Page:AnEssayTowardsARealCharacterAndAPhilosophicalLanguage.pdf/399

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Chap. XI.

Concerning Natural Grammar.

365

The difference betwixt long and ſhort Vowels, ſhould alwaies be written as well as pronounced, that is, there ſhould be ſome Note or Mark to expreſs when a Vowel is to be uſed long.

Theſe eight Letters before enumerated, I conceive to be ſo many diſtinct ſpecies of Vowels, formally different in reſpect of their Powers; and though I cannot at preſent think of any other beſides, yet having formerly, upon new conſiderations, and ſuggeſtions, ſo often changed my thoughts upon this enquiry, I dare not be dogmatical about it, or aſſert confidently, that there neither are, nor can be any more: For who knows how many other minute differences of Apertion may be now uſed, or hereafter found out, by others, which practiſe and cuſtom may make as eaſie and diſtinguiſhable to them, as theſe are to us? Beſides that the meaſure of Apertion (as is well obſerved) muſt be like continued quantity, diviſibilis in infinitum. Only this (I think) may be ſafely affirmed, that the eſtabliſhment of Vowels here mentioned, will ſerve much better to expreſs all articulate ſounds, than can be done by any of the ordinary Alphabets now in uſe.

I cannot but animadvert here on the by, upon that Argument which Capellus, and others do much inſiſt upon,De Antiquitate Punctorum, l. 1. againſt the Antiquity of the Hebrew Points, or Vowels; Becauſe (ſay they) the making of ſo many, is an injudicious, and irrational invention, for which there is no real ground; there being in nature, and amongſt other Languages, but five diſtinct Vowels, and not fourteen: And therefore they conclude the Invention of them to be new, and not of any great Antiquity.

To ſpeak freely in this caſe (without interpoſing as to the main ſtate of the Queſtion) This Reaſon doth not ſeem to be of any force. Though the Concluſion they infer ſhould be true, yet this Argument urged for it, is falſe, both as to the Conſequence, and Antecedent. The Imperfections and Defects of any Invention, do rather argue the Antiquity, than the Novelty of it; there being much time and experience required to the perfecting any invention: And it would rather follow, that becauſe they are imperfect, therefore are they more like to be Ancient. But beſides, the Hebrew Vowels will upon conſideration, be found to be a contrivance full of more than ordinary Accurateneſs, founded upon the Philoſophy of Articulate ſounds, and may without any force be applied to the number here eſtabliſhed: Excepting the French (u).

ɑ $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	Long אָ	a $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	Long אַ	e $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	Long אֶ	ɩ $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	Long אֵ
	Short אֳ		Short אֲ		Short אֱ		Short אִ
o $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	Long ו	ȣ $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	Long וּ	ỿ $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	Long
	Short א		Short		Short אֻ

And though there be no diſtinct Character for ȣ ſhort, and ỿ long, perhaps that Language as well as the Engliſh ſeldom uſing ſuch diſtinction in thoſe ſounds; yet is (וּ) ſometimes in that Language uſed in ſtead of a ſhort Vowel, and (אֻ) for a long Vowel.

The uſe of Scheva in the Hebrew, is to direct the joyning of ſuch Conſonants together, as would otherwiſe be of very difficult, pronunciation, and not eaſily unite, as in the words לְמוד and מְלְוך which

ſhould