st and the last. Of Zee, (which has also been called Zed, Zad, Izzard, Uzzard, Izzet, and Iz,)[90] he says, "Its common name is izzard, which Dr. Johnson explains into s hard; if, however, this is the meaning, it is a gross misnomer; for the z is not the hard, but the soft s;[91] but as it has a less sharp, and therefore not so audible a sound, it is not impossible but it may mean s surd. Zed, borrowed from the French, is the more fashionable name of this letter; but, in my opinion, not to be admitted, because the names of the letters ought to have no diversity."--Walker's Principles, No. 483. It is true, the name of a letter ought to be one, and in no respect diverse; but where diversity has already obtained, and become firmly rooted in custom, is it to be obviated by insisting upon what is old-fashioned, awkward, and inconvenient? Shall the better usage give place to the worse? Uniformity cannot be so reached. In this country, both Zed and Izzard, as well as the worse forms Zad and Uzzard, are now fairly superseded by the softer and better term Zee; and whoever will spell aloud, with each of these names, a few such words as dizzy, mizzen, gizzard, may easily perceive why none of the former can ever be brought again into use. The other two, Iz and Izzet, being localisms, and not authorized English, I give up all six; Zed to the French, and the rest to oblivion.
OBS. 6.--By way of apology for noticing the name of the first letter, Walker observes, "If a diversity of names to vowels did not confound us in our spelling, or declaring to each other the component letters of a word, it would be entirely needless to enter into so trifling a question as the mere name of a letter; but when we find ourselves unable to convey signs to each other on account of this diversity of names, and that words themselves are endangered by an improper utterance of their component parts, it seems highly incumbent on us to attempt a uniformity in this point, which, insignificant as it may seem, is undoubtedly the foundation of a just and regular pronunciation."--Dict., under A. If diversity in this matter is so perplexing, what shall we say to those who are attempting innovations without assigning reasons, or even pretending authority? and if a knowledge of these names is the basis of a just pronunciation, what shall we think of him who will take no pains to ascertain how he ought to speak and write them? He who pretends to teach the proper fashion of speaking and writing, cannot deal honestly, if ever he silently prefer a suggested improvement, to any established and undisturbed usage of the language; for, in grammar, no individual authority can be a counterpoise to general custom. The best usage can never be that which is little known, nor can it be well ascertained and taught by him who knows little. Inquisitive minds are ever curious to learn the nature, origin, and causes of things; and that instruction is the most useful, which is best calculated to gratify this rational curiosity. This is my apology for dwelling so long upon the present topic.
OBS. 7.--The names originally given to the letters were not mere notations of sound, intended solely to express or make known the powers of the several characters then in use; nor ought even the modern names of our present letters, though formed with special reference to their sounds, to be considered such. Expressions of mere sound, such as the notations in a pronouncing dictionary, having no reference to what is meant by the sound, do not constitute words at all; because they are not those acknowledged signs to which a meaning has been attached, and are consequently without that significance which is an essential property of words. But, in every language, there must be a series of sounds by which the alphabetical characters are commonly known in speech; and which, as they are the acknowledged names of these particular objects, must be entitled to a place among the words of the language. It is a great error to judge otherwise; and a greater to make it a "trifling question" in grammar, whether a given letter shall be called by one name or by an other. Who shall say that Daleth, Delta, and Dee, are not three real words, each equally important in the language to which it properly belongs? Such names have always been in use wherever literature has been cultivated; and as the forms and powers of the letters have been changed by the nations, and have become different in different languages, there has necessarily followed a change of the names. For, whatever inconvenience scholars may find in the diversity which has thence arisen, to name these elements in a set of foreign terms, inconsistent with the genius of the language to be learned, would surely be attended with a tenfold greater. We derived our letters, and their names too, from the Romans; but this is no good reason why the latter should be spelled and pronounced as we suppose they were spelled and pronounced in Rome.
OBS. 8.--The names of the twenty-two letters in Hebrew, are, without dispute, proper words; for they are not only significant of the letters thus named, but have in general, if not in every instance, some other meaning in that language. Thus the mysterious ciphers which the English reader meets with, and wonders over, as he reads the 119th Psalm, may be resolved, according to some of the Hebrew grammars, as follows:--
(
Hebrew characters)(Transliteration from Hebrew: Aleph) Aleph, A, an ox, or a leader; (Hebrew characters)(Transliteration from Hebrew: Beth) Beth, Bee,
house; (Hebrew characters)(Transliteration from Hebrew: Gimel) Gimel, Gee, a camel; (Hebrew characters)(Transliteration from Hebrew: Dalet)
