A Handbook of the English Language

by R. G. Latham

CHAPTER IX.

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH ALPHABET.

[§ 160]. The preceding chapter has exhibited the theory of a full and perfect alphabet; it has shown how far the English alphabet falls short of such a standard; and, above all, it has exhibited some of the conventional modes of spelling which the insufficiency of alphabets, combined with other causes, has engendered. The present chapter gives a history of our alphabet, whereby many of its defects are accounted for. These defects, it may be said, once for all, the English alphabet shares with those of the rest of the world; although, with the doubtful exception of the French, it possesses them in a higher degree than any.

With few, if any exceptions, all the modes of writing in the world originate, directly or indirectly, from the Phœnician.

At a certain period the alphabet of Palestine, Phœnicia, and the neighboring languages of the Semitic tribes, consisted of twenty-two separate and distinct letters.

Now the chances are, that, let a language possess as few elementary articulate sounds as possible, an alphabet of only twenty-two letters will be insufficient.

Hence it may safely be asserted, that the original Semitic alphabet was insufficient for even the Semitic languages.

[§ 161]. In this state it was imported into Greece.

Now, as it rarely happens that any two languages have precisely the same elementary articulate sounds, so it rarely happens that an alphabet can be transplanted from one tongue to another, and be found to suit. When such is the case, alterations are required. The extent to which these alterations are made at all, or (if made) made on a right principle varies with different languages. Some adapt an introduced alphabet well: others badly.

Of the twenty-two Phœnician letters the Greeks took but twenty-one. The eighteenth letter, tsadi

צ

was never imported into Europe.

Compared with the Semitic, the Old Greek alphabet ran thus:—

	Hebrew.	Greek.		Hebrew.	Greek.
1.	א	Α.	13.	מ	Μ.
2.	ב	Β.	14.	נ	Ν.
3.	ג	Γ.	15.	ס	Σ?
4.	ד	Δ.	16.	ע	Ο.
5.	ה	Ε.	17.	פ	Π.
6.	ו	Digamma.	18.	צ	—
7.	ז	Ζ.	19.	ק	A letter called koppa, afterwards ejected.
8.	ח	Η.
9.	ט	Θ.
10.	י	Ι.	20.	ר	Ρ.
11.	כ	Κ.	21.	ש	M afterwards Σ?
12.	ל	Λ.	22.	ת	Τ.

The names of the letters were as follows:

	Hebrew.	Greek.		Hebrew.	Greek.
1.	Aleph	Alpha.	12.	Lamed	Lambda.
2.	Beth	Bæta.	13.	Mem	Mu.
3.	Gimel	Gamma.	14.	Nun	Nu.
4.	Daleth	Delta.	15.	Samech	Sigma?
5.	He	E, psilon.	16.	Ayn	O.
6.	Vaw	Digamma.	17.	Pe	Pi.
7.	Zayn	Zæta.	18.	Tsadi	——
8.	Heth	Hæta.	19.	Kof	Koppa, Archaic.
9.	Teth	Thæta.	20.	Resh	Rho.
10.	Yod	Iôta.	21.	Sin	San, Doric.
11.	Kaph	Kappa.	22.	Tau	Tau.

The alphabet of Phœnicia and Palestine being adapted to the language of Greece, the first change took place in the manner of writing. The Phœnicians wrote from right to left; the Greeks from left to right. Besides this, the following principles were recognised;—

a. Letters for which there was no use were left behind. This was the case, as seen above, with the eighteenth letter, tsadi.

b. Letters expressive of sounds for which there was no precise equivalent in Greek, were used with other powers. This was the case with letters 5, 8, 16, and probably with some others.

c. Letters of which the original sound, in the course of time, became changed, were allowed, as it were, to drop out of the alphabet. This was the case with 6 and 19.

d. For such simple single elementary articulate sounds as there was no sign or letter representant, new signs, or letters, were invented. This principle gave to the Greek alphabet the new signs φ, χ, υ, ω.

e. The new signs were not mere modifications of the older ones, but totally new letters.

All this was correct in principle; and the consequence is, that the Greek alphabet, although not originally meant to express a European tongue at all, expresses the Greek language well.

[§ 162]. But it was not from the Greek that our own alphabet was immediately derived; although ultimately

it is referable to the same source as the Greek, viz., the Phœnician.

It was the Roman alphabet which served as the basis to the English.

And it is in the changes which the Phœnician alphabet underwent in being accommodated to the Latin language that we must investigate the chief peculiarities of the present alphabet and orthography of Great Britain and America.

Now respecting the Roman alphabet, we must remember that it was not taken directly from the Phœnician; in this important point differing from the Greek.

Nor yet was it taken, in the first instance, from the Greek.

It had a double origin.

The operation of the principles indicated in § [161] was a work of the time; and hence the older and more unmodified Greek alphabet approached in character its Phœnician prototype much more than the later, or modified. As may be seen, by comparing the previous alphabets with the common alphabets of the Greek Grammar, the letters 6 and 19 occur in the earlier, whilst they are missing in the later, modes of writing. On the other hand, the old alphabet has no such signs as φ, χ, υ, ω, ψ, and ξ.

Such being the case, it is easy to imagine what would be the respective conditions of two Italian languages which borrowed those alphabets, the one from the earlier, the other from the later Greek. The former would contain the equivalents to vaw (6), and kof (19); but be destitute of φ, χ, &c.; whereas the latter would have φ, χ, &c., but be without either vaw or kof.

Much the same would be the case with any single

Italian language which took as its basis the earlier, but adopted, during the course of time, modifications from the later Greek. It would exhibit within itself characters common to the two stages.

This, or something very like it, was the case with Roman. For the first two or three centuries the alphabet was Etruscan; Etruscan derived directly from the Greek, and from the old Greek.

Afterwards, however, the later Greek alphabet had its influence, and the additional letters which it contained were more or less incorporated; and that without effecting the ejection of any earlier ones.

[§ 163]. With these preliminaries we may investigate the details of the Roman alphabet, when we shall find that many of them stand in remarkable contrast with those of Greece and Phœnicia. At the same time where they differ with them, they agree with the English.

Order.	Roman.	English.	Greek.	Hebrew.
1.	A	A	Alpha	Aleph.
2.	B	B	Bæta	Beth.
3.	C	C	Gamma	Gimel.
4.	D	D	Delta	Daleth.
5.	E	E	Epsilon	He.
6.	F	F	Digamma	Vaw.
7.	G	G	—	—
8.	H	H	Hæta	Heth.
9.	I	I	Iôta	Iod.
10.	J	J	Iôta	Iod.
11.		K	Kappa	Kaf.
12.	L	L	Lamda	Lamed.
13.	M	M	Mu	Mem.
14.	N	N	Nu	Nun.
15.	O	O	Omicron	Ayn.
16.	P	P	Pi	Pe.
17.	Q	Q	Koppa	Kof.
18.	R	R	Rho	Resh.
19.	S	S	San	Sin.
20.	T	T	Tau	Tau.
21.	U	U	Upsilon	—
22.	V	V	Upsilon	—
23.		W	Upsilon	—
24.	X	X	Xi	Samech.[[43]]
25.	Y	Y	Upsilon	—
26.	Z	Z	Zæta	Zain.

[§ 164]. The differences of this table are referable to one of the following four heads:—a. Ejection. b. Addition. c. Change of power. d. Change of order.

a. Ejection.—In the first instance, the Italians ejected as unnecessary, letters 7,[^[44]] 9, and 11: zayn (zæta), teth (thæta), and kaf (kappa). Either the sounds which they expressed were wanting in their language; or else they were expressed by some other letter. The former was probably the case with 7 and 9, zæta and thæta, the latter with 11, kappa.

b. Addition.—Out of the Greek iôta, two; out of the Greek upsilon, four modifications have been evolved; viz., i and j out of ι, and u, v, w, y, out of υ.

c. Change of power.—Letter 3, in Greek and Hebrew had the sound of the g in gun; in Latin that of k. The reason for this lies in the structure of the Etruscan language. In that tongue the flat sounds were remarkably deficient; indeed, it is probable, that that of g was wanting. Its sharp equivalent, however, the sound of k, was by no means wanting; and the Greek gamma was used to denote it. This made the equivalent to k, the third letter of the alphabet, as early as the time of the Etruscans.

But the Romans had both sounds, the flat as well as

the sharp, g as well as k. How did they express them? Up to the second Punic War they made the rounded form of the Greek Γ, out of which the letter C has arisen, do double work, and signify k and g equally, just as in the present English th is sounded as the Greek θ,[^[45]] and as dh;[^[46]] in proof whereof we have in the Duillian column, MACESTRATOS = MAGISTRATOS, and CARTHACINIENSES = CARTHAGINIENSES.

Thus much concerning the power and places of the Latin c, as opposed to the Greek γ. But this is not all. The use of gamma, with the power of k, made kappa superfluous, and accounts for its ejection in the Etruscan alphabet; a fact already noticed.

Furthermore, an addition to the Etruscan alphabet was required by the existence of the sound of g, in Latin, as soon as the inconvenience of using c with a double power became manifest. What took place then? Even this. The third letter was modified in form, or became a new letter, c being altered into g; and the new letter took its place in the alphabet.

Where was this? As the seventh letter between f (digamma) and h (hæta).

Why? Because it was there where there was a vacancy, and where it replaced the Greek zæta, or the Hebrew zayn, a letter which, at that time, was not wanted in Latin.

d. Change of order.—As far as the letters c and g are concerned, this has been explained; and it has been shown that change of order and change of power are sometimes very closely connected. All that now need be added is, that those letters which were last introduced from the Greek into the Roman alphabet, were placed at the end.

This is why u, v, w, and y come after t—the last letter of the original Phœnician, and also of the older Greek.

This, too, is the reason for z coming last of all. It was restored for the purpose of spelling Greek words. But as its original place had been filled up by g, it was tacked on as an appendage, rather than incorporated as an element.

X in power, coincided with the Greek xi; in place, with the Greek khi. Its position seems to have determined its form, which is certainly that of X rather than of Ξ. The full investigation of this is too lengthy for the present work.

[§ 165]. It should be observed, that, in the Latin, the letters have no longer any names (like beth, bæta), except such as are derived from their powers (be, ce).

[§ 166]. The principles which determined the form of the Roman alphabet were, upon the whole, correct; and, hence, the Roman alphabet, although not originally meant to express an Italian tongue at all, expressed the language to which it was applied tolerably.

On the other hand, there were both omissions and alterations which have had a detrimental effect upon the orthography of those other numerous tongues to which Latin has supplied the alphabet. Thus—

a. It is a matter of regret, that the differences which the Greeks drew between the so-called long and short e and o, was neglected by the Latins; in other words, that ω was omitted entirely, and η changed in power. Had this been the case, all the orthographical expedients by which we have to express the difference between the o in not, and the o in note, would have been prevented—not, note, moat—bed, bead, heel, glede, &c.

b. It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessary

compendium as q = cu, or cw, should have been retained from the old Greek alphabet; and, still more so, that the equally superfluous x = cs, or ks, should have been re-admitted.

c. It is a matter of regret, that the Greek θ was not treated like the Greek ζ. Neither were wanted at first; both afterwards. The manner, however, of their subsequent introduction was different. Zæta came in as a simple single letter, significant of a simple single sound. Thæta, on the contrary, although expressive of an equally simple sound, became th. This was a combination rather than a letter; and the error which it engendered was great.

It suggested the idea, that a simple sound was a compound one—which was wrong.

It further suggested the idea, that the sound of θ differed from that of τ, by the addition of h—which was wrong also.

[§ 167]. The Greek language had a system of sounds different from the Phœnician; and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.

The Roman language had a system of sounds different from the Greek and the alphabet required modifying accordingly.

This leads us to certain questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon. Had it a system of sounds different from the Roman? If so, what modifications did the alphabet require? Were such modifications effected? If so, how? Sufficiently or insufficiently? The answers are unsatisfactory.

[§ 168]. The Anglo-Saxon had, even in its earliest stage, the following sounds, for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs or letters—

1. The sound of the th in thin.

2. The sound of the th in thine.

It had certainly these: probably others.

[§ 169]. Expressive of these, two new signs were introduced, viz., þ = th in thin, and ð = th in thine.

W, also evolved out of u, was either an original improvement of the Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of the allied languages of the Continent. Probably the latter was the case; since we find the following passage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid's "Krist:"—"Hujus enim linguæ barbaries, ut est inculca et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticæ artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto quærit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente."

This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered the purpose to which it was applied tolerably.

[§ 170]. Change, however, went on; and the orthography which suited the earlier Anglo-Saxon would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not suit the language which had become or was becoming, English; wherein the sounds for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs increase. Thus there is at present—

1. The sound of the sh in shine.

2. The sound of the z in azure.

How are these to be expressed? The rule has hitherto been to denote simple single sounds, by simple single signs, and where such signs have no existence already, to originate new ones.

To combine existing letters, rather than to coin a new one, has only been done rarely. The Latin substitution

of the combination th for the simple single θ, was exceptionable. It was a precedent, however, which now begins to be followed generally.

[§ 171]. It is this precedent which accounts for the absence of any letter in English, expressive of either of the sounds in question.

[§ 172]. Furthermore, our alphabet has not only not increased in proportion to our sound-system, but it has decreased. The Anglo-Saxon þ = the th in thin, and ð = the th in thine, have become obsolete; and a difference in pronunciation, which our ancestors expressed, we overlook.

The same precedent is at the bottom of this; a fact which leads us to—

[§ 173]. The Anglo-Norman alphabet.—The Anglo-Saxon language was Gothic; the alphabet, Roman.

The Anglo-Norman language was Roman; the alphabet, Roman also.

The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source; his writing from another.

The Anglo-Norman took both from the same.

In adapting a Latin alphabet to a Gothic language, the Anglo-Saxon allowed himself more latitude than the Anglo-Norman. We have seen that the new signs þ and ð were Anglo-Saxon.

Now the sounds which these letters represent did not occur in the Norman-French, consequently the Norman-French alphabet neither had nor needed to have signs to express them; until after the battle of Hastings, when it became the Anglo-Norman of England.

Then, the case became altered. The English language influenced the Norman orthography, and the Norman orthography the English language; and the result was, that the simple single correct and distinctive

signs of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, became replaced by the incorrect and indistinct combination th.

This was a loss, both in the way of theoretical correctness and perspicuity.

Such is the general view of the additions, ejections, changes of power, and changes of order in the English alphabet. The extent, however, to which an alphabet is faulty, is no measure of the extent to which an orthography is faulty; since an insufficient alphabet may, by consistency in its application, be more useful than a full and perfect alphabet unsteadily applied.

[§ 174]. One of our orthographical expedients, viz., the reduplication of the consonant following, to express the shortness (dependence) of the preceding vowel, is as old as the classical languages: terra, θάλασσα. Nevertheless, the following extract from the "Ormulum" (written in the thirteenth century) is the fullest recognition of the practice that I have met with.

And whase wilenn shall þis boc,

Efft oþerr siþe writenn,

Himm bidde icc þatt hett write rihht,

Swa sum þiss boc himm tæcheþþ;

All þwerrt utt affterr þatt itt iss

Oppo þiss firrste bisne,

Wiþþ all swilc rime als her iss sett,

Wiþþ alse fele wordess:

And tatt he loke well þatt he

An boc-staff write twiggess,[^[47]]

Eggwhær þær itt uppo þiss boc

Iss writenn o þatt wise:

Loke he well þatt hett write swa,

Forr he ne magg noht elless,

On Englissh writenn rihht te word,

þatt wite he well to soþe.

[§ 175]. The order of the alphabet.—In the history of our alphabet, we have had the history of certain changes in the arrangement, as well as of the changes in the number and power of its letters. The following question now presents itself: viz., Is there in the order of the letters any natural arrangement, or is the original as well as the present succession of letters arbitrary and accidental? The following facts suggest an answer in the affirmative.

The order of the Hebrew alphabet is as follows:—

	Name.	Sound.		Name.	Sound.
1.	Aleph	Either a vowel or a breathing.	12.	Lamed	L.
2.	Beth	B.	13.	Mem	M.
3.	Gimel	G, as in gun.	14.	Nun	N.
4.	Daleth	D.	15.	Samech	a variety of S.
5.	He	Either a vowel or an aspirate.	16.	Ayn	Either a vowel or ——?
6.	Vaw	V.	17.	Pe	P.
7.	Zayn	Z.	18.	Tsadi	TS.
8.	Kheth	a variety of K.	19.	Kof	a variety of K.
9.	Teth	a variety of T.	20.	Resh	R.
10.	Yod	I.	21.	Sin	S.
11.	Caph	K.	22.	Tau	T.

Let beth, vaw, and pe (b, v, p) constitute a series called series P. Let gimel, kheth, and kof (g, kh, k') constitute a series called series K. Let daleth, teth, and tau, (d, t', t) constitute a series called series T. Let aleph, he, and ayn constitute a series called the vowel series. Let the first four letters be taken in their order.

1. Aleph	of the vowel series.
2. Beth	of series P.
3. Gimel	of series K.
4. Daleth	of series T.

Herein the consonant of series B comes next to the letter of the vowel series; that of series K follows; and in the last place, comes the letter of series T. After this the order changes; daleth being followed by he of the vowel series.

5. He	of the vowel series.
6. Vaw	of series P.
7. Zayn	——
8. Kheth	of series K.
9. Teth	of series T.

In this second sequence the relative positions of v, kh, and t', are the same in respect to each other, and the same in respect to the vowel series. The sequence itself is broken by the letter zayn but it is remarkable that the principle of the sequence is the same. Series P follows the vowel and series T is farthest from it. After this the system becomes but fragmentary. Still, even now, pe, of series P, follows ayn; tau, of series T, is farthest from it, and kof, of series K, is intermediate.

If this be the case, and, if the letters, so to say, circulate, the alterations made in their order during the transfer of their alphabet from Greece to Rome, have had the unsatisfactory effect of concealing an interesting arrangement, and of converting a real, though somewhat complex regularity, into apparent hazard and disorder.

---