and by Schröer1 in their respective dictionaries. Murray says: These remarks by Murray and by Schröer go far toward First, since speech physiology plays so important a part in any possible explanation, it is most important clearly to understand the phonetic nature of the h- sound. h may be defined as a rubbing sound produced by the air passing through the glottis when the vocal chords are only partially approximated, as distinguished from the position for voice in which the vocal chords are so approximated as to be set in vibration by the passage of the breath. Sievers distinguishes between three principal ways of beginning a vowel. By the first the 1 Schröer. C. F. Grieb's Dictionary. English-German. 10th ed. rev. vocal chords are drawn back into the position for voice, the expiration not beginning until after the chords are in position. By the second the vocal chords are drawn firmly together forming a barrier, so that the voice can sound only after, by a special impulse, it has broken through this barrier. By the third the expiration begins with the vocal chords still apart. If there is already a decided expiration before the vocal chords are in the position for voice, there is aspiration, represented in writing by h-. If, on the other hand, the first real impulse of breath comes after the vocal chords are in voice position, there is still an aspiration, but light and imperceptible. This light aspiration, which has by some been identified with the Greek 'spiritus lenis', according to Sweet and Ellis characterizes the ordinary pronunciation of an English initial vowel. In ordinary pronunciation this aspiration is hardly appreciable. In case, however, of emphasis and especially in singing, this aspiration is intensified and becomes perceptible. In fact in case of emphasis a perceptible aspiration can hardly be avoided without conscious effort. This fact it is that Schröer has in mind in the above quoted remark if I rightly understand him. We may correctly say, then, that in English, as a rule, all initial vowels have more or less aspiration, and that in case of emphasis, this aspiration becomes noticeable, favoring the development of an h-. Just as stress favors the development of an audible aspiration, so lack of stress favors loss of aspiration, an audible aspiration requiring more breath than is present in unstressed utterance. This fact is illustrated in modern English by the use of a, an; a before consonant, an before vowels to avoid hiatus. Before h- at the beginning of a stressed syllable a is used; before h-, however, at the beginning of an unstressed syllable, an is used, indicating that the aspiration in the unaccented syllable is weak. e. g., a Hebrew, but an Hebraic custom: a hat, but an hiatus. Emphasis then influences aspiration. What has just been said suggests another influence, that is to say, hiatus. h- is used as an hiatus stop, especially between two like vowels. Physiologically this use of h is to be explained through the difficulty in rapid speech entirely to cut off the stream of breath between two vowels so as to give the second a distinct pronunciation. Accordingly the stream is only partially shut off and the vocal chords which are only partially drawn apart, are stirred by the breath producing aspiration. e. g., Cana(h)an Gen. and Ex. If however, the vowels are distinct in quality, there is not the same necessity, for the purpose of distinctness, to stop the pronunciation between the two vowels, and the vocal chords do not cease to trill, the hiatus being filled by 'glide vowels'. e. g., hiatus. Thus too is probably to be explained the loss of h between two vowels of different quality in OE. e. g., the spirant h in swehur, toho of the Epinal Glosses becomes in later OE. a simple aspiration and is lost in sweor tó. It must further be noted that the mode of beginning a vowel preceded by a consonant is quite different from that of beginning an initial vowel. An initial vowel in English, according to Sweet and Ellis, is pronounced in the last of the three ways distinguished by Sievers, that is, with a slight aspiration, 'spiritus lenis'. After a consonant, on the other hand, a vowel is pronounced in the first of the three ways distinguished above, that is to say, without aspiration, hence the loss of h in such OE. words as mearas < *marhos, Ohtere < Oht-*here; further in consequence of this change in the division into syllables and of the ever increasing tendency in the development of English, to concentrate the emphasis on one significant syllable, the loss of h in compound words like pusund, licuma. The same principle explains the loss of h- when in consequence of encliticism or procliticism the final consonant of a preceding word comes to be pronounced with the vowel to which h- belongs. Thus are to be explained the loss of h- in the pronouns; hit, him etc. in Gen. Ex. heldim, madim, kiddit, and such expressions as atom, for at hom, frequent in ME. h- as we have seen represents a simple aspiration. This aspiration is the Teutonic representative of IE. k, for the most part, and, in the words of Murray, has developed "through the stages of guttural aspirate (kh), and guttural spirant (x)". It is probably still as a spirant that the h is preserved in the early OE. forms, swehur, toha, mentioned above. Before consonants h is preserved down to ME. times in hl; hn, hr and hw. In the first three combinations the aspiration begins to be dropped in late OE. and in the course of the ME. period is completely lost, clinging most tenaciously in the South of England. The history of hu- is more complicated. Throughout the OE. period there is but one written form, hw-. In ME., however, confusion sets in. The various writings occurring are w-, uw-, hu-, hw-, wh- and qu-. The first two writings, w-, and uw- represent without doubt a loss of aspiration; the third and fourth, hu, hw, seem to indicate retention of aspiration; the writing wh- is ambiguous, in later ME. having become the standard spelling and being used irrespective of differences of pronunciation; the last writing quis for the most part confined to the Northern district, (a striking exception being the EMI. (?) Genesis and Exodus) and seems to represent a return to the original mute character. The pronunciation in the South and in part, at least, of the Midland seems to have been without aspiration. If we narrow our attention to the first volume of Morris and Skeat's "Selections" we see that the usual writing in Southern and Midland English is either w-, uw-, or the ambiguous wh-. e. g.; zewer, wam, wat, I. Homilies; Ware-se, II. Pet. Chron.; uwylche, whilche, wulc, but hwa, hwilc III., Homilies; wat. IV., Homilies; iwhille V, Orm; what, wulche VI., Lay. A.; wan, woche, Lay. B; hwon, VII, Sawles Warde; hwet, VIII, Jul. A, B; hwose, IX, Ancr. Riw.; hwer-wid, X, Woh. of Ure Lauerd; hwule, XI. God Ureisun; wilc, XII. Best.; wer, XIII. Kent. Sermons; hwuch, XIV. Prov. of Alf.; huanne, XV. Gen. and Ex.; wo, wi, hwi, XVI. Owl and Night; hwile, hwon, XVII. Moral Ode; hwan, wo-so, XVIII. Hav.; whannes, XIX, K. Horn. When the forms w- and hw- occur in the same text we must assume that the aspiration has been lost, since the scribe would hardly depart from the traditional spelling unless to indicate a change in pronunciation. Striking evidence in favor of this assumption is supplied by the third selection of Homilies where both hw- and w- occur but where the occasional writing uw- proves beyond a doubt that the aspiration had been lost. The pronunciation in VII, VIII, IX, and XIV, is less certain, but it is not impossible that the spelling hw- is simply a traditional one, these works appearing in a region where the classic WS. tradition must have been particularly strong. In the texts represented in Morris and Skeat's second volume there is less evidence, the writing wh- being tolerably general. In Rob. of Glouc., however, and in Wm. of Shoreh. the regular writing is w. In Northern and Scottish qu- is the favored spelling although Rich. Rolle of Hamp. and L. Minot use wh-. That the aspiration still survives in parts of England we must assume from the aspiration which still exists in modern English. Where the dialectal line in ME. between w- with and w- without aspiration lay, it is impossible to determine accurately. We may safely, however, characterize the pronunciation without aspiration as southern rather than northern. In ME., then, the aspiration in the combinations hl-, hn-, hr- had been lost almost universally, and in hw- in southern England over a territory hard to define. One naturally looks for something analogous in the case of h- before vowel. Words of OF. origin may be dismissed with brief mention. In late Latin the h was no longer pronounced. Consequently the only ME. words of OF. origin that can have had the initial aspiration are those of origin other than Latin, and the happearing in many Romanic ME. words is either a traditional writing retained in OF. or a ME. restoration after the influence of the original Latin spelling. The h-, then, of Romanic words, so far as they spring from the Latin, has no historical claim to pronunciation and introduces uncertainty and confusion as to the meaning of h- in native words, encouraging the preservation of the traditional spelling and the writing of h where it is not pronounced. As regards h before vowel in native words, in the most ME. texts the writing is regular, etymological. In these texts the traditional spelling is paramount, and it is impossible to determine how far the aspiration has been preserved in pronunciation. In many texts, on the other hand, there are numerous instances of non-etymological presence or absence of h-. But even in these texts, the spelling as regards h- is by no means strictly phonetic. There is always a tendency to adopt a uniform spelling for a word, irrespective of position and accent. For example, MS. B of Layamon regularly has h- with all forms of the pres. indic. of the verb be. e. g.; ham, hart, his. Again in both MSS. of Rob. of Glouc. represented in the "Selections" the h- of the possessive his is regularly lost and in one MS. the forms of the verb have are regularly 1 |