They who cannot define a letter or a word, may be expected to err in explaining other grammatical terms.

In my opinion, nothing is well written, that can possibly be misunderstood; and if any definition be likely to _suggest_ a wrong idea, this alone is enough to condemn it: nor does it justify the phraseology, to say, that a more reasonable construction can be put upon it.

By Murray and others, the young learner is told, that, "A _vowel_ is an articulate _sound_, that can be perfectly _uttered by itself_;" as if a vowel were nothing but a sound, and that a sort of echo, which can _utter itself_; and next, that, "A _consonant_ is an articulate _sound_, which cannot be perfectly uttered _without the help of_ a vowel." Now, by their own showing, every letter is either a vowel or a consonant; hence, according to these definitions, all the letters are articulate _sounds_.

And, if so, what is a "silent letter ?" It is a _silent articulate sound!_ Again: ask a boy, "What is a _triphthong ?_" He answers in the words of Murray, Weld, Pond, Smith, Adams, Kirkham, Merchant, Ingersoll, Bacon, Alger, Worcester, and others: "A triphthong is the union of three vowels, _pronounced in like manner_: as _eau_ in beau, _iew_ in view." He accurately cites an entire paragraph from his grammar, but does he well conceive how the three vowels in _beau_ or _view_ are "pronounced _in like manner ?_" Again: "A _syllable_ is a _sound_, either simple or _compound_, pronounced by a single impulse of the voice."-- _Murray's Gram._, 8vo, p.
22.

This definition resolves syllables into _sounds_; whereas their true elements are _letters_.