ANALYTIC ORTHOGRAPHY. 295 
wu (you) does not contain it, except where English has been influenced by Belgian and 
Welsh, and then wis read with the mitial vowel of ti, or nearly as yw detached from 
Brandywine. This is used in New York, and is adopted by Dr. Comstock. 
167. From the superficial analysis given by the English orthoepists, it is generally im- 
possible to determine whether any particular one placed the consonant of English wu first 
(yoo,) or last (iw,) because the notation was some form of 7-w or ee-oo on both sides; and 
as the reader was expected to compress them into one syllable, this would be done ac- 
cording to vernacular practice, so that the same authority would be cited to justify se- 
veral modes of pronunciation, and a pronouncing dictionary be the chief means of pre- 
venting uniformity by encouraging provincial variation, even among those anxious to con- 
form to some standard. With Antrim, ‘’twill’ (it will) is too «dl; with Webster and 
Knowles, ‘well’ is oo-el; Walker, Knowles, and Comstock* make ‘coil’ identical with caw 
ill, as if claw-ey and cloy were identic. Yet we have recently heard a child of three and 
a half years old make the distinction, saying ‘boy’ for boy, and ‘bo-y’ for Jitile boy, using 
‘girly’ as a diminutive in the same sentence. Bawy (monosyllable?) for doy is given by 
Halliwell. 
168. Diéresis is a change from a coalescent to its allied vowel, in pronouncing a diph- 
thong as a dissyllable. It is commonly marked by (") two dots—an unphilosophic mode, 
because the coalescent and the vowel are different elements, each of which should have 
its letter. The mark may be used to separate syllables, as when prairie is pronounced 
*«¢ A Treatise on Phonology: comprising a Perfect Alphabet for the English Language; a specimen exhibition 
of the absurdities of our present system of orthography; Comstock’s, Pitman’s, and the Cincinnati alphabet, con- 
trasted; a Lecture on Phonetics by Prof. M‘Laine; the Pamphoneticon, and recommendations of Comstock’s Al- 
phabet. By Andrew Comstock, M. D., second edition, Philadelphia, 1855. 
a. This work contains about thirty pages of recommendations from clergymen, editors, superintendents and con- 
trollers of public education, college professors, &c. These recommendations are valuable, as showing the extent 
to which the educated classes of the United States are dissatisfied with the ordinary mode of spelling English. 
They say in a note—‘‘ We do not here wish to be understood as referring to Pitman’s Short Hand Alphabet. His 
Phonography as he calls it, though not strictly phonetic, is admitted to be the best system of short hand which has 
yet been devised.” 
b. The author says (p. 15)—“If the Roman alphabet be taken as a basis on which to found a phonetic alpha- 
bet, its letters should be so appropriated that they may be conveniently used in all the languages in which the Ro- 
man alphabet is employed. This has been done in the present instance: for the author was aware that if his al- 
phabet were not so construed as to suit the Huropean languages, z¢ would not be adapted to the English language. 
Kvery linguist must see this.” 
c. Unfortunately, whilst he uses e in they and ¢ in them correctly, he has new characters for the vowels of field, 
filled; he perverts I to atin aisle, C to sh, J to zh, and Q to wh; and he uses U as in full, u in up, and O in on. 
d. Alphabets of this kind show that when authors depart from the Latin and true etymologic basis, there can 
be no agreement upon the amount or kind of corruption which shall be sanctioned, because there can be no rule 
formed which shall justify mine and condemn yours—adopt certain double letters proposed by me, and reject such 
as you propose. Thus Dr. Comstock intimates (p. 59) that the Italians will never discard A, yet he does not hesi- 
tate to deprive them of I. 
