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—