Page:A Dictionary of the English language- Volume I.djvu/13

 From f the Islandick alphabet, v is only distinguished by a diacritical point.

Of w, which in diphthongs is often an undoubted vowel, some grammarians have doubted whether it ever be a consonant; and not rather as it is called a double u or ou, as water may be resolved into ouater; but letters of the same sound are always reckoned consonants in other alphabets: and it may be observed, that w follows a vowel without any hiatus or difficulty of utterance, as frosty winter.

Wh has a sound accounted peculiar to the English, which the Saxons better expressed by hy, hw, as what, whence, whiting; in whore only, and sometimes in wholesome, wh is founded like a simple h.

X begins no English word; it has the sound of ks, as axle, extraneous.

Y, when it follows a consonant, is a vowel; when it precedes either vowel or diphthong, is a consonant, as ye, young. It is thought by some to be in all cases a vowel. But it may be observed of y as of w, that it follows a vowel without any hiatus, as rosy youth.

Z begins no word originally English; it has the found, as its name izzard or s hard expresses, of an s uttered much closer compression of the palate by the tongue, as freeze, froze.

In orthography I have supposed orthoepy, or just utterance of words, to be included; orthography being only the art of expressing certain sounds by proper characters. I have therefore observed in what words any of the letters are mute.

Most of the writers of English grammar have given long tables of words pronounced otherwise than they are written, and seem not sufficiently to have considered, that of English, as of all living tongues, there is a double pronunciation, one cursory and colloquial, the other regular and solemn. The cursory pronunciation is always vague and uncertain, being made different in different mouths by negligence, unskillfulness, or affectation. The solemn pronunciation, though by no means immutable and permanent, is yet always less remote from the orthography, and less liable to capricious innovation. They have however generally formed their tables according to the cursory speech of those with whom they happened to converse; and concluding that the whole nation combines to vitiate language in one manner, have often established the jargon of the lowest of the people as the model of speech.

For pronunciation the best general rule is, to consider these as the most elegant speakers who deviate least from the written words.

There have been many schemes offered for the emendation and settlement of our orthography, which, like that of other nations, being formed by chance, or according to the fancy of the earliest writers in rude ages, was at first very various and uncertain, and is yet sufficiently irregular. Of these reformers some have endeavoured to accommodate orthography better to the pronunciation, without considering that this is to measure by a shadow, to take that for a model or standard which is changing while they apply it. Others, less absurdly indeed, but with equal unlikelihood of success, have endeavoured to proportion the number of letters to that of sounds, that every sound may have its own character, and every character a single found. Such would be the orthography of a new language to be formed by a synod of grammarians upon principles of science. But who can hope to prevail on nations to change their practice, and make all their old books useless? or what advantage would a new orthography procure equivalent to the confusion and perplexity of such an alteration?

Some of these schemes I shall however exhibit, which may be used according to the diversities of genius, as a guide to reformers, or terrour to innovators.

One of the first who proposed a scheme of regular orthography, was Sir Thomas Smith, secretary of state to Queen Elizabeth, a man of real learning, and much practised in grammatical disquisitions. Had he written the following lines according to his theme, they would have appeared thus. At