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.,
sect. 5. As for quho, besydes that it differres from quo onelie be
aspiration, and that w, being noe perfect consonant, can not be
aspirated, I appele to al judiciouse eares, to q_uhi_lk Cicero
attributed mikle, quhither the aspiration in quho be not ex imo gutture,
and therfoer not labial.




OF RULES FROM THE LATIN.

Cap. 7. (_sic._)


1. Heer, seeing we borrow mikle from the latin, it is reason that we
either follow them in symbolizing their’s, or deduce from them the
groundes of our orthographie.