Produced by Andrew Hodson Language = USA English. Characters with { } around them show those added as there are some mistakes in the book & for other reasons & Â¤Â¬Ö´ÂªÐªÄÉï­×ÅÒ»$ show the extras of #-.abdegilns. (I changed mathematical & meter (rhythmic arrangement of syllables in verse) but maybe they are correct and the others are wrong). I did not change _Shak{e}spe{a}re, mortgagÉor_ & some words in lists. Broad _a_ has 1 dot before & 1 under instead of 2 dots under it & the character Ò± should have its line over the letter y. This arrow sign â after a word shows that the next 1 should start the next column. âSpecial SYSTEM Editionâ brought from frontispiece. The 2nd. book of âComposition & Rhetoricâ is also in this file. THE ART ÏÆ WRITING & SPEAKING ×Ñâ ENGLISH LANGUAGE SHERWIN CODY Special S Y S T E M Edition WORD-STUDY The Old Greek Press _Chicago New{ }York Boston_ _Revised Edition_. _Copyright,1903,_ By SHERWIN CODY. _Note_. The thanks of the author are due to Dr. Edwin H. Lewis, of the Lewis Institute, Chicago, and to Prof. John F. Genung, Ph. D., of Amherst College, for suggestions made after reading the proof of this series. CONTENTS. THE ART OF WRITING AND SPEAKING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. GENERAL INTRODUCTIONâ¦ 7 WORD-STUDY INTRODUCTIONââTHE STUDY OF SPELLING CHAPTER I. LETTERS AND SOUNDS {VOWELS CONSONANTS EXERCISES THE DICTIONARY} CHAPTER II. WORD-BUILDING {PREFIXES} CHAPTER III. WORD-BUILDINGâââRules and Applications {EXCEPTIONS} CHAPTER IV. PRONUNCIATION CHAPTER V. A SPELLING DRILL APPENDIX The Art of Writing and Speaking the English Language GENERAL INTRODUCTION If there is a subject of really universal interest and utility, it is the art of writing and speaking one's own language effectively. It is the basis of culture, as we all know; but it is infinitely more than that: it is the basis of business. No salesman can sell anything unless he can explain the merits of his goods in _effective_ English (among our people), or can write an advertisement equally effective, or present his ideas, and the facts, in a letter. Indeed, the way we talk, and write letters, largely determines our success in life. Now it is well for us to face at once the counter-statement that the most ignorant and uncultivated men often succeed best in business, and that misspelled, ungrammatical advertisements have brought in millions of dollars. It is an acknowledged fact that our business circulars and letters are far inferior in correctness to those of Great Britain; yet they are more effective in getting business. As far as spelling is concerned, we know that some of the masters of literature have been atrocious spellers and many suppose that when one can sin in such company, sinning is, as we might say, a âbeauty spotâ, a defect in which we can even take pride. Let us examine the facts in the case more closely. First of all, language is no more than a medium; it is like air to the creatures of the land or water to fishes. If it is perfectly clear and pure, we do not notice it any more than we notice pure air when the sun is shining in a clear sky, or the taste of pure cool water when we drink a glass on a hot day. Unless the sun is shining, there is no brightness; unless the water is cool, there is no refreshment. The source of all our joy in the landscape, of the luxuriance of fertile nature, is the sun and not the air. Nature would be more prodigal in Mexico than in Greenland, even if the air in Mexico were as full of soot and smoke as the air of Pittsburg{h}, or loaded with the acid from a chemical factory. So it is with language. Language is merely a medium for thoughts, emotions, the intelligence of a finely wrought brain, and a good mind will make far more out of a bad medium than a poor mind will make out of the best. A great violinist will draw such music from the cheapest violin that the world is astonished. However is that any reason why the great violinist should choose to play on a poor violin; or should one say nothing of the smoke nuisance in Chicago because more light and heat penetrate its murky atmosphere than are to be found in cities only a few miles farther north? The truth is, we must regard the bad spelling nuisance, the bad grammar nuisance, the inÃ¡rtistic and rambling language nuisance, precisely as we would the smoke nuisance, the sewer-gas nuisance, the stock-yards' smell nuisance. Some dainty people prefer pure air and correct language; but we now recognize that purity is something more than an esthetic fad, that it is essential to our health and well-being, and therefore it becomes a matter of universal public interest, in language as well as in air. There is a general belief that while bad air may be a positive evil influence, incorrect use of language is at most no more than a negative evil: that while it may be a good thing to be correct, no special harm is involved in being incorrect. Let us look into this point. While language as the medium of thought may be compared to air as the medium of the sun's influence, in other respects it is like the skin of the body; a scurvy skin shows bad blood within, and a scurvy language shows inaccurate thought and a confused mind. And as a disease once fixed on the skin reacts and poisons the blood in turn as it has first been poisoned by the blood, so careless use of language if indulged reacts on the mind to make it permanently and increasingly careless, illogical, and inaccurate in its thinking. The ordinary person will probably not believe this, because he conceives of good use of language as an accomplishment to be learned from books, a prim system of genteel manners to be put on when occasion demands, a sort of superficial education in the correct thing, or, as the boys would say, âthe proper caper.â In this, however, he is mistaken. Language which expresses the thought with strict logical accuracy is correct language, and language which is sufficiently rich in its resources to express thought fully, in all its lights and bearings, is effective language. If the writer or speaker has a sufficient stock of words and forms at his disposal, he has only to use them in a strictly logical way and with sufficient fulness to be both correct and effective. If his mind can always be trusted to work accurately, he need not know a word of grammar except what he has imbibed unconsciously in getting his stock of words and expressions. Formal grammar is purely for critical purposes. It is no more than a standard measuring stick by which to try the work that has been done and find out if it is imperfect at any point. Of course constant correction of inaccuracies schools the mind and puts it on its guard so that it will be more careful the next time it attempts expression; but we cannot avoid the conclusion that if the mind lacks material, lacks knowledge of the essential elements of the language, it should go to the original source from which it got its first supply, namely to reading and hearing that which is acknowledged to be correct and sufficientâas the child learns from its mother. All the scholastic and analytic grammar in the world will not enrich the mind in language to any appreciable extent. And now we may consider another objector, who says, âI have studied grammar for years and it has done me no good.â In view of what has just been said, we may easily concede that such is very likely to have been the case. A measuring stick is of little value unless you have something to measure. Language cannot be acquired, only tested, by analysis, and grammar is an analytic, not a constructive science. We have compared bad use of language to a scurvy condition of the skin. To cure the skin we must doctor the blood; and to improve the language we should begin by teaching the mind to think. But that, you will say, is a large undertaking. Yes, but after all it is the most direct and effective way. All education should be in the nature of teaching the mind to think, and the teaching of language consists in teaching thinking in connection with word forms and expression through language. The unfortunate thing is that teachers of language have failed to go to the root of the trouble, and enormous effort has counted for nothing, and besides has led to discouragement. The American people are noted for being hasty in all they do. Their manufactures are quickly made and cheap. They have not hitherto had time to secure that perfection in minute details which constitutes âquality.â The slow-going Europeans still excel in nearly all fine and high-grade forms of manufactureâfine pottery, fine carpets and rugs, fine cloth, fine bronze and other art wares. In our language, too, we are hasty, and therefore imperfect. Fine logical accuracy requires more time than we have had to give to it, and we read the newspapers, which are very poor models of language, instead of books, which should be far better. Our standard of business letters is very low. It is rare to find a letter of any length without one or more errors of language, to say nothing of frequent errors in spelling made by ignorant stenographers and not corrected by the business men who sign the letters. But a change is coming over us. We have suddenly taken to reading books, and while they are not always the best books, they are better than newspapers. And now a young business man feels that it is distinctly to his advantage if he can dictate a thoroughly good letter to his superior or to a well informed customer. Good letters raise the tone of a business house, poor letters give the idea that it is a cheapjack concern. In social life, well written letters, like good conversational powers, bring friends and introduce the writer into higher circles. A command of language is the index of culture, and the uneducated man or woman who has become wealthy or has gained any special success is eager to put on this wedding garment of refinement. If he continues to regard a good command of language as a wedding garment, he will probably fail in his effort; but a few will discover the way to self-education and actively follow it to its conclusion adding to their first success this new achievement. But we may even go farther. The right kind of language-teaching will also give us power, a kind of eloquence, a skill in the use of words, which will enable us to frame advertisements which will draw business, letters which will win customers, and to speak in that elegant and forceful way so effective in selling goods. When all advertisements are couched in very imperfect language, and all business letters are carelessly written, of course no one has an advantage over another, and a good knowledge and command of language would not be much of a recommendation to a business man who wants a good assistant. But when a few have come in and by their superior command of language gained a distinct advantage over rivals, then the power inherent in language comes into universal demandââthe business standard is raised. There are many signs now that the business standard in the use of language is being distinctly raised. Already a stenographer who does not make errors commands a salary from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. higher than the average, and is always in demand. Advertisement writers must have not only business instinct but language instinct, and knowledge of correct, as well as forceful, expression{.} Granted, then, that we are all eager to better our knowledge of the English language, how shall we go about it? There are literally thousands of published books devoted to the study and teaching of our language. In such a flood it would seem that we should have no difficulty in obtaining good guides for our study. But what do we find? We find spelling-books filled with lists of words to be memorized; we find grammars filled with names and definitions of all the different forms which the language assumes; we find rhetorics filled with the names of every device ever employed to give effectiveness to language; we find books on literature filled with the names, dates of birth and death, and lists of works, of every writer any one ever heard of: and when we have learned all these names we are no better off than when we started. It is true that in many of these books we may find prefaces which say, âAll other books err in clinging too closely to mere system, to names; but we will break away and give you the real thing.â But they don't do it; they can't afford to be too radical, and so they merely modify in a few details the same old system, the system of names. Yet it is a great point gained when the necessity for a change is realized. How, then, shall we go about our mastery of the English language? Modern science has provided us a universal method by which we may study and master any subject. As applied to an art, this method has proved highly successful in the case of music. It has not been applied to language because there was a well fixed method of language study in existence long before modern science was even dreamed of, and that ancient method has held on with wonderful tenacity. The great fault with it is that it was invented to apply to languages entirely different from our own. Latin grammar and Greek grammar were mechanical systems of endings by which the relationships of words were indicated. Of course the relationship of words was at bottom logical, but the mechanical form was the chief thing to be learned. Our language depends wholly (or very nearly so) on arrangement of words, and the key is the logical relationship. A man who knows all the forms of the Latin or Greek language can write it with substantial accuracy; but the man who would master the English language must go deeper, he must master the logic of sentence structure or word relations. We must begin our study at just the opposite end from the Latin or Greek; but our teachers of language have balked at a complete reversal of method, the power of custom and time has been too strong, and in the matter of grammar we are still the slaves of the ancient world. As for spelling, the irregularities of our language seem to have driven us to one sole method, memorizing: and to memorize every word in a language is an appalling task. Our rhetoric we have inherited from the middle ages, from scholiasts, refiners, and theological logicians, a race of men who got their living by inventing distinctions and splitting hairs. The fact is, prose has had a very low place in the literature of the world until within a century; all that was worth saying was said in poetry, which the rhetoricians were forced to leave severely alone, or in oratory, from which all their rules were derived; and since written prose language became a universal possession through the printing press and the newspaper we have been too busy to invent a new rhetoric. Now, language is just as much a natural growth as trees or rocks or human bodies, and it can have no more irregularities, even in the matter of spelling, than these have. Science would laugh at the notion of memorizing every individual form of rock. It seeks the fundamental laws, it classifies and groups, and even if the number of classes or groups is large, still they have a limit and can be mastered. Here we have a solution of the spelling problem. In grammar we find seven fundamental logical relationships, and when we have mastered these and their chief modifications and combinations, we have the essence of grammar as truly as if we knew the name for every possible combination which our seven fundamental relationships might have. Since rhetoric is the art of appealing to the emotions and intelligence of our hearers, we need to know, not the names of all the different artifices which may be employed, but the nature and laws of emotion and intelligence as they may be reached through language; for if we know what we are hitting at, a little practice will enable us to hit accurately; whereas if we knew the name of every kind of blow, and yet were ignorant of the thing we were hitting at, namely the intelligence and emotion of our fellow man, we would be forever striking into the air,âstriking cleverly perhaps, but ineffectively. Having got our bearings, we find before us a purely practical problem, that of leading the student through the maze of a new science and teaching him the skill of an old art, exemplified in a long line of masters. By way of preface we may say that the mastery of the English language (or any language) is almost the task of a lifetime. A few easy lessons will have no effect. We must form a habit of language study that will grow upon us as we grow older, and little by little, but never by leaps, shall we mount up to the full expression of all that is in us. WORD-STUDY INTRODUCTION THE STUDY OF SPELLING. The mastery of English spelling is a serious under-taking. In the first place, we must actually memorize from one to three thousand words which are spelled in more or less irregular ways. The best that can be done with these words is to classify them as much as possible and suggest methods of association which will aid the memory. But after all, the drudgery of memorizing must be gone through with. Again, those words called homonyms, which are pronounced alike but spelled differently, can be studied only in connection with their meaning, since the meaning and grammatical use in the sentence is our only key to their form. So we have to go considerably beyond the mere mechanical association of letters. Besides the two or three thousand common irregular words, the dictionary contains something over two hundred thousand other words. Of course no one of us can possibly have occasion to use all of those words; but at the same time, every one of us may sooner or later have occasion to use any one of them. As we cannot tell before hand what ones we shall need, we should be prepared to write any or all of them upon occasion. Of course we may refer to the dictionary; but this is not always, or indeed very often, possible. It would obviously be of immense advantage to us if we could find a key to the spelling of these numerous but infrequently used words. The first duty of the instructor in spelling should be to provide such a key. We would suppose, off-hand, that the three hundred thousand school-teachers in the United States would do this immediately and without suggestionââcertainly that the writers of school-books would. But many things have stood in the way. It is only within a few years, comparatively speaking, that our language has become at all fixed in its spelling. Noah Webster did a great deal to establish principles, and bring the spelling of as many words as possible to conform with these principles and with such analogies as seemed fairly well established. But other dictionary-makers have set up their ideas against his, and we have a conflict of authorities. If for any reason one finds himself spelling a word differently from the world about him, he begins to say, âWell, that is the spelling given in Worcester, or the Century, or the Standard, or the new Oxford.â So the word âauthorityâ looms big on the horizon; and we think so much about authority, and about different authorities, that we forget to look for principles, as Mr. Webster would have us do. Another reason for neglecting rules and principles is that the lists of exceptions are often so formidable that we get discouraged and exclaim, âIf nine tenths of the words I use every day are exceptions to the rules, what is the use of the rules anyway!â Well, the words which constitute that other tenth will aggregate in actual numbers far more than the common words which form the chief part of everyday speech, and as they are selected at random from a vastly larger number, the only possible way to master them is by acquiring principles, consciously or unconsciously, which will serve as a key to them. Some people have the faculty of unconsciously formulating principles from their everyday observations, but it is a slow process, and many never acquire it unless it is taught them. The spelling problem is not to learn how to spell nine tenths of our words correctly. Nearly all of us can and do accomplish that. The good speller must spell nine hundred and ninety-nine one thousandths of his word correctly, which is quite another matter. Some of us go even one figure higher. Our first task is clearly to commit the common irregular words to memory. How may we do that most easily? It is a huge task at best, but every pound of life energy which we can save in doing it is so much gained for higher efforts. We should strive to economize effort in this just as the manufacturer tries to economize in the cost of making his goods. In this particular matter, it seems to the present writer that makers of modern spelling-books have committed a great blunder in mixing indiscriminately regular words with irregular, and common words with uncommon. Clearly we should memorize first the words we use most often, and then take up those which we use less frequently. But the superintendent of the Evanston schools has reported that out of one hundred first-reader words which he gave to his grammar classes as a spelling test, some were misspelled by all but sixteen per cent{.} of the pupils. And yet these same pupils were studying busily away on _categories, concatenation,_ and _amphibious_. The spelling-book makers feel that they must put hard words into their spellers. Their books are little more than lists of words, and any one can make lists of common, easy words. A spelling-book filled with common easy words would not seem to be worth the price paid for it. Pupils and teachers must get their money's worth, even if they never learn to spell. Of course the teachers are expected to furnish drills themselves on the common, easy words; but unfortunately they take their cue from the spelling-book, each day merely assigning to the class the next page. They haven't time to select, and no one could consistently expect them to do otherwise than as they do do. To meet this difficulty, the author of this book has prepared a version of the story of Robinson Crusoe which contains a large proportion of the common words which offer difficulty in spelling. Unluckily it is not easy to produce classic English when one is writing under the necessity of using a vocabulary previously selected. However, if we concentrate our attention on the word-forms, we are not likely to be much injured by the ungraceful sentence-forms. This story is not long, but it should be dictated to every school class, beginning in the fourth grade, until _every_ pupil can spell _every_ word correctly. A high percentage is not enough, as in the case of some other studies. Any pupil who misses a single word in any exercise should be marked zero. But even if one can spell correctly every word in this story, he may still not be a good speller, for there are thousands of other words to be spelled, many of which are not and never will be found in any spelling-book. The chief object of a course of study in spelling is to acquire two habits, the habit of observing articulate sounds, and the habit of observing word-forms in reading. 1. Train the Ear. Until the habit of observing articulate sounds carefully has been acquired, the niceties of pronunciation are beyond the student's reach, and equally the niceties of spelling are beyond his reach, too. In ordinary speaking, many vowels and even some consonants are slurred and obscured. If the ear is not trained to exactness, this habit of slurring introduces many inaccuracies. Even in careful speaking, many obscure sounds are so nearly alike that only a finely trained ear can detect any difference. Who of us notices any difference between _er_ in _pardoner_ and _or_ in _honor_? Careful speakers do not pass over the latter syllable quite so hastily as over the former, but only the most finely trained ear will detect any difference even in the pronunciation of the most finely trained voice. In the lower grades in the schools the ear may be trained by giving separate utterance to each sound in a given word, as f-r-e-n-d, _friend,_ allowing each letter only its true value in the word. Still it may also be obtained by requiring careful and distinct pronunciation in reading, not, however, to the extent of exaggerating the value of obscure syllables, or painfully accentuating syllables naturally obscure. Adults (but seldom children) may train the ear by reading poetry aloud, always guarding against the sing-song style, but trying to harmonize nicely the sense and the rhythm. A trained ear is absolutely necessary to reading poetry well, and the constant reading aloud of poetry cannot but afford an admirable exercise. For children, the use of diacritical marks has little or no value, until the necessity arises for consulting the dictionary for pronunciation. They are but a mechanical system, and the system we commonly use is so devoid of permanence in its character that every dictionary has a different system. The one most common in the schools is that introduced by Webster; but if we would consult the Standard or the Century or the Oxford, we must learn our system all over again. To the child, any system is a clog and a hindrance, and quite useless in teaching him phonetic values, wherein the voice of the teacher is the true medium. For older students, however, especially students at home, where no teacher is available, phonetic writing by means of diacritical marks has great value.* It is the only practicable way of representing the sounds of the voice on paper. When the student writes phonetically he is obliged to observe closely his own voice and the voices of others in ordinary speech, and so his ear is trained. It also takes the place of the voice for dictation in spelling tests by mail or through the medium of books. *There should be no more marks than there are sounds. When two vowels have the same sound one should be written as a substitute for the other, as we have done in this book. 2. Train the Eye. No doubt the most effective way of learning spelling is to train the eye carefully to observe the forms of the words we read in newspapers and in books. If this habit is formed, and the habit of general reading accompanies it, it is sufficient to make a nearly perfect speller. The great question is, how to acquire it. Of course in order to read we are obliged to observe the forms of words in a general way, and if this were all that is needed, we should all be good spellers if we were able to read fluently. But it is not all. The observation of the general form of a word is not the observation that teaches spelling. We must have the habit of observing every letter in every word, and this we are not likely to have unless we give special attention to acquiring it. The âvisualizationâ method of teaching spelling now in use in the schools is along the line of training the eye to observe every letter in a word. It is good so far as it goes; but it does not go very far. The reason is that there is a limit to the powers of the memory, especially in the observation of arbitrary combinations of letters. What habits of visualization would enable the ordinary person to glance at such a combination as the following and write it ten minutes afterward with no aid but the single glance: _hwgufhtbizwskoplmne?_ It would require some minutes' study to memorize such a combination, because there is nothing to aid us but the sheer succession of forms. The memory works by association. We build up a vast structure of knowledge, and each new fact or form must be as securely attached to this as the new wing of a building; and the more points at which attachment can be formed the more easily is the addition made. The Mastery of Irregular Words. Here, then, we have the real reason for a long study of principles, analogies, and classifications. They help us to remember. If I come to the word _colonnade_ in reading, I observe at once that the double _n_ is an irregularity. It catches my eye immediately. âAh!â I reflect almost in the fraction of a second as I read in continuous flow, âhere is another of those exceptions.â Building on what I already know perfectly well, I master this word with the very slightest effort. If we can build up a system which will serve the memory by way of association, so that the slight effort that can be given in ordinary reading will serve to fix a word more or less fully, we can soon acquire a marvellous power in the accurate spelling of words. Again: In a spelling-book before me I see lists of words ending in _ise, ize,_ and _yse,_ all mixed together with no distinction. The arrangement suggests memorizing every word in the language ending with either of these terminations, and until we have memorized any particular word we have no means of knowing what the termination is. If, however, we are taught that _ize_ is the common ending, that _ise_ is the ending of only thirty-one words, and _yse_ of only three or four, we reduce our task enormously and aid the memory in acquiring the few exceptions. When we come to _franchise_ in reading we reflect rapidly, âAnother of those verbs in _ise_!â or to _paralyse,_ âOne of those very few verbs in _yse_!â We give no thought whatever to all the verbs ending in _ize,_ and so save so much energy for other acquirements. If we can say, âThis is a violation of such and such a rule,â or âThis is a strange irregularity,â or âThis belongs to the class of words which substitutes _ea_ for the long sound of _e,_ or for the short sound of _e_.â We have an association of the unknown with the known that is the most powerful possible aid to the memory. The system may fail in and of itself, but it more than serves its purpose thus indirectly in aiding the memory. We have not spoken of the association of word forms with sounds, the grouping of the letters of words into syllables, and the aid that a careful pronunciation gives the memory by way of association; for while this is the most powerful aid of all, it does not need explanation. The Mastery of Regular Words. We have spoken of the mastery of irregular words, and in the last paragraph but one we have referred to the aid which general principles give the memory by way of association in acquiring the exceptions to the rules. We will now consider the great class of words formed according to fixed principles. Of course these laws and rules are little more than a string of analogies which we observe in our study of the language. The language was not and never will be built to fit these rules. The usage of the people is the only authority. Even clear logic goes down before usage. Languages grow like mushrooms, or lilies, or bears, or human bodies. Like these they have occult and profound laws which we can never hope to penetrate,âwhich are known only to the creator of all things existent. But as in botany and zoÃ¶logy and physiology we may observe and classify our observations, so we may observe a language, classify our observations, and create an empirical science of word-formation. Possibly in time it will become a science something more than empirical. The laws we are able at this time to state with much definiteness are few (doubling consonants, dropping silent e's, changing y's to i's, accenting the penultimate and antepenultimate syllables, lengthening and shortening vowels). In addition we may classify exceptions, for the sole purpose of aiding the memory. Ignorance of these principles and classifications, and knowledge of the causes and sources of the irregularities, should be pronounced criminal in a teacher; and failure to teach them, more than criminal in a spelling-book. It is true that most spelling-books do give them in one form or another, but invariably without due emphasis or special drill, a lack which renders them worthless. Pupils and students should be drilled upon them till they are as familiar as the multiplication table. We know how most persons stumble over the pronunciation of names in the Bible and in classic authors. They are equally nonplussed when called upon to write words with which they are no more familiar. They cannot even pronounce simple English names like _Cody,_ which they call âCoddy,â in analogy with _body,_ because they do not know that in a word of two syllables a single vowel followed by a single consonant is regularly long when accented. At the same time they will spell the word in all kinds of queer ways, which are in analogy only with exceptions, not with regular formations. Unless a person knows what the regular principles are, he cannot know how a word should regularly be spelled. A strange word is spelled quite regularly nine times out of ten, and if one does not know exactly how to spell a word, it is much more to his credit to spell it in a regular way than in an irregular way. The truth is, the only possible key we can have to those thousands of strange words and proper names which we meet only once or twice in a lifetime, is the system of principles formulated by philologists, if for no other reason, we should master it that we may come as near as possible to spelling proper names correctly. CHAPTER I. LETTERS AND SOUNDS. We must begin our study of the English language with the elementary sounds and the letters which represent them. Name the first letter of the alphabetââ_a_. The mouth is open and the sound may be prolonged indefinitely. It is a full, clear sound, an unobstructed vibration of the vocal chords. Now name the second letter of the alphabetââ_b_. You say _bee_ or _buh_. You cannot prolong the sound. In order to give the real sound of _b_ you have to associate it with some other sound, as that of _e_ or _u_. In other words, _b_ is in the nature of an obstruction of sound, or a modification of sound, rather than a simple elementary sound in itself. There is indeed a slight sound in the throat, but it is a closed sound and cannot be prolonged. In the case of _p,_ which is similar to _b,_ there is no sound from the throat. So we see that there are two classes of sounds (represented by two classes of letters), those which are full and open tones from the vocal chords, pronounced with the mouth open, and capable of being prolonged indefinitely; and those which are in the nature of modifications of these open sounds, pronounced with or without the help of the voice, and incapable of being prolonged. The first class of sounds is called vowel sounds, the second, consonant sounds. Of the twenty-six letters of the alphabet, _a, e, i, o,_ and _u_ (sometimes _y_ and _w_) represent vowel sounds and are called vowels; and the remainder represent consonant sounds, and are called consonants. A syllable is an elementary sound, or a combination of elementary sounds, which can be given easy and distinct utterance at one effort. Any vowel may form a syllable by itself, but as we have seen that a consonant must be united with a vowel for its perfect utterance, it follows that every syllable must contain a vowel sound, even if it also contains consonant sounds. With that vowel sound one or more consonants may be united; but the ways in which consonants may combine with a vowel to form a syllable are limited. In general we may place any consonant before and any consonant after the vowel in the same syllable: but _y_ for instance, can be given a consonant sound only at the beginning of a syllable, as in _yet_; at the end of a syllable _y_ becomes a vowel sound, as in _they_ or _only_. In the syllable _twelfths_ we find seven consonant sounds; but if these same letters were arranged in almost any other way they could not be pronounced as one syllableâas for instance _wtelthfs_. A word consists of one or more syllables to which some definite meaning is attached. The difficulties of spelling and pronunciation arise largely from the fact that in English twenty-six letters must do duty for some forty-two sounds, and even then several of the letters are unnecessary, as for instance _c,_ which has either the sound of _s_ or of _k_; _x,_ which has the sound either of _ks, gs,_ or _z_; _q,_ which in the combination _qu_ has the sound of _kw_. All the vowels represent from two to seven sounds each, and some of the consonants interchange with each other. The Sounds of the Vowels.â(1) Each of the vowels has what is called a long sound and a short sound. It is important that these two sets of sounds be fixed clearly in the mind, as several necessary rules of spelling depend upon them. In studying the following table, note that the long sound is marked by a straight line over the letter, and the short sound by a curve. _Long Short_ Äte Ät gÄve mÄn nÄme bÄg thÄse pÄt mÄ tÄn (com)plÄte brÄd kÄ«te sÄ­t rÄ«ce mÄ­ll lÄ«me rÄ­p nÅte nÅt rÅde rÅd sÅle TÅm cÅ«re bÅ­t cÅ«te rÅ­n (a)bÅ«se crÅ­st scÒ±the (like)lÑ If we observe the foregoing list of words we shall see that each of the words containing a long vowel followed by a single consonant sound ends in silent _e_. After the short vowels there is no silent _e_. In each case in which we have the silent _e_ there is a single long vowel followed by a single consonant, or two consonants combining to form a single sound, as _th_ in _scythe_. Such words as _roll, toll,_ etc., ending in double _l_ have no silent _e_ though the vowel is long; and such words as _great, meet, pail,_ etc., in which two vowels combine with the sound of one, take no silent _e_ at the end. We shall consider these exceptions more fully later; but a _single long_ vowel followed by a _single_ consonant _always_ takes silent _e_ at the end. As carefully stated in this way, the rule has no exceptions. The reverse, however, is not always true, for a few words containing a short vowel followed by a single consonant do take silent _e_; but there are very few of them. The principal are _have, give,_ {(I)} _live, love, shove, dove, above;_ also _none, some, come,_ and some words in three or more syllables, such as _domicile_. 2. Beside the long and short sounds of the vowels there are several other vowel sounds. A has two other distinct sounds: Ì£áº¡ broad, like _aw,_ as in _all, talk,_ etc. Ã¤ Italian, like _ah,_ as in _far, father,_ etc. Double o has two sounds different from long or short _o_ alone: long ÅÅ as in _room, soon, mood,_ etc. short ÅÅ, as in _good, took, wood,_ etc. Ow has a sound of its own, as in _how, crowd, allow,_ etc.; and _ou_ sometimes has the same sound, as in _loud, rout, bough,_ etc. (_Ow_ and _ou_ are also sometimes sounded like long _o,_ as in _own, crow, pour,_ etc., and sometimes have still other sounds, as _ou_ in _bought_). Oi and oy have a distinct sound of their own, as in _oil, toil, oyster, void, boy, employ,_ etc. _Ow_ and _oi_ are called proper diphthongs, as the two vowels combine to produce a sound different from either, while such combinations as _ei, ea, ai,_ etc., are called improper diphthongs (or digraphs), because they have the sound of one or other of the simple vowels. 3. In the preceding paragraphs we have given all the distinct vowel sounds of the language, though many of them are slightly modified in certain combinations. But in many cases one vowel will be given the sound of another vowel, and two or more vowels will combine with a variety of sounds. These irregularities occur chiefly in a few hundred common words, and cause the main difficulties of spelling the English language. The following are the leading substitutes: ew with the sound of _u_ long, as in _few, chew,_ etc. (perhaps this may be considered a proper diphthong); e (_Ãª, Ã©_) with the sound of _a_ long, as in _fÃªte, abbÃ©,_ and all foreign words written with an accent, especially French words; i with the sound of _e_ long, as in _machine,_ and nearly all French and other foreign words; o has the sound of double _o_ long in _tomb, womb, prove, move,_ etc., and of double _o_ short in _wolf, women,_ etc.; o also has the sound of _u_ short in _above, love, some, done,_ etc.; u has the sound of double _o_ long after _r,_ as in _rude, rule_; it also has the sound of double _o_ short in _put, pull, bull, sure,_ etc.; ea has the sound of _a_ long, as in _great_; of _e_ long, as in _heat_; of _e_ short, as in _head_; of _a_ Italian (ah), as in _heart, hearth,_ etc.; ei has the sound of _e_ long, as in _receive_; of _a_ long, as in _freight, weight_; sometimes of _i_ long, as in _either_ and _neither,_ pronounced with either the sound of _e_ long or _i_ long, the latter being the English usage; ie has the sound of _i_ long, as in _lie,_ and of _e_ long, as in _belief,_ and of _i_ short, as in _sieve_; ai has the sound of _a_ long, as in _laid, bail, train,_ etc., and of _a_ short, as in _plaid;_ ay has the sound of _a_ long, as in _play, betray, say,_ etc.; oa has the sound of _o_ long, as in _moan, foam, coarse,_ etc. There are also many peculiar and occasional substitutions of sounds as in _any_ and _many_ (a as Ä), _women_ (o as Ä­), _busy_ (u as Ä­), _said_ (ai as Ä), _people_ (eo as Ä), _build_ (u as Ä­), _gauge_ (au as Ä), _what_ (a as Å), etc. When any of these combinations are to be pronounced as separate vowels, in two syllables, two dots should be placed over the second, as in _naÃ¯ve_. 4. The chief modifications of the elementary sounds are the following: before _r_ each of the vowels _e, i, o, u,_ and _y_ has almost the same sound (marked like the Spanish Ã±) as in _her, birth, honor, burr,_ and _myrtle; o_ before _r_ sometimes has the sound of _aw,_ as in _or, for,_ etc.; in unaccented syllables, each of the long vowels has a slightly shortened sound, as in f_a_tality, n_e_gotiate, int_o_nation, ref_u_tation, indicated by a dot above the sign for the long sound; (in a few words, such as d_i_gress, the sound is not shortened, however); long _a_ (Ã¢) is slightly modified in such words as _care, fare, bare,_ etc., while _e_ has the same sound in words like _there, their,_ and _where_; (New Englan{d}ï­ people give _a_ the short sound in such words as _care,_ etc., and pronounce _there_ and _where_ with the short sound of _a,_ while _their_ is pronounced with the short sound of _e_: this is not the best usage, however); in _pass, class, command, laugh,_ etc., we have a sound of _a_ between Italian _a_ and short _a_ (indicated by a single dot over the _a_), though most Americans pronounce it as short, and most English give the Italian sound: the correct pronunciation is between these two. The Sounds of the Consonants. We have already seen that there are two classes of consonant sounds, those which have a voice sound, as _b,_ called _sonant,_ and those which are mere breath sounds, like _p,_ called _surds_ or aspirates. The chief difference between _b_ and _p_ is that one has the voice sound and the other has not. Most of the other consonants also stand in pairs. We may say that the sonant consonant and its corresponding surd are the hard and soft forms of the same sound. The following table contains also simple consonant sounds represented by two letters: _Sonant Surd_ b p d t v f g (hard) k j ch z s th (in _thine_) th (in _thin_) zh (or z as in _azure_) sh w y l m n r h If we go down this list from the top to the bottom, we see that _b_ is the most closed sound, while _h_ is the most slight and open, and the others are graded in between (though not precisely as arranged above). These distinctions are important, because in making combinations of consonants in the same syllable or in successive syllables we cannot pass abruptly from a closed sound to an open sound, or the reverse, nor from a surd sound to a sonant, or the reverse. _L, m, n,_ and _r_ are called liquids, and easily combine with other consonants; and so do the sibilants (_s, z,_ etc.). In the growth of the language, many changes have been made in letters to secure harmony of sound (as changing _b_ to _p_ in _sub-portââsupport,_ and _s,_ to _f_ in _differ_âfrom _dis_ and _fero_). Some combinations are not possible of pronunciation, others are not natural or easy; and hence the alterations. The student of the language must know how words are built; and then when he comes to a strange word he can reconstruct it for himself. While the short, common words may be irregular, the long, strange words are almost always formed quite regularly. Most of the sonants have but one sound, and none of them has more than three sounds. The most important variations are as follows: C and G have each a soft sound and a hard sound. The soft sound of _c_ is the same as _s,_ and the hard sound the same as _k_. The soft sound of _g_ is the same as _j,_ and the hard sound is the true sound of _g_ as heard in _gone, bug, struggle_. Important Rule. _C_ and _G_ are soft before _e, i,_ and _y,_ and hard before all the other vowels, before all the other consonants, and at the end of words. The chief exceptions to this rule are a few common words in which _g_ is hard before _e_ or _i_. They includeâ_give, get, gill, gimlet, girl, gibberish, gelding, gerrymander, gewgaw, geyser, giddy, gibbon, gift, gig, giggle, gild, gimp, gingham, gird, girt, girth, eager,_ and _begin_. G is soft before a consonant in _judgment{,} lodgment, acknowledgment,_ etc. Also in a few words from foreign languages _c_ is soft before other vowels, though in such cases it should always be written with a cedilla (Ã§). N when marked Ã± in words from the Spanish language is pronounced _n-y_ (caÃ±on like _canyon_). Ng has a peculiar nasal sound of its own, as heard in the syllable _ing_. N alone also has the sound of _ng_ sometimes before _g_ and _k,_ as in _angle, ankle, single,_ etc. (pronounced _ang-gle, ang-kle, sing-gle_). Ph has the sound of _f,_ as in prophet. Th has two sounds, a hard sound as in _the, than, bathe, scythe,_ etc., and a soft sound as in _thin, kith, bath, Smith,_ etc. Contrast _breathe_ and _breath, lath_ and _lathe_; and _bath_ and _baths, lath_ and _laths,_ etc. S has
{'title': 'The Art of Writing & Speaking the English Language by Sherwin Cody', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}