"_K_ is used before _n_, _knell_, _knot_, but totally loses its sound."--_Johnson._ This, however, is not the ease in the allied languages; in German and Danish, in words like _knecht_, _knive_, the _k_ is sounded. This teaches us that such was once the case in English. Hence we learn that in the words _knife_, _knight_ (and also in _gnaw_, _gnash_), we have an antiquated or obsolete orthography. For the ejection of the sound of _l_ in _calf_, _salmon_, _falcon_, &c. see under a. For the _l_ in _could_, see that word. "_N_ is sometimes mute after _m_, as _damn_, _condemn_, _hymn_."--_Johnson._ In all these words the _n_ originally belonged to a succeeding syllable, _dam-no_, _condem-no_, _hym-nus_. _Q_, accurately speaking, is neither a letter, nor an abbreviation. It is always followed by _u_, as _queen_, _quilt_, and the two letters _qu_ must be looked upon as a single sign, equivalent to (but scarcely an abbreviation) of _kw_. _Q_ is not=_k_ alone. The combination _qu_, is never sounded _koo_. Neither is _kw_. If it were so, there would be in the word _queen_ (currently speaking) _three_ sounds of _u_, _viz._, two belonging to _q_ (=_kw_), and one belonging to _u_ itself. _W_ being considered as=2 _u_: _q_=_k_ + 1/2 _w_. This view of _q_ bears upon the theory of words like _prorogue_, &c. The reader is referred to p. 152. There he is told that, when a word ends in a flat consonant, _b_, _v_, _d_, _g_, the plural termination is not the sound of _s_, but that of _z_ (_stagz_, _dogz_); although _s_ be the letter _written_. Such also is the case with words ending in the vowels or the liquids (_peaz_, _beanz_, _hillz_, not _peace_, _beance_, _hillce_). This fact influences our orthography. The majority of words ending in _s_ are found to be plural numbers, or else (what is the same thing in respect to form) either genitive cases, or verbs of the third person singular; whilst in the majority of these the _s_ is sounded as _z_. Hence, the inference from analogy that _s_ single, at the end of words, is sounded as _z_. Now this fact hampers the orthography of those words wherein _s_ final retains its natural sound, as _since_, _once_, _mass_, _mace_; for let these be {198} written _sins_, _ons_, _mas_, the chances are that they will be pronounced _sinz_, _onz_, _maz_. To remedy this, the _s_ may be doubled, as in _mass_. This, however, can be done in a few cases only. It cannot be done conveniently where the vowel is long, the effect of a double consonant being to denote that the preceding vowel is short. Neither can it be done conveniently after a consonant, such combinations as _sinss_, &c., being unsightly. This throws the grammarian upon the use of _c_, which, as stated above, has, in certain situations, the power of _s_. To write, however, simply _sinc_, or _onc_, would induce the risk of the words being sounded _sink_, _onk_. To obviate this, _e_ is added, which has the double effect