Of the Anglo-Saxon alphabet we may safely say that it was _insufficient_. The points wherein the Latin alphabet was {207} improved in its adaptation to the Gothic tongues, are, 1. the admission of _th_ and _dh_; 2. the evolution of _w_ out of _u_. Upon this latter circumstance, and on _k_ and _z_, I make the following extract from the Latin Dedication of Otfrid's Krist:--"Hujus enim linguae barbaries, ut est inculta et indisciplinabilis, atque insueta capi regulari freno grammaticae artis, sic etiam in multis dictis scriptu est difficilis propter literarum aut congeriem, aut incognitam sonoritatem. Nam interdum tria _u u u_ ut puto quaerit in sono; priores duo consonantes, ut mihi videtur, tertium vocali sono manente," And, further, in respect to other orthographical difficulties:--"Interdum vero nec _a_, nec _e_, nec _i_, nec _u_, vocalium sonos praecanere potui, ibi _y_ Grecum mihi videbatur ascribi. Et etiam hoc elementum lingua haec horrescit interdum; nulli se characteri aliquotiens in quodam sono nisi difficile jungens. _K_ et _z_ saepius haec lingua extra usum Latinitatis utitur; quae grammatici inter litteras dicunt esse superfluas. Ob stridorem autem dentium interdum ut puto in hac lingua _z_ utuntur, _k_ autem propter faucium sonoritatem." s. 265. _The Anglo-Norman Period._--Between the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin alphabet, as applied to the Norman-French, there are certain points of difference. In the first place, the sound-system of the languages (like the French) derived from the Latin, bore a greater resemblance to that of the Romans, than was to be found amongst the Gothic tongues. Secondly, the alphabets of the languages in point were more exclusively Latin. In the present French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, there is an exclusion of the _k_. This is not the case with the Anglo-Norman. Like the Latins, the Anglo-Normans considered that the sound of the Greek [theta] was represented by _th_: not, however, having this sound in their language, there was no corresponding sign in their alphabet. The greatest mischief done by the Norman influence was the ejection from the English alphabet of _th_ and _dh_. In other respects the alphabet was improved. The letters _z_, _k_, _j_, were either imported or more currently recognised. The letter _y_ took a semi-vowel power, having been previously represented by _e_; {208} itself having the power of _i_. The mode of spelling the compound sibilant with _ch_ was evolved. My notions concerning this mode of spelling are as follows:--At a given period the sound of _ce_ in _ceaster_, originally that of _ke_, had become, first, that of _ksh_, and, secondly, that of _tsh_; still it was spelt _ce_, the _e_, in the eyes of the Anglo-Saxons, having the power of _y_. In the eyes also of the Anglo-Saxons the compound sound of _ksh_, or _tsh_, would differ from that of _k_ by the addition of _y_: this, it may be said, was the Anglo-Saxon view of the matter.