2. _The aim at secondary objects._--The natural aim of orthography, of spelling, or of writing (for the three terms mean the same thing), is to express the _sounds_ of a language. Syllables and words it takes as they meet the ear, it translates them by appropriate signs, and so paints them, as it were, to the eye. That this is the natural and primary object is self-evident; but beyond this natural and primary object there is, with the orthographical systems of most languages, a secondary one, _viz._ the attempt to combine with the representation of the sound of a given word the representation of its history and origin. The sound of the _c_, in _city_, is the sound that we naturally spell with the letter _s_, and if the expression of this sound was the _only_ object of our orthographists, the word would be spelt accordingly (_sity_). The following facts, however, traverse {181} this simple view of the matter. The word is a derived word; it is transplanted into our own language from the Latin, where it is spelt with a _c_ (_civitas_); and to change this _c_ into _s_ conceals the origin and history of the word. For this reason the _c_ is retained, although, as far as the mere expression of sounds (the primary object in orthography) is concerned, the letter is a superfluity. In cases like the one adduced the orthography is bent to a secondary end, and is traversed by the etymology. 3. _Obsoleteness._--It is very evident that modes of spelling which at one time may have been correct, may, by a change of pronunciation, become incorrect; so that orthography becomes obsolete whenever there takes place a change of speech without a correspondent change of spelling. s. 250. _Difference between the change of a sound and the original false expression of a sound._--The letter _u_ is a simple single sign. The sound of _ow_, in _town_, is a diphthongal, or a double, sound. Now, in Anglo-Saxon, the modern word _town_ is spelt _t['u]n_. In this case one of two things must have taken place: either the word must have changed its sound, or the Anglo-Saxons must have expressed it falsely and improperly. s. 251. From the foregoing sections we arrive at the theory of a full and perfect alphabet and orthography, of which a few (amongst many others) of the chief conditions are as follow:-- 1. That for every simple single sound, incapable of being represented by a combination of letters, there be a simple single sign. 2. That sounds within a determined degree of likeness be represented by signs within a determined degree of likeness; whilst sounds beyond a certain degree of likeness be represented by distinct and different signs, _and that uniformly_. 3. That no sound have more than one sign to express it. 4. That no sign express more than one sound. 5. That the primary aim of orthography be to express the sounds of words, and not their histories. {182} 6. That changes of speech be followed by corresponding changes of spelling.