Chapter III: The Orthographic Situation (1)

I

THE PROBLEM

It is with a good deal of hesitation that I approach this part of my subject. To treat it fully, to consider it in all its details, would require a familiarity with the history of sounds, with their precise values, and with the proper way of representing these values, to which I can lay no claim. Though I have given some time to the study of this branch of the general question, I am well aware that my knowledge of it is not the knowledge of a professional, but of an amateur. It is only when I read the attempts of the assailants of spelling reform to write what they are pleased to call phonetically, that my own slender acquaintance with this field of research looms up momentarily before my eyes as endowed with colossal proportions. Fortunately, intimate familiarity with this particular part of the subject is not needed for the end had here in view. To point out the evils afflicting our present system is possible for him who is unable to prescribe a remedy. This is the special task which I set before myself in this section.

It is essential, in the first place, to have clearly before our minds the nature of the problem with which we are called upon to deal. The general statement about it may be and often is summarized in a few words. We are told that in English the same sound is represented by half a dozen signs, and the same sign is used to denote half a dozen sounds. This is all true. Unfortunately, to the vast majority of men it conveys no definite idea. It certainly would not bring clearly before them much conception of the real difficulty. Some of them would even be puzzled to explain what is meant here by the word _sign_. Most of them have no knowledge whatever of the number and quality of the sounds they use. This remark is not intended as a reproach. Their condition of ignorance is due to no fault of their own. The existing orthography does not content itself with hiding from the ordinary eye all knowledge of phonetic law; it puts a stumbling-block in the way of its acquisition. Accordingly, it does more than permit ignorance of the subject; it fosters it. Men are not led to consider even the most aggressively prominent facts of their own utterance. I have known intelligent young persons, of much more than ordinary ability, who had never learned as a matter of knowledge that the digraph _th_ has two distinct sounds; that were _thin_ pronounced as is _then_, or _then_ as is _thin_, we should have in each case another word than the one we actually possess. They had never confused the two in their usage, but as little had they been in the habit of remarking the difference between them. Consequently, when it was brought directly to their attention, it came upon them as a sort of surprise. If a distinction which lies on the very surface could so easily escape notice, what hope can be entertained of gaining a realizing sense of those subtler ones which abound on every side?

The first point, therefore, to be made emphatic is that there is a large number of sounds in the speech and but a limited number of signs in the alphabet. The number of sounds has been variously estimated. It depends a good deal upon the extent to which the orthoepic investigator is disposed to recognize differences more or less subtle and the weight he assigns to each. In general, it may be said that usually the lowest number given is thirty-eight, and the highest forty-four. A very common estimate puts them at forty-two. Exactness on this point is not necessary for the purpose here aimed at, and for the sake of convenience the whole number of sounds will be temporarily assumed to be forty, more or less. To represent these forty sounds we have nominally twenty-six letters. Really we have but twenty-three. Either _c_ or _k_ is supernumerary, as are also _x_ and _q_.

Here, then, lies the initial difficulty. The Roman alphabet we have adopted has not a sufficient number of letters to do the duty required of it. For us its inability has been further aggravated by the loss of two signs which the language had originally, or acquired early in its history. For the disappearance of these there was later in another quarter a partial compensation in the differentiation of _i_ and _j_, and of _u_ and _v_. Of the two vanished signs one was a Rune, called “thorn” or the “thorn letter,” þ, the other a crossed _d_, represented by ð. They were or could be used to represent the surd or hard initial sound heard in _thin_ just mentioned, and the corresponding sonant or soft sound heard in _then_. These two letters, unknown to the Roman alphabet, were allowed to die out of general use in the fifteenth century. Of both the digraph _th_ took the place. Yet in one way the so-called thorn letter has left behind a memorial of itself. Its form had something of a resemblance to the black-letter character _y_. Consequently, when “thorn” ceased to be used, _y_ was at times substituted for it. Especially was this true in the case of the words _the_ and _that_. These were frequently printed as _yᵉ_ and _yᵗ_. This form of the latter word disappeared after a while, not merely from use, but practically from remembrance. _Ye_, however, in the sense of _the_, but with its initial letter given the sound of _y_, is fondly cherished and sometimes employed by certain persons, who indulge in the delusion that by so doing they are writing and talking Old English.

The use of this one digraph to represent these two distinct sounds inevitably tends to create uncertainty of pronunciation, if not to produce confusion. We can see this fact exemplified in the case of such words as _tithe_ and _path_ and _oath_ and _mouth_. In these _th_ has in the singular the surd sound, in the plural the sonant. The proper way of pronouncing them has therefore to be learned carefully in each individual instance, for there is nothing in the spelling to indicate it. Usage in truth is very fluctuating with respect to some of the words in which this digraph appears. In consequence, the question of their pronunciation begets at times much controversy. Still, compared with the uncertainty attending other signs, the perplexities caused by this are of slight importance.

The lack of a sufficient number of signs to indicate the sounds is therefore the first difficulty to be encountered. But this is a defect which English shares with several tongues which have adopted the Roman alphabet. There is another characteristic which belongs to our language exclusively. This is the progressive movement which has gone on in the case of some of the vowel-sounds. In the historic development of English pronunciation several of these have lost their original values. This has caused them not merely to deviate from the sounds they once had in our own speech, but has also brought them out of harmony with those of the cultivated tongues of modern Europe. In none of these have the original values experienced any such disturbance. Such a condition of things is so peculiar to our language, it complicates the whole orthographic situation so thoroughly, that it demands first consideration in any discussion of the various problems that need to be solved. Let us give briefly, then, the most important facts in regard to the changes which have taken place in the history of these sounds.

II

MOVEMENT OF VOWEL-SOUNDS

The first vowel-sound of the alphabet--the _a_ heard in _father_ and _far_--has been aptly styled “the fundamental vowel-tone of the human voice.” But the noticeable fact about it in English is that it has not only gone largely out of use already, but that it tends to go out of use more and more. Once the most common of articulate utterances, it has now become one of the rarest. In reducing the employment of it English has gone beyond all other modern cultivated tongues. The decline in its use has been steady. “In the Sanskrit,” says Whitney, “in its long and short forms it makes over seventy per cent. of the vowels and about thirty per cent. of the whole alphabet.” In examining his own utterance he rated the frequency of its occurrence at a little more than half of one per cent. This may be taken as fairly representative of the fortunes which have generally befallen the sound. Different parts of the English-speaking world preserve it, indeed, in different degrees. In Great Britain--if I can take as typical of all persons the pronunciation of it furnished to my own ears by a few--it is retained more fully than in the United States. But even there it has for a long period been disappearing. There is no reason to suppose that with our present orthography this process will not continue to go on.

The loss of this sound would assuredly be a great calamity to the speech. The coming of that day may be distant; it is to be hoped that it will never come at all. Yet owing to the incapacity of our orthography to represent pronunciation strictly, and therefore hold it fast permanently, the sound is certainly in danger of following to the very end the road on which it has long been travelling. It shows every sign of steady though slow disappearance. Once it was heard generally in many classes of words where it is now never heard at all. Such, for instance, was the case when _a_ was followed by _n_, as in _answer_, _chance_, _dance_, _plant_; by _f_, as in _after_; by _s_, as in _grass_, _glass_, _pass_; by _st_, as in _last_ and _vast_. More than a century ago the lexicographer Walker contended that this sound must formerly have been always heard in these and such like words, because it was “still the sound given to them by the vulgar, who are generally the last to alter the common pronunciation.” There can be little doubt of the fact. In truth, Doctor Johnson distinctly specified _rather_, _fancy_, _congratulate_, _glass_ among others as having it. Walker added that “the short _a_ in these words”--those mentioned above--“is now the general pronunciation of the polite and learned world.” Hence, he felt justified in asserting that the ancient sound “borders very closely on vulgarity.”

This same result is showing itself in the instances where the vowel is followed by other letters or combinations of letters. Before _lf_ and _th_--which can be illustrated respectively by _calf_, _half_, and by _path_, _bath_--the original sound, once generally heard, has given way largely and is still giving way. There are certainly many parts of the English-speaking world where the older pronunciation of it would be the exception and not the rule. The most effective agent in retaining it is a following _r_. In this case the sound is heard in no small number of words, as may be seen, for illustration, in _bar_ and _car_. Another agency working for its retention, though far less powerful than the preceding, is a following _l_, as in _balm_ and _calm_. But in this second case the sound is even now threatened with extinction. It exhibits in many places weakness of hold upon the utterance. Hence, it may come to take the road already trodden by other words in which it once showed itself. In the case of some of these, as a result of diminishing use, the sound, when heard, for illustration, in words like _half_ and _calf_, is already looked upon by many as an affectation. Should such a feeling about it come not only to exist but to prevail when the vowel is followed by _lm_, its doom would be sealed. To hear _psalm_ pronounced as the proper name _Sam_ is still hateful to the orthoepically pure. Such a usage can as yet be politely termed a provincialism, or, insultingly, a vulgarism. Yet against the levelling tendency of an orthography which does not protect pronunciation, it is possible that the earlier sound of _a_ in these words may not be able to hold out forever.

So much for the first vowel of the alphabet. We are as badly off, though in a different way, when we come to the second. It emphasizes the degeneracy which has overtaken our whole orthographic and orthoepic system that the name we now give to the first vowel was originally and still is scientifically the long sound of the second. The respective short and long values of this are heard in the words _met_ and _mate_. In them are indicated the two sounds which the second vowel once had with us, and which it still retains in other cultivated tongues. The short sound continues to exist in all its primitive vigor, but the long sound is now very generally denoted by _a_. _E_ itself no longer has it, save in the exclamation _eh_, and in certain cases where it is followed by _i_ or _y_, such as _vein_ and _rein_, and _they_ or _obey_. Perhaps, indeed, it would be better to say that, strictly speaking, this letter by itself never indicates the sound at all; for the digraphs _ei_ and _ey_, as we shall see later, have various distinct values, and are therefore entitled to be considered independently.

A condition of things not essentially dissimilar can be reported of the next vowel. Its original corresponding short and long sounds would be exactly represented by those heard in the words _fill_ and _feel_. But the same transition or progression which has waited upon the second vowel has also attended the third. Its proper long sound has now become the name by which we regularly designate the second vowel. The fortunes of _i_ have accordingly been about the same as those of its predecessor _e_. Here again the genuine short sound has been preserved in its integrity and on a large scale. But the letter is now only occasionally used to denote the long sound it had originally. This employment of it occurs too mainly in comparatively recent words of foreign origin. These have brought with them to a greater or less extent the pronunciation they had in the tongue from which they came. Some of the most common of these words are _caprice_ and _police_; _fatigue_ and _intrigue_; _profile_; _machine_, _magazine_, _marine_, and _routine_; and _antique_, _critique_, _oblique_, and _pique_. Once too it belonged to _oblige_, and even to this day the pronunciation _obleege_ is occasionally heard.

What we call the third vowel is not a vowel, but a diphthong. We can see its sound and real character indicated in the Roman pronunciation of _Cæsar_, the German _kaiser_, or in the _ae_ of the Spanish _maestro_. Against this general movement it can be said that the long and short sounds of the fourth vowel are much nearer their originals. This is by no means true, however, of the fifth. The genuine corresponding long and short sounds of it can be seen represented in the words _fool_ and _full_. But we now almost universally apply the term “short _u_” to the neutral sound heard in _but_ and _burn_. This sound occurs on the most extensive scale. It has, in fact, come to be one of the most common in our pronunciation, as to it all the vowels of the unaccented syllables are disposed to tend. Even the sound of _u_ in accented syllables begins to show occasional traces of this degeneration. Who has not heard that provincial pronunciation of the verb _put_ which gives it the exact value of the initial syllable of _putty_? With nothing in our orthography to give fixity to orthoepy, there is little limit to the possibilities lying before this so-called “short _u_” in the way of displacing other sounds.

Let us now summarize the facts of the situation. The primal sound of the first vowel is on the road to complete disappearance. The long sound of the second vowel has usurped the name and in part the proper functions of the first. The long sound of the third vowel has performed a similar office for the second. The third vowel, so-called, is a diphthong. On the other hand, the short sounds of these three vowels--seen in _sat_, _set_, _sit_--continue to exist in their original integrity. All of them are employed on an extensive scale. Furthermore, the regular long and short sounds of _u_ have no longer the prominence they once had in connection with this vowel. To the popular apprehension the idea of it is supplied, as has just been said, by the neutral vowel-sound we call “short _u_.” This has largely taken the place of other vowel-sounds, and threatens to do so still more in the future.

The confusion in the use of the vowel-signs is itself reinforced by the condition of the alphabet. For the former, indeed, the latter is in no small measure responsible. Behind all the other agencies which have brought about the present wretched condition of our orthography stands out its one most glaring defect. The Roman alphabet we have adopted as our own is unequal to the demand made upon it. The three diphthongs being included in the consideration, we have at a low calculation fifteen vowel-sounds and but five characters to represent them. According to a more common calculation, we have eighteen vowel-sounds to be represented by this limited number. With the consonants we are a good deal better off. The supernumeraries being excluded, there are eighteen single characters for the twenty-four sounds to be denoted.

To make up for this deficiency of letters, two courses lay open to the users of English; rather, two courses were forced upon them. One was to have the same sign represent two or more sounds. This was at best a poor method of relief. Even had it been done correctly and systematically, so far as that result could be accomplished, it could not have failed to be unsatisfactory. It would have been an attempt to impose upon these few signs a burden they were unable to carry. But not even was this imperfect result achieved. Apparently it was not even aimed at. The sounds of the vowels have been so confused with one another that no fixed value can be attached to any vowel-sign. They are often used for each other in the most lawless fashion. So much is this the case that it is frequently impossible to tell from the spelling of a word what is the pronunciation of its vowel, or from the pronunciation of its vowel what is the spelling of the word.

There was another way followed to meet the difficulty. This second method was to make the best of the situation by that combination of vowels, or that combination of vowel and consonant, or of two consonants, to which we have given the name of digraphs. The first of these do not really constitute diphthongs, though such they have sometimes been termed. This method was far more sensible than the preceding. The task of making combinations of letters which should represent only particular sounds would have been, to be sure, a hard one. The lawlessness pervading our vowel-system would doubtless have prevented it from being carried out with thoroughness. But carried out imperfectly, it would have been a distinct improvement upon what we have now. But so far from any attempt having been made to accomplish it on even an imperfect scale, it can hardly be said to have been undertaken at all. There are two instances, indeed, in which such combinations have an invariable or nearly invariable value. One of these is _aw_, found in such words as _bawl_ and _lawn_. This digraph never has any other sound than that of the so-called “broad _a_”--heard, for illustration, in _fall_ and _salt_. The other is _ee_, seen in _seen_ itself, as well as in a number of other words. With two or three exceptions, this combination has that sound of the third vowel we now ascribe to the second and call “long _e_.” But in both these instances the limitation of the digraph to the representation of a single sound was a result of accident rather than of design. These combinations were in truth left to run the same haphazard course which the letters composing them had usually followed. Accordingly, to them extended the lawlessness pervading the vowel-system. As a consequence, the pronunciation of the numerous digraphs became, as we shall see later, as varying and uncertain as that of the single vowels themselves.

We come now to the consideration of specific details upon which have been based the general statements just made. Not by any means all of them. There is no intention here of setting forth an exhaustive enumeration of the facts that could be presented. Even did I possess the phonetic knowledge, which I lack, sufficient to do this properly and fully, the undertaking would have lain outside of my plan. Furthermore, it would hinder the effect of the argument for most persons rather than help it. The mass of detail would be oppressive by its volume, and for that very reason less impressive. Accordingly, I throw out of consideration any representation of the variations of pronunciation to be found in unaccented syllables. In them indistinctness of sound, owing to the inability of our present orthography to denote precise values, has gone beyond that prevailing in the other cultivated tongues of modern Europe. Not only are the vowel-sounds in such syllables pronounced differently by different individuals, they are pronounced differently by the same individual at different times. In particular the precise pronunciation will be apt to vary with the speaker’s rapidity or slowness of utterance. In one case the exact sound will come out with perfect distinctness, in another it will be hard to tell by what vowel it is represented. It is enough to say here of the unaccented syllables that there is a strong tendency, especially in hasty utterance, to give to them generally the sound of that neutral vowel we commonly call “short _u_.”

It is accordingly in these unaccented syllables that so many were wont to trip in the spelling contests once so popular. It was not unusual to have the very best equipped contestant fail. He attempted to use his reason; to succeed, it was essential to discard that and trust instead to his memory. Take, for illustration, so common a verb as _separate_. Who, ignorant of the word, could tell from the ordinary pronunciation of it--even when that is reasonably distinct--what is the precise sound heard in the case of the second syllable? Should it be represented by an _a_ or an _e_? The actual fact has to be learned, not through the agency of the ear, but through that of the eye. This is but a single instance out of hundreds that could be cited where a similar uncertainty must always prevail because the pronunciation cannot act as a clear guide to the present spelling.

In the following pages, therefore, attention shall be directed mainly to setting forth some of the most salient facts which reveal, in a way easily comprehensible, the confusion existing in our present orthography. For this purpose the discussion is intentionally confined almost entirely to those syllables upon which the principal accent falls. In a few instances some syllables will be included upon which rests the secondary accent. In both cases, however, the examples will be selected of words in which the distinction of sound is plainly apparent to all, and easily recognizable. This limits the discussion to but a section of the whole field. But though far from covering the ground, the absolute truth of the general statements about the condition of our orthography will appear distinctly manifest to him who has the patience to wade through the following dreary assemblage of facts, or perhaps it would be more proper to say, the following assemblage of dreary facts. Beginning with the vowel-system, the various letters or combinations of letters will be set forth which are used to indicate the same sound. In a number of instances these signs occur on a very small scale. Accordingly, three examples of every one will be invariably given when the sound heard is represented frequently by the spelling, or at least more or less frequently. When but one or two words are specified, this smaller number will denote that these are all the ordinary ones of that class--exclusive of derivatives and compounds--which are known to exist. At any rate, they are all that are known to exist to the writer. It is not unlikely that examples have been overlooked which will suggest themselves to the reader. We begin with the vowel-system.

III

THE VOWELS

The vowel _a_ demands first attention. The sound of it, heard in _father_ and _far_, has been spoken of as disappearing. The simple vowel usually represents it, so far as it continues to exist. Other signs, however, are occasionally employed. It is heard in the _ua_ of _guard_ and _guardian_, in the _ea_ of _heart_, and also of _hearken_ when so spelled; and finally in England in the _e_ of _clerk_, _sergeant_, and a few other words. Once much more common, it has even there steadily given way before the advance of the so-called “short _u_” sound, occurring in such words as _her_. In the pronunciation of some it is further represented, for illustration, by the _au_ of _haunt_ and _haunch_. On the other hand, as contrasted with this declining use, the regular short sound of _a_, heard in _man_ and _mat_, is preserved in its fullest vigor. In the large majority of instances it is indicated by the simple letter itself. The exceptions to this representation of it are merely sporadic. Such are the _ua_ of _guarantee_ and the _ai_ of _plaid_.

But dismissing the consideration of these two sounds of this vowel, take those heard respectively in the words _fare_, _fall_, and _fate_. Let us begin with the first of these. Its sound is denoted in many words by the simple vowel, as can be seen in _pare_, _care_, _declare_. But it is also indicated by _ai_ in _pair_, _hair_, _stair_; by _ay_ in _prayer_; by _e_ in _there_ and _where_; and by _ei_ in _their_ and _heir_. The second of these is the _au_ sound heard in _all_, _warm_, _want_. It is not unfrequently denominated “broad _a_.” But besides this vowel the sound is further represented by _o_ in such words as _oft_, _loss_, _song_; by _au_ in _daub_, _haul_, _taught_, and the like; similarly by _aw_ in _saw_, _drawn_, _bawl_, and numerous others; by _oa_ in _broad_; and by _ou_ in _sought_, _thought_, _bought_.

It has already been pointed out that the so-called long sound of _a_ does not strictly belong to it; that it is really an _e_ sound. But as it has imposed its name upon the vowel, it is properly to be considered with it in any treatise which appeals to the general public. Its most usual representative is the letter itself, seen in _pale_, _pane_, _page_, and in scores of words in which the presence of an unpronounced final _e_ has come to indicate generally, though not invariably, that the preceding vowel is long. But then again it is represented by _ai_ in _pail_, _pain_, _exclaim_; by _ay_ in _lay_, _pay_, _day_; by _ea_ in _great_, _steak_, _break_; by _ei_ in _veil_, _vein_, _heinous_; and by _ey_ in _they_, _obey_ and _survey_. In the interjection _eh_ the vowel has for once its original sound. Again there are two instances in which a digraph with this sound occurs in but a single case. These two are the _ao_ of _gaol_ and the au of _gauge_.

In the case of the first of these words there were two ways of spelling it which existed from the fourteenth century. These are _gaol_ and _jail_. The first form comes from the dialect of Normandy, the second from that of Paris. Both have been in use from the beginning. About both there has been to some extent controversy, at least in the past. The New Historical Dictionary, which contains a full history of the origin and use of these two forms, gives us a quotation bearing upon this point from Roger L’Estrange’s translation of the _Visions of Quevedo_. In this version, which appeared in 1668, English allusions were not unfrequently introduced. In one instance men are represented as being in a state of rage because they cannot come to a resolution as to whether they ought to say _Goal_ (_sic_) or _Jayl_. _Gaol_ is still the official form of the word in England. That fact has mainly contributed to its maintenance in literature, so far as it continues to be used. In the United States _jail_ is both the official and the literary form. But the spelling _gaol_ has to some a peculiar attraction of its own. Not a single letter in it save the final _l_ is of use in indicating with certainty its right pronunciation. In truth, the orthography almost enforces a wrong one. There are those to whom this fact is the highest recommendation it can have.

The second word has varied between the spellings _gauge_ and _gage_ almost from its very entrance into the language in the fifteenth century. One gets the impression that there was a time when the latter was the preferred form. But with our present knowledge no statement of this sort can be made positively. “You shall not gage me by what we do to-night,” says Gratiano to Bassanio in _The Merchant of Venice_. Modern editions, in defiance of the original, print _gauge_; for the folio and both the early quartos agree in having _gage_. Shakespeare’s use seems to be nothing but another illustration of his perverse preference for the so-called American spelling, or the American preference for Shakespeare’s spelling, just as one chooses to put it. Such an anomalous form as _gauge_ proved at times too much for the tolerance of the orthographically much-enduring Englishman. Even him it has struck as peculiarly objectionable. So in the eighteenth century he set out to remove this particular blot upon the speech. But as he was in nowise tainted with the virus of reform, he exhibited the usual incurable aversion to having the spelling bear any relation to the pronunciation. Accordingly, he refused to take the natural as well as time-honored course of dropping the unnecessary and misleading _u_. Instead, he reversed the order of the letters of the digraph. The _au_ became _ua_.

There have been in modern times men who advocated this method of spelling the word with all that fervor of faith which is so frequent an accompaniment of limited knowledge. On this point, for instance, the late Grant Allen felt called upon to bear his testimony. He was wont to make his novels a vehicle for conveying his linguistic views as well as those pertaining to religion, society, and politics. “Cynicus replied, with an ugly smile,” he wrote, “that nobody could ever guage anybody else’s nature.”[16] Then, with what might fairly be called an ugly smile of his own, Allen added in a parenthesis, “not _gauge_, a vile dictionary blunder.” There was no apparent reason for this lexical outburst; there was certainly no proof vouchsafed of the justice of the assertion. As the originals of the word were the Old French noun _gauge_ and the verb _gauger_, it is hard to see how dictionaries could be held responsible for blunders, if blunders they were, which foreigners had perpetrated centuries before. There is, in truth, as little etymological justification for _guage_ as there is phonetic for _gauge_. _Gage_, if it were not the most common way of spelling the word during the Elizabethan period, was certainly a common one. It is now, on the whole, the preferred form in the United States. Except in the nautical term _weather-gage_, the u is very generally retained in England. This is doubtless due to the desire of gratifying the ardent enthusiasm pervading the toiling millions of Great Britain for spellings which remind them of the Old French originals, from which were derived the words they employ.

In the case of the second vowel, the short _e_ sound is properly shown in a large number of words of which _let_, _felt_, _bed_ may be taken as representatives. These are all phonetically spelled. No educated man who saw them for the first time would have any hesitation about their pronunciation. Such a condition of things tends to chasten the feelings of that class of persons, not inconsiderable in number, who think it distinctively to the credit of the spelling that it should get as far away from the pronunciation as possible. They may be consoled, however, by the fact that this same sound is represented by _a_ in _any_ and _many_; by _ea_ in a large number of words, such as _health_, _endeavor_, _weather_; by ai in _said_ and _again_; by _ay_ in says; by _ei_ in _heifer_ and _nonpareil_, and by _eo_ in _jeopard_ and _leopard_. There are those who give this short sound to _leisure_, rhyming it with _pleasure_, as did Milton,[17] instead of the more common long sound heard with us. Indeed, it is noticeable that preference is given to the former in the New Historical English Dictionary, though that pronunciation is absolutely ignored in some of the best American ones. The compilers of these last may have been touched by Walker’s pathetic plea for the long sound. “_Leisure_,” he wrote, “is sometimes pronounced as rhyming with _pleasure_; but in my opinion very improperly; for if it be allowed that custom is equally divided, we ought, in this case, to pronounce the diphthong long, as more expressive of the idea annexed to it.”

_Any_ and _many_ are now the only two words where _a_ has the sound of short _e_. At one time it was heard in others, and was not unfrequently so represented in literature. It lingers, too, in some instances, and even, indeed, flourishes in spite of all the efforts of education to extirpate it. The present authorized pronunciation of _catch_, instead of _ketch_, is one of the comparatively few triumphs gained by the written word over the spoken. In days when devotion did not exist to orthography irrespective of the purpose it was designed to fulfil, the _a_ assumed the spelling of _e_ along with its sound. The earlier _cag_, for illustration, has been abandoned for the pure phonetic spelling _keg_. Apparently no serious harm has befallen the language in consequence. Even more distant from the remote Latin original, _canalis_, denoting the home of _canis_, ‘the dog,’ is the form _kennel_. This turns its back upon its primitive, and contents itself with simply representing the pronunciation. So much are we the creatures of habit and association in the matter of spelling that the most ardent believer in the doctrine of basing orthography upon derivation could in neither of the cases just mentioned be persuaded to revert to the form nearest to that in the original tongue.

The sound to which we give the name of “long _e_” belongs strictly, as has been pointed out, to _i_. A few of the words have also been given in which it still continues to be so indicated.[18] There are certain conditions under which it is represented by the simple letter itself. One is when it alone constitutes an accented syllable, as in _equal_, _era_, _ecliptic_. Another when it ends a monosyllable or an accented syllable, as in _he_, _be_, _regal_, _cohesion_. It appears finally with a good deal of frequency in words in which the sound of the simple vowel is lengthened by the artificial device of an appended mute _e_, as in _theme_, _precede_, _complete_. This last word, it may be said in passing, was once often spelled _compleat_. But as the letter itself represents much more usually the short sound of the vowel, the long sound has come to be indicated often by various digraphs. Of these, two are particularly prominent. One of them is _ee_, seen in a large number of words, such as _meet_, _thee_, _proceed_. The second digraph is _ea_, found in _bean_, _meat_, _eagle_, and a host of others. But the sound is not limited to these two combinations. It is represented by _ei_ in _receive_, _conceit_, _seize_; by _ie_ in _believe_, _chief_, _fiend_; by _ey_ in _key_; by _eo_ in _people_; by _ay_ in _quay_; by _æ_ in _ægis_, _pæan_, _minutiæ_; and several other words not fully naturalized.

Once, indeed, this last method of indicating the sound was far more common. In many instances it has been supplanted by the simple _e_. It was not till a comparatively late period that such spellings as _era_ and _ether_ drove out in great measure the once prevalent _æra_ and _æther_. As _æ_ has with us strictly but one sound, the change cannot, from all points of view, be deemed an improvement. In the case of an unknown word first brought to the attention, no one could now be positive, under certain conditions, whether the vowel should be treated as long or short. Take, for illustration, _encyclopedia_, once often spelled _encyclopædia_. He who sees the word for the first time is as likely to pronounce the antepenultimate syllable _pĕd_ as _pēd_. He certainly could not tell from the orthography employed how this particular syllable should be sounded. Still, for much more than a century the tendency of the users of the language has been steadily directed toward the discarding of the _æ_ in all cases. As long ago as 1755 Dr. Johnson, in his dictionary, recommended its disuse. “_Æ_,” he wrote, “is sometimes found in Latin words not completely naturalized or assimilated, but is by no means an English diphthong, and is more properly expressed by single _e_, as _Cesar_, _Eneas_.” Dr. Johnson was hostile to spelling reform; but he could venture to sanction a spelling of these two Latin proper names, at which even the average spelling reformer would shudder.

Fortunately for those of us who believe that spelling exists for the sake of indicating pronunciation, the sound of short _i_, one of the most common vowel sounds in the language, is almost always represented by the letter itself. The exceptions are few, comparatively speaking. The only sign to take its place in any body of words sufficiently numerous to be entitled a class is _y_, as seen in _syntax_, _abyss_, _system_, and other words, generally of Greek origin. The instances where different signs are employed are purely sporadic. Most of them, however, are for various reasons remarkable. The sound is represented by _e_ in the name of the language we speak and of the country where it came into being. It is further represented by the _e_ of _pretty_, by the _o_ of _women_, by the _u_ of _busy_ and _business_, by the _ie_ of _sieve_, and by the _ui_ of _guild_ and _guilt_ and _build_. Once in the speech of most men, and now in that of many, it is given to the _ee_ of _been_, and regularly to that combination as found in _breeches_.

_Gild_ is a variant spelling of _guild_, and represents the earlier form. The _ui_ of the two additional examples given ought to be a saddening spectacle to the devout believer in derivation as the basis of orthography. The original form of _guilt_ was _gylt_. So it remained with various spellings--of which _gilt_ was naturally the most common--until the sixteenth century. But there was also an allied form, _gult_. These two undoubtedly represented distinct and easily recognizable pronunciations of the word. They were at last combined so as to create a spelling, of the pronunciation of which no one could now be certain until he was told. This did not take place on any scale worth mentioning until the latter part of the sixteenth century, though the combination had occasionally been seen much earlier. Essentially the same thing can be said of _build_. It originally appeared in various ways, of which _byld_, _bild_, and _buld_ were the prominent types. At the end of the fifteenth century the practice began of recognizing both forms by writing _build_ or _buyld_. In a measure this doubtless represented a then existing shade of pronunciation. The spelling, once established, has continued since. No one ever thinks of pronouncing the _u_; perhaps no one has ever thought of it since the combination was formed. Yet there is no question that intense sorrow would be occasioned to a certain class of persons were they to be deprived of the pleasure of inserting in the word this useless and now orthoepically misleading letter.

The so-called “long _i_” ought strictly to be treated under the diphthongs; but as it is popularly associated in the minds of men with the simple vowel, its diphthongal sound will be considered at this point. Its most usual representative is the letter itself. This presents little difficulty in the pronunciation if the words end with a mute _e_, as in _mine_, _desire_, _bite_. The distinction between _thin_ and _thine_, for instance, is then easily made. But when it comes to such words as _mind_, _child_, and _pint_ on the one hand, and _lift_, _gild_, and _tint_ on the other, there is nothing in the spelling to indicate with certainty how the _i_ of these words should be sounded. As no general rule can be laid down, the pronunciation of each has in consequence to be learned by itself. This uncertainty was perhaps one of the causes which led to the transition of the diphthongal sound of _i_ in _wind_ to the short sound _wĭnd_, which so aroused the wrath of Dean Swift. But besides _i_ the sound is also indicated by the _y_ of _type_, _ally_, _thyme_, and a number of words derived from the Greek; by _ie_, especially in monosyllables, such as _die_, _lie_, and _tie_; by _ye_ in the noun _lye_; by _ei_ in _height_ and _sleight_, and according to one method of pronunciation in _either_ and _neither_. It is further represented by the _ai_ of _aisle_, by the _ey_ of _eye_, and by the _uy_ of _buy_.

The third vowel now demands attention. Orthoepists contend that there is no genuine short _o_ in English utterance. Without entering into a discussion of this point, it is sufficient to say that the two sounds of the letter, which are ordinarily designated as short and long, are represented respectively in the words _not_ and _note_. The former sound remains fairly faithful to this vowel. It is hardly indicated by any other sign. The _a_ of _what_, _squad_, _quarry_ is about the only one to take its place. Very different is it with the long sound heard in _note_. This is far from confining itself to any single letter. In no small number of words it is represented by _oa_, as in _boat_, _groan_, _coal_; by _oe_, as in _foe_, _toe_, _hoe_; by _ou_, as in _pour_, _mould_, _shoulder_; or again by _ow_, as seen in _crow_, _snow_, _show_. Less common, but still to be met with, is this sound heard in the combination _ew_, as seen in _sew_; as well as in _shew_ and _strew_, as these words were once regularly and are now occasionally spelled; in _oo_, as in _door_ and _floor_; in _eau_, in _beau_, _bureau_, and _flambeau_; and in the _eo_ of _yeoman_.

This last word was once spelled at times _yoman_ and at times _yeman_. These forms doubtless represented the two ways of pronouncing it that existed. The _Toxophilus_ of Roger Ascham, for illustration, was dedicated to the use “of the gentlemen and yomen of Englande.” But the sound of the vowel of the first syllable wavered for a long period between the long _o_ and the short _e_. Ben Jonson, in the earlier part of the seventeenth century, observed of the word that “it were truer written _yĕman_.” In the latter half of the eighteenth century Doctor Johnson tells us that the _eo_ of this word “is sounded like _e_ short.” This was the view taken by perhaps the larger number of orthoepists, who immediately followed him. In spite of them the _o_ pronunciation has triumphed. It has shown, however, a tender consideration for its defeated rival by allowing it to lead a useless existence in the syllable in which, in the utterance of many, it once represented the actual sound.

The corresponding short and long sounds of _u_ are seen in the words _full_ and _rule_. But _o_, either singly, or in combination with other letters, is a favorite way of indicating both. The short sound of this vowel, which is far from common, is represented by the _o_ of _bosom_, _woman_, _wolf_; by the _oo_ of _good_, _foot_, _stood_; by the _ou_ of _could_, _would_, _should_. On the other hand, the corresponding long sound is also represented by the _o_ of _move_, _prove_, _lose_; by the _oe_ of _shoe_ and _canoe_; by the _oo_ of _too_, _root_, _fool_; by _ou_ in such words as _uncouth_, _routine_, _youth_, and a number of others derived generally from the French. There has been and still is something of a tendency on the part of the users of language to change the long sound of _oo_ into its short one. Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his poem of _Urania_, represents Learning as giving a lesson on propriety of pronunciation. Among other points considered, occurred the following observations:

She pardoned one, our classic city’s boast,
That said at Cambridge mŏst instead of mōst,
But knit her brows and stamped her angry foot
To hear a Teacher call a rōot a rŏot.

This is perhaps as good an example as can be furnished of the waste of time and labor imposed by our present orthography in mastering distinctions of sounds in words when there is nothing in the sign employed to indicate which one is proper. To men not given up to slavish admiration of our present spelling, it would seem that Learning, instead of stamping her foot, would have been much more sensibly engaged in using her head to devise some method by which one and the same combination of letters should not be called upon to represent two distinct sounds in words so closely allied in form as _foot_ and _root_; or distinct sounds in words with the same ending as _toe_ and the _shoe_ that covers it.

Another way of indicating the long sound of this vowel is either by the simple letter itself or by it in combination with other letters. For instance, it is represented by _ue_ in such words as _true_, _avenue_, _pursue_; by _ui_ in _fruit_, _bruise_, _pursuit_; by _eu_ in _neuter_, _deuce_, _pentateuch_; by _ew_ in _brew_, _sewer_, _lewd_; and by _ieu_ in _adieu_, _lieu_, _purlieu_. But there is a peculiarity in the words containing this vowel, the consideration of which involves too much space to have little more than a reference here. We all recognize the difference of the sound of _u_ as heard respectively in _fortune_ and _fortuitous_, in _annual_ and _annuity_, in _volume_ and _voluminous_, in _penury_ and _penurious_. In the first one of each of these pairs of words a _y_-element is introduced into the pronunciation; in the second the _u_ has its absolutely pure long sound. Nor is this introduction of the _y_-element limited to the letter when used alone. We can find it exemplified in the _ue_ of _statue_, _value_, _tissue_; in the _eu_ of _eulogy_, _euphony_, _Europe_; in the _ew_ of _ewe_, _hew_, _few_. This iotization, as it is called, is especially prevalent in words with the termination _ture_, as _nature_, _furniture_, _sculpture_, and _agriculture_. Now and then some one is heard giving, or attempting to give, to the _u_ of this ending the pure sound; but such persons are usually regarded as possessed of “cultoor” and not culture.

The only word of this special class in which such a method of pronunciation can be said to have attained any recognition whatever is _literature_. The word itself is an old one in our speech. Once, however, it meant merely knowledge of literature. It did not mean that body of writings which constitute the production of a country or of a period. This sense of it, now the most common, is comparatively modern. The earliest instance I have chanced to meet of it--though it was doubtless used a good deal earlier--is in the correspondence of Southey and William Taylor of Norwich. There it occurs in a letter belonging to the year 1803, in which Southey tells his friend that he was expecting to undertake the editorship of a work dealing biographically and critically with “the history of English literature.”[19] Still, the pronunciation just mentioned of this word, differing as it does from the others of the same class, must even then have been occasionally heard. It was certainly made the subject of comment by Byron. He somewhere speaks--I have mislaid the reference--of a publisher who was in the habit of talking about _literatoor_. This peculiar pronunciation still comes at times from the lips of educated men.

But the regular long and short sounds of _u_ yield in frequency of occurrence to that sound of it heard in _but_ and _burn_. In common speech this has usurped with us the title of “short _u_.” By orthoepists it itself is divided into a long and a short sound, according as it is or is not followed by an _r_. Into it, as has been pointed out, the pronunciation of all unaccented syllables tends to run. Hence, in the case of these, there has come to exist the greatest possible variety of signs by which it is indicated. But even in the accented syllables there is a sufficient number of different ones to arrest the attention. Naturally the most usual representative of it is the vowel from which it has taken its name. But it is far from being limited to this sign. Its short sound is further represented by the _o_ of such words as _love_, _dove_, and _son_; similarly by the _ou_ of _double_, _touch_, and _young_; and by the _oo_ of _blood_ and _flood_. In vulgar speech _soot_ would have to be added to the last two. Furthermore, it is represented by the sporadic example of the _oe_ of _does_. The long sound runs through a still wider range of examples. Words containing it but denoted by various signs could be given by the score. It is represented by all the vowels except the first. The _e_ of _her_, _were_, _fern_, stands for it. So does the _i_ of _fir_, _bird_, _virgin_. So does the _o_ of _work_, _worship_, _worth_. It is likewise largely represented by _ea_ in such words as _heard_, _learn_, _search_; by _ou_ in _scourge_, _journal_, _flourish_, and no small number of others containing this particular sign. In the single instance of _tierce_ the sound is denoted also by _ie_. Were its use in unaccented syllables indicated, this list of signs would be largely extended. As it is, it will be seen that nine is the number employed in accented syllables to represent it.

So much for the simple vowels. We come now to the three diphthongs. The first of these, which is made up of the sound of the _a_ of _father_ and that of the _e_ of _they_, has already been considered in treating what is called “long _i_.” Eight signs were given by which it was denoted.[20] This wealth of representation does not belong to the two other diphthongs. There are but two signs by which the sound of the second is indicated. These are the _ou_ of _south_, _found_, _about_, and the _ow_ of _now_, _town_, _vowel_. The third diphthong again has but two signs, the _oi_ of _boil_, _point_, _spoil_, and the _oy_ of _boy_, _joy_, _destroy_. Many of the words in which _oi_ appears had once the pronunciation of the first mentioned diphthong. To the truth of this both the rymes of the poets and the assertions of the early orthoepists bear ample testimony. The statement is still further confirmed by the fact that the sound still lingers, or, rather, is prevalent, in the speech of the uneducated, the great conservators of past usage. The words given above as illustrative of this sign of the diphthong would have been pronounced by our fathers _bīle_, _pīnt_, _spīle_. So they are still pronounced by the illiterate. In one word, indeed, this sound has not passed entirely from the colloquial speech of the cultivated either in England or America. _Roil_ is not merely heard as _rīle_, but is not unfrequently found so printed.

IV

THE DIGRAPHS