Of the Orthography of the British Tongue: A Treatise, no Shorter than Necessary, for the Schools

To the most excellent in all princely wisdom, learning, and heroic arts, James, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the faith, grace, mercy, peace, honour here, and glory hereafter.

May it please Your Most Excellent Majesty, I, Your Grace’s humble servant, seeing such uncertainty in our men’s writing, as if a man that would indite one letter to twenty of our best writers, no two of the twenty, without conference, would agree; and that they who might perhaps agree met rather by custom {1} than knowledge, set myself, about a year since, to seek a remedy for that malady. When I had done refining it, I found in Baret’s Alveary, which is a dictionary Anglico-Latinum, that Sir Thomas Smith, a man of no less worth than learning, Secretary to Queen Elizabeth, had left a learned and judicious monument on the same subject. Here considering my own weakness, and meanness of my person, began to fear what might betide my silly boat in the same seas where such a man’s ship was sunk in the gulf of oblivion. For the printers and writers of this age, caring for no more art than may win the penny, will not pain themselves to know whether it be orthography or skaiography  that doth the {n. p.} turn: and schoolmasters, whose silly brain will reach no further than the compass of their cap, content themselves with άυτὸς ἔφη, my master said it. While I thus hovered between hope and despair, the same Baret, in the letter E, minds me of a star and constellation to calm all the tides of these seas, if it would please the supreme Majesty to command the university to censure and ratify, and the schools to teach the future age right and wrong, if the present will not rectius sapere. Here my heart laggared  on the hope of Your Majesty’s judgement, whom God hath endowed with light in a sort supernatural, if the way might be found to draw Your eye, set on high matters {2} of state, to take a glim of a thing of so mean contemplation, and yet necessary. While I stuck in this clay, it pleased God to bring Your Majesty home to visit your own Ida. Where I heard that your Grace, in the disputes of all purposes wherewith, after the example of the wise in former ages, you use to season your moat , ne quid tibi temporis sine fructu fluat, fell sundry times on this subject reproving your courtiers, who on a new conceit of fineness sometimes spilt (as they call it) the king’s language. Which thing it is reported that Your Majesty not only refuted with impregnable reasons, but also fell on Baret’s {n. p.} opinion that you would cause the universities make an English grammar to repress the insolences of such green heads. This, when I heard it, so seconded my hope, that incontinent I made moyen  how to convey this little treatise to Your Majesty’s sight, to further (if perhaps it may please Your Grace) that good motion. In school matters, the least are not the least, because to err in them is most absurd. If the foundation be not sure, the more gorgeous the edifice the grosser the fault. Neither is it the least part of a prince’s praise, curasse rem literariam, and be his authority to mend the {3} misses that ignorant custom hath bred. Julius Ceasar was no less diligent to eternise his name by the pen than by the sword. Neither thought he it unworthy of his pains to write a grammar in the heat of the civil war, which was to them as the English grammar is to us; and, as it seems no less than necessary, nor ours is now. Many kings since that time have advanced letters by erecting schools, and doting revenues to their maintenance; but few have had the knowledge themselves to mend, or be touched with, the defects or faults crept into {n. p.} the bowels of learning, among whom James I, one of Your Majesty’s worthy progenitors, howbeit repressed by the iniquity of the time, deserved no small praise; and Your Majesty’s self no less, commanding, at Your first entry to Your royal sceptre, to reform the grammar, and to teach Aristotle in his own tongue, which has made the Greek almost as common in Scotland as the Latin. In this also, if it please Your Majesty to put to Your hand, You have all the winds of favour {4} in Your sail; account, that all do follow; judgement, that all do reverence; wisdom, that all admire; learning, that stupefied our schools hearing a king born, from twelve years old always occupied in matters of state, moderate in theological and philosophical disputationes, to the admiration of all that heard him, and specially them who had spent all their days in those studies.

Accept, dread Sovereign, Your poor servant’s might. If it can confer anything to the mountain of Your Majesty’s praise, and it were but a clod, use it and the author as Yours. {n. p.} Thus beseeching Your Grace to accept my mint , and pardon my miss, commits Your Grace to the King of Grace, to grace Your Grace with all graces spiritual and temporal.

Your Majesty’s humble servant,

Alexander Hume {5}

{n. p.}

{6}

Of the Orthography of the British Tongue: A Treatise, no Shorter than Necessary, for the Schools

{n. p.}

Of the Grounds of Orthography

Chapter 1

1. To write orthographically there are to be considered the symbol, the thing symbolised, and their congruence. Give me leave, gentle reader, in a new art, to borrow terms incident to the purpose, which, being defined, will further understanding.

2. The symbol, then, I call the written letter, which represents to the eye the sound that the mouth should utter.

3. The thing symbolised I call the sound that the mouth utters when the eye sees the symbol.

4. The congruence between them {7} I call the instrument of the mouth, which, when the eye sees the symbol, utters the sound.

5. This is the ground of all orthography, leading the writer from the sound to the symbol, and the reader from the symbol to the sound. As, for example, if I were to write “God”, the touch of the middle of the tongue on the roof of the mouth before the vowel, and the top of the tongue on the teeth behind the vowel, minds me to write it “g-o-d”. The vowel is judged be the sound, as shall be shown hereafter. This is the hardest lesson in this treatise, and may be called the key of orthography. {n. p.}

Of the Latin Vowels

Chapter 2

1. We, as almost all Europe, borrow our symbols from the Romans. Wherefore, to rectify our own, first it behoves us to know theirs. They are in number twenty-three: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, x, y, and z.

2. To omit the needless questions of their order and forms; of them, five be vowels, one a note of aspiration, and all the rest consonants.

3. A vowel is the symbol of a sound made without the touches of the mouth. {8}

4. They are distinguished the one from the other by delating and contracting the mouth, and are a, e, i, o, u.

5. What was the right Roman sound of them is hard to judge, seeing now we hear no Romans; and other nations sound them after their own idioms, and the Latin as they sound them.

6. But seeing our errand is with our own Britain, we purpose to omit curiosities, et quae nihil nostra intersunt. Our own, albeit dialects of one tongue, differing in the sound of them, differ also in pronouncing the Latin. Wherefore, to make a conformity both in Latin and English, we must begin with the Latin. {n. p.}

7. A, the first of them, the south sounds as both they and we sound it in “bare”, nudus; and we, as both they and we sound it in “bar”, obex.

8. But without partiality (for in this errand I have set my compass to the lodestar of reason), we pronounce it better. If I am here deceived, reason shall deceive me.

9. For we give it always one sound both before and behind the consonant: they here one and there another. As in amabant, in the first two syllables they sound it as it sounds in “bare”, and in the last as it sounds in “bar”. Whereupon I ground this argument. That is the better sound, not only of this, but also of all other letters, which is always one. But we sound it always one, and therefore better. {9} Add that their sound of it is not far unlike the sheep’s “baa”, which the Greek symbolises by η not α, βη not βα. See Eustathius in Homer.

10. Of this letter the Latins themselves had two other sounds differing the one from the other, and both from this, which they symbolised by adding another vowel, ae and au. And these they called diphthongs.

11. The diphthong they define to be the sound of two vowels coalescing into one sound, which definition in au is plain, in ae obscurer as now we pronounce it, for now we sound it generally like the vowel e, without sound of the a, which notwithstanding is the principal vowel in this diphthong sound. Questionless at the first it seems to have had some differing sound from a, such as we pronounce in “stean”, or the south in “stain”. But this corruption is carried with a stronger tide than reason can resist, and we will not {n. p.} strive with the stream.

12 . E follows, which in reason should have but one sound, for without doubt the first intent was to give every sound the own symbol, and every symbol the own sound. But as now we sound it in quies and quiesco, the judicious ear may discern two sounds. But because here we differ not, I will acquiesce. My purpose is not to deal with impossibilities, nor to mend all crooks, but to conform (if reason will conform us) the south and north both in Latin and in English.

13. Of this vowel riseth two diphthongs, ei and eu, which both stand well with the definition (section 11).

14. Of the next, i, we differ further, and the knot harder to loosen, for neither side wants {10} so reason. They in mihi, tibi, and such others, pronounce it as it sounds in “bide”, manere; we as it sounds in “bid”, iubere.

15. Among the ancients I find some grounds for their sound. Cicero, Epistulae Ad Familiares, liber 9, epistula 22, avows that bini in Latin and βίνει in Greek had one sound. And Varro, with sundry ancients, writes domineis and serveis, for dominis and servis, which is more like the sound of “bide” than “bid”. If this argument reached as well to i short as i long, and if we were sure how ει was pronounced in those days, this authority would overweigh our reason; but seeing i, in mihi, etc., in the first is short, and in the last common, and the sound of ei uncertain, I stand at my reason (section 9), which is as powerful here for i as there for a. They {n. p.} pronounce not i in is and quis, id and quid, in and quin, as they pronounce it in mihi, tibi, sibi, ibi, etc., and therefore not right.

16. As for o in Latin, we differ not; u, the south pronounces when the syllable begins or ends at it, as eu, teu for tu, and eunum, meunus for unum, munus, which, because it is a diphthong sound, and because they themselves, when a consonant follows it, pronounce it other ways, I hope I shall not need arguments to prove it wrong, and not be a pure vowel.

Of the British Vowels

Chapter 3

1. Of a, in our tongue we have four sounds, all so differing {11} one from another, that they distinguish the very signification of words, as, “a tall man”, “a good tall”, “a horse tall”.

2. Wherefore in this case I would commend to our men the imitation of the Greek and Latin, who, to mend this crook, devised diphthongs. Let the simplest of these four sounds, or that which is now in use, stand with the vowel, and supply the rest with diphthongs; as, for example, I would write the “king’s hall” with the vowel a; “a shower of hael”, with ae; “hail Mary”, with ai; and “a heal head”, as we call it, which as the English calls “a whole head”, with ea. And so, besides the vowel, we have of these three diphthongs, two with a before, ae and ai, and one with the e before, ea. Add to them au, howbeit of a distinct sound; as, “knaulege” with us, in the {n. p.} south “knowledge”.

3. These and all other diphthongs I would counsel the teachers not to name by the vowels whereof they are made, but by the sound which they make, for learners will far more easily take the sound from the mouth of the teacher, than make it themselves of the vowel’s ingredient.

4. Of e, we have two sounds, which it is hard to judge which is simplest; as, “an ell”, ulna; and “an eel”, anguilla; “hell”, infernus, and “an heel”, calx pedis. Here I would commend to our men who confound these the imitation of the south, which doth well distinguish these sounds, writing the “ell”, ulna, with the {12}[fol. 12 b.] vowel e, and “eel”, anguilla, with the diphthong ee. I am not ignorant that some symbolise this sound with a diphthong made of ie: “eie”, oculus; “hiel”, “fiel”, “miel”, etc. Here I am indifferent, and only wish that the one be used; let the advised judge make choice of which, for my own part I like the last best. 1. because “eye”, oculus, cannot well be symbolized ee; 2. because the Greeks express η by εε, which, as appears by the Ionians and Dorians, draws nearer to α, than ε.

5. Of i, also our idiom receives two sounds, as in “a man’s will”, and “the wile of a fox”. Here, also, I would have our men learn of the south, for these sounds they well distinguish, writing “will”, “fill”, “mill”, “still” with i; and “wyll”, “fyll”, “myll”, “styll” with y. {n. p.}

6. Here I see by Baret, in his Alveary, that some would be at symbolising these sounds, the one with the Greek diphthong ει, and the other with ᴉ inverted; as, rειd, equitare; bειd, manere; rᴉd, legere; hᴉd, cavere. In this opinion I see an edge of judgement, and therefore will not censure it, except I saw the author’s whole drift. Only for my own part I will avoid all novelties, and content myself with the letters which we have in use. And seeing we have no other use of y distinguished from i, I condescend to the opinion of the south using i for one, and y for the other.

7. O, we sound all alike. But {13} of it we have sundry diphthongs: oa, as “to roar”, “a boar”, “a boat”, “a coat”; oi, as “coin”, “join”, “foil”, “soil”; oo, as “food”, “good”, “blood”; ou, as “house”, “mouse”, etc. Thus, we commonly write “mountan”, “fountan”, which it were more etymological to write “montan”, “fontan”, according to the original.

8. In this diphthong we commit a gross error, saving better judgement, spelling “how”, “now”, and such like with w, for if w be (as it shall appear, when we cum to the own place of it) a consonant, it can no way coalesce into a diphthong sound, such as this out of controversy is.

9. U, the last of this rank, the south, as I have said in the Latin sound of it, pronounces eu, we ou, both, in my simple judgement, wrong, for these {n. p.} be diphthong sounds, and the sound of a vowel should be simple. If I should judge, the French sound is nearest the vowel sound as we pronounce it in “mule” and “muse”.

10. Of it we have a diphthong not yet, to my knowledge, observed of any; and, for my own part, I am not well resolved neither how to spell it, nor name it. Only I see it in this, “to bou”, “a bow”. I wait not whither I should spell the first “buu”, or the last “boau”. As, for example, if Robin Hood were now living, he were not able to “buu his own bou”, or “to bou his own boau”. And therefore this with all the rest, howbeit in other I have more for me, I leave to the censure of better judgement. {14}

Of Consonants

Chapter 4

1. This for the vowels, and diphthongs made of them without the touches of the mouth. Now follow the consonants.

2. A consonant is a letter symbolizing a sound articulate that is broken with the touches of the mouth.

3. The instruments of the mouth, whereby the vocal sounds be broken, be in number seven. The nether lip, the upper lip, the outward teeth, the inward teeth, the top of the tongue, the middle tong, and roof of the mouth. Of these, three be, as it were, hammers striking, and the rest stithies , keeping the strokes of the hammers.

4. The hammers are the nether {n. p.} lip, the top of the tongue, and the middle tongue. The stithies the upper lip, the outward teeth, the inward teeth, and the roof of the mouth.

5. The nether lip striking on the upper lip makes b, m, p, and on the teeth it makes f and v.

6. The top of the tongue striking on the inward teeth forms d, l, n, r, s, t, and z.

7. The middle tongue striking on the roof of the mouth forms the rest, c, g, k, j, q, and x, and so we have eighteen consonants borrowed of the Latins.

8. These they borrow all from the Greeks, saving j and v, which our age sounds other ways than it seems the Romans {15} did; for Plutarch, more than 100 years after Christ, expressing the sound which they had in his time, symbolises them nearer the sound of the vowels whereof they are made than now we sound them in Latin, for in Galba he symbolises Julius Vindex, ἰόυνιος ὀύινδεξ, which, if then it had sounded as now we sound it, he should rather have written it with γ and β, γόυνιος βίνδεξ.

9. We have in our use the same sounds which it seems these consonants had in Plutarch’s days, as in “yellow”, “winter”. Which, seeing now they are worn out of the Latin use, my counsel is that we leave the sound of them which now is in the Latin use to the {n. p.} Latins, and take as ours the sound which they have left, and give to the sound, which now we use in Latin, the Latin symbol, as “jolly”, “Jhon”; virtue is not vain; and to the sounds which they have left the symbols which we have usurped to that end, as “yellow”, “yoke”; “water”, “wine”.

10. And here, to put our men of their error who had wont to symbolise “yellow” with an z, and to put no difference between v and w, z is a dental consonant, broken between the top of the tongue and root of the teeth; yal, a guttural sound, made by a mint of the middle tongue to the roof of the mouth, and therefore the organs being {16} so far distant, and the touch so diverse, this symbol can be no reason serve that sound, nor none of that kind.

11. As for v and w, seeing we have in our idiom, beside the Latin sound, another never heard in Latin, as now it is pronounced, I cannot but commend the wisdom of the south, which gave the Latin sound their own symbol, and took to our sound a symbol which they use not. Like was their wisdom in j and y; for as the Latins usurped the vowel i for a consonant in their use, which the Greeks had not, so they usurped y, a vowel not much different from i, for the correspondent sound, not used in the Latin as now it is pronounced.

12. Herefor, for distinctions of both sound and symbol, I would {n. p.} commend the symbol and name of i and u to the vowel sound, as “indifferent”, “unthankful”; the symbols of j and v to the Latin consonants, and their names to be “jod” and “vau”, as “vain jests”; and the symbols y and w to our English sounds, and their names to be “ye” and “we”, or “yod” and “wau”, as “yonder”, “well”, “yellow”, “wool”.

13. Now remaineth h, which we have called a note of aspiration (chapter 2, section 2), and is, indeed, no vowel, because with a consonant it makes no sound, as ch; nor consonant, because it is pronounced without the touch of the mouth, as ha.

14. It may affect all vowels and diphthongs, as “hand”, “hen”, “hind”, “hose”, “hurt”, “hail”, “haughty”, “health”, “heel”, “heifer”, etc. But behind {17} the vowel in our tongue (so far as yet I can find) it hath no use. Of consonants, it affecteth g beyond the vowel, as “laugh”; p before the vowel, as “pheasant”; s and t also before the vowel, as “think”, “shame”. With c we spill the aspiration, turning it into an Italian chirt, as “charity”, “cherry”, of which hereafter.

Of Our Abusing Some Consonants

Chapter 5

1. Now I am come to a knot that I have no wedge to cleave, and would be glad if I could hope for help. There should be for every sound that can occur one symbol, and of every symbol but one only sound. This reason and nature craveth; and I cannot but trow  but that the worthy inventors of this divine faculty shot at this mark. {n. p.}

2. But, contrary to this sure ground, I know not by what corruption, we see, not only in our idiom, but in the Latin also, one symbol to have sundry sounds, yea, and that in one word, as lego, legis.

3. First, to begin with c, it appears by the Greeks, who ever had occasion to use any Latin word, wherein now we sound c as s, in their times it sounded k; for “Cicero”, they wrote Kikero; for “Caesar”, Kaisar; and Plutarch, in Galba, symbolises principia, πρινκίπια.

4. This sound of it we, as the Latins, also keep before a, o, and u, as “canker”, “conduit”, “cumber”. But, before e and i, sometimes we sound it, with the Latin, like an s, as “cellar”, “certain”, “cease”, “city”, “circle”, etc. {18}

5. Behind the vowel, if a consonant intercepts it, we sound it always as a k, as “occur”, “accuse”, “succumb”, “acquire”. If it ends the syllable, we add e and sound it as an s, as “peace”, “vice”, “solace”, “temperance”; but neither for the idle e, nor the sound of the s, have we any reason; neither dare I, with all the oars of reason, row against so strong a tide. I hold it better to err with all, than to strive with all and mend none.

6. This consonant, even where in the original it has the own sound, we turn into the “chirt” we spoke of (chapter 4, section 14), which, indeed, can be symbolised with none, neither Greek nor Latin letters; as, from cano, “chant”; from canon, “chanon”; from castus, “chast”; from κυριακὴ, “a {n. p.} church”, of which I heard doctor Laurence, the Greek professor in Oxford, a man both of great learning and judgement, utter his opinion to this sense, and (except my memory fails me) in these words: κυριακὴ ut βασιλικὴ suppresso substantivo, ὀικία domus domini est. Unde nostrum derivatur, quod Scoti et Angli boreales recte, pronunciant “a kyrk”, nos corrupte “a church”.

7. Yet, notwithstanding that it is barbarous, seeing it is more usual in our tongue than can be mended before the vowel, as “chance”, and behind the vowel, as “such”, let it be symbolised, as it is symbolised with ch, howbeit nether the {19} c nor the h hath any affinity with that sound. 1. Because it hath been long so used; and 2. because we have no other means to symbolize it, except it were with a new symbol, which it will be hard to bring in use.

8. Now, whereas ch in nature is c aspirated, as it sounds in “charus” and “chorus”; and seeing we have that sound also in use, as “licht”, “micht”; if I had been at the first counsel, my vote would have been to have given ch the own sound. But as now the case stands, ne quid novandum sit quod non sit necesse, I not only consent, but also commend the wisdom of the south, who, for distinction, writes “light”, “might”, with gh and refers ch to the other sound, how be it improperly, and this distinction I commend {n. p.} to our men, who yet has not satis attente observed it.

9. Next comes g, howbeit not so deformed as c; for, although we see it even in Latin, and that, in one word (as is said chapter 5, section 2), distorted to two sounds, yet both may stand with the nature of the symbol and differ not in the instruments of the mouth, but in the form of the touch, as the judicious ear may mark in ago, agis; agam, ages.

10. This consonant, in Latin, never follows the vowel; before a, o, u, it keeps always the own sound, and before e and i breaks it.

11. But with us it may both begin and end the syllable, as “gang”; it may, both behind and before, {20} have either sound, as “get”, “gist”, “gin”, “giant”.

12. These the south hath providently meant to distinguish two ways, but has indeed distinguished no way, for the first some hath used two gg, as “egg”, “legg”, “bigg”, “bagg”; for the other dg, as “hedge”, “edge”, “bridge”; but these are not κατὰ πάντος. “Giles”, nomen viri, cannot be written “Dgiles”; nor “giles”, doli, “ggiles”; nether behind the vowel are they general; “age”, “rage”, “suage” are never written with dg. Wherefore I conclude that, seeing nether the sound nor the symbol hath any reason to be sundry, without greater authority, nor the reach of a private wit, this fault is incorrigible.

13. Here I am not ignorant what ado the learned make about the symbols of c, g, k and q, that they be all symbols, but of one sound; {n. p.} but I will not meddle in that question, being beside my purpose, which is not to correct the Latin symbols, but to find the best use of them in our idiom.

14. T, the last of these misused shoulders, keeps always its own nature, except it be before tio, as “oration”, “declamation”, “narration”; for we pronounce not tia and tiu as it is in Latin. Only let it be here observed that, if an s precedes tio, the t keeps the own nature, as in “question”, “suggestion”, etc.

15. Thus have I briefly handled the letters and their sounds, which, to end this part, I would wish the printers, in their a, b, c, to express thus: a, ae, ai, au, ea, b, c, d, e, ee, ei, eu, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, oa, oo, ou, p, q, r, s, t, u, ui, v, w, x, y, z, {21} and the masters teaching their pupils to sound the diphthongs, not by the vowels whereof they be made, but by the sound which they make in speaking; likewise I would have them name w not “double u”, nor v “single u”, as now they do; but the last “vau” or “ve”, and the first “wau” or “we”; and j, for difference of the vowel i, written with a long tail, I would wish to be called “jod” or “je”.

Of the Syllable

Chapter 6

1. Now follows the syllable, which is a full sound symbolised with convenient letters, and consists of one or more.

2. A syllable of one letter is symbolized with a vowel only, as a in “able”, e in “ever”, i in “idle”, o in “over”, u in “unity”, for a consonant can make no syllable alone.

3. A syllable of more letters is made of vowels only, or else of vowels and consonants. Of only vowels {n. p.} the syllable is called a diphthong, of which we have spoken in the vowels whereof they are composed.

4. A syllable of vowels and consonants either begins at the vowel, as “all”, “ill”, “ell”; or at one consonant, as “tall man”; or at two consonants, as “stand”, “sleep”; or else at three at the most, as “strand”, “stripe”. It ends either at a vowel, as “fa”, “fo”; or at one consonant, as “ar”, “er”; or at two, as “best”, “dart”; or at three at the most, as “durst”, “worst”.

5. Here is to be noted that in dividing syllables, the consonants, one or more, that may begin a syllable anyway in the middle of a word belong to the vowel following, as in “que-stion”, “qua-rrel”, “fi-sher”, “sa-ffron”, “ba-stard”, “de-scribe”, “re-scue”. {22}

6. It is also here to be observed in printing and writing, that when a word falls to be divided at the end of a line, that the partition must be made at the end of a syllable, so that the one line end at the end of the whole syllable, and the other begin the next line. As, for example, if this word “magistrate” fell to be divided at the first syllable, it behoved to be “ma-gistrate”; if at the second, it behoved to be “magi-strate”; but no ways to part the m from the a, nor the g from the i, nor the s from t, nor the t from r.

Of the Rules to Symbolise

Chapter 7

1. To symbolise right, the sound of the vowel is first to be observed, whether it be a simple vowel or a {n. p.} compound, and which of them is to be chosen, for which no rule can be given but the judgement of the ear.

2. Next the consonants are to be marked; and first, whether they break the vowel before or behind; then whether they be one or more; and lastly, with what organs of the mouth they be broken.

3. For by the organs of the mouth, wherewith the syllable is broken, the consonants are discerned by which the syllable must be symbolised, which we have said (chapter 1, section 5).

4. The consonants may differ in hammer (as we called it, chapter 4, section 3) and stithy , as b and d. Or they may agree in hammer and differ in stithy, as b and v. Or they {23} may agree in both and differ in the touch, as f and v, m and p, c and g.

5. The touch before the vowel is by lifting the hammer off the stithy, as da, la, pa; and behind, by striking the hammer on the stithy, as ad, al, ap. And when the hammer and the stithy are one, the difference is in the hardness and softness of the touch; as may be seen in ca and ga, ta and da. But w and y make so soft a movement that it is hard to perceive, and therefore did the Latins symbolise them with the symbol of the vowels. They are never used but before the vowel, as “we”, “ye”, “will”, “you”; behind the vowel they make no consonant sound, nor should be written, and therefore “now” and “vow”, with such others, are not [to] be written with w, as is said before. {n. p.}

6. Of this which now is said may be gathered that general, which I called the key of orthography, (chapter 1, section 5) that is the congruence of the symbol and sound symbolised; that is, that both must belong to the same organs and be touched after the same form.

7. And, by the contrary, here it is clear that sounds pronounced with this organ cannot be written with symbols of that, as, for example, a labial symbol cannot serve a dental nor a guttural sound; nor a guttural symbol a dental nor a labial sound.

8. To clear this point, and also to reform an error bred in the south, and now usurped by our ignorant printers, I will tell what befell myself {24} when I was in the south with a special good friend of mine. There rose, upon sum accident, whether “quho”, “quhen”, “quhat”, etc., should be symbolised with q or w, a hot disputation between him and me. After many conflicts (for we often encountered), we met by chance, in the city of Bath, with a doctor of divinity of both our acquaintance. He invited us to dinner. At table my antagonist, to bring the question on foot amongst his own condisciples, began that I was become a heretic, and the doctor inquiring how, answered that I denied “quho” to be spelled with a w, but with qu. By what reason? Quoth the doctor. Here, I beginning to lay my grounds of labial, dental, and guttural sounds and symbols, he snapped me on this hand and he {n. p.} on that, that the doctor had much ado to win me room for a syllogism. Then (said I) a labial letter cannot symbolise a guttural syllable. But w is a labial letter, “quho” a guttural sound. And therefore w cannot symbolise “quho”, nor no syllable of that nature. Here the doctor staying them again (for all barked at once), the proposition, said he, I understand; the assumption is Scottish, and the conclusion false. Whereat all laughed, as if I had been driven from all reply, and I fretted to see a frivolous jest go for a solid answer. My proposition is grounded on the seventh section of this same chapter, which no man, I {25} trow , can deny that ever sucked the paps of reason. And so the question must rest on the assumption whether w be a labial letter and “quho” a guttural syllable. As for w, let the examples of “will”, “well”, “wine”, judge which are sounded before the vowel with a movement of the lips, as is said the same chapter, section 5. As for “quho”, besides that it differs from quo only by aspiration, and that w, being no perfect consonant, cannot be aspirated, I appeal to all judicious ears, to which Cicero attributed much, whether the aspiration in “quho” be not ex imo gutture, and therefore not labial.

Of Rules from the Latin

Chapter 7

1. Here, seeing we borrow much from the Latin, it is reason that {n. p.} we either follow them in symbolising theirs, or deduce from them the grounds of our orthography.

2. Imprimis, then, whatever we derive from them written with c we should also write with c, howbeit it sounds as an s to the ignorant, as “conceive”, “receive”, “perceive” from concipio, recipio, percipio; “concern”, “discern”, from concerno, discerno; “access”, “success”, “recess” from accedo, succedo, recedo, with many more, which I commend to the attention of the writer.

3. Also what they write with s we should also write with s, as “servant” from servus, “sense” from sensus, “session” from sessio, “passion” from passio.

4. Neither is the c joined with s here to be omitted, as {26} “science” and “conscience” from scientia, conscientia; “ascend” and “descend” from ascendo, descendo; “rescind” and “abscind” from rescindo and abscindo.

4. This difference of c and s is the more attentively to be marked for that words of one sound and diverse signification are many times distinguished by these symbols, as “the king’s secret council” and “the faithful counsil of a friend”; “concent in music” and “consent of minds”; “to dwell in a cell” and “to sell a horse”; “a décent weed” and “descént of a noble house”, these two last differ also in accent.

5. Likewise, that we derive from Latin verbs in tio should also be written with t, as “oration”, “visitation”, “education”, “vocation”, “proclamation”, “admonition”, etc.

6. Words derived from the {n. p.} Latin in tia and tium we write with ce, as “justice” from justitia, “intelligence” from intelligentia, “vice” from vitium, “service” from servitium. In all which, howbeit the e behind the c be idle, yet use has made it tolerable to note the breaking of the c, for all tongues bear with some slips that cannot abide the touchstone of true orthography.

7. C is also written in our words derived from x in Latin, as “peace” from pax, “furnace” from fornax, “matrice” from matrix, “nourice” from nutrix, which the south calls “nurse”, not without a fault both in sound and symbol; by this we write “felicity”, “audacity”, “tenacity”, etc.

8. Likewise we should keep the vowels of the original, wherein the north wars the {27} south; from retineo, the north “retine”, the south “retain”; from foras, the north “foran”, the south “forain”; from regnum, the north “regne”, the south “reign”; from cor, the north “corage”, the south “courage”; from devoro, the north “devore”, the south “devour”; from vox, the north “voce”, the south “voice”; from devoveo, the north “devote”, the south “devoute”; from guerrum, the north “were”, the south “war”; from gigas, gigantis, the north “gyant”, the south “giaunt”; from mons, montis, the north “mont”, the south “mount”. Of this I could reckon armies but will not presume to judge further than the compass of my own cap, for howbeit we keep nearer the original, yet all tongues have their idiom in borrowing from the Latin, or other foreign tongues.

Of Some Idioms in our Orthography

Chapter 8

{n. p.}

1. In our tongue we have some particles which cannot be symbolised with Roman symbols, nor rightly pronounced but by our own, for we in many places so absorb l and n behind a consonant, where they cannot move without a vowel intervening, that the ear can hardly judge whether there intervenes a vowel or not.

2. In this case some, to avoid the pronunciation of the vowel before the l and n, writes it behind, as “little", “mickle”, “muttne”, “eatne”. Which howbeit it incurs in another inconvenience of pronouncing the vowel behind the l or n, yet I dare not presume to reprove, {28} because it passeth my wit how to avoid both inconveniences, and therefore this I leave to the will of the writer.

3. Some of our men has taken up some unusual forms of symbolising, which I would wish to be reformed, yet if I bring not reason, let no man change for my phantasy.

4. First, for “peple” they write “people”, I trow  because it comes from populus; but if that be a reason, I would understand a reason why they speak not so also. Or if they speak not so, I would understand why they write not as they speak. I know they have the example of France to speak one way and write another; but that example is as good to absorb the s in the end of every word. All examples are not imitable. {n. p.}

5. They use also to write “logicque”, “musicque”, “rhetoricque”, and other of that sort, with cque. If this be done to make the c in logica, etc., subsist, why were it not better to supply a k in the place of it, than to hedge it in with a whole idle syllable; it were both more orthographical and easier for the learner, for c and k are so sib , that the one is a Greek and the other a Latin symbol of one sound. In this art it is alike absurd to write that thou read not, as to read that thou write not.

6. We use also, almost at the end of every word, to write an idle e. This some defend {29} not to be idle, because it affects the vowel before the consonant, the sound whereof many times alters the signification, as “hop” is altero tantum pede saltare, “hope” is sperare; “fir”, abies, “fire”, ignis; “a fin”, pinna, “fine”, probatus; “bid”, iubere, “bide”, manere; with many more. It is true that the sound of the vowel before the consonant many times doth change the signification; but it is as untrue that the vowel e behind the consonant doth change the sound of the vowel before it. A vowel divided from a vowel by a consonant can by no possible means return through the consonant into the former vowel. Consonants between vowels are like partition walls between rooms. Nothing can change the sound of a vowel {n. p.} but another vowel coalescing with it into one sound, of which we have spoken sufficiently (chapter 3), to illustrate this by the same examples: saltare is “to hop”; sperare to “hope”; abies is “fir”; ignis, “fire” or, if you will, “fier”; iubere is “bid”; manere, “bide” or “bied”.

7. Yet in some case we are forced to tolerate this idle e: 1. in words ending in c, to break the sound of it, as “peace”, “face”, “lace”, “justice”, etc.; 2. behind s, in words written with this s, as “false”, “ise”, “case”, “muse”, “use”, etc.; 3. behind a broken g, as “knowledge”, “savage”, “suage”, “old age”. There may be more, and these I yield because I know no other way to help this necessity, rather {30} than that I can think any idle symbol tolerable in just orthography.

Of the Accents of Our Tongue

Chapter 9

1. Seeing that we find not only the south and north to differ more in accent than symbol, but also one word with a sundry accent to have a diverse signification, I commend this to him who has authority, to command all printers and writers to note the accented syllable in every word with no less diligence than we see the Grecians to note theirs.

2. Cicero, in his book De oratore ad Brutum, makes it a natural harmony that every word {n. p.} pronounced by the mouth of man have one acute syllable, and that never further from the end than the third syllable, which the grammarians call to the same end the antepenultimate. Which observation of so noble a wit is most true in tongues which he understood, the Greek and Latin. But if Cicero had understood our tongue, he should have heard the accent in the fourth syllable from the end, as in “mátrimony”, “pátrimony”, “vádimony”, “intólerable”, “intélligences”, and whole garrisons of like livery. This any ear may {31}[fol. 31 b.] if he accents the antepenultimate “matrímony”, or the penultimate “matrimόny”, or the last as “matrimoný”.

3. Then to the purpose we have the same accents which the Latin and the Greek hathe: acute, circumflex, and grave.

4. The acute raiseth the syllable whereon it sits, as “proféss”, “prófit”, “ímpudent”.

5. It may possess the last syllable, as ”suppréssed”, “preténce”, “sincére”; the penultimate, as “súbject”, “cándle”, “cráfty”; the antepenultimate, as “diffículty”, “mínister”, “fínally”; and the fourth also from the end, as is said [in] section 2, as “spécially”, “insátiable”, “díligently”. In all which, if a man changes the accent, he shall spill the sound of the word. {n. p.}

6. The grave accent is never noted, but only understood in all syllables wherein the acute and circumflex is not. Only, for difference, some words are marked with it thus “ ` ”, leaning contrary to the acute.

7. The circumflex accent both lifts and fells the syllable that it possesseth, and combines the marks of other two, thus “ ˆ ”. Of this we, as the Latins, has almost no use. But the south hath great use of it, and in that their dialect differs more from ours than in other sounds or symbols.

8. The use of the accent will be of good importance for the right pronunciation of our tongue, which now we do forte, non arte, and conforming of the dialects, which, as I have said, differs most in this. {32}

Of the Apostrophe and Hyphen

Chapter 10

1. The learned printers uses to symbolise apostrophe and hyphen as well as a, b, c.

2. Apostrophe is the ejecting of a letter or a syllable out of one word or out between two, and is always marked above the line, as it were a comma, thus “ ’ ”.

3. Out of one word the apostrophe is most usual in poetry, as Psalm. 73, verse 3, “For when I saw such foolish men, I grudg’d, and did disdain”; and verse 19, “They are destroy’d, dispatch’d, consum’d”.

4. Between two words we abate either from the end of the former or the beginning of the latter.

5. We abate from the end of the former when it ends in a vowel {n. p.} and the next begins at a vowel, as “th’ingrate”; “th’one part”; I s’it”, for “I see it”.

6. In abating from the word following, we, in the north, use a marvellous liberty, as “he’s a wise man” for “he is a wise man”; “I’ll meet with him” for “I will meet with him”; “a ship’l of fools” for “a ship full of fools”; and this we use in our common language. And which is stranger, we many times cut of the end of the word, as “he’s tell you” for “he shall tell you”.

7. This for apostrophe. Hyphen is, as it were, a band uniting whole words joined in composition, as “a hand-made”, “a heard-man”, “tongue-tied”, {33} “out-rage”, “fore-warned”, “mis-reported”, “false-deemed”.

{n. p.}

{34}

Of the Congruity of Our British Tongue

Liber 2

{n. p.}

Of the Person

Chapter 1

1. All words which we use to express our mind are personal or impersonal.

2. A personal word is which admits diversity of person.

3. Person is the face of a word, which in diverse forms of speech it diversely puts on, as “I, Peter, say that thou art the son of God. Thou, Peter, says that I am the son of God. Peter said that I am the son of God”.

4. Whereupon person is first, second, and third.

5. The first person is of him that speaks, as “I write”. {35}

6. The second person is of him that is spoken to, as “thou writes”.

7. The third person is of him that is spoken of, as “Peter writes”.

Of Number

Chapter 2

1. Number is distinction of person by one and more; and so is singular and plural.

2. The singular speaks of one, as “a hand”, “a tree”, “a sheep”, “a horse”, “a man”.

3. The plural speaks of more than one, as “hands”, “trees”, “sheep”, “horses”, “men”, “two”, “three”, “four”, or more, or how many soever.

4. This difference is commonly noted with es at the end {n. p.} of the word singular, as “a house”, “houses”; “a window”, “windows”; “a door”, “two doors”.

5. Sometimes it is noted by changing a letter, as “a man”, “men”; “a woman”, “women”; “a goose”, “geese”.

6. Sometime by changing nothing, as “a sheep”, “a thousand sheep”; “a horse”, “an hundred horse”; “a nowt”, “ten nowt”.

Of the Determination of the Person

Chapter 3

1. A personal word is a noun or a verb. A noun is a word of one person with gender and case, as “I” is only of the first person; {36} “thou” is only of the second; and all other nouns are only the third person, as “John”, “Thomas”, “head”, “hand”, “stone”, “block”, except they be joined with “I” or “thou”.

2. The person of a noun singular is determined or undetermined.

3. The determined person is noted with “the”, and it is determined either by another substantive, as “the king of Britain”; or by an adjective, as “the best king in Europe”; or by a relative, as “God preserve the king whom he hath given us”.

4. The undetermined noun is noted with “an” before a vowel, as “an old man should be wise”; and with “a” before a consonant, as “a father should command his son”.

Of the Gender of a Noun

Chapter 4

1. Gender is the affection of a {n. p.} noun for distinction of sex.

2. Sex is a distinction of a noun by male and female, and these are distinguished the one from the other, or both from things without sex.

3. The one is distinguished from the other by “he” and “she”.

4. “He” is the note of the male, as “he is a good judge”; “he is a wise man”; “he is a speedy horse”; “he is a crouse cock”; “he is a fat wether”.

5. “She” is the note of the female sex, as “she is a chaste matron”; “she is a stud mare”; “she is a fat hen”; “she is a milk cow”.

6. Nouns that want sex are noted with “it”, as “it is a tall tree”; “it is a sweet apple”; “it is a hard flint”; {37} “it is a fair day”; “it is a foul way”.

7. In the plural number they are not distinguished, as “they are honest men”; “they are virtuous ladies”; “they are high mountains”.

Of the Case of the Noun

Chapter 5

1. Case is an affection of a noun for distinction of person, as “the corner stone fell on me”, “stone” is the nominative case. “The corner of a stone hurt me”, “stone” is the genitive case. “What can you do to a stone?” “stone” is the dative case. “He braked the stone”, it is the accusative case. “Why stands thou, stone?” it is the vocative. And “he hurt me with a stone”, it is the ablative case.

2. This difference we decline, {n. p.} not as doth the Latins and Greeks, by terminations, but with notes, after the manner of the Hebrews, which they call particles.

3. The nominative hath no other note but the particle of determination, as “the people is a beast with many heads”; “a horse serves man to many uses”; “men in authority should be lanterns of light”.

4. Our genitive is always joined with another noun, and is noted with of or s.

5. With of, it follows the noun wherewith it is joined, as “the house of a good man is well governed”.

6. With s it precedes the word whereof it is governed, and s is divided from it with an apostrophe, as “a good man’s house is well governed”. {38}

7. This s some holds to be a segment of “his”, and therefore now almost all writes “his” for it, as if it were a corruption. But it is not a segment of “his”: 1. because “his” is the masculine gender, and this may be feminine, as “a mother’s love is tender”; 2. because “his” is only singular, and this may be plural, as “all men’s virtues are not known”.

8. The dative is noted with “to” and “for”, as “give liberty even to the best youth and it will luxuriate”; “all men doth for themselves few for a friend”.

9. The accusative hath no other note than the nominative, as “the head governs the body”.

10. The vocative is the person to whom the speech is directed, as “whence comes thou, Aeneas?” {n. p.}

11. The ablative is noted with prepositions “in”, “with”, “by”, and such like, as “by God all things were made”; “God with his word his works began”; “in my father’s house are many mansions”.

Of The Degrees of Comparison

Chapter 6

1. All nouns that will join with a substantive are called adjectives, as “good”, “high”, “hard”, “sweet”, “sour”.

2. These, and all that will admit more and most, are compared by degrees, as “sweet”, “more sweet”, “most sweet”.

3. Of comparison there be three degrees: the positive, comparative, and superlative, if the first may be called a degree.

4. The positive is the first {39} position of the noun, as “soft”, “hard”; “white”, “black”; “hot”, “cold”.

5. The comparative exceeds the positive by “more”, and is formed of the positive by adding er, as “softer”, “harder”; “whiter”, “blacker”; “hotter”, “colder”.

6. The superlative exceeds the positive by “most”, and is formed of the positive by adding est, as “softest”, “hardest”; “whitest”, “blackest”; “hottest”, “coldest”.

Of The Verb’s Person and Number

Chapter 7

1. This for the noun. The verb is a word of all persons declined with mood and time, as “I write, thou writes, he writes”.

2. We decline not the persons and numbers of the verb, as doth the Latin, but note them by the person of the noun.

3. They are noted with “I”, “thou”, and {n. p.} “he” in the singular number; “we”, “ye”, and “they” in the plural.

4. The number is noted with “I” and “we”; “thou” and “ye”; “he” and “they”.

Of the Mood of the Verb

Chapter 8

1. The mood is an affection of the verb serving the variety of utterance.

2. We utter the being of things or our own will.

3. The being of things is uttered by inquiring or avowing.

4. We inquire of that we would know, as “made God man without sin?” and in this the supposit of the verb follows the verb.

5. We avow that which we know, as “God made man without sin”; and in this the supposit precedes the verb.

6. We utter our will by verbs signifying the form of our will, {40} or postposing the supposit.

7. We wish by “would God”, “God grant”, and “God nor”, as “would God I knew the secrets of nature”.

8. We permit the will of others by letting, as “let God arise”; “let every man have his own wife”.

9. We bid our inferiors, and pray our superiors, by postponing the supposit to the verb, as “go ye and teach all nations”; “hear me, my God”.

Of the Time of the Verb

Chapter 9

1. Time is an affection of the verb noting the differences of time, and is either present, past, or to come.

2. Time present is that which now is, as “I write”, or “am writing”.

3. Time past is that which was, and it is passing before, past else, or past before.

4. Time passing before, which we call imperfectly past, is of a thing {n. p.} that was doing but not done, as “at four hours I was writing”; “when you spoke to me, I was writing”, or “did write”, as Lily expounds it.

5. Time past else is of a thing now past, which we call perfectly past, as “I have written”.

6. Time past before is of a thing before done and ended, as “at four hours”, or “when you spoke to me, I had written”.

7. Time to come is of that which is not yet begun, as “at four hours I will write”.

Of the Power of the Verb

Chapter 10

1. A verb signifies being or doing. Of being there is only one, “I am”, and is thus varied.

2. In the present time: “I am”, “thou art”, “he is”, “we are”, “ye are”, “they are”. {41}

3. In time passing before: “I was”, “thou was”, “he was”, “we were”, “ye were”, “they were”.

4. In time past else, “I have been”, “thou has been”, “he has been”, “we have been”, “ye have bene”, “they have bene”.

5. In time past before: “I had been”, “thou had been”, “he had been”, “we had been”, “ye had been”, “they had been”.

6. In time to come: “I will be”, “thou wilt be”, “he will be”, “we will be”, “ye will be”, “they will be”.

7. Verbs of doing are actives or passives.

8. The active verb adheres to the person of the agent, as “Christ hath conquered hell and death”.

9. The passive verb adheres to the person of the patient, as “hell and death are conquered by Christ”.

10. These our idiom conjugates only in two times, the time {n. p.} present and time past, as “I write”, “I wrote”; “I speak”, “I spake”; “I hear”, “I heard”; “I see”, “I saw”; “I feel”, “I felt”.

11. The other differences of time are expressed by the notes of the verb of being, or by the verb of being itself, and a participle, as “I was writing”; “I have written”; “I had written”; “I will write”.

Of the Adverb

Chapter 11

1. A word impersonal is which in all forms of speech keeps one face, and this is adverb or conjunction.

2. An adverb is a word adhering most commonly with a verb with one face in all moods, times, numbers and persons, as “I live {42} hardly”, “thou lives hardly”; “I did live hardly”; “I have lived hardly”; “I had lived hardly”; “I will leave hardly”; “live he hardly”; “God forbid he live hardly”, etc.

3. Our men confound adverbs of place, which the south distinguishes as well as the Latin, and therefore let us not shame to learn.

4. They use “where”, “here”, “there” for the place in which; “whence”, “hence”, “thence” for the place from which; “whither”, “hither”, “thither” for the place to which; as “Where dwell you?”, “Whence come you?”, “Whither go you?”.

5. They also distinguish well “in”, “into”, and “unto”: “in” they use with the place where; “into” with the thing whither; and “unto” for how far; as “Our Father, which art in heaven, {n. p.} admit us into heaven, and lift us from the earth unto heaven”.

6. Here, because some nouns incur into adverbs, let us also note their differences.

7. First “no” and “not”. “No” is a noun, nullus in Latin, and in our tongue always precedes the substantive which it nulleth, as “no man”, “no angle”, “no god”.

8. “Not” is an adverb, non in Latin, and in our tongue follows the verb that it nulleth, as “hear not”, “grant not”; “I hear not”, “I grant not”; “I will not hear”, “I will not grant”.

9. “One”, in our idiom, and “an”. “One2 is a noun of number, in Latin unus; “an” a particle of determination preceding a vowel, as we have said (chapter 3, section 4). {43}

10. “Thee” and “the”. “Thee” is the accusative of “thou”, as “thou loves God, and God loves thee”. “The” is the determined note of a noun, of which we spoke (chapter 3, section 3).

Of the Conjunction

Chapter 12

1. Conjunction is a word impersonal serving to couple diverse senses. And of it there be two sorts, the one enunciative, and the other ratiocinative.

2. The conjunction enunciative couples the parts of a period and are: copulative, as “and”; connective, as “if”; disjunctive, as “or”; or discretive, as “howbeit”.

3. The ratiocinative couples the parts of a ratiocination, and it either infers the conclusion or the reason.

4. “Therefore” infers the conclusion, {n. p.} as, “no man can keep the law in thought, word, and deed; and, therefore, no man before the judge of the heart, word, and deed, can be justified be the law”.

5. “Because” infers the reason, as “I will spew you out, because thou art neither hot nor cold”.

Of Distinctions

Chapter 13

1. A distinction is whereby sentences are distinguished in writing and reading. And this is perfect or imperfect.

2. A perfect distinction closes a perfect sense, and is marked with a round stop, thus “ . ” or a tailed stop, {44} thus “ ? ”.

3. The round stop concludes an assertion, as “If Abraham was justified by works, he had whereof to glory.”

4. The tailed stop concludes an interrogation, as “Shall we, who are dead to sin, live to it?”

5. The imperfect distinction divides the parts of a period, and is marked with two stop, the one under the other, thus “ : ”, and is read with half the pause of a perfect stop, as “All have sinned, and fallen from the glory of God: but are justified freely by his grace.”

6. The comma divides the least parts of the period, and is pronounced in reading with a short sob.

7. The parenthesis divides {n. p.} in the period a sentence interlaced on some occurrents which coheres by no syntax with that which precedes and follows, as for example of both, and to conclude this treatise:

Bless, guide, advance, preserve, prolong Lord (if thy pleasure be)

Our King, and Queen; and keep their seed thy name to magnify. {45}