25
&c., with a large residue unaccounted for. If we take the two first classes, amounting in the whole to 754,325 and add ten per cent, for the residue and persons engaged in other pursuits, thus taking 829,757 or in round numbers one million of persons, we have the very utmost number of those who can be supposed to acquire a knowledge of Latin and Greek; namely, not quite one in every 15 persons in England only, exclusive of Wales and Scotland. The argument, therefore, if perfectly true, and carried out to the furthest possible extent, and with every facility of oral instruction, is entirely inapplicable to 14-15ths of the population of England. And if it be said, that it is only the manual labour class who will thus be excluded, we have to reply, without entering into further particulars, that the number of females exceeds the number of males by 348,364, and that of the whole number of females, whatever be their station in life, not 1,000 can be supposed at any time to have been taught Latin and Greek, and of these, of course, a very large proportion, fully as large as that among the males, do not belong to the manual labour class. The argument is, therefore, not merely absurd, but absolutely inapplicable, if correct.
But we deny the correctness of the argument. We assert most advisedly and deliberately, that the most consummate knowledge of not only Latin and Greek, but of Anglo-Saxon, German, Danish, Swedish, Norman French, Modern French, Arabic, or any other language from which the English has borrowed words, would never assist the possessor of them to the knowledge of how a single English word was spelt or pronounced. That no one could tell à priori, from knowing a Latin or Greek word, for example, how a word derived from that word would be spelled(31) or pronounced in English, or even how the word itself would be pronounced by every one who saw it. We cannot enter upon the proof of this assertion as it would occupy too much space, it is sufficient to say that it depends upon the following propositions, which we have never seen any attempt to disprove.
First. The heterography of the English language was not the result of design or rule.
Second. It has altered from time to time.
Third. The heterography of many words is still a matter of dispute; as honour, honor; expence, expense; enquire, inquire; judgment, judgement; &c.
Fourth. Words derived from the same root are not uniformly spelled in the same manner; as succeed, concede, &c.
Fifth. In words derived from different roots, similar letters, whether vowels or consonants, are not expressed by similar letters in English.
As to the etymological value of the present heterography, we will, as before, admit at first the entire truth of the assertion to its greatest extent, namely, that by such knowledge as can at the present time be acquired of the languages from which we know English to be derived, joined with the heterography of the English language as now written, the
(31.) We speak of words which already form a part of our language. New words, derived from Greek and Latin, are spelt after a certain rule, derived from the method in which the Latins transcribed Greek words which they introduced into their own language. The pronunciation of such words is somewhat reduceable to rules, but not entirely to, and they form but a very insignificant portion of our tongue.
