more especially, Acoustics with which it is connected in respect to its subject-matter as well as its form. Questions of phonetics consist, in the first place, of an application of Acoustics and Physiology to a particular point in the formation of articulate sounds; and, in the second place, of the particular relations of such sounds to one another, and the general character of the system that results from them. Now all this is very independent of spelling, or the notation of sounds; so much so that a man may care a great deal about Phonetics, but very little about phonetic spelling. On the other hand the connection between phonetic spelling and phonēsis, or the sound-system of a language is of the closest: indeed the two terms stand to one another as Orthoepy and Orthography. No one should know better the differences between an all-sufficient, or a scientific, alphabet for the English language, and a practical, or an adequate one, than the present reformers. And, indeed, they know it well. If it were not so, they would never have done a tenth part of the work that has been done by them. An alphabet that shall represent the whole compass of the Phonesis of our language must deal with our provincial dialects; and everyone knows that in these we find sounds absolutely foreign to those of the written, or rather the literary, language of our country. Sometimes they are as alien to the classical or standard English as the German ch or the French eu, and we know that the accurate pronunciation of these is not learnt from mere inspection, not learnt in an hour or day; sometimes, when either the teaching or the ear is deficient, never learnt at all. Nevertheless, we find something very like the one in our northern, and something very like the other in our western, forms of English. Yet for these sounds we find, both in the literary German and the literary French separate expressions; not, indeed, in the shape of new letters but of special and appropriate combinations. For the more refined departments of pure Phonetics a still greater amount of refinement is needed. In short, an alphabet for the ordinary purposes of primary education is one thing; one for the English Phonesis of the language in its fulness and integrity, another; while different from both is the one that is required for the more abstruse questions in Phonetics. Now what is wanted for the purposes of the present treatise is the first; and that only. Its principle is that of the other two, but it is not to be carried so far. It may, indeed, be said that, in this case, the language and its medium should coincide; indeed, the practical test of phonetic spelling is given the right pronunciation of a word, its accurate representation by spelling should follow as a matter of course; or, to put the case more strongly given a correct orthoepy, an incorrect orthography shall be impossible. But this implies that the orthoepy should be that of the standard pronunciation. We know, however, that this is not the case, and we also know that if we wait until it is, we shall wait till the Greek Kalends. I will now illustrate, perhaps over-amply, the distinction, already foreshadowed, between mere contact and fusion; and it shall be by a combination which, as it is pretty common in our own language, carries with it a presumption in favor of its being of some practical importance. Whether, in the matter of spelling, and for the purpose of teaching, is the easiest, to add so many new letters to an alphabet, and to lay them before the learner as such, or to spell their respective sounds by a pair of letters, already known as parts of the English language, and to show that, by putting the same together the same sound is adequately expressed? The word adequately is, of course, used with foresight. The answer, on the first view, is at hand. A single letter in the place of two is only the old story of the compendiums over again. It is merely x instead of ks; and this we have rejected. It is merely k+s written short: and that x is k+s every one can see: indeed it is seen so plainly that x is already unanimously banished in Phonetics. This is making short work of the matter. But what if the work be too short? Why is it wrong, in spelling, that it is simply phonetic to write words like philosophy and Philip with ph to represent f? The fact of the letters not being the result of the combination p + h. The fact that there is no combination at all. The fact that the sound, being a simple one, is properly represented by f, or by some equivalent sign equally simple. Fis allied to ph; but it is not made up out of pand h, nor yet out of p and anything else. Let us now consider the sound of the ch in chest. It has, doubtless, a fair claim to be put in the same category with ph for f. It is spelt by means of a single letter in Russian, and that with practical advantage. On the other side, either it or something so like it as to be distinguished from it by only a trained ear, is spelt in German by no fewer letters than four. The German for "German" is "Deutsche." The-tsch is the tch in Dutch; which is the -tchin in witch; which is the -ch in which; which is tsh. Of these two extreme forms, which is the better? The German form, before it can be compared with our own, must be, so to say, purified, or reduced to its lowest terms, by the ejection of the'c. This brings it to Deutshe, which when the ein witch is reduced to s, makes the two words alike, according to the ordinary English spelling. Phonetically, however, the sh is f: so that the true orthography becomes tf, (tfest chest): and of the t in tin and the sh in shin the sound is, indubitably, made. But it is written in the most advanced orthographies by a single letter, -in the Russian and in the phonetic English as we have seen. Why is it thus exceptional? Why is the rule which, without a second thought, eliminated our æ, thus apparently transgressed? Why, too, is the rule violated under which ph was converted into f? The reason lies in the fact that, though the sound is as truly compound as that of x, the compound is of a different character; or rather in x we have no compound at all. Instead of this, we have a combination. In a we have k+s in a single sequence. The s follows the k. Thes touches the k. But sequence with simple contact is one thing; sequence with partial fusion another. And with the ch in chest we have fusion and this it is which differentiates the x=k+s, and, ch=t+sh. There are few ears which cannot distinguish between the two sounds; few that fail to appreciate some difference between the t-sch in Deutsh, as pronounced by a German and the tch in Dutch as pronounced by an Englishman. How it is effected will be seen hereafter. As the ch in chest is to t+sh so is the j in jest to d+zh-sound for sound. Both are what are called sibilant or hissing letters. S, z, sh, and zh are the simple, and tsh and dzh the compound, sibilants ; and in these six sounds there is either a system or the part of one. Now this is merely given as an example of the difference between mere contact, and fusion more or less complete. Whether the representation of the sounds of the ch in chest, and of the j in jest, best given by two letters or one, is a matter of adequacy, upon which, at present, I commit myself to no opinion; leaving it to those who have more familiarity than myself with the practice of primary education. be I add, however, that what applies to the compound sibilants among consonants applies also to the diphthongs among vowels; indeed, the combinations are, in each case diphthongal, and I see no reason against the recognition of consonantal, as well as vocalic, diphthongs. SECTION XXXIII. LIMITATIONS OF THE PHONETIC PRINCIPLE CONTINUED ITS INFLUENCE ON A LARGE SCALE. We have hitherto considered the limitations of the phonetic system from one point of view only; or only so far as we were led to them by the process of analysis; only so far as they shewed themselves, so to say, in minimis: i.e., in the resolution of certain combinations wherein we could discover the elements, but found them so blended together that they took the garb of simple sounds. But the process may be reversed; and we may take the subject from a different point of view. What if, instead of being found in the ultimate elements of a word, this process of amalagation be found to affect two different words? Is this a real or an imaginary case? We shall find it to be real. We find, indeed, something like it in English. We find syllables affected by it. Let us take a word beginning with con-. They are certainly numerous enough for all intents and purposes. Betake yourself to a dictionary; and count the words (all of which are compounds) which begin with this favored prefix. Count even the columns; count even the pages that are required to contain them. They are more than all the entries under several of the less important letters put together. Then take the compounds beginning with com; i.e., after counting the words like contend, count those like combustion; remembering, at the same time, that when con- comes before the sound of k, and is accented, it is sounded as -ng. Observe, too, that beforer it slips out of the word altogether, and theris doubled; the same being the case when it is followed by -l or -m, as collect, correct, command, etc. The rules that regulate these changes need only to be indicated. The fact, which is here only applied for the purposes of illustration, is universally recognized. The words thus beginning are, as a rule, of Latin origin; and the meaning of their first syllable is with. Its form, as a separate word, is cum. Before, however, words beginning with t them becomes n; before k, ng; before m, l, or r it becomes silent, but doubles (to the eye at least) the consonant which it precedes. This is a law of what is called euphony, or harmonious speech; and, as we have seen, is at least common to the Latin and English languages. But it exists, in a more developed form in the Greek as well; and probably, in every language under the sun; provided only that the necessary apparatus of changeable consonants be at hand; that the combinations be sufficiently close to constitute a single compound word; and, thirdly, that the compound be of sufficiently long standing in the language where it is found to have, so to say, shaken down into its true form. They have done this in English, French, and other tongues; whether taken up as Latin words, or put together after the precedents of the earlier examples. They have, also been recognized in the spelling; and both the spelling and the speaking are the better for it. But what if this practice of euphonic accommodation, adaptation, or assimilation be extended from syllables of the same word, to different words? What if the letters at the end of one word affect those at the beginning of another? The least that can be said of such a case is that it would disguise the real nature of the second; and make the references to an ordinary dictionary a matter of some difficulty. It may be said, however, that this is a case beyond the pale of the English language; that it does not affect us; and that it is an extreme, if not an imaginary instance. It is not the latter: though it is the former. For general statements, however, extreme instruments are the legitimate and recognized tests: and the principle now under discussion is the universality of the application of the phonetic system in orthography. Now the language in which this process of spelling is recognized is no less a one than the magnificent, venerable, and well-spelt Sanskrit. The following extracts, illustrative of this, are from two of our most recent grammars. The process, however, is equally recognized in the older ones. The change illustrated by the sentence, Rara avis, etc., and the change illustrated by the words συγγνωμη, are essentially the same: and, as the connexion, as we shall see, is called sandhi, there are two kinds of it, (1) the internal which affects the middle, and (2) the external which affects the extremities of words. We are accustomed in Greek and Latin to certain euphonic changes of letters. Thus rego makes, in the perfect, not regsi, but reksi (rexi), the soft g being changed to the hard k before the hard s. Similarly, veho becomes veksi (vexi). In many words a final consonant assimilates with an initial; thus συν with γνώμη becomes συγγνώμη; ἐν with λάμπω, ἐλλάμπω. These laws for the euphonic junction of letters are applied throughout the whole range of the Sanskrit grammar; and that, too, not only in uniting different parts of one word, but in combining words in the same sentence. Thus, if the seneence Rara avis in terris were Sanskrit, it would require by the laws of Sandhi or combination, to be written Ráravirins tirrih; and might even be joined together thus, Ráravirinsterrih. The learner must not be discouraged if he is unable to understand all the laws of combination at first. To attempt to commit to memory a number of rules, the use of which is not fully seen till he comes to read and construct sentences, must only lead to a loss of time and patience. - Monier Williams; Practical Grammar of the Sanskrit Language. Chapter 2. In Sanskrit every sentence is considered as an unbroken chain of syllables. Except where there is a stop, which we should mark by interpunction, the final letters of each word are made to coalesce with the initial letters of the following word. The coalescence of final and initial letters) of vowels with vowels, of consonants with consonants, and of consonants with vowels) is called Sandhi. As certain letters in Sanskrit are incompatible with each other, i.e., cannot be pronounced one immediately after the other, they have to be modified or assimilated in order to facilitate the pronunciation. The rules, according to which either one or both letters are thus modified are called the Rules of Sandhi. Mах Müller; Sanskrit Grammar for Beginners. Chapter 2. The Sanskrit is a dead language; so that the exact appreciation of the extent to which this system of Sandhi either helped or impeded the reader is impossible. Much, however, as its novelty may strike us, the practice is more or less common in many languages; though, as Wilson remarks, the change is prosodial rather than grammatical. Contrivances for avoiding the concurrence of harsh or incongruous sounds, or the unpleasing hiatus which arises from keeping sounds apart that are disposed to coalesce, are not wanting in all languages. They are in general, however, rather poetical or prosodial than grammatical; such as the elision of a final e before an initial e, in such a concurrence as "the etherial height of heaven," which it was formerly the fashion to write, as the measure demanded, "th' etherial;" to say nothing of the synalepha and ecthlipsis of the Latin verse "Monstr' horrend' inform' ingens," etc. Other instances of regard for euphony, however, do occur, independent of prosody, and especially in Greek, in which many of the euphonie changes are analogous to those provided for in Sanskrit.-H. H. Wilson; Introduction to the Grammar of the Sanskrit Language. Chapter 2. |