OBSERVATIONS.

OBS. 1.—­With the learning and application of these names, our literary education begins; with a continual rehearsal of them in spelling, it is for a long time carried on; nor can we ever dispense with them, but by substituting others, or by ceasing to mention the things thus named.  What is obviously indispensable, needs no proof of its importance.  But I know not whether it has ever been noticed, that these names, like those of the days of the week, are worthy of particular distinction, for their own nature.  They are words of a very peculiar kind, being nouns that are at once both proper and common.  For, in respect to rank, character, and design, each letter is a thing strictly individual and identical—­that is, it is ever one and the same; yet, in an other respect, it is a comprehensive sort, embracing individuals both various and numberless.  Thus every B is a b, make it as you will; and can be nothing else than that same letter b, though you make it in a thousand different fashions, and multiply it after each pattern innumerably.  Here, then, we see individuality combined at once with great diversity, and infinite multiplicity; and it is to this combination, that letters owe their wonderful power of transmitting thought.  Their names, therefore, should always be written with capitals, as proper nouns, at least in the singular number; and should form the plural regularly, as ordinary appellatives.  Thus:  (if we adopt the names now most generally used in English schools:) A, Aes; Bee, Bees; Cee, Cees; Dee, Dees; E, Ees; Eff, Effs; Gee, Gees; Aitch, Aitches; I, Ies; Jay, Jays; Kay, Kays; Ell, Ells; Em, Ems; En, Ens; O, Oes; Pee, Pees; Kue, Kues; Ar, Ars; Ess, Esses; Tee, Tees; U, Ues; Vee, Vees; Double-u, Double-ues; Ex, Exes; Wy, Wies; Zee, Zees.

OBS. 2.—­The names of the letters, as expressed in the modern languages, are mostly framed with reference to their powers, or sounds.  Yet is there in English no letter of which the name is always identical with its power:  for A, E, I, O, and U, are the only letters which can name themselves, and all these have other sounds than those which their names express.  The simple powers of the other letters are so manifestly insufficient to form any name, and so palpable is the difference between the nature and the name of each, that did we not know how education has been trifled with, it would be hard to believe even Murray, when he says, “They are frequently confounded by writers on grammar.  Observations and reasonings on the name, are often applied to explain the nature of a consonant; and by this means the student is led into error and perplexity.”—­L.  Murray’s Gram., 8vo, p. 8.  The confounding of names with the things for which they stand, implies, unquestionably, great carelessness in the use of speech, and great indistinctness of apprehension in respect