Alphabet. By means of the natural speech organs, men are able to pronounce a number of very simple sounds, with which they then form other compound sounds. They have benefited from this natural advantage. These sounds were intended to be signs of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

When the purpose of each of these specific sounds, whether simple or compound, has been established by use, and each has become the sign for some idea, they are called words .

These words considered with respect to the society in which they are used, and regarded as comprising an ensemble, are what is called the language of that society .

It is the aggregation of a large number of varied circumstances that resulted in these various languages: climate, air, soil, food, neighbors, relationships, Arts, commerce, the political constitution of a State; all these circumstances play a part in the formation of languages, and have resulted in their variety.

It was quite something that men were able to discover, by using the natural speech organs, an easy way of communicating their thoughts when they were in each other’s presence: but this was hardly enough; they sought, and they found, the way to speak to those who were absent, and to recall for themselves and others what they had thought, what they had said, and what they had agreed. At first, symbols or hieroglyphic pictures were what came to mind: but these signs were neither sufficiently clear, nor precise, nor unambiguous to fulfill their aim of fixing speech, and of making of it a memorial more expressive than bronze or marble.

The desire and the need to carry out this intention led eventually to conceiving of those specific signs called letters , each of which was intended to register each of the simple sounds that form words.

As soon as the art of writing had been brought to a certain point, in each language the specific sounds that enter into the formation of the words of that language were represented in a separate array, and this array or list is what is called the alphabet of a language .

This term comes from the first two Greek letters alpha and betha , which were taken from the first two letters of the Hebrew or Phoenician alphabet , aleph , beth . Quid enim aleph ab alpha magnopere differt? asks Eusebius, Praep. evang. 10.6. Quid autem vel betha à beth , etc. [1] Which shows, incidentally, that the Ancients did not give the betha of the Greeks the sound of the consonant v , since the beth of the Hebrews never had that pronunciation.  [2]

Thus the alphabet of a language means the array or list of the characters that are the signs of the specific sounds that enter into the formation of the words of that language.

Every nation that writes its language has an alphabet of its own, or one that it has adopted from some other older language.

It would be desirable if each of these alphabets had been drawn up by clever people, after intelligent consideration; there would then be fewer jarring contradictions between the practice of writing and the practice of pronunciation, and it would be easier to learn to read foreign languages: but at the time of the birth of alphabets , after I don’t know what revolutions, and even before the invention of Printing, copyists and readers were much less common than they became afterward; men were concerned only with their needs, their safety and their well-being, and scarcely dared to dream of the perfection and accuracy of the art of writing; and we might say that this art owed its birth and progress only to the sort of genius, or pervasive fashion, that sometimes produces such surprising effects among men.

I won’t pause to examine the alphabets of the principal languages. [3] I will merely observe:

I. That the Greek alphabet seems to me to be the least defective. It consists of 24 characters that always retain their value, except perhaps for γ, which is pronounced as ν before certain letters: for example before another γ, ἄγγελος which is pronounced ἄνγελος, from which come Angelus , ‘angel’.

The κ, which corresponds to our c , always has the hard pronunciation of ca , and never takes on that of ς or of ζῆτα; as well as others.

Furthermore: the Greeks, having realized that they had a short e and a long e , distinguished them in writing because these letters were distinguished in pronunciation; they observed a parallel difference for short o and long o : one is called o micron , that is, small o or short o ; and the other, which is written ω, is called o mega , that is, big o , long o , with the shape and value of a double o . [4]

They also invented specific characters to distinguish ordinary c , p , and t from c , p , and t with aspiration. These three letters, χ, φ, θ, are the three aspirates, which are nothing but the c , p , and t accompanied by an aspiration. Thus they have no less of a place in the Greek alphabet .

In this alphabet , the faulty order might be criticized. The Greeks should have separated the consonants from the vowels; the diphthongs should have come after the vowels, and then the consonants, with each weak consonant followed by its strong counterpart, b , p , z , s , etc. This fault in order is so significant that the short o is the fifteenth letter of the alphabet, and the big o or long o is the twenty-fourth and last, the short e is the fifth and the long e the seventh, etc.

As for us, we have no alphabet of our own; it is the same as that of the Italians, the Spaniards, and several others of our neighbors. We have all adopted the alphabet of the Romans.

Of course, this alphabet has only 19 letters of its own: a , b , c , d , e , f , g , h , i , l , m , n , o , p , r , s , t , u , z , since x and & are nothing but abbreviations.

x is for gz : exemple , exil , exhorter , examen , etc. are pronounced egzemple , egzil , egzhorter , egzamen , etc.

x is also for cs : axiome , sexe are pronounced acsiome , secse .

The x can also be used for two ss in Auxerre , Flexelles , Uxel , and for a simple s in Xaintonge , etc.

The & is nothing but an abbreviation for et ‘and’.

The k is a Greek letter, which is found in Latin only in a few words derived from Greek; it is our hard c , ca , co , cu .

The q is also nothing but the hard c : thus these three letters c , k , q must not be counted as more than one letter; it is the same sound represented by three different characters. So it is that c i make ci ; s i again si , and t i also sometimes make si .

It is a fault that a single sound is represented by several different characters: but this is not the only fault found in our alphabet .

Often a single letter has several different sounds; the s between two vowels is taken to be z , whereas in Greek the z is always z , and sigma always sigma .

Our e has at least four different sounds; 1st. the sound of ordinary e , as in père , mère , frère ; 2nd. the sound of close e , as in bonté , vérité , aimé ; 3rd. the sound of open e , such as bête , tempête , fête ; 4th. the sound of mute e , as in j’aime ; 5th. often e is written, but a is pronounced, as in Empereur , enfant , femme ; which is actually a double fault, however much an Ancient one: first, by writing something other than what is pronounced: second, while reading, by pronouncing something other than how the word is written. Bis peccatis, quod aliud scribitis, & aliud legitis quam scriptum est, & scribenda sunt ut legenda, & legenda ut scripta sunt. Marius Victorinus, de Orthog. apud Voss de arte Gramm.  [5] vol. 1, p. 179. “For me,” says Quintilian as well, “so long as consistent usage does not prescribe the contrary, I believe that each word should be written as it is pronounced; for such is the purpose of letters,” he continues, “that they must preserve the pronunciation of words; it is a duty they must render to those who read, such that they should be the sign of what must be pronounced when one reads”: Ego nisi quod consuetudo obtinuerit, sic scribendum quidque judico quomodo sonat: hic enim usus est litterarum, ut custodiant voces & velut depositum reddant legentibus; itaque id exprimere debent, quod dicturi sunt. Quint. Inst. 1.7.

This is the general opinion of the Ancients; and it can be proven 1st. that at first our Fathers wrote in accordance with their pronunciation, following the original purpose of letters; I would say that they did not give one letter the sound they had already given to another letter, and that if they wrote Empereur , it was because they pronounced émpereur with an é , as it is still pronounced today in several Provinces. The only mistake they made was to not have invented a French alphabet consisting of as many specific characters as there are different sounds in our language; for example, the three e ’s should each have their own character, like the ε and the η of the Greeks.

2nd. That the original pronunciation having become fixed in the books from which children learn to read, even after the pronunciation had changed; the eyes had become accustomed to a practice of writing different from the practice of pronunciation; and that is why the practice of writing grew further and further from the practice of pronunciation; and we may be quite certain that present-day usage in conformity with the ancient orthography is quite different from what in the past was most prevalent. It isn’t a hundred years since they wrote il ha where we write il a ‘he has’; they wrote il est nai , ils sont nais , nati , we write ils sont nés ‘they are born’; soubs , we write sous ‘under’; treuve , we write trouve ‘finds’, etc.

3rd. It is important to distinguish pronunciation from orthography: pronunciation is the outcome of a certain natural combination of circumstances. Once this conbination has produced its outcome, and pronunciation practice has been established, no private individual would have the right to challenge it, or to reprimand anyone’s usage.

But orthography is the sole result of art; every art has its purpose and its principles, and all of us have the right to put forth that the principles of the art were not being followed, that the purpose was not being fulfilled, and that the proper means were not being employed to arrive at that purpose.

It is obvious that our alphabet is defective, in that it does not have as many characters as we have sounds in our pronunciation. The same thing our fathers did in olden time when they wanted to establish the art of writing, we have a right to do today to perfect the selfsame art; and we can devise an alphabet that corrects every defect of the old one. Why couldn’t we do for the art of writing what has been done in all the other arts? When we wage war, I’m not suggesting we would do it as in the time of Alexander, but would we even do it as in the time of Henri IV? The names of the letters have already been changed in the elementary schools; they say be , fe , me , ne : finally, albeit with great effort, the distinction has been introduced to write the consonantal value of u as v , which is called ve , and which is no longer written as one writes the vocalic u ; the same goes for j , which is quite different from i ; these distinctions are very modern; they are not yet a century old; they are followed generally at the Imprimerie. There are only a few elderly writers who do not have the strength to cure themselves of their ancient usage: but in the end the distinction we mention was reasonable, and it has prevailed.

The same would hold for a well-made alphabet, if it were proposed by people who were suitable to propose it, and were the authority in charge of the elementary schools to decree that the Schoolmasters teach their charges to read it.

I entreat those who are at first put off by such suggestions to consider:

I. That currently we use more than four different alphabets, and that our young people who have been properly taught to read, read equally well works written in any one or another of these alphabets: the alphabets I’m talking about are:

1st. The roman, where a looks like a.

2nd. The italic, a .

3rd. The style the Schoolmasters call French, roundhand, or bankers’ script, where the e is made like

4th. The alphabet known as bâtarde.

5th. The current (cursive) hand.

I could even add the Gothic alphabet.

II. Reading what is written in one of these alphabets does not prevent one from reading what is written in another alphabet. Thus when we have yet another new alphabet, and when we teach our children to read it, they would be no less able to read other books.

III. The new alphabet I speak of would destroy nothing; there would be no need to burn all the books , as some people claim; does the roman character mean we have to burn all the books written in italic or other styles? Do we no longer read books printed 80 or 100 years ago, because present-day orthography is different from that of those times? And if we go further back, we find considerably greater differences that do not prevent us from reading books printed using the orthography then in use.

Finally, this alphabet would make spelling simpler, pronunciation easier to learn, and would end the complaints of those who find so many inconsistencies between our pronunciation and our orthography, which often presents to the eyes signs different from those that it should present in accordance with the initial intent of these signs.

It is countered that the spelling reformers have never been followed: I reply:

1st. That this reform is not the work of one individual.

2nd. That the large number of reformers shows that our orthography is in need of reform.

3rd. That our orthography was in fact reformed some years ago.

4th. Finally, it is a simple alphabet , moreover, that I would like to be invented and authorized by whoever is appropriate; that people learn to read it, and that some books be written using this alphabet ; which would no more prevent the reading of other books, than the italic character interferes with reading roman.

Alphabet , with regard to Polygraphy , or Steganography , is the duplication of the figure maintained by correspondents who write to each other in special, secret characters on which they have agreed. The regular alphabet is written in one column, and alongside each letter are placed the signs or secret characters of the polygraphic alphabet which correspond to the letter of the common alphabet . There is then a third column where the void or unused letters are placed, which are added only to increase the difficulty for those into whose hands the message might fall. Thus the polygraphic alphabet is the key used by the correspondents to decipher what they have written to each other. I have lost my alphabet , let us create another.

The art of making this kind of alphabet , and learning to decipher it, is called Polygraphy or Steganography , from the Greek στεγανὸς, hidden , from στέγω, tego , I conceal; this art was not known to the Ancients; they had only the Spartan cytale . [6] This was two wooden cylinders exactly the same size; one was in the hands of one of the correspondents, the other in those of the other. The writer would wind around his roller a strip of parchment on which he wrote crosswise whatever he needed to; then he would send it to his correspondent, who would lay it on his own cylinder, in such a way that the strokes of the writing would appear in the same relationship they had when they were written; which could easily be guessed: the Moderns have exercised more refinements.

The term alphabet is also used for some books where various matter is presented in alphabetical order. the alphabet of France is a Geography book in which the towns of France are described in alphabetical order. Alphabetum Augustinianum is a book containing the history of the Augustinian Monasteries in alphabetical order.

Notes

1. “For in what does ‘Alpha’ differ from ‘Alph’? Or ‘Beta’ from ‘Beth’?” [trans. E. H. Gifford, 1903; the reference is 10.5. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_10_book10.htm]

2. This is incorrect on two grounds. (i) Greek beta had taken on the v pronunciation familiar to the author by Byzantine times, if not earlier; (ii) Hebrew beth is pronounced v postvocalically unless it represents lengthened bb . [ trans. ]

3. See the 25 plates, Characters and alphabets of languages dead and living. [ trans. ]

4. The ω shape does not represent a doubling of o , but a cursive writing of the majuscule Ω. [ trans. ]

5. Gerardi Ioannis Vossii, Aristarchus sive de arte grammatica libri septem , 2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1652. https://books.google.com/books?id=LBpUAAAAcAAJ&dq=Joannes Vossius aristarchus de arte gramm&pg=PA179 - v=onepage&q&f=false

6. Mistake for σκυτάλη. [ trans. ]