The New Art of Memory/Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Language.
Sect. 1.—On learning Languages.
The learning of Languages is, in these days, an object of such general pursuit, and at the same time of such real importance, that every plan of instruction which has for its object to abridge the labour of this study, or to give permanence to its acquisitions, comes to our consideration with the strongest claims on our attention. The first approach to the study of Languages presents to view a long and dreary passage, but which must be travelled through with care and diligence, by those who wish to make any useful progress. Now it would certainly be a great advantage to turn and shorten this toilsome road, and be enabled to pursue our journey through the regions of science by more direct and less fatiguing advances.
That any course of learning should be devised by which the acquisition of Languages shall be tendered an expeditious and unlaborious task, it would be presumptuous to expect.
But it may be reasonably hoped, that, in the progressive improvement of human experience, new methods of instructions may be introduced, in this as well as in other sciences, which may afford additional facilities to learning, and clear away many obstacles to improvement which former ages were unable to remove.
It is quote obvious that the difficulty in acquiring a foreign language consists in the constitutional difference of out our native tonight, and that which we propose to learn. If the grammatical properties of the two languages were similar, the were obtaining of a copia verborum would be an undertaking of no great difficulty. But how considerable a labour it is to obtain a perfect knowledge even of the genders and declensions of nouns, the conjugation of verbs, and other matters which are the very initials of language, any one who has had the least experience of the drudgery of teaching can well testify.
It would seem, then, that one of the most extensive facilities which can be afforded in this matter, is to point out the affinities of different languages—to systematise, as far as can be, their similarities; and, where it is practicable, to trace and notify their variances. In other words, if the expression may be allowed, to exhibit the universalities of language.
Something of this nature will be attempted in the present chapter. It is inserted, because it constitutes a part of M. Von Feinaigle's instructions; and because the Editor hopes that, it will be found to contain some useful matter. But he does not mean to delude the reader into an expectation that he will be here provided with a sort talismanic key, which shall enable him, wihout labour and wihtout loss of time, to unlock the janua linguarum. Indeed that (whatever some interested enthusiasts may pretend), nor any honest man venture to promise. All that will be here attempted will be, to exhibit some of the most important similarities of different languages, notwithstanding individual peculiarities, they still retain strong marks of affinity in many essential particulars.
Facies non omnibus una,
Nec tamen diversa, qualena decet esse sororim
Ov.Met.1.2.v.13.
And, to bring the matter more home to practice, to offer some rules, by the assistance of which one language may be usefully applied to the acquisition of another.
As we are about to consider some of the universal properties of language, it may not, perhaps, be thought improper to enter on the subject with a slight sketch of the origin of language.
Sect. 2.—Sketch of the Origin of Language.
"We are informed by Scripture, that when the building of Babel was begun, about eighteen hundred years after the fall, the whole earth was of one speech. And had no miraculous interposition taken place, it is probable, that some traces of it would have remained in every language to this day. For, though, in so long a time, many words must have been changed, many introduced, and many forgotten, in every country, yet men being all of the same family, and all deriving their speech from the only one primitive tongue, it may be presumed that some of the original words would still have been in use throughout the whole eanh: even as in ull the modern languages of Europe, some Greek, and some Hebrew, and a great deal of Latin, is still discernible. But Providence thought fit to prevent this; and by confounding the language of the builders of Babel, to establish in the world a variety of primitive tongues.
****
"Languages are either Primitive or Derived, That those which are formed out of the same parent tongue should all resemble it and another, and yet should all be different, is not more wonderful, than that children and their parents should be marked with a general family likeness, and each distinguished by peculiar features. Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, French and a great deal of the English Tongue, are derived from the Latin; with the addition of many new modes of termination and syntax which were introduced by the northern nations. And, therefore, all these languages resemble the Latin and one another; and yet each is different from it and from all the rest. But, if we could compare two original or primitive tongues together, the Hebrew for instance with the Gothick or the Cletick, of the language of China, with that of the Hurons in North America, we should not discern, perhaps, the least similitude: which, considering that all mankind are of the same family, could not be fully accounted for without supposing that some preternatural events like that at the confusions of Babel, had some time or other taken place. But this history solves all difficulties."[1]
This is the general opinion respecting the origin of the diversity of Languages; but it is not an uncontroverted doctrine. Dr. Priestley[2] has argued upon this point in the following manner:—
"The present diversity of language is generally believed to have taken its rise from the building of Babel, and to have been brought about by the interposition of the Divine Being; but it is no impiety to suppose, that this (agreeable to most other operations of the Deity) might have been brought about by natural means. The possibility of this natural deviation seems to be deduced from the following considerations.
"First. The primitive language, or that which was spoken by the first family of the human race, must have been very scanty, and insufficient for the purposes of their descendants, in their growing acquaintance with the world.
"Secondly. Not being fixed by the practice of writing, it would be very liable to variation.
"Thirdly. Supposing the primitive language to have had few inflections, (because few would have been sufficient,) it would easily admit any inflections, which chance or design might suggest to the founders of different families, or to their successors. These different inflections would consequently introduce different constructions of words, and different rules of syntax: and thus what are called the very stamina of languages, would be formed independently of one another, and admit of all possible varieties.
"Fourthly. Considering into what different climates mankind were dispersed, furnished with the bare rudiments of the art of speech, into what different ways of living they fell, and how long they continued without the art of writing, (without which no language can be fixed,) it seems to be no wonder that languages should be so different as they are; both with respect to the rules of inflection, with the fundamentals of grammar which depend upon them, and the words of which they consist.
"The difficulty which some allege there is, in conceiving how languages should arise in the world so very different, not only in the words, but in the manner of using them, seems to arise wholly from the supposition, that the primitive language was copious, regular, and perfect in all its parts: the difficulty of changing such a language is allowed; but the fact, is apprehended, is much easier accounted for upon the present hypothesis.
"To these arguments it may be added, that to a person thoroughly acquainted with the present state of mankind, the prodigious diversity of human manners and customs may probably appear almost as difficult to be accounted for, as the diversity of languages only."
The late Dr. G. Gregory has observed on this subject, that it is impossible to say what was the nature of the confusion of language at Babel; whether it consisted in the invention of new terms, or in the improper use of the old. The miracle at Babel, he adds, might be only a temporary confusion,[3] sufficient to set aside that useless and absurd undertaking: and it is more natural to suppose, that the consequent dispersion of mankind was the effect of dissentions occasioned by having misunderstood each other, than that they could not live together, because they did not all continue to speak the same language.
II. The origin of alphabetical writing is involved in as much doubt as that of the diversity of language; and the controversies which have arisen on both subjects have been similarly conducted—one side pretending to found their arguments on the authority of the Scriptures, and the other side denying that those records furnish any such inference.
They who have recourse to supernatural interposition to account for the origin of writing, allege that the first alphabetical writings were the two tables of stone, which, as we are informed by Moses, were written by the finger of God himself. And it must be acknowledged (in the words of Dr. Priestley) that the oldest account we have concerning the use of letters in Asia and Greece is so circumstanced, as by no means to clash with this hypothesis. It seems likewise very probable from Robertson's comparison of Alphabets, that all the known ones might originally have been derived from the Hebrew, or Samaritan.
But in opposition to these arguments, it has been asked—If the Deity had taught or revealed such an art to mankind, why is it not explicitly noted in that complete history of revelation, which inspiration has handed down to us? The writing on the tables at Mount Sinai is not spoken of as a new invention; and if it had been such, and particularly if it had been the immediate act of the Deity, is there the least probability that so important a fact would have been omitted by the sacred historian? There are various other arguments in this matter, but these form the hinge of the dispute; and we shall close this subject with a very satisfactory observation of Dr. Priestley, who remarks, that, the imperfections of all alphabets, the Hebrew by no means excepted, seems to argue them not to have been the product of divine skill, but the result of such a concurrence of accident and gradual improvement as all human arts, and what we call inventions, owe their birth to. For certainly, the alphabets in use bear no marks of the regularity and perfection of the works of nature: the more we consider the latter, the more reason we see to admire their beauty, just proportions, and consequent fitness to answer their respective ends; whereas, the more we examine the former, the more defects, superfluities, and imperfections of all kinds we discover in them. Besides, had there ever been a divine alphabet, it would certainly have established itself in the world by its manifest excellence, particularly as, upon this supposition, mankind were incapable of devising one themselves.
III. But whatever may be the origin of alphabetical writing, it is certain that all alphabets are, more or less, defective. In the orthography of modern languages, in particular, it is a great inconvenience, as has been truly observed,[4] that the pronunciation does not correspond with the writing; but that the same letters have different sounds, and the same sounds are often represented by different letters; some letters also, according to the pronunciation, are superfluous in some words, in others letters are wanting. This is chiefly a mark of their derivation from other languages: since, in many of those differences, the spelling leans to the antients, when the pronunciation is modern. Thus the (p) in the word receipt is not pronounced; but it shows the derivation of the word from recipio in Latin. Some words of the same sound are spelled differently, to preserve a distinction in writing, as air heir: hair heir, etc. Other words, on the contrary, which are spelled in the same manner, are pronounced differently, to preserve a distinction in speaking; as I read, and I have read.
Sect. 3.—Account of some attempts towards forming a universal Character or Alphabet.
All the alphabets extant are charged by Bishop Wilkins with great irregularities, with respect both to order, number, power, figure, &c.
As to the order it appears, says he, inartificial, precarious, and confused, as the vowels and consonants are not reduced into classes, with such order of precedence and subsequence as their natures will bear. Of this imperfection the Greek alphabet, which is one of the least defective, is far from being free: for instance, the Greeks should have separated the consonants from the vowels; after the vowels they should have placed the diphthongs, and then the consonants; whereas, in fact, the order is so perverted, that we find the ο the fifteenth letter in the order of the alphabet, and the ω, or long ο, the twenty fourth and last: the ε the fifth, and the η the seventh letter.
With respect to number, they are both redundant and deficient; redundant by allotting the same sound to several letters, as in the Latin c and k, f and ph; or by reckoning double letters among the simple elements of speech, as in the Greek ξ and ψ the Latin q or cu, x or ex, and the j consonant. They are deficient in many respects, particularly with regard to vowels, of which seven or eight kinds are commonly used, though the Latin alphabet takes notice only of five. Add to this, that the difference among them with regard to long and short, is not sufficiently provided against.
The powers again are not more exempt from confusion; the vowels, for instance, are generally acknowledged to have each of them several different sounds; and among the consonants weneed only bring as evidence of their different pronunciation the letter c in the word circa, and g in the word negligence. Hence it happens, that some words are differently written, though pronounced in the same manner, as cessio and sessio; and others are different in pronunciation, which are the same in writing, as give, dare, and give, vinculum.
Finally, he adds, the figures are but ill concerted, there is nothing in the characters of the vowels answerable to the different manner of pronunciation; nor in the consonants analogous to their agreements, or disagreements.
As we are on this subject, the reader may not be displeased, perhaps, to have the various schemes which have been proposed for the emendation and correction of the English Alphabet brought together in one concise view.
"There have been many schemes offered for the emendation and settlement of our orthography; which, like that of other nations, being formed by chance, or according to the fancy of the earliest writers in rude ages, was at first very various and uncertain, and is yet sufficiently irregular: of these reformers some have endeavoured to accommodate orthography better to the pronunciation, without considering that this is to measure by a shadow; to take that for a model or standard, which is changing while they apply it. Others, less absurdly indeed, but with equal unlikelihood of success have endeavoured to proportion the number of letters to that of sounds, that every sound may have its own character, and every character a single sound. Such Mould be the orthography of a new language to be formed by a synod of grammarians upon principles of science. But who can hope to prevail on nations to change their practice, and make all the old books useless? or what advantage would a new orthography procure equivalent to the confusion and perplexity of such an alteration.
"One of the first who proposed a scheme of regular orthography, was Sir Thomas Smith, Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth, a man of real learning, and much practised in grammatical disquisitions[5] After him another mode of writing was offered by Dr. Gill, the celebrated Master of St. Paul's School in London. Dr. Gill was followed by Charles Butler, a man who did not want an understanding, which might have qualified him for better employment. He seems to have been more sanguine than his predecessors, for he printed his book according to his own scheme.
"In the time of Charles I. there was a very prevalent inclination to change the orthography; as appears, among other books, in such editions of the works of Milton as were published by himself. Of these reformers every man had his own scheme; but they agreed in one general design of accommodating the letters to the pronunciation, by ejecting such as they thought superfluous. Same of them would have written these lines thus:
Bishop Wilkins afterwards, in his great work of the philosophical language, proposed, without expecting to be followed, a regular orthography; by which the Lord's prayer is to be written thus:
Yar Fádher høitsh art in héven, halloed bi dhyi nam, dhi cingdym cym, dhy sill bi dyu in erth as it is in héven, etc."
Here Dr. Johnson has closed his account, which we shall endeavour to complete by noticing some other philosophical speculations of a similar nature that have been submitted to the public. But we shall first present the reader with amore detailed account of Bishop Wilkins' plan of a universal and philosophical language. This account we shall give in an extract from Dr. Priestley's Lectures on the Theory of Language, because it contains the most clear and concise exposition of it, that can possibly be given.
"Having in the first place, with prodigious labour and exactness, distributed all things to which names are given into classes; under forty genuses or general heads, (some of which, however, are subordinate to others) he assigns a short and simple character to each of these forty genuses,—a definite variation of the character, to each difference under the genuses, and a further variation for each species, etc. By this means, the characters, representing all things that have names, have the same analogies with one another that the things themselves have.
"Characters being provided for the names of things, the grammatical distinctions of words, numbers, tenses, persons, voices, etc. are denoted by some appendage to the character.
"In this manner may we be furnished with an universal character, which shall represent ideas directly, without the intervention of any sounds, and which may be equally understood by people using any language whatever.[6]
"To make this character effable, the Doctor (Wilkins) appropriates a single sound to the characters representing each genus and difference, and also to each variation and appendage before mentioned: and they are so contrived, that the simple sounds adapted to all the parts of the most complex character may be pronounced with ease, as one word.
"By this means any people, after they had applied this character to represent their ideas, might soon learn to read it in the same manner as any other people; whereby, in conversation as well as in writing, they might make themselves perfectly understood by one another.
"The elements of this character and language are so few, and the combination of them so easy, that the Doctor (Wilkins) says he has no doubt, that a person of a good capacity and memory may, in one month's space, attain to a good readiness of expressing his mind this way, either in the character or language.
"As the names of individuals cannot be comprehended in tables of genuses and their differences, the Doctor (Wilkins) hath contrived an alphabet of all the simple articulations of the human voice; to which he hath assigned two sets of characters, to be used at pleasure: the one consists of short and plain strokes, the other is a kind of delineation of the position of the organs in forming the articulations."
This plan Dr. Priestley considers the most rational of all the plans of a universal and philosophical language. And he adds, whenever this noble project is resumed, it seems to be impossible to proceed upon a better plan than this. The principal thing that is wanting to the perfection of it is a more perfect distribution of things into classes than, perhaps, the present state of knowledge can enable us to make.
Mr. Lodwick, in the Philosophical Transactions,[7] gives 'an Essay towards an universal Alphabet.' His plan was to contain an enumeration of all such single sounds, as are used in any language: by means of which people should be able to pronounce truly and readily any language; to describe the pronunciation of any language that shall be pronounced in their hearing, so as others accustomed to this language, though they had never heard the language pronounced, shall at first be able truly to pronounce it: and lastly, this character was to serve to perpetuate the sounds of any language whatever.
The construction of "a new alphabet, and a reformed mode of spelling," has also occupied the attention of that celebrated Philosopher, Dr. Franklin. His plan may be seen in his miscellaneous works.[8] In this alphabet he has attempted to provide that no letter should have two sounds, and every sound should be represented by a distinct letter. "It is to be observed, (he says) that in all the letters, vowels, and consonants, wherever they are met with, or in whatever company, their sound is always the same. It is also intended, that there be no superfluous letters used in spelling; i. e. no letter that is not sounded; and this alphabet, by six new letters, provides that there be no distinct sounds in the language, without letters to express them. As to the difference between short and long vowels, it is naturally expressed by a single vowel, where short; a double one, where long; as for mend, write mend; but for remained, write remeen'd; for did write did, but for deed write diid, etc."
In this alphabet c is omitted as unnecessary; k supplying its hard sound, and s the soft; k also supplies well the place of z, and with an s added, the place of x: q and x are therefore omitted. The vowel u, being sounded as oo, makes the w unnecessary. The y, where used simply, is supplied by i, and where as a diphthong, by two vowels: that letter is therefore omitted as useless. The jod, j, is also omitted, its sound being supplied by a new letter, which serves other purposes.
The philosophical construction of the alphabet may be best seen in the following account, written by himself, and entitled:
"Remarks on the alphabetical Table."
| o to huh | It is endeavoured to give the alphabet a more natural order; beginning first with the simple sounds formed by the breath, with none or very little help of tongue, teeth, and lips, and produced chiefly in the windpipe. | |
| g. k. | Then coming forward to those formed by the roof of the tongue next to the windpipe. | |
| r. n. t. d. | Then to those, formed more forward, by the forepart of the tongue, against the roof of the mouth. | |
| l. s. z. | Then those formed still more forward in the tongue, applied first to mouth, by the tip of the the roots of the upper teeth. | |
|
Then to those formed by the tip of the tongue, applied to the ends or edges of the upper teeth. | |
| f. v. | Then to those formed still more forward, by the under lip applied to the upper teeth. | |
| b. p. | Then to those formed yet more forward, by the upper and under lip opening to let out the sounding breath. | |
| m. | And lastly, ending with the shutting up of the mouth, or closing the lips while any vowel is sounding. |
It is impossible for want of proper types to give a specimen here of the Doctor's reformed mode of spelling; but several examples may be seen in the 3rd vol. of his works, p. 357, in which is inserted a correspondence which was carried on between the Doctor and Miss Stephenson, on this subject, and in winch the former urges the utility of his scheme, and endeavours to answer the objections raised against it."[9]
Mr. Noah Webster, another American author, has proposed a more moderate innovation, u to render our orthography sufficiently regular and easy."
1. The omission of all superfluous or silent letters. Thus bread, head, give, breast, built, meant, realm, friend, would be spelt, bred, hed, giv, brest, bilt, ment, relm, frend.
2. A substitution of a character that has a certain definite sound, for one that is moie vague and indeterminate. Thus, mean, near, speak, grieve, zeal, would become, meen, neer, speek, greeve, zeel. Thus key should, be written kee; laugh, laf; daughter, dawter; blood, blud; character, karacter; chorus, korus, etc.
3. A trifling alteration in a character, or the addition of a point would distinguish different sounds, without the substitution of a new character. Thus a very small stroke across ike would distinguish its two sounds. A point over a vowel might answer all the purposes of dif- ferent letters. And for the diphthong ou, let the two letters be united by a small stroke, or both engraven on the same piece of metal, with the left hand line of the to united to the o.
These, with a few other inconsiderable alterations, Mr. Webster thinks, "would answer every purpose, and render the orthography sufficiently correct and regular."[10]
The only other scheme of reformation we shall notice is that put forth by Mr. Elphinston.We shall transcribe the first paragraph of his preface.[11]
"Evvery tung iz independant ov evvery oddher. Hooevver seeks dhe anallogy (or nattural rule) ov anny tung, must dherfore find it at home; nor wil dhe seeker seek in vain. Inglish diccion dhen haz no laws, but her own. Yet, in her picturage, and consequently in much ov her livving practice; hav anny oddher laws, or any lawlesnes, been prefferably regarded. No more cau anny language adopt dhe system ov any oddher; dhan anny nacion, dhe hoal pollity oν anoddher nacion: for such adopter wer no more a distinct nacion or language; wer but a mongrel, or an eccoe."
Sect. 4.—Proposed Philosophical Arrangement of the Alphabet as applied to Language in general.
The ordinary arrangement of the alphabet being thus defective and unphilosophical, we shall propose another mode of disposing the letters, which we shall endeavour to justify, by assigning a reason for allutting to each letter the particular place which it occupies. We shall exhibit our alphabet, then, in this form:—
| a | b | c | d |
| c | ph f | ch g | t h |
| i j | k l | m | n |
| o | p | q r | s t |
| u | v | x | y z |
According to this scheme, the letters are distributed into Four columns, each column containing five letters. This arrangement is not an arbitrary one, but is made upon principles of philosophical propriety.
The first column contains the vowels. Y, is a vowel in English, but it is by no means an essential part of the alphabet. It takes in general the sound of i, as in rhyme, cyder, system, syntax, etc. For this reason (as Mr. Walker has observed) printers, who have been the great correctors of our orthography, have substituted the i in its stead, in many instances. We shall discard y, therefore, from our alphabet.
The vowels are placed first, because they can be pronounced without the assistance of consonants, while consonants cannot be pronounced without the aid of vowels. Tu order to account for the arrangement of the vowels, thus; a, e, i, o, u; we must advert to the pronunciation of them. The French pronunciation is the most natural and philosophical; for in the course of that pronunciation of the vowels, there is a regular gradation of sound from the most open to the closest,—from high to low,—aw, a, ee, o, eu. This is the order of nature. The sound of a is produced by a very wide opening of the lips; which are somewhat more closed in the pronunciation of e; and still more so in the utterance of i, When o is pronounced, the lips approximate still more, and at the sound of u, they are almost closed.
“This subject may be further illustrated by the following extract from Mr, Walker's Principles of English Pronunciation prefixed to the Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. After exhibiting a detailed view of the organic formation of the vowels, not differing materially from that before stated, he remarks that, in this view we find, that, a, e, and o, are the only simple or pure vowels: that i is a diphthong, and that u is a semi-consonant. If we were inclined (he adds) to contrive a scale for measuring the breadth or narrowness, or, as others term it, the openness or closeness of the vowel, we might begin with e open, as Mr. Elphinston calls it, and which he announces to be the closest of all the vocal powers. In the pronunciation of this letter, we find the aperture of the mouth extended on each side; the lips almost closed, and the sound issuing horizontally. The slender a in waste opens the mouth a little wider. The a in father opens the mouth still more, without contracting the corners. The German a, heard in wall, not only opens the mouth wider than the former a, but contracts the corners of the mouth, so as to make the aperture approach nearer to a circle; while the o opens the mouth still more, and contracts the coiners so as to make it the os rotundum, a picture of the letter it sounds.
Consonants are divided into different classes according to the seat of their intonation, or from those organs of speech which are chiefly employed in forming them. The distinction which we shall adopt, is that which divides them into labials, gutterals, dentals, and palatals; as they are formed by the lips, the throat, the teeth, or the palate: or, in other words, because the breath, in passing from the lungs, is intercepted in those seats or places, or at least is very strongly compressed there.
In the second column are the consonants, b, f, p, v.
B is a labial: it is formed by intercepting the passage of the breath through the mouth, by closing the lips.
F may be represented by ph. Ph occurs chiefly in words derived from the Greek, and written in that language Φ. The Italians, in such words, write f; thus, while we adhering strictly to derivation write philosopher, they write filosofo.[12]
P is a labial, formed (like b) by closing the lips; but in a less forcible manner. The Arabians (says Mr. Wallis) have not this letter, but substitute for it either Be or Phe. The illiterate Jews in this country usually confound b and p in their pronunciation, using the one for the other. V is a labial: it is formed by a touch of the upper teeth and the under lip. It is, indeed, the flat f, to which letter it bears the same relation as p does to b. The Arabians and Persians have not this sound; and Wallis is of opinion that the English Saxons either had it not, or wrote it by f; for they used, he says, no v consonant, and they wrote many words with f, as the English did after them, for some ages, which are now written with v, as well as those which are now written with f: as gif, heofon, etc. which are now written, give, heaven. And Priscian acknowledges, that the Latins formerly pronounced f with the same sound, with which afterwards the v consonant was pronounced.
Inthe third column, are c, g, q, x.
C and g are both gutterals; c has the sound of s and k; g of j and k. As the sound of k is usually given to c, there is great reason for supposing that this was its original sound.[13] In the less frequent sound of c, the guttural becomes a hissing sound. The hard sounds of c and g, (ka, ge) are produced by a stroke in the throat, and are consequently gutturals: g is the only weak sound of tch, as in church; ch is a guttural aspirated. Q is the strong sound of c, which, as was before observed, is a weak guttural.
X is written egs, ees, and eks; it is a guttural aspirate, with a hissing termination. Aspirate and hissing are compound sounds.
The fourth column contains d, h, t, z.
D is a dental, or produced by pressing the tongue against the gums of the upper teeth, and then separating them.
T is also a dental, and is similarly formed.
H. This letter is no more than an aspiration, or breathing forcibly before the succeeding vowel.
Z is a hissing dental. It is the flat s, and bears the same relation to that letter, as a does to p, and f to v. It is formed by placing the tongue in the same position as in t and d, but not so close to the gums as to stop the breath: a space is left between the tongue and the palate for the breath to issue, which forms the hissing or buzzing sound of the letter.
L, m, n, are placed in the centre because they are of a middle nature between mutes and consonants. They are generally termed liquids, because, in pronunciation, they easily flow into and combine with the mutes. L is a weak palatal, m is a labio-palatal, and n is a strong palatal.
R is not found in all languages. It is formed by the forcible expulsion of the air, which during its passage, causes a tremulous motion of the tongue. The Greeks sometimes wrote this letter with an aspiration, and we follow their example in rhetoric, rhythm, etc.
S is a hissing palatal, and is formed in the same manner as z.
J and v are placed between the highest vowels and the weakest consonants.
We shall subjoin the following tabular view of the powers and qualities of the consonants, according to this system.
| Labials. | Gutturals. | Dentals. | |
| A | B | C | D |
| a labial with a weak touch. | a guttural with the sound of k; a weak touch. | a weak dental. | |
| E | F | G | H |
| a labial with a strong touch aspirated. | a guttural; weak sound of che. | a dental aspirated. | |
| Ij | kL | M | N |
| a weak palatal. | a labio-palatal. | a strong palatal. | |
| O | P | Qr | sT |
| a labial with strong touch. | a the strong sound of c. | a strong dental. | |
| U | Vw | X | yZ |
| a labial with a weak touch, but aspirated; it is the weak sound of ph. | a guttural as pirated, with a hissing sound. | a hissing dental. |
As in the course of this chapter we have noticed the schemes of different authors on this subject, it may be as well to insert here the following tables of the consonants; extracted from Dr. Wallis, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Elphinston.
(1. From Dr. Wallis.[14])
Synopsis of the Letters.
| Consonants. | Labial or Lip | Mute | P | F | F | |||
| Half Mute | B | V | W | |||||
| Half Vowel | M | a Lowing | ||||||
| Palatine or Palate | Mute | T | S | TH | ||||
| Half Mute | D | Z | DH | L R | ||||
| Half Vowel | N | a sigh | ||||||
| Guttural or Throat | Mute | C | N | CH | ||||
| Half Mute | G | Y | G | |||||
| Half Vowel | n | a sigh | ||||||
(2. From Mr. Walker.[15])
An Analogical Table of the Consonants.
| Mute labials | sharp p, pomp | labio-nasal liquid m. | ||||||
| flat b, bomb | ||||||||
| Hissing labials | sharp f, if | |||||||
| flat v, of | ||||||||
| Mute dentals | sharp t, tat | aspirated | etch | dento-nasal liquid h. | ||||
| flat d, dad | edge, or j | |||||||
| Hissing dentals | sharp s, say | esh, passion | dental liquid l. | |||||
| flat z, as | ezhe, vision | |||||||
| Lisping dentals | sharp eth, death. | |||||||
| flat the, sythe | ||||||||
| Gutturals | sharp k, kick | guttural liquid r. | ||||||
| flat g, (hard) gag | ||||||||
| Dento-Guttural or nasal ng, hang. | ||||||||
| lingual, | guttural, | dental, | labial, |
| l | r | n | m |
DHE MUTES.
| direct; | depressive; | |||||
| simpel, | aspirate, | simpel, | aspirate, | |||
| P | b | labial. | ||||
| ph, f | v | |||||
| t | d | dental. | ||||
| th | dh | |||||
| s, c | z, s | sibbilating. | ||||
| sh, si | [zh], zi | |||||
| k, c, q | g | pallatal or guttural. | ||||
| ch | gh | |||||
| ch [tsh] | j, g [dzh] | compound. | ||||
| x = cs | x = gz | |||||
We may conclude this part of our subject in the words of Mr. Walker on a similar occasion. "In this sketch of the formation and distribution of the consonants, it is curious to observe on how few radical principles, the almost infinite variety of combination in language depends. It is with some degree of wonder, we perceive that the slightest aspiration, the almost insensible inflexion of nearly similar sounds, often generate the most different and opposite meanings. In this view of nature, as in every other, we find uniformity and variety very conspicuous. The single fiat, at first imprinted on the chaos, seems to operate on languages; which from the simplicity and paucity of their principles, and the extent and power of their combinations, prove the goodness, wisdom, and omnipotence of their origin.
"This analogical association of sounds is not only curious, but useful: it gives us a comprehensive view of the powers of the letters: and from the small number that are radically different, enables us to see the rules on which their varieties depend: it discovers to us the genius and propensities of several languages and dialects: and when authority is silent, enables us to decide agreeably to analogy.
Sect. 5. The derivation of French from Latin,shown to consist, principally, in the change of certain letters according to established rules.
When two different nations have an intercourse together, either by means of war or commerce, an attempt is made on both sides, to render the language of each, mutually understood.For example, France was once conquered by the Romans. The French people were, ofcourse, subject to the laws of their conquerors,and if they had any complaints to prefer before the courts, were, of necessity compelled to make them in Latin.
The people in acquiring this language, did not resort to granunars; they had heard a particular name given to a particular object,another name to another, etc. and had constantly seen the objects characterised by thesenames. The French had heard the Romans mention a bridge, which they called pons; they heard them speak of the expense of a bridge, (pontis) of going to a bridge (ponti) of destroying this bridge, (pontem) of going far from it, (ponte) of more bridges, (pontes, pontium, pontibus, etc.) The common people seeing such terminations affixed to each word, and not caring to understand or remember them, rejected them off at once, preserving the body of the word pont, and forming the French ponte. Spaniards and Italians followed the example. The terminations, which, in Latin, formed the declensions, were omitted; and as in this last word, so in many other derivatives from Latin appellatives, the last vowel only was changed, and a great part of the original word remained. What is done in adjectives and substantives, also takes place in verbs.
In Latin, the verbs have their infinitive moods terminated in re; once preceded by a, once by e, and once by i, as are=ere=ire. It has been observed, that the consonants are weak, strong, aspirated, and hissing. All nations used the letters of the alphabet, but they changed the pronunciation according to the genius of thein respective countries. The language of one peo ple abounds with weak letters, others with strong, hissing, or gutteral letters, etc.
The Latin word frater when changed into French, has the letter a weakened, and it becomes e—as in frere: the deep Roman a is taken away, and the weaker letter e is substituted, as in mare, mer: chare chere; pater, pere; catena, chaine. As it is the genius of the French language to shorten their verbs, the Latin infinitive are, becomes er; as in amare, aimer. In the third conjugation the final e only is cut off, and the ir remains, as in finire, finir; venire, venir, etc. etc. In the second conjugation which ends in ere, were the final e to be rejected, er only would remain, which would be the same termination as that of the first conjugation. If it be changed into i, the third conjugation will appear; we seem then in danger of losing a whole conjugation. This inconvenience, however, will be soon obviated. The genius of the language requires that the sound should be shortened; there remains, then, no other mode than to deprive the ere of the first vowel, and the second conjugation in re will be found, as perdere, perdre. By taking away the vowel that precedes the r, this letter would come into contact with a preceding consonant, with which, in some cases, it would be impossible for it to stand. The verb valere, would, according to the rule just given, become valre; but as l and r cannot stand together, one should be taken away. To connect them a sharp vowel must be inserted, and this must be e, but then the conjugation would be lost. Let us try i, and we shall find it will become oir.
The Latin tres is changed into trois, for valere, there is valoir; this cannot be an irregular conjugation, for all the remaining parts are conjugated regularly; as there is only the infinitive valoir, it is then neither regular, nor irregular, but regulated. This oir can only stand for the infinitive mood; it is instead of valre: if the infinitive mood be not found regularly, the future cannot be given. As r is indispensable, we must part with the l. The Latin word calx, is made chalk in English, but in pronouncing this word, the l is opened and the pronunciation becomes (chawk) changing the c into ch. In French, culx becomes chaux; in the Latin word alter, the is opened and alter is couverted into antre; saltare into sautre.
From the Latin pulvere, the French infinitive would be pulver, but the l is resolved into ou, and v is changed into d; thus, pulvere becomes poudre; cinere cindre. In vaundre, the l must be rejected, and an supplied; thus valre—vau. In the future, the French do not say, as in Latin or English, I will do,—but I have to do; they take the present of avoir, add it to the infinitive, and thus form the future vaudr-ai, vaudr-as, vaudr-a; we cannot say voulerai. In the present tense, in Latin, there is valet; the e is rejected, and as the l and l cannot stand together, l is opened as before, and we immediately have vaut.
It has been shown already, that the infinitive moods of the Latin ending in are, ere, ire, are changed into er, re, ir, in French. The first and last conjugations are both made by rejecting the final e. Afterwards we find a fourth conjugation in oir; it has been shown how this is formed, and that it is not a new conjugation, for no tense or person is formed from oir.
If the Latin and French languages are compared together, it will be easy to prove how much one is derived from the other, and how very materially the study of the Latin and French will facilitate the acquisition of other languages. Those who are acquainted with the Latin language know that mus is the termination of the first person plural, so that from are we get amus, from ere, emus, from ire, imus. If the first person plural in French be required, the vowel must be omitted, and ms will be given. The French words non, nom, noms, are all pronounced in the same manner; for when m is final, it is pronounced as n, which has a nasal sound: m, then, is no more necessary, for if we write according to the pronunciation it would be nons.
In the verb danser, for example, the infinitive termination er, is changed into ons, and we have dansons. The second person in Latin, is known by the termination tis—atis—etis—itis: the same principle that directed the French to shorten the former person, induces them to pursue the same method here. The i is taken away and ts is left, which has the same sound as, and may be supplied by, z. The word is written according to its pronunciation, and from danser, is produced dansez. The Latin termination ent is continued in French, but is mute; they say dansent (danse) as if there were no ent.
In the next tense the past time occurs; we danced yesterday: again for the first person plural there is ons, but this would denote the present tense; to distinguish, therefore, the imperfect from the present, tense, and to show that it is past, i is placed before ons, as ions; and this is always found in the imperfect in all conjugations. In the second person, present, there is ez; to denote the imperfect, i must be added as iez. For the third person, ent with the i before it, ient; but this requires some little addition; o, therefore, is placed before the i, and oient is formed. This tense, then, is dansions, dansiez, dansoient.
The future, we shall dance, will require something more than ons; the whole infinitive is here taken, and the termination ons is added; thus we have danser, danserons, danserez, and danseront. From ont comes the infinitive danser, to dance. This future also has an imperfect, I would dance; i the sign for the imperfect being added, danserions, danseriez, danseroint, are obtained. If the word danserions be analysed, thus, danse | r | i | ons, it will be found that ons is the sign of the third person plural; i of the imperfect; and r of the future.
There are yet two more tenses to be considered. The first is the preterperfect, we have danced, or we danced. In Latin, the terminations are mus, stis, runt; the mus is softened into mes, as in parlames; the stis was formerly written parlastes, but as the s was not sounded, it was entirely dropped, and the i being softened, formed parlates; and runt was softened into rent, as in parlerent. In the imperfect of the subjunctive mood, the terminations are ssions, ssiez, and the third person would be ssoient; but that would be a longer terminations than the genius of the French language would allow, it is therefore shortened into ssent.
If the person, tense, etc. of the word fintriez, be required, it must be remembered that ez is the sign of the second person plural; that i is the sign of an imperfect tense, and of the future: it is therefore the second person plural of the future imperfect. In rendroit, t is the sign of the third person singular, of is the sign of the imperfect, and r of the future; it is then the third person singular of the future imperfect, and belongs to the conjugation ending in re.
A French verb which is termed irregular, is nevertheless derived regularly from the Latin. For example the verb plaire. This verb is evidently derived from the Latin placere: to convert this word into French, it must be curtailed, and the first step towards this, will be to leave out the e before the r; there will then be placre, but as e audr cannot combine together, and the r is absolutely necessary, the e must be dispensed with; the a being changed into the softer sound ai, which forms plaire. To form the different persons and tenses, it rentains only to reject the final e, and add the proper terminations.
The French verb connoitre is derived from the Latin cognoscere. We will now consider the various changes which take place during the process of derivation. In the word connoissance, which is also derived from cognoscere, the sc is changed into ss, and the o is shortened into oi, oiss: we then have cognoistere; but as there cannot be a double e, the first is taken away, because the latter is wanted for the infinitive termination; the word becomes then cognoissre: the being too weak by itself, it must be strengthened by a d or t; a t is preferred; the g is changed into u, and the double s is lost—at last connoitre is obtained.
In the future, the r is retained; as connoitrai, connoitras, etc. but in other tenses, the r is changed into its original s—je connois, tu connois, etc.
Another example may be found in mourir. In the Latin, there is for the infinitive, sometimes moriri, but generally mori To form mourir, the final i must be taken from moriri, and the o softened into ou; for the future, the ir is rejected, and we have je mourai—tu mouras, etc. In the present, the infinitive termination is omitted, and an s is added, as je mours, tumours; but as the ou is too long, it is changed into eu, as je meurs, etc. In the same manner, when in the Latin word dolor there are two short o's, they are strengthened and converted into ou and eu; as, dolor, douleur; color, couleur; and from dolorosus comes doaloureux.
When the Latin word debere is to be sought in French, the b must be changed into v (devere,) the second e being rejected, it becomes devre, but as the v and r cannot combine together, the termination re is changed into oir, devoir. This verb then is not regular, but regulated. It is impossible to obtain the future from devoir, as it is irregular, and must be derived from the regular verb devre. In the present, the r is rejected, and it becomes deus; but, as v and s cannot stand together, and as s is the personal character, it must remain, and the v be omitted; the word des is then left, but as the e is too weak, it must be strengthened by changing it into oi: we have then dois—je dois, tu dois, il doit. When in the plural there are two syllables, the e is restored, and devons, devez, doivent, are obtained.
It remains only to fix the conjugations. This may be easily done by observing which of the vowels, a, e, i, precedes the personal terminations rons, rez, ront. The Latin conjugations may be learned in the same way. In the verb aller, we do not, in the present tense, say j'alle, but je vais; the vais is not then derived from aller, but from the German, wenden. It takes part of the present from one verb, and the remainder from another. When the Latin verb habere is to be converted into French, the b is changed into v, and havere is formed; the h not being sounded in French, it is omitted, as avere; the first e is rejected, and the re being changed into oir, we bave avoir.
In the present, the oir would be s—avs; but v and s not combining together, the v must be omitted, and the a is softened into ai—making ais'; the s not being pronounced, it is therefore dropped; we have then ai—j'ai: the future comes from the infinitive avre; the v being resolved into; as avrai—aurai—auras—аurа. The second person singular always takes s for its character, as in Latin—habes—as=debes—dois. The third person last from the Latin, but as this letter was not pronounced in some cases, it has been dropped; yet is is again brought into use, when the nominative case is put after the verb, when two vowels would come together, as aima-t-il?—moura-t-il? When the nominative precedes the verb, the t is omitted.
The following observations showing the process of derivation in some particular languages, and the mode by which one letter is substituted for another, will serve to illustrate the subject upon which we have been treating. They are taken from Dr. Rces' Cyclopædia.[17]
"The substitution of a labial for an aspirate or a guttural, or a diphthong, forms a general principle which pervades the Latin tongue in its formation from the Greek. Hence vicus, a village, from οικος; vinum, wine from οινος; οvis, a sheep, from οις; video, to see, from είδω. With respect to our own language a similar analogy prevails, which has converted a guttural into a labial; thus laugh is pronounced laff; enough, enuff; and most of those words which begin or end with y and w, whether derived from Hebrew, Greek, or Gothic, began or ended with a guttural. On this general principle year may safely be said to be derived directly, or indirectly, from γυρος, a circle, and means a period, or revolution of time; wheel from κυλίω to roll, etc. etc.
"The prefixing of the letters to Greek words is a principle that pervades the Latin tongue; as in sperno, to despise, from πτέρνη, the heel; thus the primary sense of sperno is, to put the heel upon; on the same principle is salio, insilio, insult, taken from άλλομαι. The French generally drop the gutturals either in the middle or at the end of words; hence we should be justified by an invariable analogy in saying, that eau, water, is from aqua, and seal from singulus. The Italians generally drop the liquid l; agreeably to this custom of the language, fiume is derived from flumen, a stream, and piano from planus, a plain. In German, most of those words which have t in English, are used with an s; as waser, water; besser, better; es, it: and the corruption of m into j or v, is a principle that runs through the Welsh tongue; thus, ve, voer, and vayr, are but the Latin words, me, mare, and major."
We shall conclude this section with some excellent rules given by Mr. Greenwood[18], for ascertaining when an English word is derived from Latin, and how it may be made Latin again.
1. Most English words, ending in nce, or cy, are derived from Latin words in tia; Temperantia, Clemen tia; Temperance, Clemency.
2. Words in ion, in English, are made Latin by casting away n; as, Question, Questio; Religion, Religio.
3. Words ending in ty are made Latin by changing ty into tas; as, Liberty, Libertas; Charity, Charitas.
4. Words ending in ude are derived from the Latin, by changing o into e; Fortitude, Fortitudo; Gratitude, Gratitudo, etc.
5. Adjectives, which end in d, do for the most part become Latin, by the addition of us; as Rigid, Rigidus; Putrid, Putridus, etc.
6. Words ending in t, n, or r, between two vowels become Latin by changing the last vowel into us; as, Mute, Mutus; Obscure, Obscurus; Obscene, Obscanus, etc.
7. Most words ending in nt are made Latin, by changing nt into ns; as Latent, Latens; Vigilant, Vigilans, etc.
8. Many words ending in al, by the addition of is become Latin; as Liberal, Liberalis; Substantial, Substantialis.
Sect. 6.—Mode of learning the Conjugations and Declensions of a Language.
In the Latin infinitive are, ere, ire, are the terminations of the primary conjugations; there are two more in ĕre which are secondary. The first person singular is given by the termination o, as eo—deleo from delere; and io—audio fromaudiere; but we do not say amao from amare, but amo: a and o are two dependant vowels; the a is inerged in the o according to the genius of the language; for a labial cannot precede a lingual vowel. In eo and io there is first a lingual, and then a labial vowel, we consequently have:
amare—delere—audire—lambere -fugere
amo—deleo—audio—lambofugio
The preterperfect tense is terminated by vi, as amavi—delevi—audivi, except in the secondary conjugations which only change the o of the present tense into i; as lambo—lambi—fugio—fugi.
The supine is known by the termination tum, as, amatum—deletum—auditum—lambitum—fugitum. The personal characters are in the singular o (amo), m (amabam), s (amas-amabas, t (amat—amabat) ; and in the plural, mus, tis, nt, as (amamus, amatis, amant). The third person plural from ire is not int, but being softened in the pronunciation by the insertion of u, becomes iunt, as audiunt, fugiunt; and the secondary ĕre, as in lambere does not make lambent in the third person plural, but lambunt. The different tenses to be considered are the present, imperfect, preterperfect, preterpluperfect, and future; and there are two moods, the indicative and the subjunctive, each of which contains all the foregoing tenses.
In the present tense of the subjunctive mood when the vowel is a in the infinitive, itis changed into e; and when it is e in the infinitive, it becomes a in the subjunctive ; this may be thus
| remembered | 
|
amare—amem; delere— |
deleam; legere—legam. The character of the imperfect is ba in the indicative, and re in the subjunctive mood. The word bare will bring this to our recollection—amabam—amarem; delebam—delerem.
The character of the preterperfect is i in the indicative, except in the secondary verbs, and in the subjunctive is erim; amavi—amaverim; delevi—deleverim;—lambi—lamberim.
The preterpluperfect of the indicative is known by the termination veram, etc. except when the preterperfect is formed simply with i, in which case it is eram. The same tense in the subjunctive is vissem, or, issem:—amaveram—amavissem;—deleveram delevissem; legeram—legissem.
The future of the indicative is formed by bo in amo and deleo, and by am in lambo and fugio. In the subjunctive mood, the future termination is formed from the preterperfect indicative by the addition of ero throughout; as amabo—amavero—delebo—delevero; lambam—lambero.
The following tables of the Latin conjugations and declensions may be committed to memory, by placing them on a wall, a mantle-piece, a door, etc. preserving the situations of the moods, tenses, and declensions as described in the tables.
Table of the Latin Conjugations
| Infinitive terminations all in -re | āre | ěre | ēre | ěre | īre |
| amo | lago | deleo | fugio | audio | |
| Preterperfect | avi | i | evi | i | ivi |
| Supines | atum | tum | etum | tum | itum |
| Indicative Mood | Present o |
Imperfect ba |
Pret. perfect: vi |
Preterpluper. veram. |
Future -bo-bis -am-es |
| Subjunctive Mood | m | re | verim | vissem | vero-is |
| |||||
| Singular and plural endings of all tenses in the indicative and subjunctive moods[19] | Singular. 1. O-m2. s3. t |
Plural. 1. mus2. tis3. nt | |||
Table of the five Latin Declensions.
| Singular | 1. Mensa | 2. Dominus | 3. Sermo | 4. Servus | 5. Dies |
| Nom. | a | us | o—n | us | es |
| Gen. | æ | i | is | us | ei |
| Dat. | æ | o | i | ui | ei |
| Acc. | am | um | em | um | em |
| Abl. | a | o | e | u | e |
| Plural | |||||
| Nom. | æ | i | es | us | es |
| Gen. | arum | orum | um | um | erum |
| Dat. | is | is | ibus | ibus | ebus |
| Acc. | as | os | es | us | es |
| Abl. | is | is | ibus | ibus | ebus |
N.B. The Vocative is not inserted, because it is the same as the Nominative, except in the 2nd declension, where it makes e instead of us.
Sect. 7.—Particular Directionsfor the acquisition of a Language.
Having fixed the terminations of the declensions and conjugations, and observed the signs of the different cases, the student may proceed to the learning of a language. Supposing this to be the Latin language, an easy book must be first taken, for instance, a Latin Bible, and an English one, placed by the side of it. In the latter we read, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," etc. etc. In the Latin it is, In principio creavit Deus cælum et terram, etc.
The two versions having been compared, the first word is found to be the same in both; the second in the Latin (principium) does not resemble the English; its meaning may, however, be ascertained with tolerable accuracy from its situation; and as o is the sign of the ablative singular, there will not be much difficulty in discovering the translation of principium to be in the beginning.' The next word in Latin is creavit, this is found to be a verb by its termination; cre-a-vi-t is proved to be of the first conjugation by the character a; v shows it to be the preterperfect tense, and t gives the third person singular. It is impossible to err in assigning creavit its proper meaning; the word so nearly resembles the English created.
Who created? God created—Deus is the nominative. What did he create? the heaven and the earth: cælum et terram will immediately be presented to us; our cælestial and terrestrial cannot fail to give the meaning of these words, and the final m will point out to us that they are in the accusative case.
In this manner, we should proceed for two or three pages, and then read them for three or four times more, till we can translate with tolerable facility. We do not consult grammars to learn the rules, but merely to solve any difficulty that may occur. In the present mode, the grammar is learned in the language, and not the language in the grammar. Every rule is an abstraction, and cannot be understood without an example. Instead of long rules we learn examples, and these should be fixed upon the walls of a room in proper order.
The striking analogy between many modern languages, and the consequent facility of acquiring several languages, at the same time, must be evident to every one. This is particularly the case with the English, German, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portugueze languages.
- ↑ Beattic on Language, in his Dissertations, pp.304-206, 4°.
- ↑ Lecture on the Theory of Language, p. 287, and seq.
- ↑ This conjecture, as Dr. Gregory states in a note, is confirmed by a criticism of Mr. Bryant, who remarks, in his analysis of Ancient Mythology, that שפה really signifies lip, and that consequently the miracle was not any alteration in the language, but a failure or incapacity in labial utterance, which, soon after their separation, they recovered.
- ↑ Priestley's lectures on Language, p. 43.
- ↑ In the preface to Dr. Jobusou's English Dictionary (from which this account is extracted) a specimen may be seen of his reformed orthography. The want of proper types, however, renders it impossible to exhibit this and other specimens here.
- ↑ The languages of Europe have one instance of this kind of writing. Their arithmetical figures, which were derived from the Arabians, are significant marks precisely of the same nature as the universal characters above mentioned. They have no dependence on words; but each figure represents an object—represents the number for which it stands: and accordingly, on being presented to the eye, is equally understood by all the nations, who havę agreed in the use of those cyphers—by Italians, Spaniards, French and English, however different the languages of those nations are from one another, and whatever different names they give in their respective languages, to each numerical cypher.—Blair on the Belles Lett. Lect. vii.
- ↑ Vol. xvi. p. 126.
- ↑ Vol. ii. p. 357. ed. Lond. 1896.
- ↑ Mr. Webster states, that the Doctor, amidst all his other employments, public and private, actually compiled a Dictionary on this scheme of reform, and procured types to be cast for printing it. But it never was printed.
- ↑ Dissertations on the English Language, p. 394.
- ↑ Propriety ascertained in her Picture, 40.
- ↑ Eundem olim (ph) sonum habuisse ac f inscriptiones veteres confrmant, in quibus alterum pro altero promiscue adhiberi cernimus: ut phidelis pro fidelis.—Middleton de Lat. Liter. Pron. Disc.
- ↑ Wallis observes, that the Latin k was formerly used for c: for the Romans wrote indifferently Calendæ and Kalendæ.
- ↑ Grammatica Anglicana, p. 35.
- ↑ Critical Pronouncing Dictionary.
- ↑ 'Propriety ascertained in her Picture,' p. 3.
- ↑ Art. Etymology.
- ↑ Essay toward a Practical English Grammar, p. 212.
- ↑ Except 1st and 2nd person singular of the Preterperfect.