a. It is a matter of regret, that the differences which the Greeks drew between the so-called _long_ and _short_ e and o, was neglected by the Latins; in other words, that ω was omitted entirely, and η changed in power. Had this been the case, all the orthographical expedients by which we have to express the difference between the o in _not_, and the o in _note_, would have been prevented--_not_, _note_, _moat_--_bed_, _bead_, _heel_, _glede_, &c. b. It is a matter of regret, that such an unnecessary _compendium_ as q = cu, or cw, should have been retained from the old Greek alphabet; and, still more so, that the equally superfluous x = cs, or ks, should have been re-admitted. c. It is a matter of regret, that the Greek θ was not treated like the Greek ζ. Neither were wanted at first; both afterwards. The manner, however, of their subsequent introduction was different. _Zæta_ came in as a simple single letter, significant of a simple single sound. _Thæta_, on the contrary, although expressive of an equally simple sound, became th. This was a combination rather than a letter; and the error which it engendered was great. It suggested the idea, that a simple sound was a compound one--which was wrong. It further suggested the idea, that the sound of θ differed from that of τ, by the addition of h--which was wrong also. § 167. The Greek language had a system of sounds different from the Phœnician; and the alphabet required modifying accordingly. The Roman language had a system of sounds different from the Greek and the alphabet required modifying accordingly. This leads us to certain questions concerning the Anglo-Saxon. Had _it_ a system of sounds different from the Roman? If so, what modifications did the alphabet require? Were such modifications effected? If so, how? Sufficiently or insufficiently? The answers are unsatisfactory. § 168. The Anglo-Saxon had, even in its earliest stage, the following sounds, for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs or letters-- 1. The sound of the th in _thin_. 2. The sound of the th in _thine_. It had certainly these: probably others. § 169. Expressive of these, two new signs were introduced, viz., þ = th in _thin_, and ð = th in _thine_. W, also evolved out of u, was either an original improvement of the Anglo-Saxon orthographists, or a mode of expression borrowed from one of the allied languages of the Continent. Probably the latter was the case; since we find the following passage in the Latin dedication of Otfrid's "Krist:"--"Hujus enim linguæ barbaries, ut est inculca et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticæ artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria u u u ut puto quærit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente."