s. 254. The mischief of orthographical expedients is this:--When a sign, or letter, is used in a _conventional_, it precludes us from using it (at least without further explanation) in its _natural_ sense: _e.g._, the double _o_ in _mood_ constitutes but one syllable. If in a foreign language we had, immediately succeeding each other, first the syllable _mo_, and next the syllable _od_, we should have to spell it _mo-od_, or _moeod_ or _mo-[o-hook]d_, &c. Again, it is only by our knowledge of the language that the _th_ in _nuthook_, is not pronounced like the _th_ in _burthen_. In the languages of India the true sound of _t_ + _h_ is common. This, however, we cannot spell naturally because the combination _th_ conveys to us another notion. Hence such combinations as _thh_, or _t`_, &c., in writing Hindoo words. A second mischief of orthographical conventionalities, is the wrong notions that they engender, the eye misleading the ear. That _th_ is really _t_ + _h_, no one would have believed had it not been for the spelling. s. 255. The present section is the partial application of the preceding observations. It is a running commentary upon the orthographical part of Dr. Johnson's Grammar. Presuming a knowledge of the detail of the English orthography, it attempts an explanation of some of its leading characters. Many of these it possesses in common with other tongues. Several are peculiar to itself. {190} "_A_, sounded as _aw_, or as a modification of _o_."--_A_, as in _father_, and _o_, as in _note_ (as may be seen in p. 150), form the extremities of the vowel system. Notwithstanding this, the two sounds often interchange. The orthographical systems of most languages bear witness to this. In French the _au_ in _autel_ has the sound of _o_; in Danish _aa_=_o_ (_baade_ being pronounced _bohde_); in Swedish _[oa]_ has the same power. In Old English the forms _hond_, _strond_, &c., occur, instead of _hand_, strand, &c. In Anglo-Saxon, br['a]d, st['a]n, &c., correspond to the English forms _broad_, _stone_. I am not able to say whether _a_ changes oftenest to _o_, or _o_ to a. The form _hond_ is older than the form _hand_. In the word _salt_, however, the _a_ was pronounced as the _a_ in _fat_ before it was pronounced (as at present) like the _o_ in _not_. If this were not the case it would never have been spelt with an a. In the words _launch_ and _haunch_, by some called _lanch_, _hanch_, and by others _lawnch_, _hawnch_, we find a present tendency to interchange these sounds.