Of the Orthographie and Congruitie of the Britan Tongue: A Treates, noe shorter than necessarie, for the Schooles — David Hume — John Shaqi
Of the Orthographie and Congruitie of the Britan Tongue: A Treates, noe shorter than necessarie, for the Schooles
David Hume · en
4. The consonantes may differ in hammar (as we called it, cap. 4, sect
3) and stiddie, as b and d. Or they may agre in ham_m_er and differ in
stiddie, as b and v. Or they may agre in both and differ in the tuich,
as f and v, m and p, t and g.
5. The tuich befoer the voual is be lifting the ham_m_er af the stiddie;
as da, la, pa; and behind, be stryking the hammer on the stiddie; as ad,
al, ap. And quhen the hammer and the stiddie are ane, the difference is
in the hardnes and softnes of the tuich; as may be seen in ca and ga, ta
and da. But w and y maekes sae soft a mynt that it is hard to perceave,
and therfoer did the latines symboliz them with the symbol of the
vouales. They are never used but befoer the voual; as we, ye, wil, you;
behynd the voual thei mak noe consonant sound, nor sould be written, and
therfore now and vow, with sik otheres, are not [to] be written w_i_th
w, as is said befoer.
6. Of this q_uhi_lk now is said may be gathered that general, q_uhi_lk I
called the keie of orthographie, cap. 1 sect. 5, that is the congruence
of the symbol and sound symbolized; that is, that bathe must belang to
the same organes and be tuiched after the same form.
7. And, be the contrarie, here it is clere that soundes pronu_n_ced with
this organ can not be written with symboles of that; as, for exemple, a
labiel symbol can not serve a dental nor a guttural sound; nor a
guttural symbol a dental nor a labiel sound.
8. To clere this point, and alsoe to reform an errour bred in the south,
and now usurped be our ignorant printeres, I wil tel quhat befel my self
quhen I was in the south with a special gud frende of myne. Ther rease,
upon sum accident, quhither quho, quhen, quhat, _et_c., sould be
symbolized with q or w, a hoat disputation betuene him and me. After
manie conflictes (for we ofte encountered), we met be chance, in the
citie of Baeth, w_i_th a Doctour of divinitie of both our acquentance.
He invited us to denner. At table my antagonist, to bring the question
on foot ama_n_gs his awn condisciples, began that I was becum an
heretik, and the doctour spering how, ansuered that I denyed quho to be
spelled with a w, but with qu. Be quhat reason? quod the D_octour_.
Here, I beginni_n_g to lay my gru_n_des of labial, dental, and guttural
soundes and symboles, he snapped me on this hand and he on that, that
the d_octour_ had mikle a doe to win me room for a syllogisme. Then
(said I) a labial letter can not symboliz a guttural syllab. But w is a
labial letter, quho a guttural sound. And therfoer w can not symboliz
quho, nor noe syllab of that nature. Here the d_octour_ staying them
again (for al barked at ones), the proposition, said he, I understand;
the assumption is Scottish, and the conclusion false. Quherat al
laughed, as if I had bene dryven from al replye, and I fretted to see a
frivolouse jest goe for a solid ansuer. My proposition is grounded on
the 7 sectio of this same cap., q_uhi_lk noe man, I trow, can denye that