scheme of writing, has not been to produce a rival system for the sake of rivalry, but to furnish a means of fixing in the memory of our students the fundamental principles of speech. We use it innemonically; and we commend its study, on the same principle, to the reader.

But we must, in justice, point out what we conceive to be the defects of Mr Pitman's Phonography, in order to show that, for our purpose, a new system was really necessary. This we do the rather that it gives opportunity for noticing some general errors of elementary classification, more fully than could have been appropriately done in any other section.

The vowels are classed on a most erroneous theory,-i(II) being reckoned the short sound of ee(1); e(11) the short sound of a(le), a(m) the short sound of a(lms); and u(p) the short sound of o(pe). True phonography cannot recognise such longs and shorts. Quantity must have reference only to identical qualities of sound. But it is maintained by the author of this system that these pairs of vowels, are "of the same quality, differing only in length." This of course is a question to be decided by the ear; and any competent ear will at once decide it by the experiment recommended by Mr Pitman,*—but with a very different result. When we read, however, that the vowels e, a, ah, au, o0, 00, with "the sound uh heard in the French le ne, &c.," are," all the single vowels that are to be found in any language," we may justly suspect a want of auricular aptitude on the part of the writer, as well as ignorance of the principles of vowel mechanism.† Either such must be the case, or else we have been elaborating a theory of shadows,—"airy nothings," and have been grossly abused by our ears into the belief that our own experiments had produced upwards

"There is a difficulty in convincing some persons that the vowel in seek is of the same quality as that in sick, differing only in length; and so with all the long and short vowels as here placed; but particularly is this difficulty felt with No. 5, (as in "cōte, cut.") They may, however, have audible proof that it is so, by pronouncing the words in the first column, (seek, pate, psalm, stalk, cote, fool,) quickly, and they will hear the words of the second column, (sick, pet, sam, stock, cut, full;) also if the words in the second column are spoken in a slow drawling tone, the words in the first column will be heard: thus, seek, quickly spoken, will become sick, and if pet be uttered slowly, pate will be produced; and so with all the others."-PITMAN'S PHONOGRAPHY, 8vo. 1840, p. 23. Reader, if you feel that you have an ear, try this experiment!

† In a recent, and certainly amended Edition of the work from which we have quoted in the note, we find that the theory so pertinaciously laid down, has been given up as erroneous. The experiment seems to have been tried by acuter ears than those of its suggester. We read now :

Sall, wooed,
olive, wood,

"In all cases except the 4th and 6th, the position for the short vowel is slightly different from the position required for the corresponding long vowel."-MANUAL OF PHONOGRAPHY, 1848.

of 20 varieties of vowel sound, cognisable as elements of existing languages and dialects.

A phonographic writer should be able to delineate on his page the very peculiarities of a speaker's pronunciation; but this system does not enable him to express even those manifest differences that exist between the utterance of a correct English speaker and the vernacular English of a Scotchman. He must, for instance, write alike their different pronunciations of such words as fair, there, * more, door, &c. He has no means of noting a difference between the sounds in er and ur,which is unquestionably a distinctive elegance in polite English utterance, and so must write pervade and purveyed alike,[virtue vurtue, and sir sur: and he has no choice between a(m) and a(lms), for writing the intermediate vowel heard in ask, fast, &c.

The plan of writing long vowels by heavy marks, and short vowels by light ones, is good; but we must have a character independent of that of quantity for every variety of vowel formation. A quantitative distinction is only necessary for two vowels in our language.

But if there were no more serious objections to this Phonographic system than its errors in vowel-theory and representation, these would hardly afford sufficient reason for the construction of a new system, because the use of a merely general vowel mark to show where a vowel occurs rather than precisely what vowel it is, would suffice for ordinary short-hand notation to those who are acquainted with the language which they write. But the articulations also are arranged on false principles; and errors in their representation are much more serious than those in the scheme of vowel-marks.

The articulations are classed under the four heads of mutes, semivowels, liquids, and nasals. In the first class are included with the breath letters P, T, K, their voice correspondents B, D, G, and also the combinations Ch—tsh, and J=dzh. If these letters are mutes-our speech must be, nearly half of it, mere dumb show. The semi-vowel category includes with the vocal elements V, Th(is), Z, Zh, their breath correspondents F, Th(in), S, Sh. If the former set were entitled to the name "semi-vowel,”—which they are not-the latter could not certainly claim anything more than that of "demi-semi-vowels". -or perhaps "semi-demi-semi-vowels," terms that would be fully as expressive of the real qualities of the sounds as the one appropriated to them. "What's in a name?" may well be asked, if names with nothing in them serve the purposes of nomenclature. The class "LIQUIDS" contains only L and R; the letters M, N, and NG, which are also liquids, if that name expresses anything, being separately classed as simply "NASALS."

The "MUTES" and "SEMI-VOWELS" are subdivided into "sharps" and 'flats,”—terms equally expressive with those attached to the leading divisions; -but the student is not told to which of these classes the "liquids" and

*The difference between the sound of a, as in mate and mare, is recognised, but not provided for, in a note (p. 39) in the last quoted edition of the Manual of Phonography.

of 20 varieties of vowel sound, cognisable as elements of existing languages and dialects.

A phonographic writer should be able to delineate on his page the very peculiarities of a speaker's pronunciation; but this system does not enable him to express even those manifest differences that exist between the utterance of a correct English speaker and the vernacular English of a Scotchman. He must, for instance, write alike their different pronunciations of such words as fair, there, more, door, &c. He has no means of noting a difference between the sounds in er and ur,which is unquestionably a distinctive elegance in polite English utterance, and so must write pervade and purveyed alike,[virtue vurtue, and sir sur: and he has no choice between a(m) and a(lms), for writing the intermediate vowel heard in ask, fast, &c.

*

The plan of writing long vowels by heavy marks, and short vowels by light ones, is good; but we must have a character independent of that of quantity for every variety of vowel formation. A quantitative distinction is only necessary for two vowels in our language.

But if there were no more serious objections to this Phonographic system than its errors in vowel-theory and representation, these would hardly afford sufficient reason for the construction of a new system, because the use of a merely general vowel mark to show where a vowel occurs rather than precisely what vowel it is, would suffice for ordinary short-hand notation to those who are acquainted with the language which they write. But the articulations also are arranged on false principles; and errors in their representation are much more serious than those in the scheme of vowel-marks.

66

The articulations are classed under the four heads of mutes, semivowels, liquids, and nasals. In the first class are included with the breath letters P, T, K, their voice correspondents B, D, G, and also the combinations Ch―tsh, and J=dzh. If these letters are mutes-our speech must be, nearly half of it, mere dumb show. The semi-vowel category includes with the vocal elements V., Th(is), Z, Zh, their breath correspondents F, Th(in), S, Sh. If the former set were entitled to the name semi-vowel," which they are not-the latter monit not certainly claim anything more than that of" demi-semi-vowels”—or haps "semi-demi-semi-vowels," terms that would be fully as expressive a te real qualities of the sounds as the one appropriated to them. Whim 1 name?" may well be asked, if names with nothing in them serve the cases of nomenclature. The class "LIQUIDS" contains only L and R: te sters J. F. and NG, which are also liquids, if that name expresses anything ng agarately classed as simply." NASALS."

The "MUTES" and " SEMI-VOWELS are subdivider i Beaut "flats,”—terms equally expressive with those attacher fe lating friends. but the student is not told to which of these fe

The difference between the sound of a wit me af mrzi meget. 1 for, in a note (p. 39) in die ins quiet rition v'de Kama

“nasals” belong. He should of course discover this from the character by which he is to represent these sounds. But this will mislead him; for the excellent principle of distinction between breath and voice letters, which is the best and newest point in this phonographic system, is not consistently applied to the elements of the last two classes. The "liquids" and "nasals" are all voice letter ("flats"); yet only one of them,—namely, NG, is written in the voice character. N and ng are represented by the same mark,—the former thin (the sharp notation), the latter thick (the flat notation), so that the scheme of articulate symbols misinforms the eye that as B is to P, V to F, Z to S, &c., so is ng to N! This is one of the errors resulting from an arbitrary arrangement of marks, and the neglect of a natural principle of association.

One of the most serious errors in Pitman's Phonography, both as regards its fundamental principiation of speech, and its stenographic simplicity, remains to be noticed.

These

The articulative function of the letters Y and W is not recognised. elements are considered to be always vowels-vowels only. The result is, that this lack of characters to represent two articulations has to be supplied, and is supplied, by no less than 40 symbols, to denote their combinations with different vowels. The cumbersome result of such a theory, one would have expected to operate to its rejection, even were it more correct; but it is clearly erroneous. Let its author, and all who think with him in this matter, test it in the words ye and woo, which, according to this theory, are nothing else than the repeated vowel ee ee and oo oo. Experiment will prove, that the most rapid utterance of two ee's, without any intermediate action of the tongue, will never produce the word ye; and that without a similar action of the lips between the two oo's, the word woo cannot possibly be sounded. If, then, ye and woo cannot be pronounced with the mouth steadily maintained in the vowel positions ee and oo, the initial elements of the words are not vowels but articulations.

The absence of an articulative Y leads to the writing of vulgarisms, and the corruption of utterance, in such words as future, nature, education, &c., which are written with tsh and dzh, instead of ty and dy; thus, "fuchr," “ějūkāshn," &c. Colloquial carelessness does certainly convert the nice articulations ty and dy into the more slovenly tsh and dzh; but the former are undoubtedly the elements heard in the correct utterance of this class of words; and surely the best pronunciation should always—unless for imitative purposes -be reflected in writing.

As there is no articulation w in this system, there is of course no wh; and this breath articulation is considered to be identical in sound with the word who=hw-hoo. Thus, the sentence, "I saw the man WHET the knife" is phonographically (?) perverted into the rather startling assertion, "I saw the man WHO ATE the knife." Let the most glib upholder of this theory-for it is not confined to the system under review-pronounce the latter sentence as rapidly as he can, and see if he will ever make it express the former. Yet it should do so by the mere accident of abruptness, if the theory were correct.