Chapter 13

[G],page82.I shall not enter into a particular discussion of the question, whetherhis a mark ofsoundor not. By its convertibility withkandcin the ancient languages, we have reason to conclude that it once had a guttural sound, and the pronunciation of some northern nations of Europe confirms the opinion. But it appears in modern English to have no sound by itself; it however affects, in some degree, the sound of the vowel to which it is prefixed, by previously opening the mouth wider than is necessary to articulate the vowel. Thus inhandwe hear no sound but ofand; yet in pronouncinghandwe open the throat wider, and emit the breath with violence before we begin the sound, which makes an obvious difference in pronouncing the wordsandandhand; and perhaps this distinction is perceiveable as far as the words can be heard. The same may be said ofthinthink.The instance of a man who lost a dinner by telling his servant toeatit, when he meant to tell him toheatit, affords a useful lesson to those who are disposed to treat the letterhwith too much neglect.[H],page85.Thatishort is the same sound aseewe have the authority of one of the first and best English grammarians. "Hunc sonum, (ee) quoties correptus est, Angli peribreve, exprimunt; quum vero producitur, scribunt ut plurimum peree, non raro tamen perie; vel etiam perea; ut,sit,fit,feel,fill,fiend,near," &c.—— Wallis, Gram. Sect. 2.Ash confirms the opinion. "Eehas one sound, as insee,thee, and coincides with the narrowi."—Gram. Diss. pref. to his Dic.Kenrick's arrangement of thelongandshortvowels is exactly similar to mine.Sheridan entertains a different opinion respectingthe shortiande. He considers them as distinct vowels, incapable of prolongation. Rhet. Gram. pref. to his Dict. page 16. In this he differs from most other writers upon the subject, who have attended to the philosophical distinctions of sounds. This appears to be an inaccuracy in his distribution of the vowels; altho it cannot affect the practice of speaking.The sound of the Romani, it is agreed on all hands, was that of the Englishee. It retains that sound still in the Italian, French and Spanish, which are immediately derived from the Latin. It had its long and short sounds in Latin; as invidi,homini; the first pronouncedveedee, and the lasthomini, as we now pronounceiinfill. The French preserve the long sound, and lay it down as a general rule, thatiis pronounced like the Englishee: Yet in discourse they actually shorten the sound, and insentimens,ressentiment, &c. pronounceias we do incivil. In the Frenchmotif,iis long likeee; in this and all similar terminations, we shorten the sound,motiv. Mr. Sheridan, in this particular, is evidently singular and probably wrong.Thateinletis but the short abrupt sound ofainlate, is not so clear; but to me is evident. There is little or no difference in the position of the organs with which we pronounce both vowels. The Roman, Italian, Spanish and Frencheis considered as the representative of the Englishainlate,made; and yet in common discourse, it is shortened into the sound ofeinlet,men: Witness,legere,avec,emmené,bueno,entendido: We observe the same in English; forsaid,any,many, which are pronouncedsed,enny,menny, exhibit the same vowel or shorta; theebeing the abrupt sound ofaiinsaid. I must therefore differ from Mr. Sheridan, and still believe thateinlet, andiinfit, are capable of prolongation. Children, when, instead of a comparison, they would express the superlative by an emphasis, sayleetleinstead oflittle; which is a mere prolongation ofishort.Mr. Sheridan, in my opinion, is guilty of an error of greater consequence, in marking the two qualities of sound inbardandbadwith the same figure. He distinguishes the different qualities of sound inpoolandfull, and innotandnaught; and why he should omit the distinction of sound inbardandbad,askandman, is to me inconceiveable. The last distinction is as obvious as the others which he has marked; and the defect of his scheme must lead a foreigner into mistakes. His scheme is singular; Kenrick, Perry and Burn all make a distinction in the time of pronouncingainaskandat; and even Scott, who copies Sheridan's pronunciation almost implicitly, still makes the same distinction.[I],page87."Non multum differt hic sonus (w) ab Anglorumoo; Gallorumou, Germanorumupingui, rapidissime pronunciatis; adeoque a quibusdam pro vocali fuit habita,cum tamen revera consona sit, quanquam ipsi vocali admodum sit affinis."——Wallis."It is indeed on the celerity of utterance, that all the difference, in many cases, between consonants and vowels depends; as inwandy, in English; which, being discharged quickly, perform the office of consonants, in giving form only to the succeeding vowel; but when protracted or drawled out, acquire a tone and become the vocalooandee."——Kenrick, Rhet. Gram. p. 4.Perry has adopted this opinion and contends warmly thatwis a consonant. Ifwis a vowel, says he, thenwool,wolf, will be pronouncedoo-ool,oo-olf, orool,olf. I am sensible that in the beginning of words,whas not precisely the power ofoo; but it is not clear from this fact that it has the properties of a consonant. Place a vowel beforew, as,ow, and there is nocompression of the lips or other parts of the mouth, to obstruct the sound, as there is produced byborm, inebandem.In opposition to the authorities mentioned, Sheridan rankswamong the vowels, and supposes it to form dipthongs with the other vowels, as inwell,will, &c. It appears to me to be a letter rather of an ambiguous nature, of which we have others in the language.[J],page88.It has been remarked that by old authorsywas often used forg;yeveforgive;foryeteforforget.—— Chaucer, Knight's Tale, 1884.I have observed that some foreigners pronounceyear, in the same manner nearly as they doear; andyeastis commonly pronouncedeast. This pronunciation would easily lead a man into the supposition thatyis merelyeeshort. But the pronunciation is vicious.I observe also that Mr. Sheridan says, "yehas the sound ofelong inye; ofalong inyea; ofelong inyear,yean; and ofeshort inyearn,yell, &c." This confirms my opinion, and is a proof that he does not pronounceyat all.Ifyhas the sound ofeinyear, thenehasnosound, or there are in the word,twosounds ofe, which no person will undertake to assert. The dispute however is easily settled. I have learnt by attending to the conversation of well bred Englishmen, that they do not pronounceyat all inyearand many other words. They sayear,e, foryear,ye; and the sound ofe, they erroneously suppose to be that ofy. In America,yhas in these words, the consonant sound it has inyoung; and the English pronunciation must in this instance be faulty.[K],page103."Now the harmony of prose arises from the same principle with that which constitutes the harmony of verse; viz. numbers; or such a disposition of the words as throws them into just metrical feet, but very different from those which constitute any species of verse."—Essay on the Power of Numbers, &c. page 4. Introd."A good stile is bothexpressiveandharmonious. The former depends on the happy choice of the words to convey our ideas; the other on the happy choice of numbers in the disposition of the words. The language of some is expressive, but unharmonious; that is, the writer's words strongly convey his sentiments, but the order in which they are placed creates a sound unpleasant to the ear. The stile of others is harmonious but not expressive; where the periods are well turned and the numbers well adapted, but the sense obscure. The former satisfies the mind, but offends the ear; the latter gratifies the ear, but disgusts the mind. A good stile entertains and pleases both," &c—— Ibm. 2d. Part, page 17.The author proceeds to illustrate his doctrines by showing in what the harmony of prose consists. He remarks that the words should in some degree be an echo to the sense, in prose as well as verse.He proceeds—"Every sentence may be conceived as divisible into distinct and separate clauses; every clause, where there is an apparent cessation of the voice, should always end with a generous foot; and all the preceding numbers be so intermixt, that the short ones be duly qualified by the succeeding long ones; reserving the best and most harmonious number for the cadence."To show how much depends on the proper arrangement of words, he quotes the following instance—"A divine, speaking of the Trinity, hath this expression—It is a mystery which we firmly believe the truth of, and humbly adore the depth of." Here the language is expressive, but not harmonious; not merely because the clauses end with the particleof, but because they abound with feeble numbers,PyrrhicsandTrochees. Let us change the disposition of the feet—"It is a mystery, the truth of which we firmly believe, and the depths of which we humbly adore." The difference in the melody is very perceiveable. The force and music of the last disposition is increased by the Iambics and Anapæsts.The most forceable feet, and those best adapted to sublime and serious subjects, are those which contain the most long syllables, or end in a long syllable; as the Iambic, the Spondee, the Anapæst. The weak feet are those which have the most short syllables or end in a short syllable; as the Pyrrhic, the Trochee, the Tribrach.The want of proper measures, or a mixture of weak and strong syllables, is very remarkable in a passage of the Declaration of Independence. "We must therefore acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind,enemies in war,ĭn pēace,friēnds." The three last syllables form, if any thing, a Bacchic; the first syllable, short, and the two others, long. But in a just pronunciation, the foot is necessarily broken by a pause afterpeace. This interruption, and the two long syllables, render the close of the sentence extremely heavy. The period is concise and expressive, as it stands; but the arrangement might be much more harmonious—"Oŭr ēnĕmĭes ĭn wār; ĭn pēace, oŭr friēnds." Here the measure and melody are perfect; the period closing with three Iambics, preceded by a Pyrrhic.[L],page111.In a Scotch Ballad, calledEdom o Gordon, we find the worddreipsfordrops."—And clear, clear was hir zellow hairWhereon the reid bluiddreips."But it was often speltdrap, agreeable to the pronunciation. See Edward. Rel. An. Poet. 53.The dialect in America is peculiar to the descendants of the Scotch Irish.[M],page111.Mought is the past time or participle of an old Saxon verbmoweormowen,to be able. It answered to theposseof the Romans, and thepouvoirof the French. This verb occurs frequently in Chaucer."But that science is so fer us beforne,Wemowennot, altho we had it sworne,It overtake, it slit away so fast,Itwolus maken beggers at the last."Cant. Tales, l. 16, 148, Bell's edit."Tomowensuch a knight done live or die."——Troil. and Cres. 2. 1594. That is,to be ableto make such a knight live or die."AndmoughtI hope to winne thy love,Ne more his tonge could saye."Sir Cauline, an old Ballad, l. 163."The thought they herd a woman wepe,But her theymoughtnot se."Adam Bell, &c. part 3. l. 2. in Rel. of An. Poet."Somoughtthou now in these refined laysDelight the dainty ears of higher powers.And somoughtthey in their deep scanning skill,Allow and grace our Collen's flowing quill."Spenser, Hobbynall.There seem to have been among our Saxon ancestors two verbs of nearly or exactly the same signification,mayandmight; andmoweandmought. There is some reason to think they were not synonimous; thatmaywas used to expresspossibility, asI may go next week; andmoweto expresspower, asthey mowen go, they are able to go. But it is not certain that such a distinction ever existed. The Germans usemoegen, in the infinitive;mag, in the indic. pres.mæge, in the subj. pres. in the imperfect of the ind.mochte; and in the imp. of the subj.mæchte. The English usemayandmightsolely in their writing; butmoughtis still pronounced in some parts of America.Holpeorholpwas not obsolete when the Bible was last translated, in the reign of king James; for it occurs in several places in that translation. It occurs frequently in old authors."Unkindly they slew him, thatholpthem oft at nede."Skelton El. on Earl of Northum. l. 47.In Virginia it is pronouncedhope. "Shall I hope you, Sir."But we must look among the New England common people for ancient English phrases; for they have been 160 years sequestered in some measure from the world, and their language has not suffered material changes from their first settlement to the present time. Hence most of the phrases, used by Shakespear, Congreve, and other writers who have described English manners and recorded the language of all classes of people, are still heard in the common discourse of the New England yeomanry.The verbbe, in the indicative, present tense, which Lowth observes is almost obsolete in England, is still used after the ancient manner, Ibe, webe, yoube, theybe. The old pluralhousenis still used for houses. The old verbwolfor will, and pronouncedwool, is not yet fallen into disuse. This was the verb principally used in Chaucer's time, and it now lives in the purest branch of the Teutonic, the German.For many years, I had supposed the worddernin the sense ofgreatorsevere, was local in New England. Perhaps it may not now be used any where else; but it was once a common English word. Chaucer uses it in the sense ofsecret,earnest, &c."This clerk was cleped Hende NicholasOfdernelove he could and of solas."Mil. Tale, l. 3200."Ye mosten be fulderneas in this case."Ibm. 3297.The word is in common use in New England and pronounceddarn. It has not however the sense it had formerly; it is now used as an adverb to qualify an adjective, asdarn sweet; denoting a great degree of the quality.The New England people preserve the ancient use ofthereandhereafter a word or sentence, designating theplace where; asthis here,that there. It is called vulgar in English; and indeed the addition ofhereorthereis generally tautological. It is however an ancient practice; and the French retain it in the pure elegant language of their country;ce pays là,celui là,cet homme ici; where we observe this difference only between the French and English idioms, that in French, the adverb follows the noun,that country there,this man here; whereas in English, the adverb precedes the noun,that there country,this here man. This form of speech seems to have been coeval with the primitive Saxon, otherwise it would not have prevailed so generally among the common people.It has been before remarked that the wordaxforaskwas used in England, and even in the royal assent to acts of parliament, down to the reign of Henry VI."And to her husband bad hire for to seyIf that heaxedafter Nicholas."——Chau. Mil. Tale, 3412."Thisaxethhaste and of an hastif thingMen may not preche and maken tarying."Ibm. 3545.This word toaxis still frequent in New England.I no not know whether our American sportsmen use the word,ferret, in the sense of driving animals from their lurking places. But the word is used in some parts of New England, and applied figuratively to many transactions in life. So in Congreve:"Where is this apocryphal elder? I'llferrethim."——Old Bach, act 4, fc. 21.Sometimes, but rarely, we hear the old imperative of the Saxonthafian, now pronouncedthof. But it is generally pronounced as it is written,tho. It is remarked by Horne, thatthofis still frequent among the common people of England.Ginorgynforgivenis still used in America; as Bishop Wilkins remarks, it is in the North of England.Without, in the sense ofunless, is as frequent as any word in the language, and even among the learned. It is commonly accounted inelegant, and writers have lately substitutedunless: But I do not see the propriety of discardingwithout, for its meaning is exactly the same as that ofunless. It is demonstrated that they are both the imperatives of old verbs.Without, isbe out,be away; andunlessisdismiss, orbe apart. Instead of the imperative Chaucer generally uses the participle,withouten,being out.The best writers usewithoutin the sense ofunless."—And if he can't be curedwithoutI suck the poison from his wounds, I'm afraid he won't recover his senses, till I lose mine."——Cong. Love for Love, act 4. sc. 3."'Twere better for him, you had not been his confessor in that affair,withoutyou could have kept his counsel closer."——Cong. Way of the World, act, 3. sc. 7.The best speakers use the word in this manner, in common discourse, and I must think, with propriety.Peekis also used corruptedly forpeep. By a similar change of the last consonant,chirkis used forchirp,to make a cheerful noise. This word is wholly lost, except in New England. It is there used forcomfortably,bravely,cheerful; as when one enquires about a sick person, it is said, he ischirk.Chirpis still used to express the singing of birds, but thechirkof New England is not understood, and therefore derided. Four hundred years ago it was a polite term."and kisseth hire swete, andchirkethas a sparweWith his lippes."——Chaucer, Somp. Tale, 7386.In the following it is used for a disagreeable noise."All full ofchirkingwas that sory place."Knight's Tale, 2006."And al so ful eke ofchirkingsAnd of many other wirkings."House of Fame, 858.Shetforshutis now become vulgar; yet this is the true original orthography and pronunciation. It is from the Saxonscitten, and I believe was always speltshetteorshet, till after Chaucer's time, for he was a correct writer in his age, and always spelt it in that manner."Voideth your man and let him be thereout,Andshetthe dore."——Chau. Yem. Tale, 16, 605."And his maistershettethe dore anon."Ibm. 16, 610.And in a variety of other places. This word is almost universally pronouncedshetamong all classes of people, not only in New England, but in Great Britain and the southern states of America. How the spelling came to be changed, is not known; but it was certainly a corruption.Anforifis seen in most old authors. It remains among the common people, both in England and America. "Anplease your honor;" that is, "ifyour honor please." In New England, the phrases in which it occurs most frequently are, "Let him go,anhe will;" "Go,anyou will;" and others of a similar kind.Becauseandbecasewere used promiscuously by our ancestors.Becaseis found in some ancient writings, tho not so frequently asbecause. In New England, we frequently hearbecaseto this day. It is pronouncedbecaze. It is a compound ofbeandcauseorcase; both of these words with the verbbemake good English; butbecaseis vulgar.The vulgar pronunciation ofsuchissich. This is but a small deviation from the ancient elegant pronunciation, which wasswichorswiche, as the word is spelt in Chaucer. Such is the force of national practice: And altho the country people in New England, sometimes drawl their words in speaking, and, like their brethren, often make false concord, yet their idiom is purely Saxon or English; and in a vast number of instances, they have adhered to the true phrases, where people, who despise their plain manners, have run into error. Thus they say, "a man is goingby," and notgoing past, which is nonsense: They say, "Ipurposeto go," and notproposeto go, which is not good English. They say, "a shipliesin harbor," notlays, which is a modern corruption. They say, "Ihavedone," and never "Iamdone," which is nonsense. They say, "it wasonMonday evening," not "ofa Monday evening," whichis an error. They never use the absurd phrases "expect it was;" and "the ship will sail inallnext week." They never say "he is home," but always, "at home." They use the old phrase, "it is halfaftersix o'clock," which is more correct thanhalf past six. They say, if a person is not in health, he issick. The modern English laugh at them, because the English say a man isill; and confine sick to express the idea of a nausea in the stomach. The English are wrong, and the New England people use the word in its true sense, which extends to all bodily disorders, as it is used by the pure English writers.Illis a contraction ofevil; and denotes a moral disorder. Its application to bodily complaints is a modern practice, and its meaning figurative. So that whatever improprieties may have crept into their practice of speaking, they actually preserve more of the genuin idiom of the English tongue, than many of the modern fine speakers who set up for standards.[N],page120.

[G],page82.

I shall not enter into a particular discussion of the question, whetherhis a mark ofsoundor not. By its convertibility withkandcin the ancient languages, we have reason to conclude that it once had a guttural sound, and the pronunciation of some northern nations of Europe confirms the opinion. But it appears in modern English to have no sound by itself; it however affects, in some degree, the sound of the vowel to which it is prefixed, by previously opening the mouth wider than is necessary to articulate the vowel. Thus inhandwe hear no sound but ofand; yet in pronouncinghandwe open the throat wider, and emit the breath with violence before we begin the sound, which makes an obvious difference in pronouncing the wordsandandhand; and perhaps this distinction is perceiveable as far as the words can be heard. The same may be said ofthinthink.

The instance of a man who lost a dinner by telling his servant toeatit, when he meant to tell him toheatit, affords a useful lesson to those who are disposed to treat the letterhwith too much neglect.

[H],page85.

Thatishort is the same sound aseewe have the authority of one of the first and best English grammarians. "Hunc sonum, (ee) quoties correptus est, Angli peribreve, exprimunt; quum vero producitur, scribunt ut plurimum peree, non raro tamen perie; vel etiam perea; ut,sit,fit,feel,fill,fiend,near," &c.—— Wallis, Gram. Sect. 2.

Ash confirms the opinion. "Eehas one sound, as insee,thee, and coincides with the narrowi."—Gram. Diss. pref. to his Dic.

Kenrick's arrangement of thelongandshortvowels is exactly similar to mine.

Sheridan entertains a different opinion respectingthe shortiande. He considers them as distinct vowels, incapable of prolongation. Rhet. Gram. pref. to his Dict. page 16. In this he differs from most other writers upon the subject, who have attended to the philosophical distinctions of sounds. This appears to be an inaccuracy in his distribution of the vowels; altho it cannot affect the practice of speaking.

The sound of the Romani, it is agreed on all hands, was that of the Englishee. It retains that sound still in the Italian, French and Spanish, which are immediately derived from the Latin. It had its long and short sounds in Latin; as invidi,homini; the first pronouncedveedee, and the lasthomini, as we now pronounceiinfill. The French preserve the long sound, and lay it down as a general rule, thatiis pronounced like the Englishee: Yet in discourse they actually shorten the sound, and insentimens,ressentiment, &c. pronounceias we do incivil. In the Frenchmotif,iis long likeee; in this and all similar terminations, we shorten the sound,motiv. Mr. Sheridan, in this particular, is evidently singular and probably wrong.

Thateinletis but the short abrupt sound ofainlate, is not so clear; but to me is evident. There is little or no difference in the position of the organs with which we pronounce both vowels. The Roman, Italian, Spanish and Frencheis considered as the representative of the Englishainlate,made; and yet in common discourse, it is shortened into the sound ofeinlet,men: Witness,legere,avec,emmené,bueno,entendido: We observe the same in English; forsaid,any,many, which are pronouncedsed,enny,menny, exhibit the same vowel or shorta; theebeing the abrupt sound ofaiinsaid. I must therefore differ from Mr. Sheridan, and still believe thateinlet, andiinfit, are capable of prolongation. Children, when, instead of a comparison, they would express the superlative by an emphasis, sayleetleinstead oflittle; which is a mere prolongation ofishort.

Mr. Sheridan, in my opinion, is guilty of an error of greater consequence, in marking the two qualities of sound inbardandbadwith the same figure. He distinguishes the different qualities of sound inpoolandfull, and innotandnaught; and why he should omit the distinction of sound inbardandbad,askandman, is to me inconceiveable. The last distinction is as obvious as the others which he has marked; and the defect of his scheme must lead a foreigner into mistakes. His scheme is singular; Kenrick, Perry and Burn all make a distinction in the time of pronouncingainaskandat; and even Scott, who copies Sheridan's pronunciation almost implicitly, still makes the same distinction.

[I],page87.

"Non multum differt hic sonus (w) ab Anglorumoo; Gallorumou, Germanorumupingui, rapidissime pronunciatis; adeoque a quibusdam pro vocali fuit habita,cum tamen revera consona sit, quanquam ipsi vocali admodum sit affinis."——Wallis.

"It is indeed on the celerity of utterance, that all the difference, in many cases, between consonants and vowels depends; as inwandy, in English; which, being discharged quickly, perform the office of consonants, in giving form only to the succeeding vowel; but when protracted or drawled out, acquire a tone and become the vocalooandee."——Kenrick, Rhet. Gram. p. 4.

Perry has adopted this opinion and contends warmly thatwis a consonant. Ifwis a vowel, says he, thenwool,wolf, will be pronouncedoo-ool,oo-olf, orool,olf. I am sensible that in the beginning of words,whas not precisely the power ofoo; but it is not clear from this fact that it has the properties of a consonant. Place a vowel beforew, as,ow, and there is nocompression of the lips or other parts of the mouth, to obstruct the sound, as there is produced byborm, inebandem.

In opposition to the authorities mentioned, Sheridan rankswamong the vowels, and supposes it to form dipthongs with the other vowels, as inwell,will, &c. It appears to me to be a letter rather of an ambiguous nature, of which we have others in the language.

[J],page88.

It has been remarked that by old authorsywas often used forg;yeveforgive;foryeteforforget.—— Chaucer, Knight's Tale, 1884.

I have observed that some foreigners pronounceyear, in the same manner nearly as they doear; andyeastis commonly pronouncedeast. This pronunciation would easily lead a man into the supposition thatyis merelyeeshort. But the pronunciation is vicious.

I observe also that Mr. Sheridan says, "yehas the sound ofelong inye; ofalong inyea; ofelong inyear,yean; and ofeshort inyearn,yell, &c." This confirms my opinion, and is a proof that he does not pronounceyat all.

Ifyhas the sound ofeinyear, thenehasnosound, or there are in the word,twosounds ofe, which no person will undertake to assert. The dispute however is easily settled. I have learnt by attending to the conversation of well bred Englishmen, that they do not pronounceyat all inyearand many other words. They sayear,e, foryear,ye; and the sound ofe, they erroneously suppose to be that ofy. In America,yhas in these words, the consonant sound it has inyoung; and the English pronunciation must in this instance be faulty.

[K],page103.

"Now the harmony of prose arises from the same principle with that which constitutes the harmony of verse; viz. numbers; or such a disposition of the words as throws them into just metrical feet, but very different from those which constitute any species of verse."—Essay on the Power of Numbers, &c. page 4. Introd.

"A good stile is bothexpressiveandharmonious. The former depends on the happy choice of the words to convey our ideas; the other on the happy choice of numbers in the disposition of the words. The language of some is expressive, but unharmonious; that is, the writer's words strongly convey his sentiments, but the order in which they are placed creates a sound unpleasant to the ear. The stile of others is harmonious but not expressive; where the periods are well turned and the numbers well adapted, but the sense obscure. The former satisfies the mind, but offends the ear; the latter gratifies the ear, but disgusts the mind. A good stile entertains and pleases both," &c—— Ibm. 2d. Part, page 17.

The author proceeds to illustrate his doctrines by showing in what the harmony of prose consists. He remarks that the words should in some degree be an echo to the sense, in prose as well as verse.

He proceeds—"Every sentence may be conceived as divisible into distinct and separate clauses; every clause, where there is an apparent cessation of the voice, should always end with a generous foot; and all the preceding numbers be so intermixt, that the short ones be duly qualified by the succeeding long ones; reserving the best and most harmonious number for the cadence."

To show how much depends on the proper arrangement of words, he quotes the following instance—"A divine, speaking of the Trinity, hath this expression—It is a mystery which we firmly believe the truth of, and humbly adore the depth of." Here the language is expressive, but not harmonious; not merely because the clauses end with the particleof, but because they abound with feeble numbers,PyrrhicsandTrochees. Let us change the disposition of the feet—"It is a mystery, the truth of which we firmly believe, and the depths of which we humbly adore." The difference in the melody is very perceiveable. The force and music of the last disposition is increased by the Iambics and Anapæsts.

The most forceable feet, and those best adapted to sublime and serious subjects, are those which contain the most long syllables, or end in a long syllable; as the Iambic, the Spondee, the Anapæst. The weak feet are those which have the most short syllables or end in a short syllable; as the Pyrrhic, the Trochee, the Tribrach.

The want of proper measures, or a mixture of weak and strong syllables, is very remarkable in a passage of the Declaration of Independence. "We must therefore acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind,enemies in war,ĭn pēace,friēnds." The three last syllables form, if any thing, a Bacchic; the first syllable, short, and the two others, long. But in a just pronunciation, the foot is necessarily broken by a pause afterpeace. This interruption, and the two long syllables, render the close of the sentence extremely heavy. The period is concise and expressive, as it stands; but the arrangement might be much more harmonious—"Oŭr ēnĕmĭes ĭn wār; ĭn pēace, oŭr friēnds." Here the measure and melody are perfect; the period closing with three Iambics, preceded by a Pyrrhic.

[L],page111.

In a Scotch Ballad, calledEdom o Gordon, we find the worddreipsfordrops.

"—And clear, clear was hir zellow hairWhereon the reid bluiddreips."

But it was often speltdrap, agreeable to the pronunciation. See Edward. Rel. An. Poet. 53.

The dialect in America is peculiar to the descendants of the Scotch Irish.

[M],page111.

Mought is the past time or participle of an old Saxon verbmoweormowen,to be able. It answered to theposseof the Romans, and thepouvoirof the French. This verb occurs frequently in Chaucer.

"But that science is so fer us beforne,Wemowennot, altho we had it sworne,It overtake, it slit away so fast,Itwolus maken beggers at the last."

Cant. Tales, l. 16, 148, Bell's edit.

"Tomowensuch a knight done live or die."——Troil. and Cres. 2. 1594. That is,to be ableto make such a knight live or die.

"AndmoughtI hope to winne thy love,Ne more his tonge could saye."

Sir Cauline, an old Ballad, l. 163.

"The thought they herd a woman wepe,But her theymoughtnot se."

Adam Bell, &c. part 3. l. 2. in Rel. of An. Poet.

"Somoughtthou now in these refined laysDelight the dainty ears of higher powers.And somoughtthey in their deep scanning skill,Allow and grace our Collen's flowing quill."

Spenser, Hobbynall.

There seem to have been among our Saxon ancestors two verbs of nearly or exactly the same signification,mayandmight; andmoweandmought. There is some reason to think they were not synonimous; thatmaywas used to expresspossibility, asI may go next week; andmoweto expresspower, asthey mowen go, they are able to go. But it is not certain that such a distinction ever existed. The Germans usemoegen, in the infinitive;mag, in the indic. pres.mæge, in the subj. pres. in the imperfect of the ind.mochte; and in the imp. of the subj.mæchte. The English usemayandmightsolely in their writing; butmoughtis still pronounced in some parts of America.

Holpeorholpwas not obsolete when the Bible was last translated, in the reign of king James; for it occurs in several places in that translation. It occurs frequently in old authors.

"Unkindly they slew him, thatholpthem oft at nede."

Skelton El. on Earl of Northum. l. 47.

In Virginia it is pronouncedhope. "Shall I hope you, Sir."

But we must look among the New England common people for ancient English phrases; for they have been 160 years sequestered in some measure from the world, and their language has not suffered material changes from their first settlement to the present time. Hence most of the phrases, used by Shakespear, Congreve, and other writers who have described English manners and recorded the language of all classes of people, are still heard in the common discourse of the New England yeomanry.

The verbbe, in the indicative, present tense, which Lowth observes is almost obsolete in England, is still used after the ancient manner, Ibe, webe, yoube, theybe. The old pluralhousenis still used for houses. The old verbwolfor will, and pronouncedwool, is not yet fallen into disuse. This was the verb principally used in Chaucer's time, and it now lives in the purest branch of the Teutonic, the German.

For many years, I had supposed the worddernin the sense ofgreatorsevere, was local in New England. Perhaps it may not now be used any where else; but it was once a common English word. Chaucer uses it in the sense ofsecret,earnest, &c.

"This clerk was cleped Hende NicholasOfdernelove he could and of solas."

Mil. Tale, l. 3200.

"Ye mosten be fulderneas in this case."

Ibm. 3297.

The word is in common use in New England and pronounceddarn. It has not however the sense it had formerly; it is now used as an adverb to qualify an adjective, asdarn sweet; denoting a great degree of the quality.

The New England people preserve the ancient use ofthereandhereafter a word or sentence, designating theplace where; asthis here,that there. It is called vulgar in English; and indeed the addition ofhereorthereis generally tautological. It is however an ancient practice; and the French retain it in the pure elegant language of their country;ce pays là,celui là,cet homme ici; where we observe this difference only between the French and English idioms, that in French, the adverb follows the noun,that country there,this man here; whereas in English, the adverb precedes the noun,that there country,this here man. This form of speech seems to have been coeval with the primitive Saxon, otherwise it would not have prevailed so generally among the common people.

It has been before remarked that the wordaxforaskwas used in England, and even in the royal assent to acts of parliament, down to the reign of Henry VI.

"And to her husband bad hire for to seyIf that heaxedafter Nicholas."——

Chau. Mil. Tale, 3412.

"Thisaxethhaste and of an hastif thingMen may not preche and maken tarying."

Ibm. 3545.

This word toaxis still frequent in New England.

I no not know whether our American sportsmen use the word,ferret, in the sense of driving animals from their lurking places. But the word is used in some parts of New England, and applied figuratively to many transactions in life. So in Congreve:

"Where is this apocryphal elder? I'llferrethim."——Old Bach, act 4, fc. 21.

Sometimes, but rarely, we hear the old imperative of the Saxonthafian, now pronouncedthof. But it is generally pronounced as it is written,tho. It is remarked by Horne, thatthofis still frequent among the common people of England.

Ginorgynforgivenis still used in America; as Bishop Wilkins remarks, it is in the North of England.

Without, in the sense ofunless, is as frequent as any word in the language, and even among the learned. It is commonly accounted inelegant, and writers have lately substitutedunless: But I do not see the propriety of discardingwithout, for its meaning is exactly the same as that ofunless. It is demonstrated that they are both the imperatives of old verbs.Without, isbe out,be away; andunlessisdismiss, orbe apart. Instead of the imperative Chaucer generally uses the participle,withouten,being out.

The best writers usewithoutin the sense ofunless.

"—And if he can't be curedwithoutI suck the poison from his wounds, I'm afraid he won't recover his senses, till I lose mine."——Cong. Love for Love, act 4. sc. 3.

"'Twere better for him, you had not been his confessor in that affair,withoutyou could have kept his counsel closer."——Cong. Way of the World, act, 3. sc. 7.

The best speakers use the word in this manner, in common discourse, and I must think, with propriety.

Peekis also used corruptedly forpeep. By a similar change of the last consonant,chirkis used forchirp,to make a cheerful noise. This word is wholly lost, except in New England. It is there used forcomfortably,bravely,cheerful; as when one enquires about a sick person, it is said, he ischirk.Chirpis still used to express the singing of birds, but thechirkof New England is not understood, and therefore derided. Four hundred years ago it was a polite term.

"and kisseth hire swete, andchirkethas a sparweWith his lippes."——

Chaucer, Somp. Tale, 7386.

In the following it is used for a disagreeable noise.

"All full ofchirkingwas that sory place."

Knight's Tale, 2006.

"And al so ful eke ofchirkingsAnd of many other wirkings."

House of Fame, 858.

Shetforshutis now become vulgar; yet this is the true original orthography and pronunciation. It is from the Saxonscitten, and I believe was always speltshetteorshet, till after Chaucer's time, for he was a correct writer in his age, and always spelt it in that manner.

"Voideth your man and let him be thereout,Andshetthe dore."——

Chau. Yem. Tale, 16, 605.

"And his maistershettethe dore anon."

Ibm. 16, 610.

And in a variety of other places. This word is almost universally pronouncedshetamong all classes of people, not only in New England, but in Great Britain and the southern states of America. How the spelling came to be changed, is not known; but it was certainly a corruption.

Anforifis seen in most old authors. It remains among the common people, both in England and America. "Anplease your honor;" that is, "ifyour honor please." In New England, the phrases in which it occurs most frequently are, "Let him go,anhe will;" "Go,anyou will;" and others of a similar kind.

Becauseandbecasewere used promiscuously by our ancestors.Becaseis found in some ancient writings, tho not so frequently asbecause. In New England, we frequently hearbecaseto this day. It is pronouncedbecaze. It is a compound ofbeandcauseorcase; both of these words with the verbbemake good English; butbecaseis vulgar.

The vulgar pronunciation ofsuchissich. This is but a small deviation from the ancient elegant pronunciation, which wasswichorswiche, as the word is spelt in Chaucer. Such is the force of national practice: And altho the country people in New England, sometimes drawl their words in speaking, and, like their brethren, often make false concord, yet their idiom is purely Saxon or English; and in a vast number of instances, they have adhered to the true phrases, where people, who despise their plain manners, have run into error. Thus they say, "a man is goingby," and notgoing past, which is nonsense: They say, "Ipurposeto go," and notproposeto go, which is not good English. They say, "a shipliesin harbor," notlays, which is a modern corruption. They say, "Ihavedone," and never "Iamdone," which is nonsense. They say, "it wasonMonday evening," not "ofa Monday evening," whichis an error. They never use the absurd phrases "expect it was;" and "the ship will sail inallnext week." They never say "he is home," but always, "at home." They use the old phrase, "it is halfaftersix o'clock," which is more correct thanhalf past six. They say, if a person is not in health, he issick. The modern English laugh at them, because the English say a man isill; and confine sick to express the idea of a nausea in the stomach. The English are wrong, and the New England people use the word in its true sense, which extends to all bodily disorders, as it is used by the pure English writers.Illis a contraction ofevil; and denotes a moral disorder. Its application to bodily complaints is a modern practice, and its meaning figurative. So that whatever improprieties may have crept into their practice of speaking, they actually preserve more of the genuin idiom of the English tongue, than many of the modern fine speakers who set up for standards.

[N],page120.

Back to Index Next