Sm ppel sm tu imajin that the pouer ov disti[n]gwishi[n] miniút diferensez ov soundz iz a natiural gift, and kanot b akweird. It m[e] b so in kweit eksepshonal k[e]sez, bt ei no az a fakt that a cheild that had, az ppel s[e], no r for miuzik, and kud not si[n] “God s[e]v the Kwn,” gradiuali akweird the pouer ov disti[n]gwishi[n] the ordinari nots, and ov si[n]i[n] a tiun. Spki[n] from mei on ekspriens ei shud s[e] that a gud r kmz bei inheritans, for, az lo[n] az ei kan remember, a fols not, or, az w y[ue]st [pg 178] tu k[w]l it, an impiur (unrein) n[o]t, woz tu m fizikali p[e]nful.
Bt this apleiz tu miuzik [o]nli, and it iz bei n[o] mnz jenerali tr[ue], that ppel h[ue] hav a gud miuzikal r, hav [w]ls[o] a gud r for la[n]gwej. Ei hav non ppel kweit nmiuzikal, pozést ov a veri gud r for la[n]gwej, and vice versâ. The t[´[ue] natiural gifts, th[e]rfor, if natiural gifts th[e] ar, ov disti[n]gwishi[n] miniút degrz ov pich and kwoliti ov sound d not sm tu b the s[e]m. The ral difiklti, houever, hwich m[e]ks itself felt in disk[ú]si[n] miniút sh[e]dz ov sound, areizez from the insfishensi ov our nomenklatiur, from the [w]lm[o]st irrezistibel influens ov imajin[e]shon, and in the end, from the wont ov a f[o]nometer. A gud miuzishan kan disti[n]gwish betwn C sharp and D flat, a gud f[o]netishan betwn a “l[o]-bak-nar[o]” and a “l[o]-mikst-nar[o]” vouel. Bt th[e] kanot [w]lw[e]z transl[e]t th[e]r sentiments intu definit la[n]gwej, and if th[e] trei bei aktiual eksperiment tu imit[e]t thz t[ú] soundz or vouelz, the imperfekshonz ov the r and t[n], b[o][t] in the spker and the lisener, frkwentli render [w]l atempts at a miutiual nderstandi[n] imposibel. W shal never areiv at seientifik presi[z]on til w hav a f[o]nometer for kwoliti ov sound, nor d[ue] ei s hwei sch an instrument shud b imposibel. Ei wel remember Wheatstone teli[n] m, that h wud ndert[e]k tu rprodiús bei mnz ov an instrument everi sh[e]d ov vouel in eni la[n]gw[e]j ov the wrld, and ei shud [t]i[n]k that Willis'z and Helmholtz'z eksperiments wud [pg 179] splei the elements from hwich sch a f[o]nometer meit b konstitiuted. Az s[ur]n az w kan me[z]ur, defein, and rprodiús, at ple[z]ur, hwot at prezent w kan [o]nli deskreib in aproksim[r]t termz, the seiens ov f[o]netiks wil bekm m[o]st fr[ue]tful, and asiúm its lejitimet pl[e]s az a sine quâ non tu the stiudent ov la[n]gwej.
Ei hav smteimz bn bl[e]md for havi[n] insisted on F[o]netiks bi[n] rekogneizd az the found[e]shon ov the Seiens ov La[n]gwej. Prof. Benfey and ther skolarz protested agenst the chapter ei hav dev[o]ted tu F[o]netiks in the Sekond Srz ov mei “Lektiurz,” az an nnesesari inov[e]shon, and thoz protests hav bekm stil stro[n]ger ov l[e]t. Bt hr, t[ue], w mst disti[n]gwish betwn t[´[ue] [t]i[n]z. Filolojikal or jeneral F[o]netiks, ar, ei h[o]ld, az stro[n]li az ever, an integral part ov the Seiens ov La[n]gwej; deialektik F[o]netiks m[e] b y[ue]sful hr and th[e]r, bt th[e] shud b kept within th[e]r proper sfr; therweiz, ei admit az redili az eniwn els, th[e] obskiúr rather than revl the br[w]d and masiv klorz ov sound hwich la[n]gwej y[ue]zez for its ordinari wrk.
If w reflekt a litel, w shal s that the filolojikal konsepshon ov a vouel iz sm[t]i[n] t[o]tali diferent from its piurli akoustik or deialektik konsepshon. The former iz chfli konsernd with the sfr ov posibel v[e]ri[e]shon, and the later with the piurli fenomenal individiualiti ov ch vouel. Tu the filolojist, the [t]rj vouelz in septimus, for instans, hwotever th[e]r ekzakt [pg 180] pronnsi[e]shonz m[e] hav bn at diferent teimz, and in diferent provinsez ov the R[o]man Empeir, ar p[o]tenshali wn and the s[e]m. W luk on septimus and ἕβύοώος az on Sanskrit saptamas, and [o]nli bei n[o]i[n] that e, i, and u in septimus ar [w]l reprezentativz ov a short a, or that optimus standz for the m[o]r [e]nshent optumus and optomos, d[ue] w t[e]k in at wn glans the h[o]l histori and posibel v[e]ri[e]shon ov thz vouelz in diferent la[n]gwejez and deialekts. [I]ven hw[e]r a vouel disaprz kompltli, az in gigno for gigeno, in πίπτω for πιπευω the mentl ei ov the filolojist disérnz and w[e]z hwot n[o] r kan hr. And hweil in thz k[e]sez the etimolojist, disregardi[n] the klrest vareieti ov pronnsi[e]shon, trts sch vouelz az a, e, i, o, u az wn and the s[e]m, in therz hw[e]r t[úe] vouelz sm tu hav ekzaktli the s[e]m sound tu the deialektishan, the filolojist on hiz part persvz diferensez ov the gr[e]test importans. The i in fides and cliens m[e] hav the s[e]m sound az the i in gigno or septimus, the u ov luo m[e] not difer from the u in optumus or lubens, bt th[e]r intrinsik valiu, th[e]r k[e]pabilitiz ov gr[o][t] and dek[é], ar to t[o]tali diferent in ch. W shal never b [e]bel tu spk with eni[t]i[n] leik ral seientifik akiurasi ov the pronnsi[e]shon ov [e]nshent la[n]gwejez, bt ven if w luk tu th[e]r riten aprans [o]nli, w s agén and agén hou vouelz, riten aleik, ar historikali t[o]tali disti[n]kt. Grimm introdiúst the disti[n]kshon betwn ái and aí, betwn áu and aú, not bek[w]z it iz bei eni mnz serten that the pronnsi[e]shon [pg 181] ov thz dif[t]o[n]z v[e]rid, bt bek[w]z h wisht tu indik[e]t that the antesdents ov ái and áu wer diferent from th[o]z ov aí and aú. In Go[t]ik faíhu, (Sk. pasu, pecu), aí iz a shortend tu i, and br[o]ken bef[o]r h tu ái; in Go[t]ik váit (Sk. veda, οἶδα), ai, iz radikal i stre[n][t]end tu ái. In Go[t]ik daúhtar (Sk. duhitar θυγάτηρ), aú iz radikal u br[o]ken tu aú; in aúhna ven (Sk. asna, ἰπνο=ἰκνο=ἀκνο), the au iz a, darkend tu u, and br[o]ken tu áu; hweil in Go[t]ik báug (πέφευγα), áu iz orijinal u stre[n][t]end tu áu. Hwen w hr ê and ô in Go[t]ik w s â, jst az w s Dorik ā beheind Eionik η. Hwen w hr c in canis, w s Sanskrit s; hwen w hr c in cruor, w s Sanskrit k. Hwen w hr γ in γένος, w s [A]rian g; hwen w hr γ in φλέγω w s [A]rian z.
Thz fiu ilstr[e]shonz wil ekspl[e]n, ei h[o]p the esenshal diferens in the aplik[e]shon ov f[o]netiks tu filoloji and deialektoloji, and wil sh[o] that in the former our brsh mst ov nesesiti be br[w]d, hweil in the later it mst b fein. It iz bei miksi[n] p t[úe] separ[e]t leinz ov reserch, ch heili important in itself, that s[o] mch konfiu[z]on haz ov l[e]t bn ok[e][z]ond. The valiu ov piurli f[o]netik obzerv[e]shonz shud on no akount b nderr[e]ted; bt it iz nesesari, for thát veri rzon, that deialektikal az wel az filolojikal f[o]netiks shud b konfeind tu th[e]r proper sfr. The filolojist haz mch tu lern from the f[o]netishan, bt h shud never forget that hr, az elshw[e]r, hwot iz br[w]d and [pg 182] tipikal iz az important and az seientifikali akiuret az hwot iz miniút and speshal.
Hwot iz br[w]d and tipikal iz often m[o]r akiuret ven than hwot iz miniút and speshal. It meit b posibel, for instans, bei a f[o]tografik proses, tu reprezent the ekzakt pozishon ov the t[n] and the inseid w[w]lz ov the mou[t] hweil w pronoúns the Italian vouel i. Bt it wud b the gr[e]test mist[e]k tu sp[o]z that this imej givz s the [o]nli w[e] in hwich thát vouel iz, and kan b, pronoúnst. Th[o] ch individiual m[e] hav hiz [o]n w[e] ov plesi[n] the t[n] in pronoúnsi[n] i, w hav [o]nli tu trei the experiment in order tu konvins ourselvz that, with sm efort, w m[e] v[e]ri that pozishon in meni w[e]z and yet prodiús the sound ov. i. Hwen, th[e]rfor, in mei “Lektiurz on the Seiens ov La[n]gwej,” ei g[e]v piktiurz ov the pozishonz ov the vokal organz rekweird for pronounsi[n] the tipikal leterz ov the alfabet, ei tuk gr[e]t k[e]r tu m[e]k them tipikal, thát iz, tu lv them rf skechez rather than miniút f[o]tografs. Ei kanot beter ekspres hwot ei fl on this point than bei kw[o]ti[n] the wrdz ov Hæckel:—
“For didaktik prposez, simpel skmatik figiurz ar far m[o]r y[ue]sful than piktiurz prezervi[n] the gr[e]test f[e][t]fulnes tu n[e]tiur and karid out with the gr[e]test akiurasi.” (“Ziele und Wege,” p. 37.)
[The following three letters, now introduced, will complete the Phonetic Alphabet—
[dh] [ch] [sh]
for the sounds heard in—then, cheap, she.]