this short emission of the voice was the more expressive of what was meant, from the lips being kept wide apart, whilst for the sounding of the u and the v they were allowed to approach, as if thus, from their being composed of two, to indicate a plural number. In writing, this limited meaning of the u was signified by its taking an n after it, as un, which means u, but u when it stands for one. This character n must have even become necessary for showing more clearly on certain occasions when i meant only one as to number; for we must not forget that this character (i) had several other meanings, such as life, motion, &c. But men found other means besides putting an n after a u for showing in writing that the latter character stood only for one, or that it was not to be considered as it usually was. Thus in Greek it was changed from

to the more contracted form of, whilst the Roman character (u) was merely turned upside down (n). Now this knowledge of n leads to several important discoveries, without counting the assistance it will lend in the analysing of words. We now discover the origin of the letter n when bearing this form N. We see it arose from the and the in Greek () having come frequently together for the purpose stated above-that of clearly indicating one-and from their having then coalesced thus,

เ

, and having so become N. We have seen that the n alone has been added to u (un), to show that the latter character then meant one; but from the frequent occurrence of in having this meaning, it is

natural to suppose that, on many occasions, it must have been used instead of a single n. Thus the English word one, when analysed according to its sound (and great attention is to be paid to the pronunciation of words in familiar use) becomes oine, by which we see that to o was added not an n but in; and this accounts for this word being generally pronounced as if written wan; for the primitive sound of oi was, as it is still heard in French, equal to the English syllable wa. But men who have made orthoepy the study of their lives, tell us that the English word one should be pronounced as if written won, and that it is very vulgar to pronounce it wan; but then they never suspected that one is for oin; for they have known just as much about letters as grammarians have known about words. Thus from their having in common with all animals that can see, the power of distinguishing two objects of different forms from one another, they plainly saw that A is not B; and in like manner, from their having in common with animals the power of distinguishing different sounds from one another, they knew that A was not pronounced like B; but notwithstanding all that has been written upon orthoepy, their knowledge of letters never went any farther, either as to form or sound.

We can now, also, see how it happens that a, an, and one, in English, mean one. We have just seen that o took in with it, to show more particularlysince o has other meanings was then meant.

that the number one But o might have also, for

the same purpose, taken a single i, and this it must have done previous to the formation of in: hence a, which is nothing else than oi contracted, has been made to signify one; as, for instance, when we say a book, by which we mean one book (that is, oi book), though we do not write the word one; and of this we may be very certain, by remarking that an has not a meaning different from a, since by both these words we understand precisely the same thing when we say, "Give me a book," and "Give me an apple." Now this being admitted, it must follow, that if an can be shown to be precisely equal to one, a must be equal to one also; since two things exactly equal to one another must be both equal to a third thing, provided either of them be equal to it. Then as we know for we have had many undoubted proofs of it-that a when analysed becomes oi, it must follow that an is for oin, which makes, when oi is sounded as it ought to be that is, as wawan, and this is precisely the same as one, or, as it ought to be written, oin.

Now, too, we can account for the letters n and v being allowed, in different languages, or even in the same language, to have a similar meaning. We know that it arises from these two letters being in reality the same letter, though having a very different sound. Hence English verbs ending in en-as spoken, written, &c.—are, in this termination, precisely the same as those that end in French in eu or u-as teneu, reçeu, or tenu, reçu. Now, also, we can tell how it happens, in French, that these different

syllables, in, im, ain, aim, ein, and eim, are all pronounced in exactly the same manner; and we can also correct a very erroneous opinion, which French orthoepists have entertained respecting these syllables. For the benefit of such persons as know nothing of French pronunciation, it will not be here amiss to observe, that some notion of the sound of these syllables may be acquired by its being stated that they are all pronounced like an English a when it is very short-such as in the word hat, and that we should then give to this letter a nasal sound, taking care when we do so, not to allow an n or a g to be heard. I make this latter observation, because most Englishmen tolerably acquainted with French, do believe that both an n and a g are ever heard in French nasal sounds; and though no Frenchman will admit that a g is on those occasions heard, still they all maintain that an n is; but this is a great mistake, as I am now going to prove. The letters n and m have in French, critically speaking, the same sound and the same name they have in English. Thus en, in the English word ENergy, has precisely the same sound en has in the French word Energie; and em in Emerald has also the same sound we give to em in Emeraude. These two syllables en and em, as heard in these instances, are also the names given to n and m in both languages.

Now, though both n and m are here sounded and named very differently, yet the two syllables ain and aim have precisely the same sound. Yet

nobody will say that the two letters (ai), which here precede n, differ in any manner whatever from the two letters (ai) which precede m. Indeed every body in the world will admit that these two letters (ai) are in both these instances as clearly and as evidently equal to each other as one is equal to one. Then, this being granted, it must be allowed that we have here two things equal to one another, and that, consequently, no single thing can be made to have an effect on either of these two

way,

things in a certain without its having an equal effect on the other, if applied to it in precisely the

same manner.

Now as ai differs in sound from ain, it follows that this difference has occurred by this single letter the n having been placed after it; and as ai has exactly the same sound when m is put after it, it follows that ai cannot in both instances have been affected by different things, but by one and the same thing. Then what is this thing? Is it an n? It is not; for the moment we allow the n to be heard, which we may do by placing a silent e after it, thus, aine, the syllable ain has no longer the same sound. Then is ai in ain or in aim made to have the sound it has from its being affected by an m? Not in the least; for when we allow the m to be heard, which we may do by putting a silent e after it, thus, aime, this syllable has no longer the same sound. We may, moreover, remark, that though ain and aim are, whilst thus written, equal in sound, they cease to be any longer so when this same character (e) is