The Grammar of English Grammars. Goold Brown
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