DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.20134#0174
142
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE METHOD EMPLOYED.
from India, we passed through Vienna.1 As a rule, however, the modern alphabets as
well as the ancient oriental alphabets offer tolerably accurate distinctions of sound.
The differences between sound and spelling we find sometimes to be caused by the
non-consideration of such modifications as are, in themselves, the physiological con-
sequence of the combination of certain letters. In other cases we find that in words
transferred from a foreign language the pronunciation has lost in correctness, whilst
in spelling the original detailed distinctions have been retained.
In modern European languages (Italian excepted) the spelling not unfrequently
shows a connection with the etymology, sometimes to a degree which makes the un-
expected pronunciation an object of material difficulty to the foreigner in learning the
respective languages. The historical development from parts originally widely differing,
as in English, often exercises a great influence on increasing the difference between
writing and reading; though not without following certain laws in connection with the
origin of the different parts of the language.
In the ancient European languages, particularly at the period when writing was
subordinate to speech, there was a far greater accordance between sound and spelling.
The Greek transcription is remarkably well defined in many modifications. The rule
that media is combined with media, tenuis with tenuis,2 aspirata with aspirata, and
that the succeeding consonant changes the quality of the preceding one, is quite in
accordance with what we really observe, if we use the phonetic tube and listen to
the modifications as actually spoken, provided no arbitrary irregularities are produced,
as is easily the case, if the succession of the consonants is interrupted by a kind of
diaeresis.
1 As general works on this subject I mention for reference: Kempelen, Mechanismus der mensclilichen Sprache,
Wien, 1791; Liskovius, Theorie der Stimme, Leipzig, 1814; Hupeeld, Ueber Sprachlaute in Jahn's Phil. Jahrb. IX.,
1829: Stkodtmann, Anat. Vorhalle zur Phys. der Stimme und der Sprachlaute, Altona, 1837; Bindseil, Abh. zur
allg. vergl. Sprachlehre, I. Physiologie der Stimm- und Sprachlaute, Hamb. 1838; Joh. Muller, Handbook of Physio-
logy. 1840. German edition, Vol. II., p. 180, &c.
■ Also in German we say "er lepte" though we write "er lebte" (he lived), &c.
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE METHOD EMPLOYED.
from India, we passed through Vienna.1 As a rule, however, the modern alphabets as
well as the ancient oriental alphabets offer tolerably accurate distinctions of sound.
The differences between sound and spelling we find sometimes to be caused by the
non-consideration of such modifications as are, in themselves, the physiological con-
sequence of the combination of certain letters. In other cases we find that in words
transferred from a foreign language the pronunciation has lost in correctness, whilst
in spelling the original detailed distinctions have been retained.
In modern European languages (Italian excepted) the spelling not unfrequently
shows a connection with the etymology, sometimes to a degree which makes the un-
expected pronunciation an object of material difficulty to the foreigner in learning the
respective languages. The historical development from parts originally widely differing,
as in English, often exercises a great influence on increasing the difference between
writing and reading; though not without following certain laws in connection with the
origin of the different parts of the language.
In the ancient European languages, particularly at the period when writing was
subordinate to speech, there was a far greater accordance between sound and spelling.
The Greek transcription is remarkably well defined in many modifications. The rule
that media is combined with media, tenuis with tenuis,2 aspirata with aspirata, and
that the succeeding consonant changes the quality of the preceding one, is quite in
accordance with what we really observe, if we use the phonetic tube and listen to
the modifications as actually spoken, provided no arbitrary irregularities are produced,
as is easily the case, if the succession of the consonants is interrupted by a kind of
diaeresis.
1 As general works on this subject I mention for reference: Kempelen, Mechanismus der mensclilichen Sprache,
Wien, 1791; Liskovius, Theorie der Stimme, Leipzig, 1814; Hupeeld, Ueber Sprachlaute in Jahn's Phil. Jahrb. IX.,
1829: Stkodtmann, Anat. Vorhalle zur Phys. der Stimme und der Sprachlaute, Altona, 1837; Bindseil, Abh. zur
allg. vergl. Sprachlehre, I. Physiologie der Stimm- und Sprachlaute, Hamb. 1838; Joh. Muller, Handbook of Physio-
logy. 1840. German edition, Vol. II., p. 180, &c.
■ Also in German we say "er lepte" though we write "er lebte" (he lived), &c.