Chapter II: Part 2

Within a few years, an attempt has been made to trace the origin of the Irish nation, to the Carthaginians. The author of a small work, entitled "An Essay on the Antiquities of Ireland," has examined, in a play of Plautus, the Punic speech which has the marks of being the genuin language of Carthage, and has collated it with the ancient Irish. In this speech there is a surprising affinity between the languages.[B]

But without running into a field of conjecture, it is sufficient for my purpose to observe, that the Irish, the Erse, and the language spoken on the Isle of Man, are indisputably the same, and must have been very ancient: That the Welsh, the Cornish, and the Armoric are now a distinct language, and unquestionably the remains of the Celtic, or that language which was common to Gaul and Britain, when they were invaded by Julius Cesar. The Irish and the British may be as distinct as the Hebrew and the British, and yet a critical etymologist may discover in both, common radicals enough to convince him that both are the offspring of the same parent.

Hitherto our researches have thrown but little light upon the present English language. For the substance of this we must look to the Saxon branch of the Teutonic.[17]

The Teutones and Goths or Getæ were the nations that inhabited the north of Europe. They were in a rude state and had no historical records by which their descent could be ascertained. They however had a class of men under the denomination of _Scalds_ or _Bards_, whose business it was to recount in verse the illustrious actions of their heroes, and to preserve their traditions. These _Scalds_ all agree that their ancestors came from the east;[18] and it is well known also that Herodotus mentions the _Germans_ as a Persian people.[19] It is probable that they extended their settlements gradually, or were driven from Asia by the Roman invasions under Pompey, during the reign of Mithridates, and under the conduct of Odin, their hero and lawgiver, established themselves on the shores of the Baltic.

From these nations proceeded those fierce and numerous warriors, who, under different leaders invaded and subdued all the southern parts of Europe; changed the government, the manners and the language of the primitive inhabitants, and gave them their present complexion. The Saxons, who inhabited the northern parts of Germany, or Denmark, were the tribe that conquered England, and introduced a language and a form of government, the principles of which are still existent among their descendants, both in England and America. This happened in the fifth and sixth centuries.

Our language is therefore derived from the same stock as the German, the Dutch, the Danish, the Swedish, and the Swiss. Of all these branches, the German is perhaps the principal, and that which has suffered the least by the violence of conquest or the changes of time. Between this and the pure English, there is a close affinity, as may be observed by any person indifferently well acquainted with both.

From the establishment of the Saxons in England, to the Norman conquest, the language of the country suffered but little variation. The invasions of the Danes and their government of the kingdom, during a short period, could not but affect the language, yet not materially, as the island suffered a change of masters, rather than of people or laws; and indeed the Danes themselves spoke a dialect of the Saxon language.

But the conquest by William, the Norman, in 1066, introduced important changes into the language, as well as the government of the English nation. William was followed by multitudes of his countrymen; these formed his court, and filled the rich livings, temporal and ecclesiastical, which were forfeited or left vacant by the death of their former possessors who were slain in the battle of Hastings. The language of the conquerors, which was a mixture of Latin and Norman, immediately became fashionable at Court, and was used in all legislative and judicial proceedings. It continued to be the polite and law language of the nation about three centuries; when, in the thirty sixth year of Edward III.[20] an act of parliament was passed, ordaining that in future all pleas in courts should be made in English and recorded in Latin. In the preamble to this act, the reason assigned for making it is, "that the people of the realm did not understand French."[21]

This proves that the Norman French was spoken only by the nobility, who were mostly of Norman extraction, and by the higher orders of men in office, at court, or in the cities. The body of the people, defendants of the Saxons, still retained their primitive tongue.[22] During this period, when French was the polite, and Saxon the vulgar language of the English, the Latin was also understood by the learned, who were mostly the regular and secular clergy. On the revival of literature in Europe, Latin was studied with classical correctness, and the number and excellence of the Greek and Roman authors, with the elegance of the languages, have recommended them to the attention of succeeding generations. The records of parliament and of judicial proceedings were kept in Latin, from the thirty sixth of Edward III. to the fourth of George II.[23] when, by act of parliament, the _English_ was ordered to be the language of the _English_ laws and public records. Of these three languages, the Saxon, the Norman French and the Latin, our present English is composed.

The incorporation of the Roman and other foreign tongues with the English, took place principally under the first Norman kings. It was attended with some difficulty, and Chaucer has been censured by his cotemporaries for introducing cartloads of French words into his writings.[24]

Language is the effect of necessity, and when a nation has a language which is competent to all their purposes of communicating ideas, they will not embrace new words and phrases. This is the reason why the yeomanry of the English nation have never adopted the improvements of the English tongue. The Saxon was competent to most of the purposes of an agricultural people; and the class of men who have not advanced beyond that state, which in fact makes the body of the nation, at least in America, seldom use any words except those of Saxon original.

But as men proceed in the progress of society, their ideas multiply, and new words are necessary to express them. They must therefore either invent words, or combine those before used into compounds, or borrow words of suitable import from a foreign language. The latter method was principally pursued by the English. The learned of the nation spoke and wrote Latin, which had been the language of a polite and improved nation, and consequently abounds with terms in the various arts and sciences. When the English found their native tongue deficient, they had recourse to the Roman or Greek, where they were immediately supplied with words, expressive of their new ideas, and easily conforming to the genius of the English language.

The English retained its Saxon appearance till the twelfth century.[C] From this period to Chaucer, who wrote in the reign of Edward III. about the year 1360 or 70, the changes were slow and gradual. Chaucer was a man of a very liberal education; well versed in the Greek and Roman authors; and his mind had been improved by his travels. His genius and acquirements led him to stray from the common stile of writing, and enrich his verse with the elegance of the _Provençal_ language, at that time the most polished in Europe.[25] His abilities, his reputation and his influence at court, enabled him, in opposition to his adversaries, to introduce many beauties and much energy into our language.[D]

From Chaucer to Addison our language was progressively refined, and enriched with a variety of words, adequate to all its uses among a people highly improved. The French language has furnished us with military terms; the Dutch with sea phrases; the Greek and Roman with words proper to form and polish the poetical, historical and rhetorical stiles, and with terms in mathematics, philosophy and physic; the modern Italian has supplied us with terms in music, painting and sculpture; and in the Saxon, the ground-work of the whole, the yeomanry find all the words for which they have any use in domestic life or in the agricultural and most simple mechanical employments.

In this progress, the language has not only been enriched with a copious supply of words, but the accent of words has generally been established in such a manner as to render pronunciation melodious. The spoken language is also softened, by an omission of the harsh and guttural sounds which originally belonged to the language, and which are still retained by the Germans, Scotch and Dutch. At the same time, it is not, like the French, enervated by a loss of consonants. It holds a mean between the harshness of the German, and the feebleness of the French. It has more smoothness and fluency than the northern languages, and less music in its vocal sounds, than the Spanish and Italian. As the English have attempted every branch of science, and generally proceeded farther in their improvements than other nations, so their language is proportionably copious and expressive.

REMARKS.

Having given this general history and the present state of the language, I proceed to some remarks that naturally result from the subject.

1. The primitive language of the English nation was the Saxon, and the words derived from that, now constitute the ground-work of modern English. Hence all the rules of inflection, and most of the rules of construction, are Saxon. The plural terminations of nouns, the variations of the pronouns, the endings which mark the comparison of adjectives, and the inflections of the verbs, are wholly of Teutonic origin. For this reason, the rules of grammatical construction and the propriety of particular phrases, can be ascertained only by the ancient Saxon, and the modern English writings. The Greek and Roman languages were constructed on different principles, which circumstance has not been sufficiently attended to, by those who have attempted to compile English Grammars. The consequence is, that false principles have been introduced and taught as the rules of the English language, by which means very eminent writers have been led into mistakes.

2. It has been remarked that the common people, descendants of the Saxons, use principally words derived from the native language of their ancestors, with few derivatives from the foreign tongues, for which they have no occasion. This fact suggests the impropriety of writing sermons, or other discourses designed for general use, in the elevated English stile. To adapt a stile to common capacities, the language should consist, as much as possible, of Saxon words, or of Latin and French derivatives which are introduced into familiar discourse. The modern taste for introducing uncommon words into writings, for rounding periods, and rising into what is falsely called the elegant and sublime stile, has had an unhappy effect in rendering language obscure or unintelligible.[26]

3. The number and perfection of the languages from which the English is collected, must account for its copiousness and the multitude of synonimous words with which it abounds.

A primitive unmixed language rarely contains two words of the same signification. On the contrary, rude nations often use one word to express several ideas, which have some resemblance or analogy to each other, in the constitution of things.

From the poverty of a language proceed repetitions of the same word, to express an idea with particular force, or in the superlative degree. Hence the Hebraisms, as they are called, of the Bible; to _rejoice_ with _joy_; to _fear_ with great _fear_. This mode of speaking is frequent among all nations whose languages are imperfect.

But the English, on the other hand, abounds with synonimous terms, so that a repetition of _words_ is generally unnecessary, even when there is a necessity of repeating the _idea_ in the same sentence.

This copiousness, while it affords great advantages to a judicious writer, may also be abused, and become the cause of a prolix verbose stile. Instances of this fault occur in almost every author; it is one of the greatest, as well as most frequent faults in writing, and yet has scarcely been censured by critics.[27]

There are indeed but few instances in which two or three words express _precisely_ the same idea; but there are many instances of words conveying _nearly_ the same sense, which are thrown together by careless writers without the least occasion. Take for example a passage of Mr. Addison's Cato:

"So the _pure_, _limpid_ stream, when _foul_ with _stains_
Of rushing torrents and descending rains,
_Works_ itself _clear_ and as it runs _refines_,
Till by degrees the floating mirror shines."

_Pure_ and _limpid_ are here too nearly synonimous to be applied to the same object. The same objection lies to the use of "_foul_ with _stains_." Between _working clear_ and _refining_, there is perhaps no difference in idea: And the arrangement in the second line is objectionable, for the consequence is placed before the cause; _rushing torrents_ being the consequence of _descending rains_. Such an assemblage of synonimous words clogs and enfeebles the expression, and fatigues the mind of the reader. Writers of an inferior class are particularly fond of crowding together epithets. If they would describe a man they hate, he is a _low_, _vile_, _mean_, _despicable_, _contemptible_ fellow. If they would describe a man of an amiable character, he is the most _kind_, _humane_, _loving_, _tender_, _affectionate_ being imaginable. Epithets, so liberally bestowed, confuse our ideas and leave the mind without any distinct knowlege of the character.[E]

To a copiousness of language, on the other hand, may be ascribed the decline of action in speaking, and the want of animation. When nations have but few words to express their ideas, they have recourse to figures, to significant tones, looks and gestures, to supply the defect. Hence the figurative language of the Orientals of antiquity; hence the imagery of the Caledonian Bard;[28] the bold metaphorical language of the American natives, and the expressive tones and gesticulations that attend their speaking.

To this cause also must we ascribe the music of the Greek language, and the action which accompanied the rehearsals on the stage. What was the effect of necessity at first, became afterwards a matter of art. This was the origin of the pantomime. Modern operas are also an imitation of the ancient musical rehearsals of the theater.[29]

But as languages become rich and furnish words for communicating every idea, action must naturally cease. Men will not give themselves the pain of exerting their limbs and body to make themselves understood, when a bare opening of their lips will answer the purpose. This may be assigned as one principal cause of the decline of eloquence in modern ages, particularly among the English.

To the same cause, in part, may we ascribe the difference in the French and English manner of speaking. It is a common observation, that the French use more action and are more animated in conversation, than the English. The cause usually assigned, is, the natural vivacity of the French nation; which appears to me not satisfactory; for the Germans, who resemble the French, in some degree, in their manner of speaking, are nevertheless a more grave people than the English.

I suspect that the difference may in part be thus accounted for. The French, tho by no means a barren language, wants words to express many ideas, for which the English is provided. For example, the English has two forms for the future tense of verbs; _shall_ and _will_; each of which has a distinct meaning. _Shall_ expresses event in the first person, and promise, command or threatning in the second and third. _Will_, in the first person, promises; in the second and third, foretells. The French has no such distinction. The phrase _je lui payerai_, the only form of the future, cannot convey such distinct meanings, as _promise_ and _event_, unless accompanied with some expressive tone or gesture. A Frenchman therefore, to express the force of the English, _I will pay_, must supply the want of a distinct word by action, or have recourse to a circumlocution. The same remark holds with respect to _would_ and _should_, which, in a variety of combinations, retain distinct significations.

The French has properly but one word, _plume_, for the three English words, _feather, en_ and _quill_. Its verbs have not such a variety of combinations to express the precise time of an action as the English. _J'ecris_ is the only phrase for the English, _I write_ and _I am writing_, which have distinct uses; and I do not know whether there is any phrase used in French which will exactly correspond with the English phrases answering to the inceptive verb of the Romans, _I am going to write_, or, _am about writing_.[30]

This solution of a difficulty, which has occurred to many people, in comparing the manners of the English and French, may not be the true one; but it appears rational. Other causes also have a material influence upon eloquence, particularly the form of government and the state of society. In these respects England and France may not be so favorable to the cultivation of oratory, as were the republics of Greece and Rome. But if a free government is the best soil for the growth of eloquence, why should it flourish in France rather than in England, which is said to be the fact with respect to pulpit eloquence? The genius of the nation may have its effect; but it is presumed, the state of the language may be considered as an auxiliary cause, if not a principal.

From the foregoing history of the language, we learn the causes of its incorrect orthography. The Saxon characters, some of which were Roman, both in shape and power, while others were peculiar to the language, continued in use till the fourteenth century. These were afterwards laid aside for the Old English characters, as they are usually called; which were introduced with the art of printing from Germany,[31] and continued in use, till within a century. But both the Saxon and German letters were much inferior to the Roman in the simplicity and elegance of their form; for which reason most of the European nations have rejected their primitive characters and adopted the Roman.[32]

In changing the characters of an alphabet, as well as in expressing the sounds of one language by letters of an other, some difficulty will often arise from the want of a perfect correspondence between the true sounds of letters in both. Altho there is, and must be, a great uniformity in the articulate sounds of all men, yet there are also differences peculiar to each nation, which others have not proper characters to express.

Thus the Romans, when they would express the sound of the Greek ~th~ and of ~ch~, for want of suitable characters, wrote _th_ and _ch_. We conclude from this circumstance, that the Greek sound of the former was that of _t_ followed by an aspirate, and the latter, that of _k_ with an aspirate. Yet it is very probable that the sounds were guttural in Greek, and not exactly represented by the Latin combinations _th_ and _ch_.

Thus two Saxon characters are represented in modern English, by the Latin combination _th_, as in _think_, _thou_. These Saxon characters were single letters and had distinct powers. We preserve the distinction of sounds to this day, but are subject to the inconvenience of having no mark by which the eye can discern that distinction.

On the other hand, _sh_ was usually written by the Saxons _sc_, as _sceaft_, shaft; _sceam_, shame; _sceal_, shall. What was the pronunciation of _sc_ cannot be determined; but it is evident that each letter had a distinct sound. It is most probable that before _a_, _o_, and _u_, _sc_ were pronounced _sk_, or _c_ might have had the force of _ch_ in _choose_. It is very clear that _c_ had this sound before _e_ and _i_; for the Saxon words in which _ch_ now precede _e_ or _i_, were formerly spelt with _c_ only; as _child_ from the Saxon _cild_; _chill_ from _cele_; _chink_ from _cinnon_, to gape; _chick_ from _cicen_. If therefore _c_ before _e_ and _i_ had the force of _ch_, _sceaft_ must have been pronounced _scheaft_, which would easily be softened down and contracted into _shaft_.

But whatever was the sound of _sc_ in the Saxon, the sound derived from it is now simple, and has no single character to represent it in our language; for the proper sounds of _s_ and _h_ combined, do not form the sound which we invariably annex to _sh_. By not retaining the primitive Saxon _c_ after _s_, we have probably lost the pronunciation and introduced an irregularity.

It is not certain however that a change of the alphabet was prior to the change of pronunciation; for the latter might have produced the former. But the effect is certain; we have a simple sound without a proper character, which is always an imperfection.[33]

We have therefore in English the two sounds of _th_, the aspirate in _think_, and the vocal in _this_, both of which are simple consonant sounds, peculiar to the language, and derived from two _single_ characters. Each ought still to be represented by a distinct single letter. _Sh_, on the other hand, express a simple sound, derived from _two_ separate Saxon consonants, which must have been originally pronounced as two letters. These irregularities must have been partly owing to a change of alphabet.[34]

Other irregularities have been occasioned by an injudicious application of the letters of one alphabet to the sounds of another language.

The Roman _c_ some writers suppose was hard, like _k_, before all the vowels and diphthongs. It certainly was so before all except _e_ and _i_; where, there is reason to suppose, it had the sound of _ch_ or _ts_. It is very evident that it had not the sound of _s_, which we now annex to it in _civil_, _cellar_. When the Roman alphabet, therefore, took place of the primitive English characters, the Greek _k_ should have been always written before _a_, _o_, _u_, as in _cat_, _cord_, _cup_; and _s_ before _e_ and _i_. Or _c_ should have been called _ke_, limited to one sound, and always used instead of _k_. If our ancestors had retained the Roman pronunciation of _c_ before _e_ and _i_, they would probably have spelt _cera_, _civilis_, _chera_, _chivilis_,[35] _ch_ having its English sound of _tsh_, as in _charm_. But if they pronounced these words as we do, they should have substituted _s_, _sera_, _sivilis_. In short, they should have limited every character to one sound; in which case, one of the three letters, _c_, _k_, _s_, would have been entirely omitted as useless. This would have delivered us from a large class of difficulties.

Whether the _ph_ and _ch_, in Greek derivatives, were originally introduced into English, because our ancestors preserved the aspirate; or whether the _h_ was retained merely to show the etymology of words, it is not easy to decide. The probability is, that these letters were never aspirated in English, but that _ph_ has ever been pronounced _f_, and _ch_ generally _k_; as in _Philip_, _chorus_. It is probable however that the Romans, from whom the English borrowed their characters, preserved the aspirate; for they very scrupulously retained the _h_ after _p_ and _c_; and they attempted to copy exactly the Greek pronunciation.[36] They borrowed all words in _ph_, _ch_ and _th_ from the Greeks. We have preserved the characters, but have mostly lost the aspirate; _ph_ has invariably the sound of _f_; _ch_, in Greek derivatives, generally that of _k_; and _th_ has become the representative of two simple consonants. With this change of pronunciation, the orthography should have changed; _philosophy_ should now be written _filosofy_; and _chorus_, _korus_; _th_ might become a single character and be called _Eth_.[F]

But it was the fate of our language to be shaken by violent revolutions, and abandoned to accident or the caprice of unskillful heads. The operation of imperceptible causes, common to all languages, in all ages, has also been gradually changing the spelling and pronunciation.

In Chaucer's time, the infinitive mode and plural number of verbs, in the present tense, ended often in _en_; as _loven_, for _to love_ or _they love_. But _loveth_ was sometimes used in the plural, and _n_ began to be omitted in the infinitive. The French termination _esse_, as in _Goddesse_, _richesse_, was used, and the final _e_ was often pronounced. The plural number of nouns usually ended in _es_, as _houndes_; and in the same manner terminated the genitive case. Nouns now ending in _y_, ended then in _ie_, as _storie_; _y_ was still prefixed to participles, as _ybent_; and _y_ was often used where we now write _g_, as _yeve_ for _give_.

From that period the orthography was still varying, at least in some particulars, till the beginning of the present century. The group of eminent writers who were cotemporary with Swift, gave great stability to the spelling; yet some good authorities differ from them in several points. Johnson, who has been usually followed by succeeding compilers of dictionaries, preserves the _u_ in _honour_, _favour_, and similar words; as also the final _k_ in _publick_, &c. Ash, followed by many writers, very properly restores these words to the Roman spelling, by omitting the _u_ and _k_. Excepting these particulars, the orthography of our language is nearly fixed.

The pronunciation has been neglected till a few years ago; when Sheridan and Kenrick, with several compilers of less note, attempted to give us a standard. Unluckily they have all made the attempt on false principles; and will, if followed, multiply the anomalies, which already deform the language and embarrass the learner.[37]

The language, is composed of a variety of materials, and it requires some labor to adjust the parts and reduce them to order.

To accomplish this purpose, we must search for such principles of analogy as still exist in its construction, and make them the pillars of a regular system. Where such principles cannot be found, let us examin the opinions of the learned, and the practice of the nations which speak the pure English, that we may determine by the weight of authority, the _common law_ of language, those questions which do not come within any established rules.

FOOTNOTES:

[2] Even supposing that a number of republics, kingdoms or empires, should within a century arise and divide this vast territory; still the subjects of all will speak the same language, and the consequence of this uniformity will be an intimacy of social intercourse hitherto unknown, and a boundless diffusion of knowlege.

[3] This disposition is taken notice of by Dr. Blair, Lect. 8. Where he observes, "that tho the formation of abstract or general conceptions is supposed to be a difficult operation of the mind, yet such conceptions must have entered into the first formation of languages"--"this invention of abstract terms requires no great exertion of metaphysical capacity"--"Men are _naturally_ inclined to call all those objects which resemble each other by one common name--We may daily observe this practised by children, in their first attempts towards acquiring language."

I cannot, with this great critic, call the process by which _similar_ objects acquire the _same_ name, an act of _abstraction_, or the name an _abstract term_. Logical distinctions may lead us astray. There is in the mind an _instinctive disposition_, or _principle of association_, which will account for all common names and the analogies in language.

[4] The progress of corruption in language is described with precision, and philosophical reasons assigned with great judgement, by that celebrated French writer, Condillac, in his Origin of Human Knowlege, Part 2.

"It is nearly the same here as in physics, where motion, the source of life, becomes the principle of destruction. When a language abounds with original writers in every kind, the more a person is endowed with abilities, the more difficult he thinks it will be to surpass them. A mere equality would not satisfy his ambition; like them he wants the pre-eminence. He therefore tries a new road. But as every stile analogous to the character of the language and to his own, has been already used by preceding writers, he has nothing left but to deviate from analogy. Thus in order to be an original, he is obliged to contribute to the ruin of a language, which, a century sooner, he would have helped to improve.

"Tho such writers may be criticized, their superior abilities must still command success. The ease there is in copying their defects, soon persuades men of indifferent capacities, that they shall acquire the same degree of reputation. Then begins the reign of strained and subtle conceits, of affected antitheses, of specious paradoxes, of frivolous and far-fetched expressions, of new-fangled words, and in short, of the jargon of persons, whose understandings have been debauched by bad metaphysics. The public applauds; foolish and ridiculous writings, the beings of a day, are surprisingly multiplied; a vicious taste infects the arts and sciences, which is followed by a visible decrease of men of abilities."

One would think that Condillac had designed here to give a description of the present taste of the English writers, and a state of their literature.

The foregoing sentiments seem to have been borrowed from Velleius Paterculus. Hist. Rom. L. 1. Cap. 17.

The same passage is copied by Sig. Carlo Denina, Professor of Eloquence and Belles Lettres in the University of Turin, in his "Revolutions of Literature," page 47; and if I mistake not, the sentiments are adopted by Lord Kaims, in his Sketches of the History of Man.

Similar reasons may be assigned for the prevalence of an affected and vitious pronunciation.

[5] Dr. Witherspoon is an exception. His stile is easy, simple and elegant. I consider Dr. Franklin and Dr. Witherspoon as the two best writers in America. The words they use, and their arrangement, appear to flow spontaneously from their manner of thinking. The vast superiority of their stiles over those of Gibbon and Gillies, is owing to this circumstance, that the two American writers have bestowed their labor upon _ideas_, and the English historians upon _words_.

[6] The same taste prevailed in Rome, under the Emperors, when genius was prostituted to the mean purposes of flattery. "It must be acknowleged indeed, that after the dissolution of the Roman republic, this art began to be perverted by being too much admired. Men grew excessively fond of the numerous stile, and readily sacrificed the strength and energy of their discourse to the harmony of their language. Pliny the younger often complains of this contemptible affectation: And Quintilian speaks of certain prose writers in his time, who boasted that their compositions were so strictly numerous, that their hearers might even beat time to their measures. And it should seem that even in Tully's time, this matter was carried to excess; since even then the orators dealt so much in numbers, that it was made a question, wherein they differed from the Poets."----Mason's Essay on the Power and Harmony of Prosaic Numbers. Introduction, page 4.

This was an abuse of the art. Melody should be studied; but not principally.

[7] Wallis, Johnson, Kenrick, Sheridan, with a multitude of inferior compilers.

[8] He found the inhabitants of the maritime towns somewhat civilized,[9] and in their manners resembling the Gauls, with whom they had some commercial intercourse. It is probable that the Britons came originally from the continent, from which their island is separated by a strait of no great extent.

[9] "Ex his omnibus, long esunt humanissimi, qui Cantium incolunt: Quæ regio est maritima omnis; _neque multum_ a Gallica differunt consuetudine."----Cesar De Bello Gallico, Lib. 5.

[10] Tacitus. Jul. Agric. Vit 11.

[11] "Erat autem prisca isthæc Gallis et Britannis communis lingua, ultra omnium historiarum memoriam antiquæ."----Wallis Gram.

[12] This is said upon the hypothesis, that the ancient Celtic or British had a common origin with the Hebrew, Phenician and Greek. For proofs of this, see the notes at the end.

[13] Temple's Introd. to Hist. of England.

[14] At the conquest of Belisle. See the Preface to Mallet's North. Antiq. page 23.

[15] Works, Vol. 3. Introd. to Hist. Eng.

[16] Indeed a good reason may be given for the apparent difference in the several branches of the old Celtic. In this language, words are declined by changing the initial letters, or by prefixing an article with an apostrophe. By these means, words are so altered, that a superficial observer may confound the radical letters, with those which are added for the sake of expressing different relations. Thus the British word _pen_ signifies, a head; _pen gûr_, a man's head; _i ben_, his head; _i phen_, her head; _y'm mhen_, my head. This by the way is no contemptible evidence that the British was derived from the Phenician or Hebrew, in the latter of which, words are declined by prefixes, as well as suffixes.

For the difference between the Irish and British, Lluyd assigns other reasons. The ancestors of the Irish and Highland Scots, who were called Guydelians, might have been the original Celts, who first inhabited Britain; and the Cymri or Welsh, another race, or a branch of the Celtic Cimbri, might, either by colonization or conquest, take possession of Britain, and introduce a very different dialect of the same radical language. The Irish language might be somewhat changed by Cantabrian words, imported by the Scots from Spain; and the Cymraeg or British might suffer considerable changes during 400 years subjection to the Romans. See Pref. to Mallet's North. Antiq. page 42.

[17] "Erat autem illa Anglo-Saxonum lingua antiquæ Teutonicæ propago, (nisi antiquæ Gothicæ seu Geticæ potius dixeris, unde forsan ipsa Teutonica duxerit originem) ut et Francica illa in Galliam advecta, et hodierna Germanica, Belgica, Danica, Suevica, Borussica, aliæque affines linguæ."----WALLIS.

[18] Mallet's North. Antiq.

[19] "~Alloi de Persai eisi hoide, Panthelaioi, Derousiaioi, Germanioi~."----Herodotus in Clio. ed. 1570, page 34.

[20] 1362.

[21] In this act of Edward III. there is an express reservation in favor of particular law-phrases or technical terms, which, by long use, had acquired peculiar force and propriety, and whose place could not be well supplied by English words or phrases. Hence the number of French words still used in law proceedings.

[22] We have the testimony of Robert, Earl of Gloucester (who wrote under Henry III. and Edward I.) to this purpose. Page 364.

"Vor bote a man couth French, me tolth of hym well lute,
Ac lowe men holdeth to Englyss and to her kunde speeche yute."

For but a man knoweth French, men told of him well little, and lowe men holdeth to English and to their native tongue.---- That is, unless a man could speak French he was little esteemed.

[23] 1731.

[24] "Ex hac malefano novetatis pruritu, Belgæ Gallicas voces passim civitate sua donando patrii sermonis puritatem nuper non leviter inquinârunt, et Chaucerus Poeta, pessimo exemplo, _integris vocum plaustris ex eadem Gallia in nostram linguam invectis_, eam, nimis antea a Normannorum victoriæ adulteratam, omni fere nativa gratia et nitore spoliavit."----Skinner Etymol. L. A. Pref.

[25] Raimond IV. of Aragon, count of Provence, rendered his Court a temple of the muses, and to this resorted the lovers of the Belles Lettres from every part of Europe. About the year 1300, a taste for the Provençal language and poetry was imbibed in Italy, and soon after in England.--Denina, Chap. 4.

[26] A remarkable example of this kind of stile, we have in Elphinstone's principles of the English Language. The author has taken great pains to be obscure, and has succeeded to admiration.

Of this kind of stile, the reader may see a specimen in the following passage, taken from Young's spirit of Athens. Page 6.

"Surely, in every mind, there is an emulation of virtuous superiority, which, however fortune or the meaner passions may hebitate its powers, still, at every example of success in the particular object of its predilection, glows into a momentary flame, which from frequent resuscitation may acquire a stability and strength sufficient to reach at the attainment of what, at first, was regarded solely as matter of admiration; the idea of imitation which hath thus enraptured the fancy, may in times of perilous crisis somewhat elevate the mind and influence the conduct; and if such ever may be the effect, what other lecture can ballance the utility of that, which thus animates the man, and urges him to noble and disinterested services in a good, great and public cause."

The author could hardly have invented an arrangement, better calculated to obscure his meaning.

It is said of Moliere, that before he would suffer a new play of his to be acted, he read it to an old woman, and judged, by the effect it had upon her, what reception it would meet with on the stage. It is a pity, some modern writers do not copy the example.

[27] Dr. Blair has made a few excellent remarks on this fault, under the article _Precision_, Lecture 10. I do not remember to have seen any other criticisms upon this subject.

[28] Ossian.

[29] See Blair, Lecture 6, and Condillac, in his Essay on the Origin of Human Knowlege. The _dancing_ of David, and others, mentioned in the Old Testament, was a solemn exercise, in which action was joined with words to express ideas.

It is said to have been a dispute between Cicero and Roscius, whether the former could express an idea by a greater variety of _words_, or the latter by a greater variety of _gesture_.----"Satis constat, contendere cum (Ciceronem) cum ipso histrione (Roscio) solitum, utrum ille sæpius eandem sententiam variis gestibus efficeret, an ipse per eloquentiæ copiam sermone diverso pronunciaret."----Macrob. Saturn, 2. 10.

[30] I cannot think the French _devenir_ prefixed to a verb answers exactly to both these English forms. The deficiency of the French in this respect, may be observed in the following passage:

"S'il est vrai que vous _aimiez_ la justice, & que vous _alliez_ en Créte pour apprendre les loix du bon roi Minos, n'endurcissez point votre coeur contre mes soupirs & contre mes larmes."----Telemaque, Liv. 4.

If we translate the passage thus: "If it is true that you _love_ justice and _go_ to Crete," &c. we lose the force of the verb _alliez_; for the sense is evidently, _are going_, _are now on your journey_. "If it is true that you _love_ justice and _are going_ to Crete," &c.

In French the verbs _aimiez_ and _alliez_ are both in the same tense, and have the same form of construction; in English the verbs should be in the same tense, but have different forms of construction. In French the force of _alliez_ is collected from the sense of the passage; but in English, it is expressed by a particular construction.

[31] On the first invention of printing, letters were cut in wood and fixed. They were afterwards engraved upon metal, still fixed. The third stage of improvement was the casting of moveable types. It is probable that this was a work of labor and expense; and it must have been a long time, before they cast more than one kind of character. Hence the German character was used in England.

[32] The Germans and Dutch are exceptions: They use their old characters in their own language; but they use the Latin character and language in works of science.

[33] This may be supplied by uniting the two characters _s_ and _h_ in one, and naming the combination _Esh_.

[34] The Germans, who invented printing, had not proper types for the two Saxon or English characters; they therefore made use of _th_ as a substitute for both, which defect we have not yet supplied.

[35] Or _tsera_, _tsvilis_.

[36] "Eundem olim (_ph_) sonum habuisse ac _f_ inscriptiones veteres confirmant, in quibus alterum pro altero promiscue adhiberi cernimus: ut _phidelis_" (pro fidelis.)---- Middleton de Lat. Liter. Pron. Dis.

Our letter _f_ has some degree of aspiration in its sound; but had its original Roman sound been precisely that of the Greek ~Ph~ _phi_, it is probable that _f_ would have been wholly used in derivatives where the _phi_ occurred. I suspect that _ph_ in Latin must have been originally more strongly aspirated than _f_; but the transition from the sound of the one to that of the other was easy, and the distinction was gradually lost.

[37] We may except Kenrick, who has paid some regard to principles, in marking the pronunciation.

DISSERTATION II.

_Of the English Alphabet._--_Rules of
Pronunciation._--_Differences of Pronunciation and controverted
Points examined._

_Of the_ ENGLISH ALPHABET.

From a general history of the English language, and some remarks upon that subject, I proceed to examin its elements, or the powers of the letters which compose our alphabet.

There are in English, twenty five characters or letters which are the representatives of certain sounds, either simple or combined; a, b, c, d, e, f, g, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z. The English have also the character _h_, which marks an aspiration or strong breathing, but has very little sound of its own.[G]

Letters, according to the sounds they represent, or the purposes they serve, are very naturally divided into three kinds; _vowels_, _dipthongs_, and _consonants_.

In order to obtain clear ideas of our alphabet, let us attend to the following definitions:

1. A vocal sound, formed by opening the mouth, and by a single position of the organs of speech, is a simple sound or vowel. Most of the vowels in English are capable of being prolonged at pleasure, without varying the position of the organs.

2. No more than one simple sound can be formed by one aperture of the mouth, and one position of the organs of speech. The only difference that can be made with the same position of the organs, is, to prolong and shorten the same sound.

3. Two simple sounds, closely united in pronunciation, or following each other so rapidly that the distinction is scarcely perceptible, form a dipthong. In pronouncing a dipthong, two positions of the parts of the mouth are required.

4. Those letters which are not marks of articulate sounds, but represent indistinct sounds, formed by some contact of the parts of the mouth, or by compressing those parts, check all sound, are denominated consonants.

By the first definition we ascertain the number of vowels in English. In pronouncing each of the letters [1a], [4a], [3a], [1e], [1o], [6o], [2u], we observe but one position or aperture of the mouth; the sounds are therefore simple, and the letters are called _vowels_. The six first sounds are capable of being prolonged at pleasure.

By the second definition, we determine which sounds are the same in quality, and different only in the time of being pronounced. Thus _i_ in _fit_ has the same quality of sound as _ee_ in _feet_, for both are pronounced with the same disposition of the organs; but the first is the shortest articulation of the sound, and the last, a long or grave articulation. The other vowels have also their short or abrupt sounds; _a_ in _late_ has its short sound in _let_; _a_ in _cart_ has its short sound in _carry_; _a_ in _fall_ has its short sound in _folly_; _oo_ in _fool_ its short sound in _full_. _O_ is sometimes shortened in common parlance, as in _colt_; but the distinction between _o_ in _coal_ and _colt_, seems to be accidental or caused by the final consonant, and not sufficiently settled or important to require a separate consideration.

By the third definition we are enabled to ascertain the dipthongs in our language. The letters _i_, _u_ and _y_ are usually classed among the vowels; but the first or long sound of each requires, in pronunciation, two positions of the organs of speech, or rather a transition from the position necessary to form one simple sound, to the position necessary to form another simple sound. We begin the sound of _i_ nearly with the same aperture of the glottis, as we do the broad _a_ or _aw_: The aperture however is not quite so great: We rapidly close the mouth to the position where we pronounce _ee_, and there stop the sound. This letter is therefore a dipthong. _Y_ has no property but what belongs to _i_.

_U_ also is not strictly a vowel; nor is it, as it is commonly represented, composed of _e_ and _oo_. We do not begin the sound in the position necessary to sound _ee_, as is obvious in the words _salute_, _salubrious_, _revolution_; but with a greater aperture of the mouth and with a position perfectly easy and natural. From that position we pass to the position with which we pronounce _oo_, and there close the sound.

It must however be observed that when these letters, _i_, _u_, are followed by a consonant, the two sounds of the dipthong are not clearly distinguishable. We do not, in _fight_, hear the sound of _ee_; nor the sound of _oo_ in _cube_. The consonant compresses the organs and closes the sound of the word so suddenly, that the ear can distinguish but a simple vocal sound: And notwithstanding these letters are dipthongs, when considered by themselves, yet in combination with consonants, they are often marks of simple sounds or vowels.

The short sound of _i_ and _y_, is merely short _ee_. The sound of _u_ in _tun_, is a separate vowel, which has no affinity to any other sound in the language.[H]

The sound of _oi_ or _oy_ is dipthongal, composed of the third or broad _a_, and _ee_. The sound of _ou_ or _ow_ is also dipthongal, compounded of third _a_ and _oo_. The sound however does not require quite so great an aperture of the mouth as broad _a_; the position is more natural, and the articulation requires less exertion.

The union of _a_ and _w_ in _law_, has been very erroneously considered a dipthong. Whatever might have been the ancient pronunciation of these letters (and it is probable that good reasons operated to produce their union) they now exhibit but one simple vocal sound. The same may be observed of _ee_, _oo_, _au_, _ai_, _ea_, _ei_, _ie_, _eo_, _oa_, and perhaps some other combinations, each of which actually exhibits the sound of one letter only, which sound is as simple as that of _a_ or _o_.[38]

Under the head of dipthongs we may perhaps range _wa_, _we_, _wo_, _wi_, &c. _W_ has nearly the short sound of _oo_; for _will_, _dwell_ are pronounced as if written _ooill_, _dooell_. It is a controverted point, whether _w_ should be classed with the vowels or consonants. I shall only observe, that it is pronounced by opening the mouth, without a contact of the parts; altho, in a rapid pronunciation, it approaches to a consonant.[I] It is however very immaterial, whether we class it with the vowels or consonants; as all grammarians agree that its sound is that of _oo_ short. It ought to be named _oo_ or _we_; which would save children much of the trouble they now experience, in learning its proper sound from that awkward name _double u_.

The sound of _y_ in the beginning of words, is, by some writers, called a vowel, but by most of them a consonant. Lowth has asserted, that it has every property of a vowel and not one of a consonant. Sheridan considers _y_ in _youth_, _year_, &c. as the short _ee_. But if these writers would attend to the manner in which we pronounce _yes_, _ye_, they would acknowlege that _y_ has some property different from _ee_; for it is very evident that they are not pronounced _ee-es_, _ee-e_. The fact is, that in the American pronunciation of _y_, the root of the tongue is pressed against the upper part of the mouth, above the palate, more closely than it is in pronouncing _ee_, and not so closely as in pronouncing _g_ hard. The transition however from _y_ to _ee_ or to _g_, is extremely easy, and hence the mistake that _y_ is short _ee_, as also the convertibility of _y_ with _g_.[J] It appears to me that _y_ in the beginning of words, is more clearly a consonant than _w_.

In many words, _i_ has the power of _y_ consonant; particularly after _l_ and _n_; as _filial_, _union_.

The vowels therefore in English are all heard in the following words; late, half, hall, feet, pool, note, tun, fight, truth. The five first have short sounds or duplicates; which may be heard in let, hat, hot, fit, pull; and the letters _i_ and _u_ are but accidentally vowels. The pure primitive vowels in English are therefore seven.

The dipthongs may be heard in the following words; lie or defy, due, voice or joy, round or now. To these we may add _ua_ in _persuade_; and perhaps the combinations of w and the vowels, in _well_, _will_, &c.

The consonants in English are nineteen; but for want of proper characters, five of them are expressed or marked by double letters. We annex two sounds to _th_; one to _sh_; one to _ng_; and one to _si_ or _su_, as may be heard in the following words; think, this, shall, bring, confusion or pleasure. These characters should be called _eth_, _esh_, _eng_, _ezh_; and _th_ should have two names, the aspirate as in _think_, and the vocal as in _this_; the latter sound might be distinguished by a small mark drawn thro _th_. This improvement is so obvious and easy, and would be so convenient for the learners of the language, that I must believe it will soon be introduced.

The consonants may be divided into _mutes_ and _semivowels_. When a consonant compresses the lips, or the tongue and roof of the mouth, so closely as to check all sound, it is called a _perfect mute_: Such are _p_, _k_, and _t_, as may be perceived by pronouncing the syllables, _ep_, _ek_, _et_. When the compression of the organs is more gentle and does not stop all sound immediately, the letters are called mutes; such are _b_, _d_, and _g_, as may be perceived by pronouncing the syllables, _eb_, _ed_, _eg_. When a consonant has an imperfect sound, or hissing, which may be continued, after a contact of the organs, it is denominated a semivowel. Of this kind are ef, el, em, en, er, es, ev, ez, eth,[39] eth,[39] esh, ezh, ing. Of these, four are aspirates, ef, es, eth, and esh. The others are vocal, having an imperfect sound.

The whole may be thus arranged.

Perfect mutes---p, k, t.
Mutes-----------b, d, g.
vocal, } l, m, n, r, v, z, th,
Semivowels-- } zh, ng,
aspirate,} f, s, th, sh.

They may also be classed according to the manner in which they are formed by the organs: Thus, those formed

By the lips, are called labials--b, p, f, v.
By the teeth, are called dentals--d, t, th, z, s, sh, zh.
By the palate, are called palatine--g, k, l, r.
By the nose, are called nasal--m, n, ng.

On the subject of the alphabet, I have this remark further; that for want of a proper knowlege of the powers of _sh_ and _th_, some material errors in printing have obtained in common practice. _Sh_ are usually united in printing, and generally with propriety, for the combination represents a simple consonant. But in several compound words _s_ and _h_ have been improperly united, where one is silent or where each retains its own power, as in dishonor, dishonest, dishabille, hogshead, household, falsehood, and some others. The union of _sh_ in these words, is embarrassing, especially to children, who are led to pronounce them _dish-onor_, _dish-onest_. This error still prevails in printing, except in the last mentioned word, which is sometimes correctly printed _falsehood_.

_Th_, tho not united in character, have a tendency to produce, in some words, a wrong pronunciation. For instance, we are very apt to say _Wren-tham_ instead of _Wrent-ham_. _Hotham_ is also ambiguous; there is nothing in the orthography to direct us, whether to pronounce it _Hot-ham_ or _Ho-tham_, altho custom decides in favor of the latter.

These remarks show the propriety of attending to our orthography, and of attempting to remove causes of error, when it can be done without much trouble or danger of giving offence.

RULES _of_ PRONUNCIATION.

Having briefly explained the English alphabet, I proceed to the rules of pronunciation.

In pronunciation, two things demand our notice; the proper sounds of the vowels and consonants, and the accent.

In pronouncing both vowels and consonants, the general rule is, _that similar combinations of letters should be pronounced alike, except when general custom has decided otherwise_. Thus if _i_ in the words, _bind_, _find_, _mind_, has its first sound, it ought to have the same sound in other similar combinations, _kind_, _blind_, _grind_. This is the rule of _analogy_, the great leading principle that should regulate the construction of all languages. But as languages are not formed at once by system, and are ever exposed to changes, it must necessarily happen that there will be in all languages, some exceptions from any general rule; some departures from the principle of uniformity.