4. The consonantes may differ in hammar (as we called it, cap. 4, sect 3) and stiddie, as b and d. Or they may agre in ham_m_er and differ in stiddie, as b and v. Or they may agre in both and differ in the tuich, as f and v, m and p, t and g. 5. The tuich befoer the voual is be lifting the ham_m_er af the stiddie; as da, la, pa; and behind, be stryking the hammer on the stiddie; as ad, al, ap. And quhen the hammer and the stiddie are ane, the difference is in the hardnes and softnes of the tuich; as may be seen in ca and ga, ta and da. But w and y maekes sae soft a mynt that it is hard to perceave, and therfoer did the latines symboliz them with the symbol of the vouales. They are never used but befoer the voual; as we, ye, wil, you; behynd the voual thei mak noe consonant sound, nor sould be written, and therfore now and vow, with sik otheres, are not [to] be written w_i_th w, as is said befoer. 6. Of this q_uhi_lk now is said may be gathered that general, q_uhi_lk I called the keie of orthographie, cap. 1 sect. 5, that is the congruence of the symbol and sound symbolized; that is, that bathe must belang to the same organes and be tuiched after the same form. 7. And, be the contrarie, here it is clere that soundes pronu_n_ced with this organ can not be written with symboles of that; as, for exemple, a labiel symbol can not serve a dental nor a guttural sound; nor a guttural symbol a dental nor a labiel sound. 8. To clere this point, and alsoe to reform an errour bred in the south, and now usurped be our ignorant printeres, I wil tel quhat befel my self quhen I was in the south with a special gud frende of myne. Ther rease, upon sum accident, quhither quho, quhen, quhat, _et_c., sould be symbolized with q or w, a hoat disputation betuene him and me. After manie conflictes (for we ofte encountered), we met be chance, in the citie of Baeth, w_i_th a Doctour of divinitie of both our acquentance. He invited us to denner. At table my antagonist, to bring the question on foot ama_n_gs his awn condisciples, began that I was becum an heretik, and the doctour spering how, ansuered that I denyed quho to be spelled with a w, but with qu. Be quhat reason? quod the D_octour_. Here, I beginni_n_g to lay my gru_n_des of labial, dental, and guttural soundes and symboles, he snapped me on this hand and he on that, that the d_octour_ had mikle a doe to win me room for a syllogisme. Then (said I) a labial letter can not symboliz a guttural syllab. But w is a labial letter, quho a guttural sound. And therfoer w can not symboliz quho, nor noe syllab of that nature. Here the d_octour_ staying them again (for al barked at ones), the proposition, said he, I understand; the assumption is Scottish, and the conclusion false. Quherat al laughed, as if I had bene dryven from al replye, and I fretted to see a frivolouse jest goe for a solid ansuer. My proposition is grounded on the 7 sectio of this same cap., q_uhi_lk noe man, I trow, can denye that