Vowels.

The pronunciation of the vowels is more liable to change than that of the consonants. Hence we find that literary languages, which page 39 retain their orthography in spite of changes in pronunciation have no scruple in expressing different sounds by the same sign; or, where two originally different vowels have sunk down to one and the same intermediate sound, we see this same sound expressed often by two different vowels. In the selection, therefore, of letters to express the general vowel sounds of our physiological alphabet, we can pay less attention to the present value of each vowel sign in the spoken languages of Europe than we did even with the consonants. And as there it was impossible, without creating an unwieldy mass of consonantal signs, to express all the slight shades of pronunciation by distinct letters, we shall have to make still greater allowance for dialectical varieties in the representation of vowels, where it would be hopeless should we attempt to depict in writing every minute degree in the sliding scale of native or foreign pronunciation.

The reason why, in most systems of phonetic transcription, the Italian pronunciation of vowels has been taken as normal, is, no doubt, that in Italian most vowel signs have but one sound, and the same sound is generally expressed by one and the same vowel. We propose, therefore, as in Italian, to represent the pure guttural vowel by a, the pure palatal vowel by i, and the pure labial vowel by u.

Besides the short a, we want one, or according to others, two graphic signs to represent the unmodified sound of the vocal breathing, which may be deflected from its purity by a slight and almost imperceptible palatal or labial pressure. These are the sounds which we have in "birch" and "work," and which, where they must be distinguished, we propose to write ĕ and ŏ. As we do not want the signs of and to mark the quantity of vowels, we may here be allowed to use this sign to indicate indistinctness rather than brevity.

In most languages, however, one sign will be sufficient to express this primitive vowel; and in this case the figure 0 has been recommended as a fit representative of this undetermined vowel.

Among the languages which have an alphabet of their own, some, as, for instance, Sanskrit, do not express these sounds by any peculiar sign, but use the short a instead. Other languages express both sounds by one sign; for instance, the Hebrew Shewa, the pronunciation of which would naturally be influenced, or, so to say, coloured either by the preceding or the following letter. Other idioms again, page 40 like Latin, seem to express this indistinct sound by e, i, o, or u. Besides the long e in res and the short e in celer, we have the indistinct ĕ in words like adversum and advorsum, septimus and septumus, where the Hindus write uniformly saptama, but pronounced it probably with vowels varying as in Greek and Latin. Besides the long o in odi, and the short o as in moneo, we have the indistinct o or u in orbs or urbs, in bonom or bonum. In Wallachian, every vowel that has been reduced to this obscure, indefinite sound, is marked by an accent, a, e, i, b, u; but if Wallachian is written with Cyrillic letters, the ' Yerr' ('b) is used as the uniform representative of all these vowels. In living languages one sign, the figure o, will be found sufficient, and in some cases it may be dispensed with altogether, as a slight Shewa sound is necessarily pronounced, whether written or not, in words such as mil-k, mar-sh, el-m, &c. The marks of quantity,? and are superfluous in our alphabet; not that it is not always desirable to mark the quantity of vowels, but because here again, as with the dotted consonant, a long syllable can be marked by the vowel in italics, while every other vowel is to be taken as short. Thus we should write in English bath, bar, but ass, bank; ravine, and pin; but (i.e. boot), and butcher. We should know at once that a in bath is long, while in ass it is short.

All compound vowel sounds should be written according to the process of their formation. Two only, which are of most frequent occurrence, the guttural short a, absorbed by either i or u, might perhaps be allowed to retain their usual signs, and be written e and o, instead of ai and au. The only reason, however, which can be given for writing e and o, instead of ai and au, is that we save a letter in writing; and this, considering how many millions of people may in the course of time have to use this alphabet, may be a saving of millions and millions of precious seconds. The more consistent way would be to express the gutturo-palatal sound of the Italian e by ai, the a being short. The French do the same in "aimer," while in English this sound is expressed by ey in prey, by ay in pray, by a in gate, and by ai in sailor. The gutturo-labial sound of the Italian o should be written au, which the French pronounce o. For etymological purposes also this plan would be preferable, as it frequently happens that an o (au), if followed by a vowel, has to be pronounced page 41 av. Thus in Sanskrit bhu, to be, becomes bhau (pronounced bho), and if followed by ami, it becomes bhav-ami, I am.

The diphthongs, where the full or long guttural a is followed by i and u, should be written ai and au. "To buy" would have to be written bai; to bow, bau. Whether au coalesce entirely, as in German, or less so, as in Italian, is a point which in each language must be learned by ear, not by eye.

Most people would not be able to distinguish between ai and ei. Still some maintain that there is a difference; as, for instance, in German kaiser and eis. Even in English the sound of ie in "he lies" is said to be different from that of "he lies." Where it is necessary to mark this distinction, our diagram readily supplies ai and ei.

The diphthong eu is generally pronounced so that the two vowels are heard in succession, as in Italian Europa. Pronounccd more quickly, as, for instance, in German, it approaches to the English sound of oy in boy. According to our diagram, we should have to write ĕi and ĕu; but ei and eu will be preferable for practical purposes.

The same applies to the diphthong ŏi. Here, also, both vowels can still be heard more or less distinctly. This more or less cannot be expressed in writing, but must be learned by practice.

The last diphthong, on the contrary, is generally pronounced like one sound, and the deep guttural O seems to be followed, no by the vowel u, but only by an attempt to pronounce this vowe, which attempt ends, as it were, with the semi-vowel w, instead of the vowel. In English we have this sound in bought, aught, saw; and also in fall and all.

The proper representation of these diphthongs would be ŏi and ŏu; but oi and ou will be found to answer the purpose as well except in philological works.

For representing the broken sounds of a, o, u, which we lave in German väter, höhe, güte, in the French prêtre, pcu, and une, but which the English avoids as sounds requiring too great an efort, no better signs offer themselves than ä, ö, ü. They are objecionable because they are not found in every English font. For the I'ataric languages a fourth sound is required, a broken or soft i. Tis, too; we must write ï.

page 42

The Sanskrit vowels, commonly called lingual and dental, are best expressed by ri and li, where, by writing the r and I as italics, no ambiguity can arise between the vowels ri and li, and the semi-vowels r and I, followed by i. Instead of i, ĕ also or the figure O may be used.

Thus have all the principal consonantal and vowel sounds been classified physiologically and represented graphically. All the distinctions which it can ever be important to express have been expressed by means of the Roman alphabet without the introduction of foreign letters, and without using dots, hooks, lines, accents, or any other diacritical signs. I do not deny that for more minute points, particularly in philological treatises, new sounds and new signs will be required. In Sanskrit we have Visarga and the real Anusvara (the Nasikya), which will require distinct signs (h, m) in transliteration. In some African languages, clicks, unless they can be abolished in speaking, will have to be represented in writing. On points like these an agreement will be difficult, nor would it be possible to provide for all emergencies. It is an advantage, however, that we still have the c, j, and x at our disposal to express the dental, palatal, and lateral clicks. Further particulars on this and similar points I must reserve for a future occasion, and refer the reader, in the mean time, to the very able article of the Rev. L. Grout, alluded to before. But I cannot leave this subject without expressing at least a strong hope that, by the influence of the Missionaries, these brutal sounds will be in time abolished, at least among the Kaffirs, though it may be impossible to eradicate them in the degraded Hottentot dialects. It is clear that they are not essential in the Kaffir languages, for they never occur in Sechuana and other branches of the great Kaffir family.

If uniformity can be obtained with regard to the forty-four consonantal and the twenty-four vocal sounds, which are the principal modulations of the human voice fixed and sanctioned in the history of language, so far as it is known at present; if these sounds are always accepted, as defined above, solely on physiological grounds, and henceforth expressed in those letters alone which have been allotted to them solely for practical reasons, a great step will have been made towards facilitating the intellectual intercourse of mankind and spreading the truths of Christianity.

But the realisation of this plan will mainly depend, not on ingenious arguments, but on good-will and ready co-operation.