Chips from a German Workshop, Volume 5 / Miscellaneous Later Essays

by F. Max Müller

Mch, houever, az ei difer from the Archbishop on thz groundz, ei kanot bt deprek[e]t the t[o]n in hwich hiz pouerful opozishon ház bn met bei meni ov the ph[o]lderz ov f[o]netik speli[n]. N[e], ei mst g[o] stil frther, and fra[n]kli konfés that tu wn ov hiz argiuments ei feind it difiklt, at prezent, tu giv a satisfaktori anser.

“It iz a mr asmpshon,” the Archbishop remarks, “that [w]l men pronoúns [w]l wrdz aleik; or [pg 170] that hwenever th[e] km tu spel a wrd th[e] wil ekzaktli agr az tu hwot the outlein ov its sound iz. Nou w ar sh[ue]r men wil not d[ue] this, from the fakt that, bef[o]r ther woz eni fikst and seteld or[t]ografi in our la[n]gwej, hwen, th[e]rfor, everibodi woz m[o]r or les a a f[o]nografer, ski[n] tu reit doun the wrd az it sounded tu him,—for h had n[o] ther l[w] tu geid him,—the v[e]ri[e]shonz ov speli[n] ar infinit. T[e]k, for instans, the wrd sudden, hwich dz not sm tu promis eni gr[e]t sk[o]p for vareieti. Ei hav meiself met with this wrd speld in n[o] les than f[ó]rtn w[e]z am[n] our erli reiterz. Agen, in hou meni w[e]z woz Raleigh'z n[e]m speld, or Shakspere'z? The s[e]m iz evident from the speli[n] ov nediukated personz in our [o]n d[.[e]. Th[E] hav n[o] ther r[ue]l bt the sound tu geid them. Hou iz it that th[e] d[ue] not [w]l spel aleik?” I[n]glish, Past and Prezent, p. 203.

Leik m[o]st men h[ue] pld with th[e]r hart az wel az with th[e]r hed, the Archbishop haz hr [o]verlukt wn obvis anser tu hiz kwestion. Th[e] d[ue] not spel aleik bek[w]z th[e] hav bn br[w]t p with a sistem ov speli[n] in hwich the s[e]m sound kan b reprezented in ten diferent w[e]z, and in hwich hardli eni wn leter iz restrikted tu wn fonetik pouer onli. If children wer br[w]t p with an alfabet in hwich ch leter had bt wn sound, and in hwich the s[e]m sound woz [w]lw[e]z reprezented bei the s[e]m sein—and this iz the veri esens ov f[o]netik reiti[n]—then it wud b simpli [pg 171] imposibel that th[e] shud drm ov reiti[n] sudden in f[o]rtn, or Woburn in 140, diferent w[e]z.

Bt for [w]l thát ther iz sm tr[ue][t] in the Archbishop's remark; and if w komp[e]r the diferent w[e]z in hwich the advokets ov f[o]netik speli[n]—men leik Pitman, Bell, Ellis, Withers, Jones—reit the s[e]m wrdz, ven hwen y[ue]zi[n] the s[e]m fonetik alfabet, w shal s that the difiklti pointed out bei the Archbishop iz a ral wn. Everiwn n[o]z hou diferentli the s[e]m wrdz [w]lwez hav bn and stil ar pronoúnst in diferent parts ov I[n]gland. And it iz not onli in tounz and kountiz that thz pekiuliaritiz prev[e]l; ther ar serten wrdz hwich wn famili pronoúnsez diferentli from anther; and ther ar beseidz the stdid and nstdid pekiuliaritiz ov individiual spkerz. Tu konvíns ppel that wn pronnsi[e]shon iz reit and the ther ro[n], smz terli hoples. Ei hav herd a heili kltiveted man defendi[n] hiz dropi[n] the h at the begini[n] ov serten wrdz, bei the nanserabel argiument that in the pl[e]s hwer h woz br[w]t p, n[o]wn pronoúnst thz inishal hz. Hwot Skochman wud admit that hiz pronnsi[e]shon woz f[w]lti? Hwot Eirishman wud sbmit tu l[w]z ov speli[n] past in Lndon? And hwot renderz argiument on eni neisetiz ov pronnsieshon stil m[o]r difiklt iz, that b[o][t] the r and the t[n] ar m[o]st trechers witnesez. Ei hav herd Amerikanz m[e]nt[e]n in gud ernest that ther woz mch les of n[e]zal twa[n] in Amerika than in I[n]gland. Ppel ar not awer hou th[e] pronoúns, and hou diferentli th[e] [pg 172] pronoúns wn and the s[e]m wrd. Az a forener ei hav had ampel oportiunitiz for obzerv[e]shon on this point. Sm frendz wud tel m, for instans, that world woz pronoúnst leik whirl'd, father leik farther, nor (bef[o]r konsonants) leik gnaw, bud leik bird, burst leik bust, for leik fur, birth leik berth; that the vouelz had the s[e]m sound in where and were, in not and war, in God and gaudy; hweil therz ash[ue]rd m that n[o]wn bt a forener kud [t]i[n]k s[o]. And the wrst iz that ven the s[e]m person dz not [w]lwez pronoúns the s[e]m wrd in ekzaktli the s[e]m maner. Konstantli, hwen ei askt a frend tu rept a wrd hwich h had jst pronoúnst, h wud pronoúns it agen, bt with a sleit diferens. The mr fakt ov hiz treii[n] tu pronoúns wel wud give tu hiz pronnsi[e]shon a konshs and emfatik karakter. The prepozishon of iz pronoúnst bei m[o]st ppel or, bt if kros-ekzamind, meni wil s[e] that th[e] pronoúns ov, bt the o not ekzaktli leik off.

The konfiu[z]on bekmz gr[e]test hwen it iz atempted tu eidentifei the pronnsi[e]shon, s[e] ov a vouel in Jerman with a vouel in I[n]glish. N[o] t[úe] I[n]glishmen and n[o] t[úe] Jermanz smd tu b [e]bel tu agr on hwot th[e] herd with th[e]r rz, or hwot th[e] sed with th[e]r t[n]z; and the rezlt in the end iz that n[o] vouel in Jernran woz rali the s[e]m az eni ther vouel in I[n]glish. Tu t[e]k wn or t[ú] instansez, from Mr. Ellis'z k tu Palioteip (Palœtype), ei kan hr n[o] diferens betwn the a in Italian mano, I[n]glish father, and Jerman mahnen, [pg 173] nles ei restrikt mei obzerv[e]shonz tu the terans ov serten individiualz; hw[e]raz ei d[ue] hr a veri deseided, and jenerali adopted, diferens betwn the vouelz in Jerman böcke and French jeune. Mr. Ellis, tchi[n] on the s[e]m difiklti, remarks, “Mr. Bell's pronnsi[e]shon, in meni instansez, diferz from thát hwich ei am akstomd tu giv, espeshali in foren wrdz. B[o][t] ov s m[e] b ro[n].” Mr. Sweet remarks, p. 10, “Mr. Ellis insists stro[n]li on the monof[t]o[n]gal karakter ov hiz [o]n eez and ooz. Ei hr hiz ee and oo az disti[n]kt dif[t]o[n]z, not [o]nli in hiz I[n]glish pronnsi[e]shon, bt [w]ls[o] in hiz pronnsi[e]shon ov French, Jerman, and Latin.” If f[o]netik reiti[n] ment this miniút f[o]tografi ov sp[o]ken soundz, in hwich Mes. Bell and Ellis eksél; if eni atempt had ever bn m[e]d tu emploi this h[e]r-spliti[n] mashneri for a praktikal reform ov I[n]glish speli[n], the objekshonz r[e]zd bei Archbishop Trench wud b kweit nanserabel. Ther wud b fifti diferent w[e]z ov speli[n] I[n]glish, and the konfiu[z]on wud b gr[e]ter than it iz nou. Not ven Mr. Bell'z [t]erti-siks kategoriz ov vouel sound wud b sfishent tu render everi pekiuliariti ov vouel kwoliti, pich and kwontiti, with perfekt akiurasi. (S H. Sweet, “Histori ov I[n]glish Soundz,” pp. 58, 68.) Bt this woz never intended, and hweil konsdi[n] mch tu the Archbishop's argiuments, ei mst not konsd t[ue] mch.

Hwot ei leik in Mr. Pitman'z sistem ov speli[n] iz ekzaktli hwot ei nó haz bn found f[w]lt with bei [pg 174] therz n[e]mli that h dz not atempt tu refein t[ue] mch, and tu ekspres in reiti[n] th[o]z endles sh[e]dz ov pronnsi[e]shon, hwich m[e] b ov the gr[e]test interest tu the stiudent ov akoustiks, or ov f[o]netiks, az apleid tu the stdi ov livi[n] deialekts, bt hwich, for praktikal az well az for seientifik filolojikal prposez, mst b enteirli ign[o]rd. Reiti[n] woz never intended tu f[o]tograf sp[o]ken la[n]gwejez: it woz ment tu indik[e]t, not tu p[e]nt soundz. If Voltaire sez, “L'écriture c'est la peinture de la voix,” h iz reit; bt hwen h g[o]z on tu s[e], “plus elle est ressemblante, meilleur elle est,” ei am not serten that, az in a piktiur ov a landsk[e]p, s[o] in a piktiur ov the vois, pr-R[e]if[e]leit miniútnes m[e] not destroi the veri objekt ov the piktiur. La[n]gwej dlz in br[w]d klorz, and reiti[n] [w]t tu fol[o] the ekzampel ov la[n]gwej, hwich th[o] it alouz an endles vareiti ov pronnsi[e]shon, restrikts itself for its [o]n prpos, for the prpos ov ekspresi[n] [t][w]t in [w]l its modifik[e]shonz, tu a veri limited nmber ov tipikal vouelz and konsonants. Out ov the larj nmber ov soundz, for instans, hwich hav bn katalogd from the v[e]ris I[n]glish deialekts, thoz onli kan b rekogneizd az konstitiuent elements ov the la[n]gwej hwich in, and bei, th[e]r diferens from ch ther, konv[e] a diferens ov mni[n]. Ov sch pregnant and [t][w]t-konv[e]i[n] vouelz, I[n]glish pozésez n[o] m[o]r than twelv. Hwotever the meinor sh[e]dz ov vouel soundz in I[n]glish deialekts m[e] b, th[e] d[ue] not enrich the la[n]gwej, az sch, thát iz, th[e] d[ue] not en[e]bel the spker tu konv[e] m[o]r miniút [pg 175] sh[e]dz ov [t][w]t than the twelv tipikal si[n]gel vouelz. Beseidz, ther jenerali iz hwot the French meit k[w]l a f[o]netik solidariti in ch deialekt. If wn vouel ch[e]njez, the therz ar apt tu fol[o], and the m[e]n objekt ov la[n]gwej rem[e]nz the s[e]m [t]r[ue]out, n[e]mli, tu prevent wn wrd from rni[n] intu anther, and yet tu abst[e]n from t[ue], miniút fonetik disti[n]kshonz, hwich an ordinari r meit feind it difiklt tu grasp. This prinsipel ov f[o]netik solidariti iz ov gr[e]t importans, not onli in ekspl[e]ni[n] the gradiual ch[e]njez ov vouelz, bt [w]ls[o] sch jeneral ch[e]njez ov konsonants az w s, for instans, in the Jerman Lautverschiebung. Az s[ue]m az wn pl[e]s iz left v[e]kant, ther iz preshur tu fil it, or s[o] mch ov it az iz left v[e]kant, bt n[o] m[o]r.

Ther ar, in fakt, t[úe] branchez, or at [w]l events, t[úe] kweit disti[n]kt praktikal aplik[e]shonz ov the seiens ov F[o]netiks, hwich for wont ov beter n[e]mz, ei design[e]t az filolojikal and deialektikal. Ther iz hwot m[e] b k[w]ld a filolojikal stdi ov F[o]netiks, hwich iz an esenshal part ov the Seiens ov La[n]gwej, and haz for its objekt tu giv a klr eida ov the alfabet, not az riten, bt az sp[o]ken. It trts ov the matrialz out ov hwich, the instruments with hwich, and the proses bei hwich, vouelz and konsonants ar formd; and after ekspl[e]ni[n] hou serten leterz agr, and difer, in th[e]r matrial, in the instruments with hwich, and the proses bei hwich th[e] ar prodiúst, it en[e]belz s tu nderstand the k[w]zez and rezlts ov hwot iz k[w]ld [pg 176] F[o]netik Ch[e]nj. In meni respekts the most instrktiv trtment ov the jeneral [t]ori ov F[o]netiks iz tu b found in the Prâtisâkhyas; partikiularli in the [o]ldest (400 B.K.), thát atacht tu the Rig V[e]da.[71] Th[o] the nmber ov posibel soundz m[e] sm infinit the nmber ov ral soundz y[ue]zd in Sanskrit or eni ther given la[n]gwej for the prpos ov ekspresi[n] diferent sh[e]dz ov mni[n], iz veri limited. It iz with thz br[w]d kategoriz ov sound al[o]n that the Prâtisâkhyas dl; and it iz for a proper nderstandi[n] ov thz the Seiens ov La[n]jgwej haz tu inkl[ue]d within its sfr a k[e]rful stdi ov F[o]netiks.

The deialektikal stdi ov F[o]netiks haz larjer objekts. It wishez tu ekz[w]st [w]l posibel soundz hwich kan b prodiúst bei the v[o]kal organz, litel konsernd az tu hwether thz soundz okr in eni ral la[n]gwej or not. It iz partikiularli y[ue]sful for the prpos ov p[e]nti[n], with the tm[o]st akiurasi, the aktiual pronnsi[e]shon ov individiualz, and ov fiksi[n] the f[e]ntest sh[e]dz ov deialektik vareieti. The m[o]st marvels achvment in this branch ov apleid f[o]netiks m[e] b sn in Mr. Bell'z “Vizibel Spch.”

Thz t[úe] branchez ov f[o]netik seiens, houever, shud b kept k[e]rfuli disti[n]kt. Az the found[e]shon ov a praktikal alfabet, leikweiz az the onli s[e]f found[e]shon for the Seiens ov La[n]gwej, w wont filolojikal or [t][o]retik F[o]netiks. W wont an nderstandi[n] ov [pg 177] thez jeneral prinsipelz and thez br[w]d kategoriz ov sound hwich ar trted in the Prâtisâkhyas; w d[ue] not wont eni ov the miniút deialektikal disti[n]kshonz hwich hav no gramatikal prpos and ar th[e]rfor outseid the p[e]l ov gramatikal seiens. T[ue], miniút disti[n]kshon prodi[ue]sez konfiu[z]on, and hw[e]r it kan b avoided, without a sakrifeiz ov akiurasi, it [w]t tu b avoided. Hw[e]r v[e]gnes ekzists in raliti, and hwer n[e]tiur alouz a br[w]d marjin on either seid, it wud b ro[n] tu ignor thát latitiud. Akiurasi itself wud hr bekm inakiurasi.

Bt hwen w wont tu ekz[w]st [w]l posibel sh[e]dz ov sound, hwen w wont tu fotograf the pekiuliaritiz ov serten deialekts, or me[z]ur the dvi[e]shonz in the pronnsi[e]shon ov individiualz bei the m[o]st miniút degrz, w then mst av[e]l ourselvz ov thát ekskwizit artistik mashneri konstrkted bei Mr. Bell, and handeld with s[o] mch skil bei Mr. A. J. Ellis, the fiu onli wil b [e]bel tu y[ue]z it with ral skses.