He invited us to denner. At table my antagonist, to bring the question
on foot ama_n_gs his awn condisciples, began that I was becum an
heretik, and the doctour spering how, ansuered that I denyed quho to be
spelled with a w, but with qu. Be quhat reason? quod the D_octour_.
Here, I beginni_n_g to lay my gru_n_des of labial, dental, and guttural
soundes and symboles, he snapped me on this hand and he on that, that
the d_octour_ had mikle a doe to win me room for a syllogisme. Then
(said I) a labial letter can not symboliz a guttural syllab. But w is a
labial letter, quho a guttural sound. And therfoer w can not symboliz
quho, nor noe syllab of that nature. Here the d_octour_ staying them
again (for al barked at ones), the proposition, said he, I understand;
the assumption is Scottish, and the conclusion false. Quherat al
laughed, as if I had bene dryven from al replye, and I fretted to see a
frivolouse jest goe for a solid ansuer. My proposition is grounded on
the 7 sectio of this same cap., q_uhi_lk noe man, I trow, can denye that
ever suked the paepes of reason. And soe the question must rest on the
assumption quhither w be a labial letter and quho a guttural syllab. As
for w, let the exemples of wil, wel, wyne, juge quhilk are sounded
befoer the voual with a mint of the lippes, as is said the same cap.
Pages:
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47