Of w, which in diphthongs is often an undoubted vowel, some grammarians have doubted whether it ever be a consonant; and not rather as it is called a double u, or ou, as water may be resolved into ouater; but letters of the same sound are always reckoned consonants in other alphabets: and it may be observed, that w follows a vowel without any hiatus or difficulty of utterance, as frosty winter.

Wh has a sound accounted peculiar to the English, which the Saxons better expressed by hw, as, what, whence, whiting; in whore only, and sometimes in wholesome, wh is sounded like a simple h.

X

X begins no English word: it has the sound of ks, as axle, extraneous.

Y

Y, when it follows a consonant, is a vowel; when it precedes either a vowel or a diphthong, is a consonant, as ye, young. It is thought by some to be in all cases a vowel. But it may be observed of y as of w, that it follows a vowel without any hiatus, as rosy youth.

The chief argument by which w and y appear to be always vowels is, that the sounds which they are supposed to have as consonants, cannot be uttered after a vowel, like that of all other consonants; thus we say tu, ut; do, odd; but in wed, dew; the two sounds of w have no resemblance to each other.

Z

Z begins no word originally English; it has the sound, as its name izzard or s hard expresses, of an s uttered with a closer compression of the palate by the tongue, as freeze, froze.

In orthography I have supposed orthoepy, or just utterance of words, to be included; orthography being only the art of expressing certain sounds by proper characters. I have therefore observed in what words any of the letters are mute.

Most of the writers of English grammar have given long tables of words pronounced otherwise than they are written, and seem not sufficiently to have considered, that of English, as of all living tongues, there is a double pronunciation, one cursory and colloquial, the other regular and solemn. The cursory pronunciation is always vague and uncertain, being made different in different mouths by negligence, unskilfulness, or affectation. The solemn pronunciation, though by no means immutable and permanent, is yet always less remote from the orthography, and less liable to capricious innovation. They have however generally formed their tables according to the cursory speech of those with whom they happened to converse; and concluding that the whole nation combines to vitiate language in one manner, have often established the jargon of the lowest of the people as the model of speech.

For pronunciation the best general rule is, to consider those as the most elegant speakers who deviate least from the written words.

There have been many schemes offered for the emendation and settlement of our orthography, which, like that of other nations, being formed by chance, or according to the fancy of the earliest writers in rude ages, was at first very various and uncertain, and is yet sufficiently irregular. Of these reformers some have endeavoured to accommodate orthography better to the pronunciation, without considering that this is to measure by a shadow, to take that for a model or standard which is changing while they apply it. Others, less absurdly indeed, but with equal unlikelihood of success, have endeavoured to proportion the number of letters to that of sounds, that every sound may have its own character, and every character a single sound. Such would be the orthography of a new language, to be formed by a synod of grammarians upon principles of science. But who can hope to prevail on nations to change their practice, and make all their old books useless? or what advantage would a new orthography procure equivalent to the confusion and perplexity of such an alteration?

Some ingenious men, indeed, have endeavoured to deserve well of their country, by writing honor and labor for honour and labour, red for read in the preter-tense, sais for says, repete tor repeat, explane for explain, or declame for declaim. Of these it may be said, that as they have done no good they have done little harm; both because they have innovated little, and because few have followed them.

The English language has properly no dialects; the style of writers has no professed diversity in the use of words, or of their flexions and terminations, nor differs but by different degrees of skill or care. The oral diction is uniform in no spacious country, but has less variation in England than in most other nations of equal extent. The language of the northern counties retains many words now out of use, but which are commonly of the genuine Teutonick race, and is uttered with a pronunciation which now seems harsh and rough, but was probably used by our ancestors. The northern speech is therefore not barbarous, but obsolete. The speech in the western provinces seems to differ from the general diction rather by a depraved pronunciation, than by any real difference which letters would express.

ETYMOLOGY

Etymology teaches the deduction of one word from another, and the various modifications by which the sense of the same word is diversified; as horse, horses; I love, I loved.

Of the ARTICLE

The English have two articles, an or a, and the.

AN, A

A has an indefinite signification, and means one, with some reference to more; as This is a good book; that is, one among the books that are good; He was killed by a sword; that is, some sword; This is a better book for a man than a boy; that is, for one of those that are men than one of those that are boys; An army might enter without resistance; that is, any army.

In the senses in which we use a or an in the singular, we speak in the plural without an article; as these are good books.

I have made an the original article, because it is only the Saxon an, or æn, one, applied to a new use, as the German ein, and the French un; the n being cut off before a consonant in the speed of utterance.

Grammarians of the last age direct, that an should be used before h; whence it appears that the English anciently asperated less. An is still used before the silent h; as an herb, an honest man; but otherwise a; as

A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse. Shakespeare.

An or a can only be joined with a singular: the correspondent plural is the noun without an article, as, I want a pen, I want pens; or with the pronominal adjective some, as, I want some pens.

THE

The has a particular and definite signification.

The fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world. Milton.

That is, that particular fruit, and this world in which we live. So, He giveth fodder for the cattle, and green herbs for the use of man; that is, for those beings that are cattle, and his use that is man.

The is used in both numbers.

I am as free as Nature first made man,
Ere the base laws of servitude began,
When wild in woods the noble savage ran. Dryden.

Many words are used without articles; as

1. Proper names, as John, Alexander, Longinus, Aristarchus, Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London. GOD is used as a proper name.

2. Abstract names, as blackness, witch-craft, virtue, vice, beauty, ugliness, love, hatred, anger, good-nature, kindness.

3. Words in which nothing but the mere being of any thing is implied: This is not beer, but water; this is not brass, but steel.

Of NOUNS SUBSTANTIVE

The relations of English nouns to words going before or following are not expressed by cases, or changes of termination, but, as in most of the other European languages, by prepositions, unless we may be said to have a genitive case.

Singular.

Plural.

Our nouns are therefore only declined thus:

These genitives are always written with a mark of elision, master's, scholar's, according to an opinion long received, that the 's is a contraction of his, as the soldier's valour, for the soldier his valour: but this cannot be the true original, because 's is put to female nouns, Woman's beauty; the Virgin's delicacy; Haughty Juno's unrelenting hate; and collective nouns, as Women's passions; the rabble's insolence; the multitude's folly: in all these cases it is apparent that his cannot be understood. We say likewise the foundation's strength; the diamond's lustre; the winter's severity: but in these cases his may be understood, he and his having formerly been applied to neuters in the place now supplied by it and its.

The learned and sagacious Wallis, to whom every English grammarian owes a tribute of reverence, calls this modification of the noun an adjective possessive; I think with no more propriety than he might have applied the same to the genitive in equitum decus, Trojæ oris, or any other Latin genitive. Dr. Lowth, on the other part, supposes the possessive pronouns mine and thine to be genitive cases.

This termination of the noun seems to constitute a real genitive indicating possession. It is derived to us from the Saxon's who declined smith, a smith; Gen. smither, of a smith; Plur. smither or smithar, smiths; and so in two other of their seven declensions.

It is a further confirmation of this opinion, that in the old poets both the genitive and plural were longer by a syllable than the original word: knitis for knight's, in Chaucer; leavis for leaves, in Spenser.

When a word ends in s, the genitive may be the same with the nominative, as Venus temple.

The plural is formed by adding s, as table, tables; fly, flies; sister, sisters; wood, woods; or es where s could not otherwise be sounded, as after ch, s, sh, x, z; after c sounded like s, and g like j; the mute e is vocal before s, as lance, lances; outrage, outrages.

The formation of the plural and genitive singular is the same.

A few words still make the plural in n, as men, women, oxen, swine, and more anciently eyen, shoon. This formation is that which generally prevails in the Teutonick dialects.

Words that end in f commonly form their plural by ves, as loaf, loaves; calf, calves.

Except a few, muff, muffs; chief, chiefs. So hoof, roof, proof, relief, mischief, puff, cuff, dwarf, handkerchief, grief.

Irregular plurals are teeth from tooth, lice from louse, mice from mouse, geese from goose, feet from foot, dice from die, pence from penny, brethren from brother, children from child.

Plurals ending in s have no genitives; but we say, Womens excellencies, and Weigh the mens wits against the ladies hairs.

Dr. Willis thinks the Lords' house may he said for the house of Lords; but such phrases are not now in use; and surely an English ear rebels against them. They would commonly produce a troublesome ambiguity, as the Lord's house may be the house of Lords, or the house of a Lord. Besides that the mark of elision is improper, for in the Lords' house nothing is cut off.

Some English substantives, like those of many other languages, change their termination as they express different sexes; as prince, princess; actor, actress; lion, lioness; hero, heroine. To these mentioned by Dr. Lowth may be added arbitress, poetess, chauntress, duchess, tigress, governess, tutress, peeress, authoress, traytress, and perhaps othets. Of these variable terminations we have only a sufficient number to make us feel our want; for when we say of a woman that she is a philosopher, an astronomer, a builder, a weaver, a dancer, we perceive an impropriety in the termination which we cannot avoid; but we can say that she is an architect, a botanist, a student. because these terminations have not annexed to them the notion of sex. In words which the necessities of life are often requiring, the sex is distinguished not by different terminations but by different names, as a bull, a cow; a horse, a mare; equus, equa; a cock, a hen; and sometimes by pronouns prefixed, as a he-goat, a, she-goat.