Page:EB1911 - Volume 21.djvu/483

Rh is denoted by (e), it is necessary to find a new symbol (ϵ) for the open sound. But in languages such as English and German, where the short e is always open, there is no practical objection to using the unmodified (e) to denote the open sound, even if we regard (e) as the proper symbol of the close sound. And in those languages in which the short e is always open and the long e always close it' is enough to mark the distinction of quantity, and leave the distinction of quality to be inferred from it (e, ee). In such a case as this it is, of course, possible to apply the principle of ignoring superfluous distinctions in the opposite way: by writing the long and short vowels in such a language (e, ϵ), leaving the quantity to be inferred from the quality. But the former method is the more convenient, as it does not require any new letter. The “broad” principle is especially convenient in writing diphthongs. Thus in English Broad Romic we write the diphthongs in high and how with the same vowel as ask (hai, hau, ask), although all these (a)'s represent different sounds in ordinary southern English pronunciation. But the pronunciation of these diphthongs varies so much in different parts of the English-speaking territory, and the distinctions are so minute that it would be inconvenient to express them in writing; and as these distinctions are non-significant, it would be useless to do so. (ai) and (au) are symbols, not of special diphthongs, but of two classes of diphthongs: they can stand for any diphthongs which begin with a vowel resembling the Italian a, and end with approximations to i and u respectively. Theoretically it would be just as correct in English and German to write these diphthongs (ae, ao). But these notations are misleading, because they suggest simple sounds.

In comparing the sounds of a variety of languages, or of dialects of a language, and still more in dealing with sounds in general, we require a “narrow,” that is a minutely accurate, notation covering the whole field of possible sounds. It is evident from what has been said above that such a universal scientific alphabet is not suited for practical work in any one language. But the symbols of such a notation as Sweet's “Narrow Romic” are of the greatest use as keys to the exact pronunciation of the vaguer symbols of the Broad Romic notations of each language.

To prevent confusion between these two systems of notations Broad Romic symbols are enclosed in, Narrow Romic in [ ], which at the same time serve to distinguish between phonetic and nomic spellings. This in English i (i) = [i] means that the English vowel in finny is the “wide” sound, not the “narrow” one in French fini, although in the Broad Romic notations of both languages (fini) is written for finny and fini alike.

Narrow Romic was originally based on A. J. Ellis's “Palaeotype,” in which, as the name implies, no new letters are employed. The symbols of Palaeotype are made up, as far as possible, of the letters generally accessible in printing-offices, the ordinary Roman lowercase letters being supplemented by italics and small capitals (i, i, ) and turned letters (ə,ɔ), many digraphs (th, sh) being also used. This notation was a reaction from Ellis's earlier phonotopy, in which a large number of new letters were used. Some of these, however, such as ʃ=(sh), ʒ=(zh), were afterwards adopted into Broad and Narrow Romic. In his Palaeotype Ellis also discarded diacritical letters, which, as he rightly says, are from a typographical point of view equivalent to new letters. In Narrow Romic a certain number of diacritical letters are used, such as (ñ, à), most of which are already accessible. Palaeotype is a Roman-value notation, the main difference as regards the values of the symbols between it and the later systems, being that it is more complex and arbitrary. Ellis afterwards had the unhappy idea of constructing a “Universal Glossic” on an English-values basis, which is even more cumbrous and difficult to remember than Palaeotype.

Sweet's Romic systems were made the basis of the “International” alphabet used in Le Maître Phonétique, which is the organ of the International phonetic Association, directed by P. Passy. Although this system is at the present time more widely known and used than any other, and although it is constructed on the international Romic principle, it is not really an international system. It is rather an attempt to make a special adaptation of the Romic basis to the needs of the French language into a general notation for all languages. But the phonetic structure of French is so abnormal, so different from that of other languages, that the attempt to force a Broad Romic French notation on such a language as English is even more hopeless than it would be to reverse the process. Although well suited for French, this alphabet must from a wider point of view be regarded as a failure: it is too minute and rigid for practical, and yet not precise enough for scientific purposes. In short, although it has done excellent service, and has helped to clear the way for a notation which shall command general acceptance, it cannot be regarded as a final solution of the problem.

Of the numerous other notations now in use, some still adhere to the diacritic principle of Lepsius's Standard Alphabet (1855), intended for missionary use, but found quite unfit for that purpose because of the enormous number of new types required. Most of them prefer to use new letters formed by more or less consistent modifications of the existing italic letters. A J. Lundell's Swedish dialect alphabet and O. Jespersen's Danish dialect alphabet are good specimens of this tendency. In the latter Roman letters are used for special distinctions, just as italic letters are used in the Romic systems.

But in spite of all diversity, there is much agreement. As regards the vowels, the following approximate values are now pretty generally accepted:—

Vowel-length is in some systems denoted by doubling (aa), in others by special marks (a: &c.), the diacritic in ā being used only in the nomic orthographies of dead and oriental languages.

The only consonant-symbols that require special notice are the following:—

All the systems of phonetic notation hitherto considered are based on the Roman alphabet. But although the Roman alphabet has many advantages from a practical point of view, it is evidently impossible to build up a consistent and systematic notation on such an inadequate foundation of arbitrary signs. What is wanted, for scientific purposes especially, is a notation independent of the Roman alphabet, built up systematically—an alphabet in which there is a definite relation between sound and symbol.

This relation may be regarded either from the organic or the acoustic point of view. The tendency of the earlier attempts at an a priori universal alphabet was to symbolize the consonants organically, the vowels acoustically, as in E. Brucke's Phonetische Transscription (1863). It is now generally acknowledged that the vowels as well as the consonants must be represented on a strictly organic basis. This was first done in A. M. Bell's Visible Speech (1867), which appeared again (1882) in a shorter form and with some modifications under the title of Sounds and their Relations. Bell's pupil, H. Sweet, gave a detailed criticism of Visible Speech in a paper on Sound-notation (Trans. of Philological Society, 1880–1881), in which he described a revised form of it called the Organic Alphabet, which he afterwards employed in his Primer of Phonetics and other works. Sweet's Narrow Romic notation already mentioned is practically a transcription of the Organic Alphabet into Roman letters.

Such notations are alphabetic: they go on the general principle of providing separate symbols for each simple sound. But as