Logonomia_modernizzata

   An    English Grammar by which the discourse of the people is more    easily improved, written by Alexander Gil, high master of Paul’s    School. Secon edition, a little more correct, but more suited to    the common use.

Printed    by John Beale at London.

1621.

   {n.    p.}        

Epistola    dedicatoria

To    the Most Serene and Powerful Sovereign James, by the grace of God,    King of Great Britan, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith,    etc.

If    I view my private duty, I recognize that I owe all the gratitude    of my heart to Your Majesty, by whose grace and kindness I have    been enabled to enter upon this way of life which I now follow; or    if I regard that common duty which all good men recognize is owed    to a most learned and excellent King, I have not dared to dedicate    to any individual among men, except to Your Grace,    {A2}    thi s work, however insignificant, which, among other things,    touches so closely upon the honor of our whole race – an honor    which you alone uphold and protect. For neither the art of war,    nor the knowledge of literature, nor the brilliance of genius, nor    the cultivation of manners, nor any skill in anything avails so    much for the glory of any nation as discourse, for through this    medium a people make all these things known among themselves; they    make them known to foreigners; they hand them down to posterity.    For this rea son renowned men – leaders, kings, and emperors –    have zealously fostered polish and elegance in their native    discourse . Julius Caesar wrote to Marcus Tullius concerning the    analogy of words. Augustus decreed that men should write and speak    in uniform manner. When Tiberius was about to address the senate,    he would not, unless he had asked pardon first, utter a single    foreign word. And Charles the Great -- great in his deeds of war,    greater in his virtues --capped his greatest service to literature    with this; namely, that he wrote, in emulation of the Greeks and    Romans, a grammar of his native tongue, attempting by rules and    precepts to render the Teutonic

language    more elegant and more polished and to strike out everything rude.    Chilperic, King of Soissons, added to the French alphabet four    characters which he had invented, and in a public edict ordered    that they be accepted, taught in the schools, {n.    p.}    and exhibited in writings. But let me turn from foreign examples    and view in sequence many of your ancestors . Edward the Third ,    the finest flower of the kings of his time, more illustrious in    martial deeds and more distinguished in wisdom than any other who    has lived, decreed that no one, either in examining cases at law    or in giving a judicial decision, should speak in French, a custom    introduced at the time of William the Norman, but that the    examinations of cases at law, judicial decisions, and other    public transactions should be rendered in the English language or    in the Latin. Oh, if the love of the people had kept pace with the    concern of so great a Prince! Surely    those skilled in the law would not then display even up to our own    time such mark s of slavishness branded on the name of the    English; nor would the English tongue be in bad repute among other    nations, as if it were rude and unpolished, for not one, I dare to    say it, not one of those tongues now in use among mortal men will    be found to be either more polished, or more elegant, or more    adapted to the expressing of every shade of thought, or mor e    fluent. Innumerable faults in writing have crept in, I admit, by    which the studies of our pupils are hindered, but calling to mind,    from ancient times on, the characters of our forefathers,    neglected through the indifference of former times, I have so    reestablished all of these that any one no matter how    uncultivated, {n.    p.}    once he has grasped the pronunciation of the letters, will be able    to comprehend at once at the first glance the true sound of our    words. But because all the success of this toil depends on your    pleasure alone (for error is neither perceived nor recognized when    it has long prevailed, nor is it immediately abandoned without the    setting of a strong example), so, whatever I am myself, whatever    my works and my efforts , all this I offer, most humbly    prostrating myself at the feet of Your Majesty, in order that Your    Majesty, in accordance with the excellent judgment of your divine    sensibility, may order my effort to be rendered valid, or even    unnecessary.

Your    Majesty' s most humble subject, Alexander Gil .

{n.    p.}

Preface    to the reader

The    origins of the English race and language are one; they go back to    the Saxons and Angles, peoples of Germany. Whether the Saxons took    their name from the word daggers (which they called saecae)    or (which seems to me much more likely) from Ashkenaz, the son of    Gomer -- I shall not insist. Nevertheless, however they valued    their saecae,    surely they would not have named themselves saecasons    (that is, sons of daggers), but they might, with

the    greatest honor to their race and due reverence to its founder,    have called themselves Sacasons    (that is, sons of Saca) from Ashkenaz, by a slight variation,    Sacae.    For scholars agree that the descendants of Ashkenaz settled there,    and the leaders of the German Jews (whose language has no small    importance in distinguishing the descendants of Noah) wished    themselves to be X, that is, dwelling among the Ashkenazites. Some    relate that the Angles formerly occupied the Cimbrian Chersonese    between Jutland and Holstein. But this corner is very small to    have sent forth a tribe so numerous that it would occupy even as    much as two counties of Anglia even though it had left its former    abodes completely stripped of inhabitants. Others prefer to say    that the Angles inhabited Scania, or Sconia,    (which is also a province of Denmark, but bordering on Sweden),    and that from there they sought other abodes, being driven thence    by the Danes. Or whether they crossed from there into Pomerania, I    do not know. But Ptolemy assigns the Angles a region above the    Elbe as far as the source of the river Calusius not far from    Mesurium (which to-day they call Magdeburg); thence he places the    Suevi and the Teutons to the West and the Saxons at the mouths of    the Elbe. Yet not only in Sconia is Engelholme the chief city of a    province, but throughout almost all of Germany traces of the    Angles are evident. The abodes of the Saxons also are too limited    in Ptolemy' s account. For it is agreed that the Saxons extended    from the lower Rhine to the Elba as far as the bay of Codanum    [Avent . Annal. Boiorum book 5]. And so, if the name Saxony has    not been given more recently to that territory which stretches    today from Marchia to Misnia and Lusatia, certainly that part of    ancient Saxony is very small. For I remember having seen "Hamburg    the first city of Saxony." But it is most probable, and it is    the belief of history, that the Saxons, who afterwards brought    Britain under their control, were those who settled around the    Ems, the Weser, and the Elbe rivers . The reason, however, for    their coming to Britain was as follows.

When    the Roman power had been broken and weakened, Britain was    abandoned by the Romans under Valentinian the Younger . Since the    Britons had been slain in daily battle with the Romans, and, too,    since all the remaining flower of the people had been called away    to foreign wars, their power against the Scots and the Picts was    very weak. The Scots, having crossed from Ireland long before, had    seized the northern part of the island. {n.    p.}    It makes little difference whether the Picts were Britons who,    shaking the yoke of Roman servitude from their necks, had also    migrated there, or whether they were a people originating in    Germany and called Phichti from their bravery in war. At any rate,    since they were devastating Britain and slaughtering the people    almost to extermination, King Vortigern was compelled to summon    auxiliary troops of the Saxons, by whose aid he was enabled to    slow down and check the attacks of the enemy. Thence, glory    redounded to the Saxons; peace came to the Britons. But since the    king did not meet his obligations to the soldiers, a treaty was    entered into by which he yielded Kent to the control of Hengist    and the Saxons . This was done about the year of our salvation    450. Later the treaty was secured by the giving in marriage to the    king, of Hengist's very beautiful daughter or his granddaughter,    and by the addition of large provinces to the father-in-law's    realm. This the Britons could scarcely endure; they rose in anger;    the king abdicated; they demanded King Vortimer in place of his    father; and on all sides they gave the call to arms. This reign of    Vortimer was very brief, but calamitous for the Saxons; for in the    fourth battle he so dispersed their forces that they retained    their footing in Britain with difficulty. When, however, he had    been put out of the way through the treachery of his step-mother,    Hengist returned with his followers, and what he could not    accomplish by valor, he undertook through trickery; for, having    called a conference under the pretext of arranging a peace, he    slew all the leaders of the Britons almost to a man; he took    captive Vortigern, who had been restored to the throne after the    death of his son, and in payment for his freedom took the four    largest provinces. Thus courage returned to the Saxons; thus their    strength was restored. But no power endures long. For Aurelius    impaired their strength, and the renowned Arthur defeated, broke,    and subdued their race, though he did not destroy it. Hence after    Arthur, their power grew so strong and their number so increased    that they brought almost the whole island under their control,    with the exception only of the mountains of Wales and Scotland.    Nor did the many victories of Cadwallo prevent the Saxons from    driving his son Cadwallader even to the Armorican Britons. And    (either because they wished to preserve the purity of their    language and the renown of their race, or because they were waging    wars fired by their hatred) they so raged against the very    language of the Britons that almost all names of cities, of towns,    of villages, of rivers, of passes, of forests, of valleys, and of    mountains were changed to Saxon names. Thus, about the year 680    under the Saxons as lords of affairs in Britain, the authority was    divided into seven kingdoms. In this heptarchy ravaged by the    various blasts of civil wars, now this kingdom, now that, stood    out from the others. Accordingly after Egbert as leader of the    West Saxons got possession of the power, in order to lull their    discordant minds to sleep, he gave orders for the people to be    called by one name, English, and the country itself, England    (Engeland). Thus the name of the Jutes and of the Frisians, who    had landed here with the Saxons in no small numbers, entirely sank    into oblivion. And although all were called by the common name of    Saxons, whence the very island itself was called Saxony across the    sea, still, because foremost among the Saxons was that people whom    Ptolemy called Angili, we call ourselves Angles. Thus Egbert had    sufficient reason for his name, although some devise other    reasons. These were the origins of our race and of our language;    and if one is eager to learn more of them, there are numerous    histories on this subject. Indeed, the Britannia of that most    learned and wise interpreter of our past, William Camden, will    give you complete information on this matter. {n.    p.}

   The    purity of our speech can be said to remain unchanging because,    beyond that change which I often deplore and [also] beyond tha t    which the passage of time is wont to bring to all discourse, no    impure mixture of foreign peoples tainted us (and this, in order    that that unbounded power and wisdom may shine forth from every    sound and meaning which can be in the human voice or expressed by    it). And although the rest of the Teutons bursting forth here,    there, and everywhere in Italy, Gaul, Spain, etc., learned the    language of the people, nevertheless, our ancestors always    retained the purity of their speech. For however much those    long-standing hatreds of the Britons and the Saxons subsided, and    however much the people joined by inter-marriages, obeyed the    power of one ruler, protected their rights by one law, and    cherished the same religious faith (a thing which is the greatest    bond of the soul), still, except in the proper names of their    families, scarcely a single British word came into common use. A    great change of affairs resulted, I confess, from that destruction    which the Danes caused and which increased in Anglia from Knut the    First to the time of Edward (that is, twenty-five years), and a    greater change, from the victory of the Normans; but truly, no    change in the language. For since the Danes were a people widely    scattered geographically, they thus had widely differing    characters, but there was indeed greater agreement in their    language with the other peoples of Germany than that which they    have to-day, as is clear, for instance, from the manifesto of Knut    on Religion, which is still extant in the Saxon tongue. Moreover,    although the Normans had changed their Teutonic speech to French,    and William the First tried in every possible way to cause the    Angles to speak in the French tongue, still that attempt was    fruitless, since after William all interest in the matter flagged.    To be sure, a considerable number of the nobles gave their    approval to the Conqueror, as did the agents of his pleasures and    as suredly his courtiers, who were eager for the possessions of    others; and for that reason, many French names survive even to    this day among a great many aristocrats. In sports also, in    fowling, and in venery, all terms are French; even our native dogs    are urged on to the kill in French, unless Tristram, which I read    as a young man, has fallen completely into disuse. There are also    many legal terms, and some words of general use. But to these a    place has been given in the Etymology.

   It    remains for us to see, then, what change our discourse has    undergone from the very passage of time. There are extant in    English some very ancient Glosses written on the    Evangelists about the year of Christ 700, later also some public    addresses to the people, Canons of the Church, and the like,    dealing with ecclesiastical matters. But I shall take an example    -- neither old nor new -- from Aelfric, who flourished at the time    of Edgar, whose reign had its beginning in the year of our    salvation 960. His letter to Sigeferth has this beginning:

“AElfric    abb: gret Sigeferth freondlice. Me    is gesaed    that thou redest beo”    

I,    AElfrick abbot, greet friendly, to me it is said    speakest    by

“me    that ic other taehte on Engliscen    gewriten other eower ancor aet ham”

I    teach in my English    writing then your at home

“mid    eow taeth. forthan the he swutelice    saegth,    that it sie    alefd that messe”

with    you teacheth because    that he soothly    saith,    is alow’d mass

“preostan    wel motan wifigen, and min gewriten withcwetheth thysen.”

priests    may take wives, my writings gainsaieth    thisn.

No    one is truly English who does not recognize all these words to be    his own, {B}    however they may seem to be changed by dialect. But if you should    read the authors of subsequent times, I do not know whether you    would judge that they had divested themselves of a coarse rudeness    or rather had decked themselves in a new one. Consider a few lines    from those which Michael Drayton, the Dionysius of the English    world, quotes from Robert of Gloucester concerning the walling of    London by one Ludd. See song 8 of the Poly-Olbion :

Walls    he let make al about and yates yp and doun

And    after Lud that was     is name he cluped it Luds toun.

The    herte yate of the toun that yut stont    ther and is

He    let hie clupie Ludgate after is     o nam iwis.

He    let him tho he was ded burie at thulk yate,

Theruore    yut after him me clupeth it Ludgate.

I    know that this rusticity of the poet, who wrote three hundred    years ago, seems awkward, but however the usage of discourse may    have developed, at the present time it seems [not] to be at its    best unless both accuracy in idiom and an intelligent proportion    of foreign words are present.

   Up to    this point, foreign words in the English language were unheard of.    At length about the year 1400 Geoffrey Chaucer, of unlucky omen,    by using French and Latin words rendered his poetry contemptible.    For this is the stupidity of the unlettered herd that it regards    with particular admiration that which it does not understand.    Thence there developed a new itch in writing and speaking. For    since each one wishes to seem a smatterer and to peddle his skill    in the Latin language, the French, or some other, so daily he    tames some wild beasts of words and teaches frightful and    evil-sounding magpies of unlucky birth and owls to try our words.    So to-day we are almost Englishmen who do not speak English and    who are not understood by English ears. Nor do we deem it    sufficient to have begotten this illegitimate offspring, to have    fostered this abomination, but we have driven out the legitimate    also, ours by birth, pleasing in its aspect, and acknowledged by    our ancestors. O rude speech! Everywhere I hear komon,    visεes,    εnvi,    malis,    etiam virtv,    studi,    ʒustis,    piti,    mersi,    kompassion,    profit,    komoditi,    kulor,    grās,    favor,    akseptans,    etc.        

   But    truly, why in the world have you cast out those terms which our    ancestors employed in place of these counterfeits? That native    words should be driven into exile? That a new barbaric invasion    may wipe out the whole English language? O, ye English! I call    upon you, I say, in whose veins pulses the blood of our native    land; keep, oh keep what yet remains of your native speech and    tread in those footprints of your ancestors which are still    visible. Or do you yourselves wish to make your language    subservient to the Romans, you whose ancestors despised Roman    arms? We have laughed enough and to spare at your     detestable exaggerations, your corrupt improprieties, and your    lamentable tortures. The     stories were even the semi-circles and triangles of your twisted    feet, -- do you wish to have your ears boxed further?    

  Physician    Mirus talks of saliuation,

  Of    Tophes, of pustules,    of febricitation,

  Who    doth ingurgitate, who doth tussicate,

  And    who an vlcer hath inueterate.    {n.    p.}        

  Thus    while his inkhorne termes be doth apply,

  Euacuated    is his ingenie.

 When    you chance to hear this, do you laugh, Wilson? And so that we may    laugh with you, recite, I beg, the dialogue between Gabritius and    Beya, who declaim in a Latin-French-English. And yet I would not    wish these things to have been said because I would repudiate all    foreign words completely, but because I would restrain the    inclination of those who reject customary words pleasing in sound    and full of meaning, merely to devise new ones, harsh to the ear,    and doubtful in sense. Nor do I think that this is permitted to us    less than to other peoples. But just as each nation freely makes    use of goods imported from elsewhere, and itself sells its own in    order to purchase foreign goods, so also any language can grow    rich from foreign resources and can share its own with others. How    many things did the Romans take from the Greeks, and after Greece    was captured, how many in turn did the Greeks take from the    Romans? And if you care to search more deeply into the origins of    the Latin language, you will find that many things were chosen    from ours. And in order to remove a few borrowed feathers from    Aesop’s little crow, I shall set down a very few examples from    many so that you may judge for yourselves from this instruction:

      Teutonic

      English

      Latin

      English

      Latin

      Wein

      wjn

      vinum,

      wag

      vagus,       a, um

      Wust

      wast

      vastus,       a, um

      the       West

       vesper

      Wol

      wel

      valeo

      quod       in

      Wollen

      to

      wil

      volo

      occidente       apparet

      Wahlen

      wallow

      voluo

      Wespe

      wasp

      vespa

      Witwe

      widow

      vidua

      to       worrow

      Wurm

      wurm

      vermis

      to       wade

      voro

      ein

      Wall

      a

      al,       or

      vallum

      vado,       as,

      bulwark

      Inde

vadum

      Weg

      wai

      via

   Here,    to be sure, note that you pronounce V    according to the ancient and correct sound by which we pronounce    W.    For no matter how often they used V    to express the Aeolic digamma, or thick F,    yet in these words and in many others it did not obtain. For V,    the neighbor of the letter F,    is rendered by β    in Greek, as in φλάβιος    et Βιργίλιος;    in    other words, by ȣ,    a s in Ουαλης    from valeo,    ουεσπασιανὸς    from vespa.    However, I would not deny that our W    is derived through V,    that is, thick F,    or even through B    itself, as from the Belgian Wall,    Teutonic Waluisch,    English Whale, Latin balaena. And just as these derivatives from    one letter present themselves, so also will he who has the leisure    to test more widely find [more instances]. For just as the dregs    of very many neighboring peoples flowed to the sanctuary of    Romulus, whence at length arose one gang of robbers, so also from    languages widely separated from each other, at length one Roman    language was produced. It was called Latin, because, just as the    greatest assemblage of criminals was derived from the Latins, so    were very many words. Therefore, since the Latins have admitted    our words, it will certainly be proper to repay this and with    interest. Thus to-day the Germans borrow many things from the    Latins, and this not merely in the case of words, but also, here    and there, in syntax. {B2}

   And    since our language so easily admits and voluntarily adopts foreign    words, I ask that our monosyllables in like manner may be refined    by the addition of polysyllables from other places. And since at    one time the lips of the whole world were one, and the speech one,    surely it should be desirable that the speech of all peoples    should be made one and universal by a single communion of words.    But if this were to be tried by human efforts, certainly no    language would be discovered more suitable for it than the    English. But since this is not to be hoped for from human    inclination, let us bear ourselves modestly in admitting new    words, so that we may seem to be acting under compulsion, not    wantonly. This will truly be finally accomplished when our words,    neither simple nor compound, shall gain the force and the meaning    of foreign diction.

   It    remains for me to say a few words about the new orthography which    I am presenting. And truly, observing that the characters of the    Saxons for the most part were not so unlike the Latin letters but    that you would easily judge that they were derived the one from    the other, and observing, too, that ours much surpassed the Latin    in beauty of style and refinement, and furthermore that in all    ancient writings our scribes exercised the greatest care in    transcribing the words according to their true pronunciation, and    finally that faultiness in writing came into existence for the    first time when our books began to be printed, I laid all the    blame for our bad spelling especially on the latter. For when that    far-seeing king, that great patron of letters, Henry the Seventh,    summoned hither from Germany the printer Wynken de Word (who was    the first to print English writings on the printing-press), the    printer had of necessity to print our words with the type which    was available. Thus for the first time th    appeared in place of ð,    g    for ʒ,    etc.    And if a misfortune not unlike this one was also added -- that the    proof-reading was not assigned to an educated man, but to some    employee who could speak both German and English -- our    orthography was inevitably corrupted; and because no suitable    correction was made, this corruption passed into common usage. And    I certainly think that this was the sole cause of the corruption.    The fact that the Germans do not have those sounds in which the    errors were especially made can also be advanced as an argument    for my theory. For they do not say thing but sed    Ding;    pro faðer,    what,    ʒosef,    Chansler;    they say vater,    Yosef,    was,    Kantzler.    If you were to correct these faults and allot their own quantities    to the letters, you have almost all the errors and certainly those    in particular which should be corrected in our writing. Indeed,    good men and well-educated ones have attacked this error, but in    vain; notably, Sir Thomas Smith, in opposition to whom Richard    Mulcaster brought out a very large book. The latter after the    great ruin of time and of good writing decided that everything    should be surrendered to Custom as if to a tyrant. He was    justified in censuring one thing in the knight; namely, that his    new characters are not pleasing in appearance or easy to write.    This defect a certain priest cured as far as he was able -- he who    assumed according to custom the name of Chester from the title of    office -- but, except that he omitted some letters very necessary    in usage, he did not intend by his characters to reproduce our    discourse, but to remodel it. I am omitting much. For it is not my    business to make myself disagreeable by depreciating valuable    achievements; nevertheless, I comment on these very few items so    that you will not think that I have directed a false charge    against a worthy man. If you want to improve our style of writing,    you will read both, because the dispute is a matter of sound only.    Thus, accordingly, he writes, folio 66, b:

      Pre

      prai

      sed

      said

      iu

      yü

      ue

      wai

      ei

      I

      iuz

      vz

      se

      ror

      sai

      ov

      for

      of

      uï

      for

      wï

      ðe

      ðei

      aunsuer

      answer

      uið

      with

      bue

      buoi

      riding

      rëding

      knön

      knöun

      me

      mai

    Here    you do not have our words, but the inventions of Mopseys. Wade,    however, has been content not only to stray with the priest, but    to go off imagining all by himself. Thus he did not write Lundon,    according to the general dialect, but Lunun,    according to the letter-carriers, or Luun,    according to the boatmen. Nor did he permit double consonants in    ʒon    and ʒustis,    but held that they should be written Dzyon    and dzyustis,    and this because the double consonant which begins these words    seems to be separated most nearly into these elements. We,    however, in writing down words do not separate simple sounds, but    rather we assimilate separate sounds into one. Bullokar changed    very little, but he faithfully corrected a very great deal. And    these are the ones, who, to my knowledge, have publicly claimed    the name of orthographer. I, however, maintain that one should    agree in this with Marcus Fabius: just as agreed practice in the    manners of all good men is the standard for our way of life, so in    discourse the custom of the learned is the primary law.    Accordingly all writing will have to be adjusted, not to that    pronunciation which ploughman, mere women, and ferrymen employ,    but to that which learned or highly cultivated men use in speaking    and reading. And just as skilful painters represent the likeness    of the human form so that it copies the living features, so also    will it be fitting to write down the words from the living voice    so that we may not depart a hair' s breadth from the true    pronunciation. But lest you think that I am going to contend about    pronunciation as if for our very altars, I grant that there are    four things which can somewhat alleviate the harshness of this    rule and can greatly aid orthography: 1. Derivation, 2 .    Difference, 3. Accepted custom, 4 . Dialect. Indeed I wish these    to be so strong in indifferent words that they will in no way    divert them from the truth of the matter.

   1    . Thus derivatives follow the writing of the primitives as divjn,    skolar,    rather than devjn,    skoler,    because, in shortened syllables where either one of two sounds is    heard without distinction, we shall decide that the origin of the    word should be followed. So, on the other hand, derivatives show    the orthography of the primitives, as personz,    not persnz,    because the o    has not yet disappeared in the derivatives personal    and personaliti.    However, the derivative must detract nothing from the true sound,    for I forbid the writing of houer,    honor,    honest,    because in these the h    is neither heard nor, indeed, either ought to be, or can be,    according to the rule which you will find on page 10; for we say    an    ouer,    mjn    onor,    ðjn    onesti,    not a    houer,    mj    honor,    ðj    honesti.    Just so an educated man, observing the origin of a word, would    write divjn,    skolar,    onor,    kunʒurer;    but if    an uneducated man, following his ears, should write devjn,    skoler,    oner,    kunʒerer,    I hold it of no consequence. 

    2    . Difference of meaning is indicated by orthography (as far as it    can be done and the pronunciation permits). Accordingly when you    write our,    it means our own. If you insert an e,    it would be written ouer,    an hour. For the pronunciation can show this and the meaning    requires this difference. Thus J    is I,    , ei,    eye, ëi,    aye, dézert,    a wilderness, a    dezért,    a    merit; but certainly a súbʒekt,    a subject, and    tu    subʒékt,    to subject,    are distinguished either by the sense only or by the accent. Nor    should this difference be observed in isolated words merely, but    also when they are grouped in speech. For we say mj    nativitis kast,    which can be transposed into my birth is computed, or the    reckoning of my birth. Here, therefore, the orthography mj    nativiti iz kast removes    all ambiguity. J    kanot drink wjn,    I am not able to drink wine, and    J kan not drink wjn,    I am able not to drink wine, are rendered more intelligible    through orthography. Thus, then, orthography will    not    completely conform to the pronunciation when a difference of    meaning is to be sought.

    3    . Nor do I indeed give too little deference to Custom, since I    believe that it should be followed everywhere except where the    true pronunciation clearly rejects it. Accordingly, it is the    common practice for us to say fόk,    fât,    bâm,    hâf,    and tâk,    wâk,    wið,    ov,    agenst;    yet,    because all well-informed people do not discard the l    from    those original forms, let us here follow custom and    for    the most part derivation in fölk,    fâlt,    bâlm,    hâlf,    from volk,    fâl,    balsamum,    halb,    and in tâlk,    wâlk,    with,    oðer,    of,    against,    merely    as a custom of writing, and this,    because    some educated men read thus, and now and then speak    thus.    If words beginning with w,    namely wit,    wïn,    wash,    wäk,    wail,    wil,    have k    placed before the w,    they will of necessity become kwit,    kwïn,    kwash,    kwäk,    kwail    kwil;    nevertheless,    because I prefer to unstitch Custom gradually rather than to cut    it off suddenly, I do not object to your writing quit,    quïn,    quash,    quäk,    quail,    quil.    Proper names also will, because of a certain privilege of rank,    retain their accustomed rule or writing, no matter how commonly    the form may be distorted by error, as D'Aubigne,    D'Anuers, D'Aubridg-Court, Redklif,    Cotswöuld,    etc., which the crowd calls Daubnei,    Dauers, Dabskot, Ratlif, Cotsal.

    4    . Nay even when the dialect varies, I easily admit that writing    itself is the least consistent, as, farðer,    furðer,    or furder;    murðer,    or murder;    tu    flj,    or tu    flï,    tu    flït,    or tu    flöt,    etc. Moreover, in a free style there is no place for dialects    other than the common one, except where the exigency of the matter    demands it. Irregularity of all sorts is moderately granted to the    poets. 

    There    remain the things which I should like to ask of you, Reader:    first, that if in following the path of these studies, I have    mistakenly wandered off from the royal road of truth, either you    will set that right in accordance with your sincerity, or will    admonish me; second, that you will not reproach me too hastily for    my faulty writing, especially since I have granted that there are    four things which can change writing somewhat. Consequently, I    shall not add anything concerning accent or irregularity until I    come to that point. One thing perhaps you may complain of-- that    now and again double consonants are lacking, as in fatter,    better, robbing,    a fault indeed which we so a pprove of that (if ever the time    comes for that discussion) we shall show that those double    consonants are an error which is not to be permitted in    orthography except in such places where we may be permitted to    defend the error either because of composition or because of    irregularity. But for the present, I dismiss these matters lest I    may seem to contrive delay in your studies by a too long-drawn-out    preface. Farewell.

   {n.    p.}        

Libri Synopsis

   Logonomia    Anglica partes habet 4,

   Incorrect;    in their

   pronunciation,    Cap.    1.

   1.    Philology

   Compositione    Cap.    2.

   which    concerns

   Simplicibus

   Vocalibus.    Cap.    3.

   the    use of letters

   Correct;    qui

   Consonis.    Cap.    4.

   est    in literis

   Proprias.    Cap.    5.

   Diphthongos

   Improprias    ubi de

   Coniunctis

   dialectis.    Cap.    6.

   in

   Syllabas    et voces Cap.    7.

   Primitivis

   Vocibus

   Peregrinis    Cap.    8.

   Derivatis

   Compositis

   Nostratibus

   Comparatis

   Cap.    9.

   2.    Etymologiam de

   Diminuitis

   Communi

   Cap.    10.

   Vocum

   Nomine

   Proprio

   speciebus.    3.

   Personali.        

   Cap.    11.

   Species    3.

   Verbo;

   Cap.    12.

   cuius    sunt

   Coniugationes    3.

   Consignificativis,    quae sunt adverbi

coniunctiones    etc. Cap.    13.

Absoluta    Cap.    14.

   Soluta

   Simplex

   Convenientiae    Cap.    15.

   Rectionis

   Casus

   Unius    Cap.    16.

   quae    est

   Varii    Cap.    17.

   Utraque

   Verbi    Cap.    18.

   aut    est

   1.    Vocū

   delectu    ubi

   Appendicibus

   3    Syntaxin

   tropi    4. cum

   et    vitiis ca.    19.

   quae    est aut

   Defectu

   Ornata

   Usu;    isque

   Pleonasmo

   Ca.    20.

   in

   aut    in

   Enallage

   Poetica

   vocis

   Sono.    Cap.    21.

   Cap.    24.

   2.    Sententiae ordine et sensu. Cap.    22.

   3.    Exochis Cap.    23.

Grammatico

Cap.    25.

   Accentu

   Rhetorico

   Syllabarum    quantitate.

   Cap.    26.

   4    Prosodia in

   Metro;    idque

est    aut in

   Pedibus    __________

   Carmine

   Rythmico    Cap.    27.

   Latinum    imitante Cap.    28.

{n. p.}

Correct    these errors before reading.    

Syllables    which are by nature common can be written with either long or    short vowels, indiscriminately, as    shal    or shâl,    dans    or dâns,    bi    bï,    ded    dëd,    whöm    whüm,    moðer    muðer,    sai    säi,    mai    mäi,    etc. Certain words differ in accent, as has been said, and so you    will in no wise stumble over these. Minor errors you will    overlook, and those which are here identified and acknowledged you    will correct: page 3, line 24, laqueus;    p. 4, line 12, bloud,    1. 14, querela;    page 6, line 23, distinguerent;    page 7, line16, boum;    page 8, line 1, sensim;    page 9, line 17, ð,    inuħ;    page 13, line 18, ðëz    sëz;    page 14, line 2, venefica,    line 7, dëz,    line 13, Hebr.;    page 15, the next to the last line, index;    page 17, line 27, ἰσχνότητα;    page 18, line 16 and line    18,    quaedam;    page 19, line 1, pëz;    page 21, line 24, knöun,    säving;    page 16, last line, ðï;    page 23, line 9,    Konfounded;    page 24, line 19, fürth,    line 22, trïz;    page 27, line 13, ëzment,    line 21, tëch,    tëcher,    line 22, hëring;    page 30, line 27, Konsul,    last line, ʒenerus;    page 33, line 3, forswër;    page 34, lines 11 andd 22, lëst;    page 36, last line, quatenus;    page 37, line 3, ëvs,    line 7, nonae,    line 8, bouelz,    line 20, tü,    line 23, göuld,    and everywhere else that it occurs together with similar words,    such as föuld,    höuld,    etc., line 24, whët,    line 27, brëd;    page 38, last line, argentea;    page 40, line 1, mutnz,    vëlz;    page 41, line 13, pëz;    page 42, line 28, secundae:    page 43, line 15, lëvz;    page 48, line 23, dipt;    page 50, line 5,    swër;    page 51, line 18, häv,    line 26, indicentur;    page 57, line 4, Imperat;    page 59, line 1, luvz;    page 60, line 4, abröd,    line 20, rëd;    page 62, line 11, klöðier;    page 65, line 27, âlðoħ;    page 71, line 8 [43]; page 76, line 5, tëch;    page 77, line 26, unëzi;    page 83, line 3,    höp;    page 84, line 13, mï;    page 86, next to the last line, Etiam;    page 87, line 10, grandes;    page 93, last line, quia    tu    tëch    doceo;    page 96, line 24, universam;    page 99, line 3, etiam,    line 8, prezum’d;    page 100, line 10, sive,    line 26, nou;    page 101 line 17, pleʒez;    page 103, line 25 and last line shï;    page 109, line 4, saepius;    page 111, line 16, mjħt;    page 112, line 5,    gaðer;    page 115, line 13, principes;    page 128, line 4,    sakklόth;    page 133, line 17, forgόtn,    forgíving;    page 136, line 4, Kvpid;    page 144, line 18, ljvz.

 Moreover,    you will correct as often as there is need the use of the    character I    for J.     Finally, in chapter 25 and following, the marking of the accents    will earn pardon for the quantity of the long vowels.    {n.    p.}

   GRAMMAR    OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

   What    is, its parts, letters.

Chapter    I

Grammar    is the understanding of the rule s by which an unknown language    can be more easily learned. When observed according to the    practice of the Latin language, it is Latin; according to the    practice of the English language, it is English; and so on.

Its    parts are four: Philology , Etymology, Syntax, and Prosody.    Philology or Grammar (as it pleases others to call it) is that    part of grammar which concerns the number and quality of simple    and connected letters.

And    though much error clearly occurs in our use of letters,    nevertheless since it is commonly the practice to write and read    thus incorrectly, we shall explain in a few words first how far    incorrect usage has gone and next how far it ought to go.

{A}

   The    English have the same number, the same order,    and    the same pronunciation of letters, if they are considered    by    themselves, as the Germans and almost all the

other    better known Europeans have. But in the case of c,    g,    i,    s,    t,    and    y,    a few observations should be made.    C    before    a,    o,    u,    or a consonant has the same sound as    k;    before    e,    i,    and    apostrophe    (’ ),    it is sounded the same as s,    as for instance the Germans pronounce c    in cederbaum,    cedar tree,    and    in    circkel,    circle.    Also    it is    peculiar    to    the English to express by ch    that sound which    the    Italians    express by c    in piacevole.    For thus we pronounce a    chaire,    a    chair;    a    cherry;    a    chin;    chosen,    to    chuse,    to    choose.        

   G    before    a,    o,    or    u    is pronounced by the same sound as Germanic g,    just as it is before the consonants in glory    and grace;    before    e    or    i,    as    the Italian s regularly pronounce g    in    gentile    and    giovane,    and just as we sound g    in a    giant,    a    gibet,    gibbet,    ginger,    gentle,    changed,    and    so on.    This sound other people perhaps express by    dzy;    we    express    it by simple g    before e    or i,    but before    a,    o, u always    by the consonant    j.    For in these cases, g    and l    have    the same sound.

   Jason,    Dzyason,    Jason.

   Geffrey,    Dzyeffrey,    Geoffrey.

   Ginger,    dzyindzyer,    gingiber.

   Joseph    ,    Dzyosef,    Joseph.        

   A    Judge,    a    dzyudzyh,    a    judge, where dg    also sounds after u    just    as j    does before it.

   It    does not hold true everywhere, however, that g    before e    and i    is pronounced thus, for we say to    get    and to    give,    and a few others, a legitimate and primitive pronunciation.

   But    j    before a,    o,    and u    varies in no instance; for that sound which the Germans give to I    before a vowel, we write as y    {n.    p.}    not    as    j.    For their Jung,    is    our young,    having the same meaning and sound.

   In    the case of s    one thing should be noted; namely, that the English express the    frothy Hebrew character    ש    by    sh,    the    germans,    by    sch.    For example, to the English the word is    shame;    to    the Germans,    it is    scham;    the    Spanish, however, express this sound by x,    as in debaxo,    belowe.

Chapter    II

   On the composition of letters

   This    should be observed first of all in the composition of syllables,    that not all vowels are always pronounced, and secondly, that not    exactly the same pronunciation obtains in all of them. For    although the length of the quantity may differ in a long syllable    or in a short one, and not the similarity of sound, nevertheless    the same vowel sometimes sounds somewhat broad, sometimes more    brief, as in Hall,    Hal;    hale,    drag;    and    hall,    a    court.        The a    in the first two words is    briefer;    in the    third,    it is almost a diphthong. Moreover the lengthening of a syllable    is distinguished in writing in two ways: first,    silent e    may be    added    at the end    of    a word after an undoubled consonant,    as    in dame,    lady, a monosyllabic word, for dam    without    an    e,    or    damme    with    an    e    after a doubled consonant means the mother of some sort of animal;    second, a long syllable will be indicated by a double vowel.    Moreover the double vowel may be the same one or a di fferent one.    In    e    and    o    doubled    the the sound differs somewhat from the characteristic sound;    i.e., in grin,    a    noose,    and    greene,    green,    the sound is in the same, only briefer in the former word and long    in the second. So it is in Bucke,    male    deer, and    Booke,    book:    nor    is there any difference of sound in these except that which is    perceived in the quantity. If, however, the vowel is different,    {A2}    it    should be silent when it is the    second    element, and lengthened when it is the first, as    in seat    and    meat,    because    set    means    placed and    met,    encountered. And    granted that in the case of these long    syllables,    it is permissible for an additional final e    to    be    added fairly    commonly, for we write seat    or    seate,    meat    or    meate,    two things, however should    come to our attention here: difference and origin. For sometimes    for the sake of difference each method of lengthening is employed,    as in    boare,    a    boar, as distinguished from the verb to    bore,    to perforate.    In people,    moreover, the o    is    adopted for the sake of the origin, and the word is incorrectly    written as a trisyllable pe-o-ple,    rather    than correctly as    pïpl.    Thus we write blood    or bloud,    from the Belgian bloed,    blood, althought the syllable may be shortened to    Blud.        But there is irregularity in in those syllables which are written    ui.    For    in some, as in suit,    a    pleading case or a complaint, and in cuited,    wine,    that    is, mulled wine,    the rule which I have stated    about    disregarding the    second    vowel in pronunciation    proves    its potency as in    meat;    for we read svt    and    cvted,    written    with long    ψιλὸν,    from the French word    suire,    to    follow, and    cuire,    to    cook.    Sometimes    the rule fails as in    guild,    an    association or a hall, a place of meeting, and in guiltie,    responsible;    for    we say the    geild-hall,    and    giltie.    Moreover,    in    build,    to construct, the    groundwork has not yet been laid, for, according to his own    particular inclination, one writes    buldeth    with    ὐψιλὸν;    another,    beildeth    with    ei;    a    third,    beeldeth    with    long    ï,    and to these still a fourth adds    bildeth    with    a short    i.    Nor has it become the practice for vowels only but also    for    consonants to be added for the purpose of indicating    the    origin of a word, for we write a sygne,    a    sign, but we pronounce it a    sein;    likewise in the case of    J    disdeigne,    I    despise, we say I    disdain.        

   And    just as a vowel is doubled for the purpose of    lengthening    syllables, so is a consonant for the purpose    of    shortening them. For the same consonant doubled    with    e    at the end of a word adds nothing of importance in the    way    of strengthening the sound {n.    p.}    or the syllables, but it    shows    that    the preceding vowel should be produced with a    quick    sound, as in the monosyllable wanne,    pale, for to    wane    is    to grow less.    Moreover a [similar] consonant    sometimes    is equal in its power [to    shorten    a vowel], as in backe,    a    back;    lacke,    want;    for    to    bake    is to pound,    and    lake    is    a lake.    Rarely, too, a consonant further removed    [in    sound] is added, as in lambe,    a    lamb,    to    distinguish    it    from    lame,    limping.    Take    as an exception to these rules a    wombe,    a    womb,    and    to    combe,    to    comb, although antiquity and even now dialects abridge the latter    by a long    ω    sound.

   Moreover,    this should be heeded; namely, that these    things    which    we have said are time and again not to be    depended    upon, because, since there is no authority in our    bad    spelling, there can be no correctness where each one    is    wise or even foolish with the same profit.    

Chapter    III

Orthography

We    have spoken indirectly; now we shall indicate the straight path as    far as we are able. And, in order that foreigners may know our    language more easily, first, we shall present an alphabet, entire    and perfected; then, as often as there is need, we shall subjoin    examples of both types, the customary and also the new, so that    through the new, foreigners may know more correctly the customary,    and our people may see through the customary a new system of    writing, and may correct their errors.

   But    lest setting aside the customary after such    long    usage may seem strange or unusual to anyone, I shall    present    first of all the reasons for my e ffort, so that    each    one may decide in accordance with his own judgment    whether    or no there is sufficient reason for emending our    bad    spelling    .    

   And    since nothing hinders those who wish    to    know our    language    more than that great difficulty which frightens    them    away at the first glance,    namely, that they see that    the    one and the same characters    are pronounced differently, {A3}    and that it cannot be sufficiently clear which pronunciation is    rather to be employed, consideration for the human race impels me    first of all to aid foreigners and [to forge] that common bond of    human society which is strengthened by nothing so much as by the    employment of reason and of speech. Next, since we write one way    and pronounce another, no one in his right senses can defend the    falsity of our writing. Therefore I have wanted to sweep away, and    if I could, to cleanse that barbarism which has crept into our    letters and has now for a whole century become established in    them, lest, if we could not correct our errors we might seem the    most stupid of mortals; if we would not, the most slothful. And    since women, glassblowers, and painters, who heed only the sound    falling on their ears, furnish us a guide to orthography from the    true sound of the letters, shall the educated burrow like moles so    deeply that they become even more blind? But they do see, you say,    but do not approve; they endure, but do not praise. But to what    purpose do they see if not to make corrections? And do they endure    just so that our language, which is in other respects the most    cultured, the most agreeable, the most copious in expression, may    endure this continuous barbarism that has been branded upon it ? I    have sought, I confess, light from the windows whereby I have read    dier,    which    the learned write    deare,    dear,    bred,    which they write    bread,    and    thence also nakid    cum ẏ    &    bare,    for    naked    come I.    Let this then first and foremost be    given,    established,    and ordained; namely, that letters have    been    invented to differentiate the various parts of a    word    and its slightest changes. Secondly in a word of    single    import, there ought to be individual characters,    and    in like manner there should be a separate individual    sound    for individual characters lest, if two sounds,    or    three,    or more are given to the same letter, no difference    be    distinguished in the letters themselves and no difference    in    the words; and thus that which we    ordered    in the    beginning    to be established would be overthrown. In the    third    place the meaning of words ought not to be changed,    and    in like manner nothing more absurd can be contrived    than    the silent vowel, as we have said before, in    dame    and    meate.    {n.    p.}    But the shortness and length of each vowel ought    to    be sought in itself, not by other means . Having laid    down    these premises and had them granted, let us now turn    to    the matter itself.    

   Letters    are vowels or consonants. There are five vowels:    a,    e,    i,    o,    u.    All having more than one sound are distinct both in pronunciation    and also in writing. The short vowels are to be written in the    customary form; the long are to be distinguished by two dots    above. I shall speak more clearly about the individual letters. A    is slender or thick. Slender A    i s either short as in talôu,    tallowe,    tallow,    or long as in täl,    tale,    a story or a computation ; A    is    thick as in tâl,    talle,    tall. This sound the Germans express by aa,    as in maal,    a banquet; haar,    hair; we shall be satisfied by the single character, circumflex    â.        

 E    is    short in this form    e,    as in    net,    a    snare;    long,    is thus    ë,    as    in nët,    neate,    i.e. the    adjective trim; the noun neate    means    every kind of cattle.

   I    is slender or thick. Slender I    is short or long:    the    short is indicated thus, i    as in    sin,    sinne,    a    fault;    long,    is written thus    ï,    as    in    sïn,    seene,    seen;    thick I,    however,    is almost the diphthong    ei,    but because it is a    little    thinner in sound than if we were to spread it out    into    e,    we shall retain that venerable and vigorous sound    and    at the same time also the praise which Justissimus    Lipsus    has recommended to us in    Reginâ,    in amicâ vitâ,    and    we shall indicate it by this character    j,    as    in sjn,    signe,    a    sign. The differenceof all three is seen in win,    winne,    to win;    wïn,    weene,    to    think;    wjn,    wyne,    wine.

   O,    little    or short is indicated after the ordinary    manner;    big O    hereafter    will be written    ö.    The difference    is    that which lies between pol,    polle,    an elegant head, and pöl,    pole    or    poale,    i.e.,    a pole, a kind of measure .

   V    is slender or thick : slender v    is the verb tu    vz,    to    use;    thick and short is u    as in the pronoun    us;    {n.    p.}    and    long ü    is like u    in    the    verb tu    üz,    oose,    to    flow forth, or to come forth gradually after the fashion of water    squeezed out by force.

Chapter    IIII

Consonants

A    reminder

What    I wrote concerning consonants in the first edition is based on    those fundamental rules which no force can overthrow or weaken.    Nevertheless, because suitable characters are not at hand in type,    and because they seem to be too different from the customary form    of writing, I shall conform to the usual as far as I can; and,    provided tha t I have humane readers, I shall obtain an easy    pardon, I hope; while if I defer to necessity and custom, I shall    expres a certain simple sounds by a double character. In    particular I warn you that those compound characters ch,    ng,    sh,    th,    wh,    are replaced by simple sounds only and by simple    letters.    Though it was necessary to write these in by pen    in    the first edition, hereafter you will find them printed    in    their proper form wherever there is a print shop better    equipped    with suitable type.    We    raise no objection to the classification of consonants    as    labials, dentals, etc.,    but we insist that all    of    them shall have a single sound hereafter; and we agree    with    others that b,    d,    g,    k,    p,    q,    t,    are mutes. In the case of    l,    m,    n,    r,    x,    z,    we make no change.    C    we discard    as    being an unfortunate letter,    unnecessary,    and dubious    in    its sound. When it is aspirated, however, we admit it    to    other uses. And since I am contending with ignorance,    let    me ask this question first: if    all the consonants had    one    sound among all the ancients, who are we to dare in    matters    of common right to change common principles? Why    do    we make c,    g, t,    have two sounds? If we grant that they    are    mutes, why do we frequently pronounce c    and t as s?    Why    do    we give g    before e    and    i    a certain barbarous and    foreign    sound?    But {n.    p.}    we need a remedy, not further suffering. I    come,    therefore, to those instances in which    some    change    has    been effected. D    and    t    are to    retain    their long-established    sound,    but because we frequently aspirate them, we    shall    substitute wherever thick th    occurs, the character of    our    Saxon forefathers    ð,    and wherever slender th    occurs,    we shall write it as th    itself    representing theta    θ,    as    ðis    thing,    this    thing.        

   The    Latin words veritas    and    feritas    are similar in    pronunciation:    the    shaping of the first letter is the    same    for each, the upper teeth being pressed down on the    lower    lip accompanied by a sort of puffing explosion of    the    breath; in v,    however, the sound is thicker and more    close    than in    f.    I would dare, therefore, to add something    to    f,    by which its own sound would be indicated, were it    not    for the fact that custom itself permits us to express    that    middle    β    or    thick π    by the consonant    v,    as    fail,    be    wanting, and    vail,    a    veil.        

   The    Greek X,    ch,    which we never employ at the beginning    of    a word, but frequently in the middle and at the    end,    and which we express badly by gh,    we shall hereafter    write    thus    ð,    as in    waiħt    inuħ,    weight    inough,    weight    enough.        

   Q    we    wish to outlaw, because k    is sufficient for use; moreover it rarely occurs except in those    words which    we    have borrowed from the Latin. But because it does not    change    its sound, and is content with one position only    –before    u--we    permit it to march under the banner of the    letter    K.        

   N    is    among those letters which we have said make    no    change, but if k    or g    follows it, our statement must    be    altered a little, for, if you consider it carefully,    it    is not produced so clearly in thank    and think    as it is    pronounced    in hand    and    nön,    none.    But let us not seem to    turn    up our noses so much that we can not endure    anything    putrid    with age; for the k    there is heard clearly, and I    do    not think it suitable to alter anything bordering on    truth--I    have only wanted to remind you, not to provoke    you against your will. But because there is no sound of the letter    g    when follows n,    a s in    {B}    thing,    and    song,    but instead clearly another semi-vowel which differs from n    no    less than from m,    the letters ng    will be one of those pairs by which I wish it to be correct to    indicate a simple sound, as in sing    and among.    And in connection with this, note those instances in which g    is separated in a measure from n    under the influence of a following liquid, as a    spangl,    a spangle, tu    intangl,    to entangle.        

   W    and    y    have thus far had an uncertain history, for    they    have not been content to keep their place only before    a    vowel, but have coalesced with preceding vowels into    diphthongs,    as in straw    for    strâu,    straw,    law    for    lâu,    law,    ewer    for    ëuer,    ewer;    so also y,    in ioy,    for    ʒoi,    joy,    they    for    ðei,    they,    etc.; ẏ    also    among    the ancients has stood for the first person singular pronoun, a s    ẏ    for    I.    But if    any    fair judge of sounds should carefully consider the use    of    these letters among us, he will find that they are consonant s.    For just as we put an,    mjn,    ðjn,    before    words beginning with a vowel, as an    unkl,    an    uncle;    mjn    aunt,    my    aunt, so before w    and    y    at the beginning of a word we employ a,    mj,    ðj,    just as we do before the other consonants, as a    water,    mj    wurd,    my    word.    Therefore, so that they may    assume    their proper position and force, we order them to    assume    the properties of consonants and to precede other    vowels,    not to follow, as in these words,    a wäst,    waste,    a    desert;    a    wel,    a    well;    a    wjnd,    wynd,    wynde;    a    world;    wud,    woodde,    a    forest;    yarn;    a    yelk,    yolk    of an egg;    yis,    yes;    a    yök,    yoke;    yuth,    youth.    And if this is the touchstone    for    the    consideration of consonants, then h    also will be a consonant    rather    than a simple aspirate. For anyone who    would    write or say    Hï brouħt mï tu mjn hors,    instead    of    mj    hors,    he    brought    me to my horse, would be too fastidious a    philologist    .

   Aspirate    W    is    a consonant {B2}    which    is ordinarily    written    as wh,    although the aspirate precedes. For those    words    which are written with wh    can, and certainly, in accordance    with    the examples of our ancestors, should be    written    with hw    or hu.    For nothing else could be inferred    from    such a spelling than that which we    know    from wh    itself,    as,    wïl    or    uïl,    weele,    a    trap, and    hwïl    orhuïl,    wheele,    a    wheel.    Nevertheless because our experience    teaches    us that wand    wh    are true and simple    consonants    in    the    producing of which u    only grunts a little and is not    heard    as a clear vowel, for that reason the w    before    vowels    or diphthongs will have its allotted function, but    wh    will solely from bad habit, retain its force in what,    wheðer,    whether,    and the like.

We    have now reached    sh,    shä,    ch,    che    and    ʒ,    dzyï.    The first is indeed a simple sound representing the Hebrew    שׂ    with    the dot on the right; the last, ch    and    ʒ,    are    double    consonants. For if you put t    before that sh    you    have    tsh;    if d,    you have dsh,    except that here s    turns    somewhat    into z.    Accordingly we shall represent the first    of    those three sounds by s,    the aspirate by sh    though it    ought    to be written by one symbol only since it is a    simple    sound, as in tu    shäv,    to shave. The second sound    we    shall represent by ch,    as chäst,    chaste; in the third    instance    the Saxonʒ    ut in ʒuʒ,    iudg,    judge;    ʒuʒment,    iudgement,    judgment.    You have the    sound    and a    reasonable    form, not forbidding in appearance,    nor    difficult to write. Now behold, then, the alphabet,    whole    and perfected. If you count the letters, you will    find    twenty-f our: a,    b,    ch,    d,    e,    f,    ʒ,    h,    i,    k,    l,    m,    n,    o,    p,    r,    s,    t,    u,    w,    x,    y,    z.    If you consider their    nature,    you will find forty, --six more than the Russians    have,    or the Serbs,    or    the Croatians. The alphabet    follows.    {n.    p.}

   Character

   name

   nature

   new    use

   old    use

   meaning

   A.    a.

   a.    exile

   breve

   mal

   mal

   mariola

   AE.    ä.

   â.    Exile

   longum

   mäl

   male

   mas

   A.    â.

   a.    latum

   longum

   mâl

   mall

   marcus

   B.    b.    

   bï.    Bee

   b.    latinum

   a    briʒ

   bridge

   pons

   Ch    ch

   che

   ch:

   tu    chanʒ

   change

   muto

   D.    d.

   dï.    Dee

   d.    latinum

   dëth

   death

   mors

   Đ.    ð.

   ðï.    Thee

   δ    Oxoniensiū

   ðoħ

   though

   quamvis

   E.    e.

   Ε

   ε’ψιλὸν:

   best

   best

   optimus

   Є.    ë

   Η

   Ητα:    η.        

   bëst

   beast

   bestia

   F.    f

   ef.

   φ    ut    in

   fjn

   fine

   nitidus

   V.    v.    

   ve.

   β    Oxoniensiū

   vjn

   vine

   Vitis

   G.    g.

   ga.

   nil    mutat

   gud

   good

   Bonus

   ʒ.

   ʒi.

   dzy,    j, dge.

   a    baʒ

   a    badge

   hoc    insigne

   H.    h.

   he.

   nil    mutat

   höli

   holy

   sanctus,    a,    um

   ħ.    ħ.

   eih.

   ϰ    gr. gh

   boħt

   bought

   emptus,    a,    um

   I.    i,    

   i.    i.

   tenue    breve

   kin

   kinne

   cognatio

   I.    ï.

   i.    ï.

   tenue    longū

   kïn

   keene

   acutus

   J.    j.

   j.    ei.

   Exile

   kjn

   kyne

   vacca

   K.    k.    

   ka.

   nil    mutant

   kap

   cappe

   pileus

   Q.    q.

   qu.

   quins

   quince

   malum    cydoneum

   L.    l.

   el.

   läzi

   lasie

   ignavus

   M.    m

   em.

   mün

   moone

   luna

   N.    n.

   en.

   nün

   noone

   meridies

   G.    ng.

   eng.

   ng    aut ע    ut

   dung

   dung

   fimus

   malè

   pronūciatur

   O

    ω

   . o.          

   o.

   Oμιϰρὸν        

   tu    kol

   to    coll

   collum    amplecti

    .    ö.

   ö

   ωμε’γα

   a    köl

   a    coale

   carbo

   P.    p.

   pï.

   nil    variant

   tu    prëch

   preach

   concionor    [n.    p.]

   R.    r.

   ar.

   tu    run

   to    runne

   curro

   S.    s.    s.

   es.

   a    sun

   a    sonne

   filius,    aut

   or    sunne

   sol

   Sh.    sh.    sh

   sha

   ש    sh

   shäm

   shame

   pudor

   T.    t.    

   tï    tee

   nil    variat

   tü

   two

   duo

   Th.    th.

   thï

   θ    th

   a    thistl

   thistle

   carduus

   V.    v.

   v

   ὐψιλὸν

   svr

   sure

   certus

   U.    u.

   u

   u    breve

   spun

   spunne

   netus,    a,    um

   ü.

   ü

   u    longum

   a    spün

   spoone

   cochleare

   W.    w

   we

   w    German

   wet

   wette

   udus

   wh.

   whe

   hu

   tu    whet