted what I conceive to be the best authorized, and at the same time the most intelligible. He that dislikes the scheme, may do better, if he can. But let him with modesty determine what sort of discoveries may render our ancient authorities questionable. Aristotle, three hundred and thirty years before Christ, divided the Greek letters into _vowels, semivowels_, and _mutes_, and declared that no syllable could be formed without a vowel. In the opinion of some neoterics, it has been reserved to our age, to detect the fallacy of this. But I would fain believe that the Stagirite knew as well what he was saying, as did Dr. James Rush, when, in 1827, he declared the doctrine of vowels and consonants to be “a misrepresentation.” The latter philosopher resolves the letters into “_tonics, subtonics_, and _atonics_;” and avers that “consonants alone may form syllables.” Indeed, I cannot but think the ancient doctrine better. For, to say that “consonants alone may form syllables,” is as much as to say that consonants are not consonants, but vowels! To be consistent, the attempters of this reformation should never speak of vowels or consonants, semivowels or mutes; because they judge the terms inappropriate, and the classification absurd. They should therefore adhere strictly to their “tonics, subtonics, and atonics;” which classes, though apparently the same as vowels, semivowels, and mutes, are better adapted to their new and peculiar division of these elements. Thus, by reforming both language and philosophy at once, they may make what they will of either!
OBS. 4.–Some teach that _w_ and _y_ are always vowels: conceiving the former to be equivalent to _oo_, and the latter to _i_ or _e_. Dr. Lowth says, “_Y_ is always a vowel,” and “_W_ is either a vowel or a diphthong.” Dr. Webster supposes _w_ to be always “a vowel, a simple sound;” but admits that, “At the beginning of words, _y_ is called an _articulation_ or _consonant_, and _with some propriety perhaps_, as it brings the root of the tongue in close contact with the lower part of the palate, and nearly in the position to which the close _g_ brings it.”–_American Dict., Octavo_. But I follow Wallis, Brightland, Johnson, Walker, Murray, Worcester, and others, in considering both of them sometimes vowels and sometimes consonants. They are consonants at the beginning of words in English, because their sounds take the article _a_, and not _an_, before them; as, _a wall, a yard_, and not, _an wall, an yard_. But _oo_ or the sound of _e_, requires _an_, and not _a_; as, _an eel, an oozy bog_.[94] At the end of a syllable we know they are vowels; but at the beginning, they are so squeezed in their pronunciation, as to follow a vowel without any hiatus, or difficulty of utterance; as, “_O worthy youth! so young, so wise!_”
OBS. 5.–Murray’s rule, “_W_ and _y_ are consonants when they begin a word or syllable, but in every other situation they are vowels,” which is found in Comly’s book, _Kirkham’s_, Merchant’s, Ingersoll’s, Fisk’s. Hart’s, Hiley’s, Alger’s, Bullions’s, Pond’s, S. Putnam’s, Weld’s, and in sundry other grammars, is favourable to my doctrine, but too badly conceived to be quoted here as authority. It _undesignedly_ makes _w_ a consonant in _wine_, and a vowel in _twine_; and _y_ a consonant when it _forms_ a syllable, as in _dewy_: for a letter that _forms_ a syllable, “begins” it. 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 pronouncing 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 passes off into silence.”–_Kirkham’s Elocution_, p. 75. Thus the “unpractised student” is taught that _b-y_ spells _bwy_; or, if pronounced “very deliberately, _boo-i-ee_!” Nay, this grammatist makes _b_, not a labial 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 assuming 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 principal classes 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 _labials_ 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 classes 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 Japan, 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 compass 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 analogy 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 pronounce 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 assume 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, 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, tittle, 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 pronounced, _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 pronounced _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 clusters which are unpronounceable, 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 pronunciation 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 analysis 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 pronunciation, may derive some assistance 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 assumed 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 pronounce 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 pronunciation 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 pronunciation, or pronunciation 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 analyzed into its alphabetic elements. Wherever this analysis 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 pronunciation of the alphabetic elements,” he says, “The least deviation _from the assumed 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 pronunciation of our language analytically by means of its present orthography, and agreeably to the standard assumed 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 pronunciation 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 pronunciation 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 pronunciation, 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 analysis 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 God 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 passage, 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 identity 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 pronunciation, 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 pronunciation 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 identity 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 pronunciation, 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 _Quantity_ in the prolation of the vowels, is a matter with which every reader ought to be experimentally acquainted. _Quantity_ 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 quantity 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_ quantity; the rolling billows, as they meet the shore, pronounce 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_ quantity, as well as long. In common parlance, to avoid tediousness, to save time, and to adapt language to circumstances, we usually utter words with great rapidity, and in comparatively short quantity. 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 embarrassment. 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 analogy, 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 _ship_, 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 quantity 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_, surpasses 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 quantity 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 pronouncing 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 classed 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 pass 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 classed_”; and, in order to give to “the simple elements of English utterance” a better explanation than others have furnished, he devotes to a new analysis of our alphabet the ample space 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 analysis, 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 vanishing 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 pronouncing 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 pronounced _sha-epe_; and, in like manner, a multitude 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 vanishing 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 anticipated.
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 manuscripts, 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 constitute the body of every work; and capitals are used for the sake of eminence and distinction. The titles of books, and the heads of their principal divisions, are printed wholly in capitals. Showbills, 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 GOD.”–_Acts_, xvii, 23. “And they set up over his head, his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.”–_Matt._, xxvii, 37.
RULES FOR THE USE OF CAPITALS.
RULE I.–OF BOOKS.
When particular books are mentioned by their names, the chief words in their titles begin with capitals, and the other letters are small; as, “Pope’s Essay on Man”–“the Book of Common Prayer”–“the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” [104]
RULE II.–FIRST WORDS.
The first word of every distinct sentence, or of any clause separately numbered or paragraphed, should begin with a capital; as, “Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things: hold fast that which is good.”–_1 Thess._, v, 16–21.
“14. He has given his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: 15. _For_ quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: 16. _For_ protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for murders: 17. _For_ cutting off our trade with all parts of the world: 18. _For_ imposing taxes on us without our consent:” &c. _Declaration of American Independence._
RULE III.–OF THE DEITY.
All names of the Deity, and sometimes their emphatic substitutes, should begin with capitals; as, “God, Jehovah, the Almighty, the Supreme Being, Divine Providence, the Messiah, the Comforter, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Lord of Sabaoth.”
“The hope of my spirit turns trembling to Thee.”–_Moore_.
RULE IV.–PROPER NAMES.
Proper names, of every description, should always begin with capitals; as, “Saul of Tarsus, Simon Peter, Judas Iscariot, England, London, the Strand, the Thames, the Pyrenees, the Vatican, the Greeks, the Argo and the Argonauts.”
RULE V.–OF TITLES.
Titles of office or honour, and epithets of distinction, applied to persons, begin usually with capitals; as, “His Majesty William the Fourth, Chief Justice Marshall, Sir Matthew Hale, Dr. Johnson, the Rev. Dr. Chalmers, Lewis the Bold, Charles the Second, James the Less, St. Bartholomew, Pliny the Younger, Noah Webster, Jun., Esq.”
RULE VI.–ONE CAPITAL.
Those compound proper names which by analogy incline to a union of their parts without a hyphen, should be so written, and have but one capital: as, “Eastport, Eastville, Westborough, Westfield, Westtown, Whitehall, Whitechurch, Whitehaven, Whiteplains, Mountmellick, Mountpleasant, Germantown, Germanflats, Blackrock, Redhook, Kinderhook, Newfoundland, Statenland, Newcastle, Northcastle, Southbridge, Fairhaven, Dekalb, Deruyter, Lafayette, Macpherson.”
RULE VII.–TWO CAPITALS.
The compounding of a name under one capital should be avoided when the general analogy of other similar terms suggests a separation under two; as, “The chief mountains of Ross-shire are Ben Chat, _Benchasker_, Ben Golich, Ben Nore, Ben Foskarg, and Ben Wyvis.”–_Glasgow Geog._, Vol. ii, p. 311. Write _Ben Chasker_. So, when the word _East, West, North_, or _South_, as part of a name, denotes relative position, or when the word _New_ distinguishes a place by contrast, we have generally separate words and two capitals; as, “East Greenwich, West Greenwich, North Bridgewater, South Bridgewater, New Jersey, New Hampshire.”
RULE VIII.–COMPOUNDS.
When any adjective or common noun is made a distinct part of a compound proper name, it ought to begin with a capital; as, “The United States, the Argentine Republic, the Peak of Teneriffe, the Blue Ridge, the Little Pedee, Long Island, Jersey City, Lower Canada, Green Bay, Gretna Green, Land’s End, the Gold Coast.”
RULE IX.–APPOSITION.
When a common and a proper name are associated merely to explain each other, it is in general sufficient, if the proper name begin with a capital, and the appellative, with a small letter; as, “The prophet Elisha, Matthew the publican, the brook Cherith, the river Euphrates, the Ohio river, Warren county, Flatbush village, New York city.”
RULE X.–PERSONIFICATIONS.
The name of an object personified, when it conveys an idea strictly individual, should begin with a capital; as, “Upon this, _Fancy_ began again to bestir herself.”–_Addison_. “Come, gentle _Spring_, ethereal mildness, come.”–_Thomson_.
RULE XI.–DERIVATIVES.
Words derived from proper names, and having direct reference to particular persons, places, sects, or nations, should begin with capitals; as, “Platonic, Newtonian, Greek, or Grecian, Romish, or Roman, Italic, or Italian, German, or Germanic, Swedish, Turkish, Chinese, Genoese, French, Dutch, Scotch, Welsh:” so, perhaps, “to Platonize, Grecize, Romanize, Italicize, Latinize, or Frenchify.”
RULE XII.–OF I AND O.
The words _I_ and _O_ should always be capitals; as, “Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem; praise thy God, O Zion.”–_Psalm_ cxlvii. “O wretched man that I am!”–“For that which I do, I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.”–_Rom._, vii, 24 and 15.
RULE XIII.–OF POETRY.
Every line in poetry, except what is regarded as making but one verse with the line preceding, should begin with a capital; as,
“Our sons their fathers’ failing language see, And such as Chaucer is, shall Dryden be.”–_Pope_.
Of the exception, some editions of the Psalms in Metre are full of examples; as,
“Happy the man whose tender care
relieves the poor distress’d!
When troubles compass him around, the Lord shall give him rest.”
_Psalms with Com. Prayer, N. Y._, 1819, Ps. xli.
RULE XIV.–OF EXAMPLES.
The first word of a full example, of a distinct speech, or of a direct quotation, should begin with a capital; as, “Remember this maxim: ‘Know thyself.'”–“Virgil says, ‘Labour conquers all things.'”–“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”–_John_, x, 34. “Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.”–_Luke_, xviii, 20.
RULE XV.–CHIEF WORDS.
Other words of particular importance, and such as denote the principal subjects treated of, may be distinguished by capitals; and names subscribed frequently have capitals throughout: as, “In its application to the Executive, with reference to the Legislative branch of the Government, the same rule of action should make the President ever anxious to avoid the exercise of any discretionary authority which can be regulated by Congress.”–ANDREW JACKSON, 1835.
RULE XVI.–NEEDLESS CAPITALS.
Capitals are improper wherever there is not some special rule or reason for their use: a century ago books were disfigured by their frequency; as, “Many a Noble _Genius_ is lost for want of _Education_. Which wou’d then be Much More Liberal. As it was when the _Church_ Enjoy’d her _Possessions_. And _Learning_ was, in the _Dark Ages_, Preserv’d almost only among the _Clergy_.”–CHARLES LESLIE, 1700; _Divine Right of Tythes_, p. 228.
OBSERVATIONS.
OBS. 1.–The letters of the alphabet, read by their names, are equivalent to words. They are a sort of universal signs, by which we may mark and particularize objects of any sort, named or nameless; as, “To say, therefore, that while A and B are both quadrangular, A is more or less quadrangular than B, is absurd.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 50. Hence they are used in the sciences as symbols of an infinite variety of things or ideas, being construed both substantively and adjectively; as, “In ascending from the note C to D, the interval is equal to an inch; and from D to E, the same.”–_Music of Nature_, p. 293. “We have only to imagine the G clef placed below it.”–_Ib._ Any of their forms may be used for such purposes, but the custom of each science determines our choice. Thus Algebra employs small Italics; Music, Roman capitals; Geometry, for the most part, the same; Astronomy, Greek characters; and Grammar, in some part or other, every sort. Examples: “Then comes _answer_ like an ABC book.”–_Beauties of Shakspeare_, p. 97. “Then comes _question_ like an _a, b, c_, book.–_Shakspeare_.” See A, B, C, in _Johnson’s quarto Dict._ Better:–“like an _A-Bee-Cee_ book.”
“For A, his magic pen evokes an O,
And turns the tide of Europe on the foe.”–_Young_.
OBS. 2.–A lavish use of capitals defeats the very purpose for which the letters were distinguished in rank; and carelessness in respect to the rules which govern them, may sometimes misrepresent the writer’s meaning. On many occasions, however, their use or disuse is arbitrary, and must be left to the judgement and taste of authors and printers. Instances of this kind will, for the most part, concern _chief words_, and come under the fifteenth rule above. In this grammar, the number of rules is increased; but the foregoing are still perhaps too few to establish an accurate uniformity. They will however tend to this desirable result; and if doubts arise in their application, the difficulties will be in particular examples only, and not in the general principles of the rules. For instance: In 1 Chron., xxix, 10th, some of our Bibles say, “Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever.” Others say, “Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel, our Father, for ever and ever.” And others, “Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our Father, for ever and ever.” The last is wrong, either in the capital F, or for lack of a comma after _Israel_. The others differ in meaning; because they construe the word _father_, or _Father_, differently. Which is right I know not. The first agrees with the Latin Vulgate, and the second, with the Greek text of the Septuagint; which two famous versions here disagree, without ambiguity in either.[105]
OBS. 3.–The innumerable discrepancies in respect to capitals, which, to a greater or less extent, disgrace the very best editions of our most popular books, are a sufficient evidence of the want of better directions on this point. In amending the rules for this purpose, I have not been able entirely to satisfy myself; and therefore must needs fail to satisfy the very critical reader. But the public shall have the best instructions I can give. On Rule 1st, concerning _Books_, it may be observed, that when particular books or writings are mentioned by other terms than their real titles, the principle of the rule does not apply. Thus, one may call Paradise Lost, “Milton’s _great poem_;” or the Diversions of Purley, “the _etymological investigations_ of Horne Tooke.” So it is written in the Bible, “And there was delivered unto him _the book of the prophet_ Esaias.”–_Luke_, iv, 17. Because the name of Esaias, or Isaiah, seems to be the only proper title of his book.
OBS. 4.–On Rule 2d, concerning _First Words_, it may be observed, that the using of other points than the period, to separate sentences that are totally distinct in sense, as is sometimes practised in quoting, is no reason for the omission of capitals at the beginning of such sentences; but, rather, an obvious reason for their use. Our grammarians frequently manufacture a parcel of puerile examples, and, with the formality of apparent quotation, throw them together in the following manner: “He is above disguise;” “we serve under a good master;” “he rules over a willing people;” “we should do nothing beneath our character.”–_Murray’s Gram._, p. 118. These sentences, and all others so related, should, unquestionably, begin with capitals. Of themselves, they are distinct enough to be separated by the period and a dash. With examples of one’s own making, the quotation points may be used or not, as the writer pleases; but not on their insertion or omission, nor even on the quality of the separating point, depends in all cases the propriety or impropriety of using initial capitals. For example: “The Future Tense is the form of the verb which denotes future time; as, John _will come_, you shall go, they will learn, the sun will rise to-morrow, he will return next week.”–_Frazee’s Improved Gram._, p. 38; _Old Edition_, 35. To say nothing of the punctuation here used, it is certain that the initial words, _you, they, the_, and _he_, should have commenced with capitals.
OBS. 5.–On Rule 3d, concerning _Names of Deity_, it may be observed, that the words _Lord_ and _God_ take the nature of proper names, only when they are used in reference to the Eternal Divinity. The former, as a title of honour to men, is usually written with a capital; but, as a common appellative, with a small letter. The latter, when used with reference to any fabulous deity, or when made plural to speak of many, should seldom, if ever, begin with a capital; for we do not write with a capital any common name which we do not mean to honour: as, “Though there be that are called _gods_, whether in heaven or in earth–as there be _gods_ many, and _lords_ many.”–_1 Cor._, viii, 5. But a diversity of design or conception in respect to this kind of distinction, has produced great diversity concerning capitals, not only in original writings, but also in reprints and quotations, not excepting even the sacred books. Example: “The Lord is a great God, and a great King above all _Gods_.”–_Gurney’s Essays_, p. 88. Perhaps the writer here exalts the inferior beings called gods, that he may honour the one true God the more; but the Bible, in four editions to which I have turned, gives the word _gods_ no capital. See _Psalms_, xcv, 3. The word _Heaven_ put for God, begins with a capital; but when taken literally, it commonly begins with a small letter. Several nouns occasionally connected with names of the Deity, are written with a very puzzling diversity: as, “The Lord of _Sabaoth_;”–“The Lord God of _hosts_;”–“The God of _armies_;”–“The Father of _goodness_;”–“The Giver of all _good_;”–“The Lord, the righteous _Judge_.” All these, and many more like them, are found sometimes with a capital, and sometimes without. _Sabaoth_, being a foreign word, and used only in this particular connexion, usually takes a capital; but the equivalent English words do not seem to require it. For “_Judge_,” in the last example, I would use a capital; for “_good_” and “_goodness_,” in the preceding ones, the small letter: the one is an eminent name, the others are mere attributes. Alger writes, “_the Son of Man_,” with two capitals; others, perhaps more properly, “_the Son of man_,” with one–wherever that phrase occurs in the New Testament. But, in some editions, it has no capital at all.
OBS. 6.–On Rule 4th, concerning _Proper Names_, it may be observed, that the application of this principle supposes the learner to be able to distinguish between proper names and common appellatives. Of the difference between these two classes of words, almost every child that can speak, must have formed some idea. I once noticed that a very little boy, who knew no better than to call a pigeon a turkey because the creature had feathers, was sufficiently master of this distinction, to call many individuals by their several names, and to apply the common words, _man, woman, boy, girl_, &c., with that generality which belongs to them. There is, therefore, some very plain ground for this rule. But not all is plain, and I will not veil the cause of embarrassment. It is only an act of imposture, to pretend that grammar _is easy_, in stead of making it so. Innumerable instances occur, in which the following assertion is by no means true: “The distinction between a common and a proper noun is _very obvious_.”–_Kirkham’s Gram._, p 32. Nor do the remarks of this author, or those of any other that I am acquainted with, remove any part of the difficulty. We are told by this gentleman, (in language incorrigibly bad,) that, “_Nouns_ which denote the genus, species, or variety of beings or things, are always common; as, _tree_, the genus; _oak, ash, chestnut, poplar_, different species; and _red oak, white oak, black oak_, varieties.”–_Ib._, p. 32. Now, as it requires _but one noun_ to denote either a genus or a species, I know not how to conceive of _those_ “_nouns_ which denote _the genus_ of things,” except as of other confusion and nonsense; and, as for the three varieties of oak, there are surely no “_nouns_” here to denote them, unless he will have _red, white_, and _black_ to be nouns. But what shall we say of–“the Red sea, the White sea, the Black sea;” or, with two capitals, “Red Sea, White Sea, Black Sea,” and a thousand other similar terms, which are neither proper names unless they are written with capitals, nor written with capitals unless they are first judged to be proper names? The simple phrase, “the united states,” has nothing of the nature of a proper name; but what is the character of the term, when written with two capitals, “the United States?” If we contend that it is not then a proper name, we make our country anonymous. And what shall we say to those grammarians who contend, that “_Heaven, Hell, Earth, Sun_, and _Moon_, are proper names;” and that, as such, they should be written with capitals? See _Churchill’s Gram._, p. 380.
OBS. 7.–It would seem that most, if not all, proper names had originally some common signification, and that very many of our ordinary words and phrases have been converted into proper names, merely by being applied to particular persons, places, or objects, and receiving the distinction of capitals. How many of the oceans, seas, lakes, capes, islands, mountains, states, counties, streets, institutions, buildings, and other things, which we constantly particularize, have no other proper names than such as are thus formed, and such as are still perhaps, in many instances, essentially appellative! The difficulties respecting these will be further noticed below. A proper noun is the name of some particular individual, group, or people; as, _Adam, Boston_, the _Hudson_, the _Azores_, the _Andes_, the _Romans_, the _Jews_, the _Jesuits_, the _Cherokees_. This is as good a definition as I can give of a proper noun or name. Thus we commonly distinguish the names of particular persons, places, nations, tribes, or sects, with capitals. Yet we name the sun, the moon, the equator, and many other particular objects, without a capital; for the word the may give a particular meaning to a common noun, without converting it into a proper name: but if we say _Sol_, for the sun, or _Luna_, for the moon, we write it with a capital. With some apparent inconsistency, we commonly write the word _Gentiles_ with a capital, but _pagans, heathens_, and _negroes_, without: thus custom has marked these names with degradation. The names of the days of the week, and those of the months, however expressed, appear to me to partake of the nature of proper names, and to require capitals: as, _Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday_; or, as the Friends denominate them, _Firstday, Secondday, Thirdday, Fourthday, Fifthday, Sixthday, Seventhday_. So, if they will not use _January, February_, &c., they should write as proper names their _Firstmonth, Secondmonth_, &c. The Hebrew names for the months, were also proper nouns: to wit, Abib, Zif, Sivan, Thamuz, Ab, Elul, Tisri, Marchesvan, Chisleu, Tebeth, Shebat, Adar; the year, with the ancient Jews, beginning, as ours once did, in March.
OBS. 8.–On Rule 5th, concerning _Titles of Honour_, it may be observed, that names of office or rank, however high, do not require capitals merely as such; for, when we use them alone in their ordinary sense, or simply place them in apposition with proper names, without intending any particular honour, we begin them with a small letter: as, “the emperor Augustus;”–“our mighty sovereign, Abbas Carascan;”–“David the king;”–“Tidal king of nations;”–“Bonner, bishop of London;”–“The sons of Eliphaz, the first-born you of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz, duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek.”–_Gen._, xxxvi, 15. So, sometimes, in addresses in which even the greatest respect is intended to be shown: as, “O _sir_, we came indeed down at the first time to buy food.”–_Gen._, xliii, 20. “O my _lord_, let thy servant, I pray thee,