He observes however that Lipsius ridicules this opinion, and contends that _c_ had in all cases the force of _k_. This the Doctor ascribes to his partiality for the pronunciation of his countrymen, the Germans, which, he says, has often led him into errors. For altho _k_ before _a_, _o_, _u_ used frequently to be written for _c_, as _Karcer_ for _Carcer_, yet it never took the place of _c_ before _e_ and _i_; we never find _Karker_ for _Carcer_. But that _c_ had the sound of our _ch_, is probable from another fact: In old inscriptions it is found that _c_ was often used for _t_ before _i_; _condicio_ for _conditio_, _palacium_ for _palatium_. Now _ch_ in English have a compound sound, which begins with that of _t_, and hence _ti_ and _ci_ in English have taken the sound of _ch_ or _sh_. It is evident therefore that _c_ before _i_ had a great affinity to _ti_; an affinity which is still preserved in the Italian language. These circumstances give us reason to believe that _ci_ and _ti_ in _condicio_ and _palatium_, were both pronounced _chi_, _condichio_, _palachium_. This sound of _ci_ agrees perfectly well with the Saxon sound in _cild_, pronounced _child_; _cele_, now pronounced _chill_, as I have remarked above; text, page 72. [G], page 82. I shall not enter into a particular discussion of the question, whether _h_ is a mark of _sound_ or not. By its convertibility with _k_ and _c_ in the ancient languages, we have reason to conclude that it once had a guttural sound, and the pronunciation of some northern nations of Europe confirms the opinion. But it appears in modern English to have no sound by itself; it however affects, in some degree, the sound of the vowel to which it is prefixed, by previously opening the mouth wider than is necessary to articulate the vowel. Thus in _hand_ we hear no sound but of _and_; yet in pronouncing _hand_ we open the throat wider, and emit the breath with violence before we begin the sound, which makes an obvious difference in pronouncing the words _and_ and _hand_; and perhaps this distinction is perceiveable as far as the words can be heard. The same may be said of _th_ in _think_. The instance of a man who lost a dinner by telling his servant to _eat_ it, when he meant to tell him to _heat_ it, affords a useful lesson to those who are disposed to treat the letter _h_ with too much neglect. [H], page 85. That _i_ short is the same sound as _ee_ we have the authority of one of the first and best English grammarians. "Hunc sonum, (ee) quoties correptus est, Angli per _i_ breve, exprimunt; quum vero producitur, scribunt ut plurimum per _ee_, non raro tamen per _ie_; vel etiam per _ea_; ut, _sit_, _fit_, _feel_, _fill_, _fiend_, _near_," &c.---- Wallis, Gram. Sect. 2. Ash confirms the opinion. "_Ee_ has one sound, as in _see_, _thee_, and coincides with the narrow _i_."--Gram. Diss. pref. to his Dic. Kenrick's arrangement of the _long_ and _short_ vowels is exactly similar to mine.