This was, as far as it went, correct, so that the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, although not originally meant to express a Gothic tongue at all, answered the purpose to which it was applied tolerably. § 170. Change, however, went on; and the orthography which suited the earlier Anglo-Saxon would not suit the later; at any rate, it would not suit the language which had become or was becoming, _English_; wherein the sounds for which the Latin alphabet had no equivalent signs increase. Thus there is at present-- 1. The sound of the sh in _shine_. 2. The sound of the z in _azure_. How are these to be expressed? The rule has hitherto been to denote simple single sounds, by simple single signs, and where such signs have no existence already, to _originate new ones_. To _combine existing letters_, rather than to coin a new one, has only been done rarely. The Latin substitution of the combination th for the simple single θ, was exceptionable. It was a precedent, however, which now begins to be followed generally. § 171. It is this precedent which accounts for the absence of any letter in English, expressive of either of the sounds in question. § 172. Furthermore, our alphabet has not only not increased in proportion to our sound-system, but it has _decreased_. The Anglo-Saxon þ = the th in _thin_, and ð = the th in _thine_, have become obsolete; and a difference in pronunciation, which our ancestors expressed, _we_ overlook. The same precedent is at the bottom of this; a fact which leads us to-- § 173. _The Anglo-Norman alphabet._--The Anglo-Saxon language was _Gothic_; the alphabet, _Roman_. The Anglo-Norman language was _Roman_; the alphabet, _Roman_ also. The Anglo-Saxon took his speech from one source; his writing from another. The Anglo-Norman took both from the same. In adapting a Latin alphabet to a Gothic language, the Anglo-Saxon allowed himself more latitude than the Anglo-Norman. We have seen that the new signs þ and ð were Anglo-Saxon. Now the sounds which these letters represent did not occur in the Norman-French, consequently the Norman-French alphabet neither had nor needed to have signs to express them; until after the battle of Hastings, _when it became the Anglo-Norman of England_. _Then_, the case became altered. The English language influenced the Norman orthography, and the Norman orthography the English language; and the result was, that the simple single correct and distinctive signs of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, became replaced by the incorrect and indistinct combination th. This was a loss, both in the way of theoretical correctness and perspicuity. Such is the general view of the additions, ejections, changes of power, and changes of order in the English alphabet. The extent, however, to which an alphabet is faulty, is no measure of the extent to which an orthography is faulty; since an insufficient alphabet may, by consistency in its application, be more useful than a full and perfect alphabet unsteadily applied.