THE ORTHOGRAPHIC SITUATION
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
Up to this point we have been engaged in making manifest the numerous
different ways in which the same vowel-sound is represented in our
present orthography. Necessarily a reversal of the process would
present an equally impressive showing, for examples just as impressive
would make manifest how the same sign adds to the further confusion
of English spelling by denoting a number of different vowel-sounds.
But there is a limit to the endurance of the reader, to say nothing of
that of the writer. Furthermore, there is little need of this addition
in the case of the vowels. The facts about to be furnished will be
more than sufficient to satisfy any demand for illustrations of the
extent to which the same sign has been made to indicate a wide variety
of different sounds, though in the sporadic instances the examples
already given must be repeated. For we come now to the consideration
of those combinations of letters, numerous in English spelling, to
which has been given the name of digraphs. They are sometimes made up
of a union of vowels, sometimes of a union of a vowel and a consonant,
sometimes of a union of two consonants.
I have already adverted to the fact that had there been any system
established in the employment of these combinations of letters, and
had each of them been made to represent unvaryingly one particular
sound, some of the worst evils of English orthography would have been
largely mitigated, and in certain cases entirely relieved. But this
was not to be. The opportunity of bringing about regularity of usage
in the employment of these signs was either not seen, or if seen was
not improved. The same variableness, the same irregularity, the same
lawlessness which existed in the representation of the sounds of the
vowels and diphthongs came to exist in the case of the digraphs also.
They consequently did little more than add to the confusion prevailing
in English orthography, and became as valueless for indicating
pronunciation as are the single letters of which they are composed.
To this sweeping statement there are two partial exceptions. The first
is _aw_. This is one of several representatives of the so-called
broad sound of _a_ heard in _ball_ and _fall_. Whenever that digraph
appears, its pronunciation is invariably the same. No such absolute
assertion can be made of the digraph which represents the sound of
“long _e_.” This is the combination _ee_. There are but two exceptions
in common use to the pronunciation of it just given. The first is the
word _breeches_. Its singular has the regular sound. The pronunciation
as short _i_ in the plural--used, too, there in a special sense--may
perhaps be due to an extension to this form of that tendency, so
prevalent in English speech, on the part of the derivative, to shorten
the vowel of the primitive. The other is the participle _been_ of the
substantive verb. In usage the pronunciation of this word has long
wavered and still wavers between the sounds heard respectively in _sin_
and _seen_. Of this variation there will be occasion to speak later in
detail.
These exceptions, however, affect but a limited number of words. They
are hardly worth considering when their regularity is put in contrast
with the irregularities of the other combinations. Let us begin with
the digraph _ai_. Ordinarily it has the sound we are accustomed to
call “long a,” as can be seen in _fail_, _rain_, and _paid_. In _pair_,
_fair_, _hair_ it has another sound. In _said_, _again_, _against_
it has the sound of short _e_. In _aisle_ it has the diphthongal
sound called by us “long _i_.” This word furnishes an interesting
illustration of the way in which much of our highly prized orthography
came to have a being. Its present spelling is comparatively recent.
Doctor Johnson recognized in it the lack of conformity to any possible
derivation. He adopted it on the authority of Addison, though with
manifest misgiving. He thought it ought to be written _aile_, but in
deference to this author he inserted it in his dictionary as _aisle_.
“Thus,” he said, “the word is written by Addison, but perhaps
improperly.”[21] Johnson’s action was followed without thought and
without hesitation by his successors. There is no question, indeed,
as to the impropriety of the present spelling from the point of view
of both derivation and pronunciation. Equally there is no doubt as to
the impropriety of its meaning from the former point of view. It came
remotely from the Latin _ala_, ‘a wing.’ Therefore, it means really
the wing part of the church on each side of the nave. In this sense it
is still employed. But since the first half of the eighteenth century
it has been made to denote also the passage between rows of seats.
Strictly speaking, this is a particularly gross corruption, though,
like so many in our speech, it has now been sanctioned by good usage.
The proper word to indicate such a sense was _alley_, corresponding to
the French _allée_, ‘a passage.’ This was once common and is still used
in the North of England. _Aisle_ itself was formerly spelled _ile_ or
_yle_. Confusing it with _isle_, originally spelled _ile_, men inserted
an _s_ about the end of the seventeenth century. Later an _a_ was
prefixed under the influence of the French _aile_. It was thus that
this linguistic monster, defying any correct orthography or orthoepy,
was created. In any sense of it the _s_ is an unjustifiable intrusion,
representing as the word does in one signification the Latin _ala_, ‘a
wing,’ and in the other the French _allée_, ‘a passage.’
There is another word containing this digraph which illustrates vividly
the uncertainty of sound caused by the present spelling. This is
_plait_, both as verb and substantive. About its pronunciation usage
has long been conflicting. “_Plait_, a fold of cloth, is regular,
and ought to be pronounced like _plate_, a dish,” said Walker, at the
beginning of the eighteenth century. “Pronouncing it so as to rhyme
with _meat_,” he added, “is a vulgarism, and ought to be avoided.” So
say several later English dictionaries. So say the leading American
ones. Webster, indeed, concedes that the pronunciation denounced by
Walker is colloquially possible. It therefore does not necessarily
relegate the user of it to the ranks of the vulgar. Now comes the New
Historical English Dictionary, and gives the word not merely three
distinct pronunciations, but holds up as only really proper that which
has failed to gain the favor of most lexicographers. It is the one
found “in living English use,” it says, when the word has the sense
of ‘fold.’ Further we are assured that with this signification it is
ordinarily written _pleat_. This would tend to justify still more the
ryme with _meat_, which so shocked Walker. Then in its second sense of
a ‘braid of hair or straw’ we are told that it has the sound of _a_ in
_mat_. This leaves the pronunciation of _plait_ to ryme with _plate_
hardly any support to stand on. It has merely the distinction of being
mentioned first; but it is denied a real existence as a spoken word.
Nothing could better illustrate the unlimited possibilities opened by
our present orthography for discussions of propriety of pronunciation
about which certainty can never be assured. All statements about
general usage, no matter from what source coming, must necessarily
be received with a good many grains of allowance, if not with a fair
proportion of grains of distrust--at least, whenever our orthoepic
doctors disagree. Do the best the most conscientious investigator
can, he can never make himself familiar with the practice of but a
limited number of educated men who have a right to be consulted. His
conclusions, therefore, must always rest upon a more or less imperfect
collection of facts.
The digraph _ay_ is naturally subject to the same influences as _ai_.
It is, however, much less used save at the end of words. Grief has,
indeed, been felt and expressed, even by devout worshippers of our
present orthography, at the arbitrary change of signs made in the
inflection of certain verbs, like _lay_, _pay_, _say_. These, without
any apparent reason for so doing, pass from the digraph _ay_ in the
present to _ai_ in the preterite. Naturally there is no objectionable
uniformity in the practice. That might tend to render slightly easier
the acquisition of our spelling. Accordingly, _lay_ and _pay_ and
_say_ have in the past tense _laid_, _paid_, and _said_, while verbs
with the same termination, such as _play_, _pray_, _delay_, have in
this same past tense the forms _played_ and _prayed_ and _delayed_.
_Stay_ uses impartially _staid_ and _stayed_. Much dissatisfaction has
been expressed at the “wanton departure from analogy,” as it has been
called, which has been manifested by the words of the first list given.
As the characteristic of our spelling everywhere is a wanton departure
from analogy, it hardly seems worth while to find fault with this
particular exhibition of it.
In _quay_ the digraph has the entirely distinct sound of “long _e_.”
Of this word it may be added that the spelling is modern while the
pronunciation is ancient. Originally it appeared as _key_ or _kay_--of
course, with the usual orthographic variations. In the earlier half
of the eighteenth century, under the influence of the French _quai_,
the present form of the word came in; toward the end of the century it
had become the prevailing form. This gave the lexicographer, Walker,
an opportunity to display his hostility to any sort of spelling
which should engage in the reprehensible task of aiming to indicate
pronunciation. Such a proceeding was in his eyes a radically vicious
course of action. In the entire ignorance of the original form of the
word he remarked that it “is now sometimes seen written _key_; for if
we cannot bring the pronunciation to the spelling, it is looked upon
as some improvement to bring the spelling to the pronunciation--a most
pernicious practice in language.”
_Key_, as the spelling suggests, had originally the sound of _ey_ in
_they_ and _obey_; later it passed into the sound of “long _e_.” This
it has transmitted to its supplanter. In the scarcity of rymes in our
tongue, it is always a little venturesome to infer from the evidence
of verse the past pronunciation of words which have with us the same
termination, but different sounds. This imparts a little uncertainty to
the treatment of _quay_ in two passages containing the word which are
given by the New Historical Dictionary.
But now arrives the dismal day
She must return to Ormond-quay,
says Swift in his poem of _Stella at Wood-Park_. Does the ryme here
represent an attempt to conform the pronunciation to the spelling?
More likely it represents the survival of a pronunciation once more
or less prevalent. The second extract from _In Memoriam_ is under the
circumstances more striking:
If one should bring me the report
That thou hadst touched the land to-day,
And I went down unto the quay,
And found thee lying in the port.
It certainly looks as if in this passage Tennyson had set out to make
the pronunciation conform to the spelling.
Our next digraph is _ea_. This has a choice variety of sounds to
represent. Most commonly it receives the pronunciation of “long _e_.”
Of the scores of examples containing it, _beast_, _hear_, and _deal_
may be taken as specimens. But while this is its most frequent sound,
it is far from being the only one. Its most important rival is that
of short _e_, which can be found in no small number of words like
_breath_, _breast_, _weather_. In these and all other like cases the
second vowel is absolutely superfluous as regards pronunciation. The
unnecessary letter is in some instances due to derivation; in others
it exists in defiance of it--as, for instance, in _feather_ and
_endeavor_. Its insertion was doubtless due to an attempt to represent
a sound which is no longer heard in these words. In a large number of
instances they were once spelled without the now unpronounced letter.
Common also is a third sound of this digraph--the one we call “short
_u_.” It is heard in _heard_ itself, in _earth_, in _early_, in
_learn_, in _search_, and in a number of other words in which _ea_
is followed by _r_. There is a fourth sound of it which may be
represented by _bear_, _swear_, _tear_. A fifth sound of it occurs in
the words _heart_, _hearth_, and _hearken_. Again, a sixth sound of
it is represented by such words as _great_, _break_, _steak_. In all
these cases it will be observed that certain of these words have in
the course of their history tended to pass from one pronunciation of
the digraph into another. Sometimes they have for a long time wavered
between the two. _Hearth_, which contains the fifth sound just assigned
to the combination, was often made to ryme with words containing the
third sound, represented by _earth_. According to the New Historical
Dictionary, this is true now of Scotland, and of the Northern English
dialect. It is true also of certain parts of the United States, or,
at any rate, of certain persons. It seems also to have been the
pronunciation of Milton.