The Grammar of English Grammars. Goold Brown
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.