GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOGRAPHY. s. 247. Orthoepy determines the correct pronunciation of words, and deals with a language as it is _spoken_; orthography determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a language as it is _written_. The term is derived from the Greek words _orthos_ (_upright_), and _graph['e]_, or _grafae_ (_writing_). Orthography is less essential to language than orthoepy; since all languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are written. Orthography presupposes orthoepy. Orthography addresses itself to the eye, orthoepy to the ear. Orthoepy deals with the articulate sounds that constitute syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by which such articulate sounds are expressed in writing. A _letter_ is the sign of an articulate (and, in the case of _h_, of an inarticulate) sound. A full and perfect system of orthography consists in two things:--1. The possession of a sufficient and consistent alphabet. 2. The right application of such an alphabet. This position may be illustrated more fully. s. 248. First, in respect to a full and perfect alphabet. Let there be in a certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the number of forty, whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of them, amount to no more than _thirty_. In this case the alphabet is insufficient. It is not full enough: since ten of the simple single articulate sounds have no corresponding signs whereby they may be expressed. In our own language, the sounds (amongst others) of _th_ in _thin_, and of _th_ in _thine_, are simple and single, whilst there is no sign equally simple and single to spell them with. An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a {179} given language two simple single sounds, for instance, the _p_ in _pate_, and the _f_ in _fate_. Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a given sign, for instance, [Hebrew: P] (as is actually the case in Hebrew), stand for the _p_ in _pate_; and let a second sign be required for the _f_ in _fate_. Concerning the nature of this latter sign, two views may be taken. One framer of the alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere modifications of each other, may argue that no new sign (or letter) is at all necessary, but that the sound of _f_ in _fate_ may be expressed by a mere modification of the sign (or letter) [Hebrew: P], and may be written thus [Hebrew: P], or thus [Hebrew: P]' or [Hebrew: P]', &c.; upon the principle that, like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The other framer of the alphabet, contemplating the difference between the two sounds, rather than the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of the sign [Hebrew: P], but a letter altogether new, such as _f_, or [phi], &c., upon the principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude should be expressed by signs of a different degree of dissimilitude.