The operation of the principles indicated in § 161 was a work of the time; and hence the older and more unmodified Greek alphabet approached in character its Phœnician prototype much more than the later, or modified. As may be seen, by comparing the previous alphabets with the common alphabets of the Greek Grammar, the letters 6 and 19 occur in the earlier, whilst they are missing in the later, modes of writing. On the other hand, the _old_ alphabet has no such signs as φ, χ, υ, ω, ψ, and ξ. Such being the case, it is easy to imagine what would be the respective conditions of two Italian languages which borrowed those alphabets, the one from the earlier, the other from the later Greek. The former would contain the equivalents to _vaw_ (6), and _kof_ (19); but be destitute of φ, χ, &c.; whereas the latter would have φ, χ, &c., but be without either _vaw_ or _kof_. Much the same would be the case with any single Italian language which took as its basis the _earlier_, but adopted, during the course of time, modifications from the _later_ Greek. It would exhibit within itself characters common to the two stages. This, or something very like it, was the case with Roman. For the first two or three centuries the alphabet was Etruscan; Etruscan derived _directly_ from the Greek, and from the _old_ Greek. Afterwards, however, the later Greek alphabet had its influence, and the additional letters which it contained were more or less incorporated; and that without effecting the ejection of any earlier ones. § 163. With these preliminaries we may investigate the details of the Roman alphabet, when we shall find that many of them stand in remarkable contrast with those of Greece and Phœnicia. At the same time where they differ with them, they agree with the English. _Order._ _Roman._ _English._ _Greek._ _Hebrew._