On the Letter 'r.' 
131 
tion. Thus we have a short vowel on each side of the r, but of 
these one or the other was commonly dropped, and at a certain stage 
of the language speakers and wi'iters had in many cases the option 
of two forms. 
An instance of this metathesis, which, I believe, has not been 
hitherto noticed, is perhaps furnished by the common provincial 
childer as plural of child. One form of the Anglo- Saxon plural was 
cildru, the final vowel of which — however it was pronounced — seems 
to have undergone the same change as that of hoo when passing into 
her = she. Thus the word comes to be written childre, as in La?a- 
mons Brut (or chilldre, as in the Onnulum) next childere, as also in 
Lalamon, and then childer. Lastly, by the addition of n for O.E. 
•en, or A. S. -an, we get the two forms of the double plural children 
and childern (in Laj. childerne). In Dutch kinder en both vowels are 
retained. There are three other such double plurals found in Wiclif 
and Caxton — calveren (compare Dutch kalveren), eyren, and lambren; 
and it is worth noting, that the Anglo-Saxon cea//and ceg both ex- 
hibit the unusual plural in -ru, as cealfru and cegru (or cegeru), and 
it is not improbable that a similar plural of lamb, though unknown to 
Bos worth, may yet have existed, since we have in the Ormulum 
** To stanndenn ^aen )>e lafje gast 
To werenn hise lamncbre." (v. 13329.) 
In passing on to the interchanges of r with other letters, we must 
first obsen-e how readily of the two rs themselves one passes into the 
other. If we had once no non-vibrant r in the language, there can 
hardly be shown to be any instances of the non-vibrant r changing 
into the other. Of transition in the opposite direction, as when iion 
is pronounced iurn, instances are innumerable. And mere facility of 
pronunciation is sufiicient to account for this. Whenever a vowel 
foUov/G the r, the tongue must extend itself further than if no vowel 
follows ; and a yet more arduous duty devolves upon that organ, if 
the rough r is to be pronounced. From this labour the English 
tongue is wont to shrink, as indeed even the initial r in ordinary 
conversation is commonly sounded by us without any vibration. 
But let us now notice the substitution which we sometimes meet 
with of w for r. We may thus account for it. Through some or- 
ganic defect, or from some other cause, the tongue is unable to effiect 
that contraction of the vocal orifice by pressure of the tip of the 
tongue towards the palate, which is essential for the non-vibrant r, 
and still less is it able to maintain nearly the same position, and vi- 
brate the tip at the same time. But in the very effort to do this the 
lips approach each other, a w being thus formed, and this semivowel 
is then accepted in place of the one that was intended, as an approx- 
imation to it. 
Of greater interest on many grounds is the interchange of r and /. 
