3B4 
a figured alphabet evidently renders it 
impracticable; eafier means might un- 
doubtedly be found, but as fuch are not 
difcovered at prefent. Grammarians, to 
avoid the titles of vifionary innovators, &c. 
are neceffitated to explain the different 
founds by letters which have themfelves 
three or four ill-defined powers. If con- 
fufion is frequently found in thefe cafes, 
how much more will arife from the at- 
tempt to delineate any oral diaicct? ‘The 
letter figned Yim. Bob. in your laf num- 
ber, affords an inftance, in the word 
leawghing, trom the Lancafhire dialect, 
where the pronunciation intended to be 
expreffed is wrapped in impenetrable ob- 
f{curity. ‘The introduction of a new and 
perfe& aipbabet into general ufe would 
be difficulf, but, perhaps, not finally im- 
practicable.. A itrong prepoffefiion again 
all novelties, the offspring in general of 
ignorance and felf conceit, appears to me 
in this cafe, as well as many others, the 
only argument which poffeffes a truly for- 
midable appearance. 
But at all events, the utility of fuch an 
alphabet in grammars, {pelling books, 
orchoépical dictionaries, and provincial 
vocabularies, muft be obvious to every 
_one. On the fuppofition that a new or 
amended alphabet may one day come into 
ufe, I fhall add a few queries to thofe of 
your correfpondent £, which appear to 
me in equal need of difcuffion. 1. Whe- 
ther the a, as in and, can be articulated 
clearly in the proper time of a final un- 
accerited fyllable, as in Maztua, Riga, 
&c.; or whether the #, as in 6ut, 
is not nearer the practice of the bet 
fpeakers? 2. Whether the @ in the laf 
fyllable of eternal, &c. ought to be pro- 
nounced like the ain at, thé ein met, or 
win but? 3. Whether the w after r in 
garrulous, and fuch like, can or ought ta 
be pronounced like the long a, or you? 
4. Whether the a, as an article, ought 
confiantiy to receive the full found of a 
in ale? 5. Whether the a in ale and ¢ in 
there are exaétly fimilar? 6. Whether in 
words ending in age, without the accent, 
analogy ought not to be invariably fol- 
lowed?—-In Jones’s Sheridan Improved, 
terminations of this kind are. fometimes 
written adje and fometimes idje, which 
feems to indicate a diftinétion which is 
probably totally unknown in practice. 
I am, Sir, Yours, &c. 
TB. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, } 
COULD have been well content to 
leave the matter in debate between 
Reply to Drs. Uwins and Reid. 
[Dec I, 
Dr. Uwins and myfclf to the judgment 
of your readers, in the ftate in which it | 
already ftands in your Mifcellany, had not 
Dr. Reid thought proper, im bis laft Me- 
dical Report, to refer to it in fuch a ftrain 
of exultation on my fappofed defeat, and 
to extend the charge of ignorance againit 
ms, fo as toinclude a mis-apprehenfion of 
a very common term. I am told, by 
Dr. Reid, that I do not underftand what 
is meant by theory, and that I *feem to 
regard it as preceding and oppofing actual 
obfervation.”” Yet he might have feen in 
my letter, that I exprefsly characterize 
that clafs of fciences which I oppofe to 
the exadt fciences, and among which I 
comprehend medicine, as ‘* deriving their 
rules from experience, or from a number 
of facts generalized.” The truth is, that 
there never was a {cientific theory, how- 
ever vifionary or abfurd, which did not 
pretend to be grounded upon faét. Even 
the chimerical fcience of aftrology ap- 
pealed for its principles to the known and 
acknowledged influences of the heavenly 
bodies. The fault of theorizers in the 
mixed or imperfect fciences, has uniyer- 
fally been that of forming their general 
inferences upon a partial or teo limited 
induction of particular faéts; and that — 
all theories of medicine, except that which 
they themfelves have chofen to adopt, are 
chargeable with this error, will, I pre- 
fume, be readily admitted by Drs. Reid 
and Uwins. I cannot fay that I feel any in- 
clination to avail myfelf of the opportunity 
prefented by Dr. Uwins, of ftudying again 
the Brunonian fyf{em in his communica- 
tions to the Medical and Phyfical Journal; 
nor, on the other hand, do I with to fhake 
his or his friends’ confidence in it, by any 
obfervations of mine. I have no doubt 
that Dr. Reid, at leaft, is in the right patly 
for acquiring profeffional fkill, namely, 
that of experience; andI fee, with plea- 
fure, that he condefcends to adopt the prac- 
tical improvements of his brethren of the 
faculty, without much folicitude to ae- 
commodate them to his favourite theory. 
I will believe that he is an abler phyfician 
now, than he was before he undertook his 
ufeful labours in the Difpenfary, although 
he even then had the advantage of being 
free from ali «* doubts with regard to the 
theory and application of the f{cience,” 
and, by confequence, was already com- 
pietely mater of his profeffion. That 
he will, in time, abate of his dogimatifm, 
and ceafe to charge, by implication, nine- 
ty-nine in the hundred of his fraternity 
with unconfcientious or unfatisfactory 
practice, I confidently expe. 
Tam, &c. 
4 Buty 
For 
