could not expect a change into (e), and the sound was most probably (e): not (ii), for then we should be likely to find such forms as ic lufigeó, to cydanneó (or with -d), and so on; but none such, I believe, ever occur. But would not this argument prove that the A.S. he and me were short, (he) and (me)? They may have been so. 130 Me, he, thee, The forms mec and mech which occur in Cadwe, ye, in Anglo with (e); in both also with (ii). Saxon with (e); mon may have had a short vowel like the in Early English Icelandic mik, M.G. mik, Da. and Swed. mig, and Ger. mich; and the final guttural being lost, the short (e) would remain. And just as Mr. Ellis believes that many (e) words-these very words for example—have in course of time assumed an (ii), and as beyond doubt very many have done so, these words may have undergone such a change between the ages of Cædmon and Chaucer. It is in fact exactly the same change as all Greek words with ʼn have undergone in the process of itacizing. And yet there is no reason why older forms may not still have survived in occasional use. And so I have no difficulty in understanding the exceptional rhyme in C. T. 673, 4, where it will be observed that there is no ictus on the me That streight was comen fro the court of Rome (ruu'me) Or (ruu'me) (tuu'me): or this may have been an imperfect And as me was apocopated, so were he, which has lost a finals or r as in the M.G. is, Lat. is, Ger. er; thee, which is pik in Icel., thuk in Moso-Gothic, dich in Ger.; we, which is vèr in Icel., weis in M.G., wir in Ger.; and a final r or s * Mr. Furnivall writes ff: erroneously, I venture to think. The Gothic capital having a double downstroke looks like the double letter. Why should ful at the beginning of a line have two ƒs, and never otherwise? appears at the end of the Icel., M.G., and Ger. equivalents for ye. All of these may therefore have been (he), (dhe), (we), (Je). Suppose it so, yet all of these had before Chaucer's time submitted to the change of vowel which Mr. Ellis supposes to have occurred some centuries later. Yet not to the utter exclusion of older forms. So Chaucer rhymes sothe with to the, that is (suu'the) (tuu'dhe) or (suu'the) (tuu dhe), or the rhyme may have been imperfect; and elsewhere swithe with hy the; but there is no ictus on the the in either of these; and the use of 'a for he, as in the phrase quoth 'a, is familiar not only in the mouth of Mrs. Quickly, but in modern provincial English. So (dhe) for thee,* (me) for me. And probably other such forms are in use. But while admitting that these pronouns may have been so sounded, the accented forms me and pé which occur in Cadmon (if Thorpe's edition may be trusted) point to a different conclusion.† Perhaps a thousand years ago as at present both forms existed side by side. 131 Y probably reMany arguments-such for instance as that presented (y). which I have used on dyde, § 53,-based on derivations of words and forms might be adduced to show that y in early A.S. was akin to (u) and was probably (y), and ý was probably (yy); while in course of time the (yy) changed into (ii)—as also in both Icelandic and Greekand finally even within the A.S. period, i and y came to be used indifferently. This was evidently the case, at least in part, even when those MSS. of Gregory's Pastoral Care * Th' Song of Solamun (Cornw.) has, “When I shud find the outside, I wud kiss tha;" and Mr. Baird gives us the following: 'Stay ma way vlaggins, komfirt ma way happles." The Zong of Zolamin. "Here Rabin Vinch whose haid ad zunk Look up an zeth-Bit wadd'n ha drunk?" Nathan Hogg's Letters, p. 57. "Deer Jan, yu hant niver zeed zawjers to drull, Ibid. p. 44. + Cædmon has íc also, whence our I (əi); while (ik) was probably the original of the later (itsh) and the modern Somersetshire (tshu). H were written which Mr. Sweet is now editing for the E.E.T. Society; for many words are there spelt with y, in both MSS., which have no affinities to words with a radical o or u. 132 Short O. 133 To the short both of A.S. and of Chaucer Mr. Ellis assigns the sound of (o); and as I see from the top of p. 226 that this (o) is the o of cross and gone,* I am happy to be able to assent to his conclusion. He seems to me also to have proved his point as to short u as being commonly the symbol of (u) or (u). But of this more anon. The sound of the long u as (Ju) is now commonly regarded as distinctively English, and this sound I believe, on the evidence of almost uniform tradition, to have been familiar in a small class of English words, though written otherwise than with the simple u; as in treowe, getrywe, bleó, niwe, new, heaw, iw, iwh, euwa, meu, Lawes, &c. The quasi-diph written, words. found But it is exclusively in words of French derithongal u, so vation that the simple u-the written symbol only in French-now has this sound of (Ju), except only pure, mule, and cucumber; the first two of which being also French words may easily have adopted a French sound as more fashionable, and in some such way the exceptional cucumber may probably be accounted for. Now the French sound of u is (y); and French pronunciation is * Distinguishing it from the o of on and odd, which he writes (ɔ). But in fact there is no such difference between gone and on, when the latter is used adverbially ("Pray go on"), though when on is a preposition, we do cut the sound a little shorter: that is all. Indeed sometimes gone is made quite as short as ever on is. In "He's gone on," is not the gone the shorter of the two? And as to odd, the vowel is still the same, except that it is necessarily sharpened by the d, as all vowels are when followed in a close syllable by an explosive mute. + There is, I think, ample proof producible from various writers from Palsgrave to Cooper that many words which we now sound with the simple (uu), such as true, blue, rude, rule, flute, drew, dew, had formerly the quasi-diphthongal sound, as (trjuu), (bljun), &c. Mr. Ellis writes (iu) or (iuu), yet he makes the pronoun you (Juu). Is this an oversight? Or does he really think educated Englishmen pronounce you and u-nion at all differently? § 134] sound. LONG 'U.' 99 unchanging, French tradition trustworthy; therefore u was (y) two, three, four, centuries ago; therefore also our (Ju) is a modern corruption: so Mr. Ellis seems to reason. 134 The French u But with all deference I think we have had formerly a abundant evidence that the French and Scots diphthongal formerly sounded u as a diphthong, and that we have preserved the true sound. Baret, 1573-I quote from Mr. Ellis-speaks of the Scottish u as "rather a diphthong than a vowel, being compounded of our English e and u" (p. 168). Somewhat earlier, Hart, 1569, describing the Scottish sound of gud and the French fust (i.e. fût), says expressly, "you shal find the sound of the diphthong iu,* keping both the i and the u in their proper vertu (p. 796). He also implies (ibid.) that the pronoun you has the same sound, when he asks: "What difference find you betwixt the pronoun you and u in gud and fust?" Smith, 1568, says the French u "per se" was sounded like the English yew (p. 166). Salesbury, 1547, writes some of these words with uw, which, as I have elsewhere observed (see § 5), every Welshman pronounces like, or as nearly as possible like, our you (Juu). Then again, for I admit that sometimes and to a certain extent "the orthography shows the sound," the prevailing orthography of many of these English words has been in every age with a digraph or other compound symbol, from iw in A.S. to ew now-a-days (see p. 98 supra), including Palsgrave's complicated evu, and * In his new orthography he writes use (noun), use (vb.), abuse, you, rude, as ius, iuz, abiuz, iu, ruid. † An instructive passage from Hart's book is the following: "Now to come to the u. I sayde the French, Spanish, and Brutes, I maye adde the Scottish, doe abuse it with vs in sounde, and for onsonant, except the Brutes as is sayd: the French doe neuer sound it right, but usurp ou for it, the Spanyard doth often vse it right as we doe, but often also abuse it with vs: the French and the Scottish in the sound of a diphthong: which keeping the vowels in their due sounds, commeth of i, and u, (or verie neare it) is made and put togither under one breath, confounding the sounds of i, and u, togither." These words or very near it" fully warrant the conclusion that the French and Scottish "abuse " was to make their quasi-diphthongal u (Jyy), while the English "abuse" was to sound u as (Juu). This passage has, I believe, been overlooked by Mr. Ellis. 66 66 Bullokar's ey, eu, and ew; and even words of French derivation are often written with such combinations, as vertuwes, &c., in Chaucer. 135 This quasi diphthong was com posed of the same elements as our If we accept this mass of direct and positive. evidence for a diphthongal sound as represented by the symbol u in French and in Scottish, and in many English words, the question arises, of what elements is this diphthong compounded? Salesbury, as I contend, gives a clear answer. And Hart distinctly affirms the antiquity and authority of "the Italian and high Dutch and Welshe pronounciation of their letters” in opposition to "our errors" (Pref. p. 5); as elsewhere he writes: "To perswade you the better that their auncient sounds are as I have sayde, I report me to all Musitians of what nations soeuer they be, for a, e, i, and o: and for u also, except the French, Scottish, and Brutes [i.e. Welsh] as is sayd." What can be clearer than that the i and u, which according to Hart make up the diphthong in question, are to be sounded as the Italians and Germans and all musicians sound them, viz. as (i) or (ii), and (u) or (uu)? Examples from Hart are teeth and meet, instruments and the French ou. And surely these sounds when compounded yield the diphthong which we now hear in use and abuse. Yet, strange to say, Mr. Ellis cites Hart as a witness to the sound of u as the non-diphthongal (y)! But again, Hart, after describing the five vowels, adds: "And holding the top of your finger between your teeth, you shall the more sensiblye feele that they are so made with your sayd instrumentes." Can Mr. Ellis perform the feat of sounding (y) with his finger between his teeth? I have heard a member of our Society make the attempt, and he satisfied his own ears, but by no means mine. In fact (aa) (ee) (ii) (oo) and (iuu) can be easily sounded just as Hart suggests: (yy) cannot possibly be so sounded, and this test effectually excludes it from Hart's list of English vowels. I find too that Mr. Ellis believes, as I do, you to have been pronounced even in Chaucer's time just as we now sound it—(Ju) or (Juu), (p. 719, ll. 720 and 728). But Hart |