Let a word consist of two syllables. Let the latter end in a vowel. Let there be between the vowel of the first and the vowel of the second syllable, one consonant and no more, _e. g._, _namae_. Let the consonant belong to the root of the word; and let the first syllable of the word be the essential and the radical part of it. Let this same syllable (as the essential and radical part of it) have an accent. The chances are that, under such circumstances, the vowel of the first syllable will be long (independent), just as the chances are that a vowel followed by two consonants will be short. Let a change in language affect the _final_ vowel, so that a word which was originally pronounced _nama_, should become, first, _name_, and afterwards _n[=a]m_, _naim_, or _naem_; the vowel being sounded as the _a_ in _fate_. Let the final _e_, although lost in pronunciation, be retained in the spelling. The chances are that, the above conditions being given, such an _e_ (final and mute) shall, whenever it occurs, occur at the end of a long syllable. The next process is for a succeeding generation to mistake a coincidence for a sign, and to imagine that an _e_ mute expresses the length of syllable. I consider this to be the key to the use of the _e_ mute in all words where it is preceded by one consonant only. From the circumstance that the French and the English are the only nations wherein the _e_ mute is part and parcel of the orthography, it has been hastily imagined that the employment of it is to be attributed to the Norman Conquest. The truth, however, is, that we find it equally in words of Saxon and of Norman origin. The fact that, in certain words, an _e_ mute is preceded by {192} two consonants and by a short vowel, does not militate against the view given above. "_I_ has a sound, long, as in _fine_, and short, as in _fin_. That is eminently observable in _i_, which may be likewise remarked in other letters, that the short sound is not the long sound contracted, but a sound wholly different."--_Johnson._ This extract has been made in order to add the authority of Johnson to the statement so often repeated already; _viz._, that the _i_ in _bite_ is not the long sound of the _i_ in _bit_. For the sound of _u_ in _guest_, _prorogue_, _guard_, see the remarks on _g_.