Of the English Alphabet.—Rules of Pronunciation.—Differences of Pronunciation and controverted Points examined.
Of the English Alphabet.—Rules of Pronunciation.—Differences of Pronunciation and controverted Points examined.
Froma general history of the English language, and some remarks upon that subject, I proceed to examin its elements, or the powers of the letters which compose our alphabet.
There are in English, twenty five characters or letters which are the representatives of certain sounds, either simple or combined; a, b, c, d, e, f, g, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z. The English have also the characterh, whichmarks an aspiration or strong breathing, but has very little sound of its own.[G]
Letters, according to the sounds they represent, or the purposes they serve, are very naturally divided into three kinds;vowels,dipthongs, andconsonants.
In order to obtain clear ideas of our alphabet, let us attend to the following definitions:
1. A vocal sound, formed by opening the mouth, and by a single position of the organs of speech, is a simple sound or vowel. Most of the vowels in English are capable of being prolonged at pleasure, without varying the position of the organs.
2. No more than one simple sound can be formed by one aperture of the mouth, and one position of the organs of speech. The only difference that can be made with the same position of the organs, is, to prolong and shorten the same sound.
3. Two simple sounds, closely united in pronunciation, or following each other so rapidly that the distinction is scarcely perceptible, form a dipthong. In pronouncing a dipthong, two positions of the parts of the mouth are required.
4. Those letters which are not marks of articulate sounds, but represent indistinct sounds, formed by some contact of the parts of the mouth, or by compressing those parts, check all sound, are denominated consonants.
By the first definition we ascertain the number of vowels in English. In pronouncing each of the letters a1, a4, a3, e1, o1, o6, u2, we observe but one position or aperture of the mouth; the sounds are therefore simple, and the letters are calledvowels. The six first sounds are capable of being prolonged at pleasure.
By the second definition, we determine which sounds are the same in quality, and different only in the time of being pronounced. Thusiinfithas the same quality of sound aseeinfeet, for both are pronounced with the same disposition of the organs; but the first is the shortest articulation of the sound, and the last, a long or grave articulation. The other vowels have also their short or abrupt sounds;ainlatehas its short sound inlet;aincarthas its short sound incarry;ainfallhas its short sound infolly;ooinfoolits short sound infull.Ois sometimes shortened in common parlance, as incolt; but the distinction betweenoincoalandcolt, seems to be accidental or caused by the final consonant, and not sufficiently settled or important to require a separate consideration.
By the third definition we are enabled to ascertain the dipthongs in our language. The lettersi,uandyare usually classed among the vowels; but the first or long sound of each requires, in pronunciation, two positions of the organs of speech, or rather a transition from the position necessary to form one simple sound, to the position necessary to form another simple sound. We begin the sound ofinearly with the same aperture of the glottis, as we do the broadaoraw: The aperture however is not quite so great: We rapidly close the mouth to the position where we pronounceee, and there stop the sound. This letter is therefore a dipthong.Yhas no property but what belongs toi.
Ualso is not strictly a vowel; nor is it, as it is commonly represented, composedofeandoo. We do not begin the sound in the position necessary to soundee, as is obvious in the wordssalute,salubrious,revolution; but with a greater aperture of the mouth and with a position perfectly easy and natural. From that position we pass to the position with which we pronounceoo, and there close the sound.
It must however be observed that when these letters,i,u, are followed by a consonant, the two sounds of the dipthong are not clearly distinguishable. We do not, infight, hear the sound ofee; nor the sound ofooincube. The consonant compresses the organs and closes the sound of the word so suddenly, that the ear can distinguish but a simple vocal sound: And notwithstanding these letters are dipthongs, when considered by themselves, yet in combination with consonants, they are often marks of simple sounds or vowels.
The short sound ofiandy, is merely shortee. The sound ofuintun, is a separate vowel, which has no affinity to any other sound in the language.[H]
The sound ofoioroyis dipthongal, composed of the third or broada, andee.The sound ofouorowis also dipthongal, compounded of thirdaandoo. The sound however does not require quite so great an aperture of the mouth as broada; the position is more natural, and the articulation requires less exertion.
The union ofaandwinlaw, has been very erroneously considered a dipthong. Whatever might have been the ancient pronunciation of these letters (and it is probable that good reasons operated to produce their union) they now exhibit but one simple vocal sound. The same may be observed ofee,oo,au,ai,ea,ei,ie,eo,oa, and perhaps some other combinations, each of which actually exhibits the sound of one letter only, which sound is as simple as that ofaoro.[38]
Under the head of dipthongs we may perhaps rangewa,we,wo,wi, &c.Whas nearly the short sound ofoo; forwill,dwellare pronounced as if writtenooill,dooell. It is a controverted point, whetherwshould be classed with the vowels or consonants. I shall only observe, that it is pronounced by opening the mouth, without a contactof the parts; altho, in a rapid pronunciation, it approaches to a consonant.[I]It is however very immaterial, whether we class it with the vowels or consonants; as all grammarians agree that its sound is that ofooshort. It ought to be namedooorwe; which would save children much of the trouble they now experience, in learning its proper sound from that awkward namedouble u.
The sound ofyin the beginning of words, is, by some writers, called a vowel, but by most of them a consonant. Lowth has asserted, that it has every property of a vowel and not one of a consonant. Sheridan considersyinyouth,year, &c. as the shortee. But if these writers would attend to the manner in which we pronounceyes,ye, they would acknowlege thatyhas some property different fromee; for it is very evident that they are not pronouncedee-es,ee-e. The fact is, that in the American pronunciation ofy, the root of the tongue is pressed against the upper part of the mouth, above the palate, more closely than it is in pronouncingee, and not so closely as in pronouncingghard. The transition however fromytoeeor tog, is extremely easy, and hence the mistake thatyis shortee, as also the convertibility ofywithg.[J]It appears to me thatyin the beginning of words, is more clearly a consonant thanw.
In many words,ihas the power ofyconsonant; particularly afterlandn; asfilial,union.
The vowels therefore in English are all heard in the following words; late, half, hall, feet, pool, note, tun, fight, truth. The five first have short sounds or duplicates; which may be heard in let, hat, hot, fit, pull; and the lettersianduare but accidentally vowels. The pure primitive vowels in English are therefore seven.
The dipthongs may be heard in the following words; lie or defy, due, voice or joy, round or now. To these we may adduainpersuade; and perhaps the combinations of w and the vowels, inwell,will, &c.
The consonants in English are nineteen; but for want of proper characters, five of them are expressed or marked by double letters. We annex two sounds toth; one tosh; one tong; and one tosiorsu, as may be heard in the following words;think, this, shall, bring, confusion or pleasure. These characters should be calledeth,esh,eng,ezh; andthshould have two names, the aspirate as inthink, and the vocal as inthis; the latter sound might be distinguished by a small mark drawn throth. This improvement is so obvious and easy, and would be so convenient for the learners of the language, that I must believe it will soon be introduced.
The consonants may be divided intomutesandsemivowels. When a consonant compresses the lips, or the tongue and roof of the mouth, so closely as to check all sound, it is called aperfect mute: Such arep,k, andt, as may be perceived by pronouncing the syllables,ep,ek,et. When the compression of the organs is more gentle and does not stop all sound immediately, the letters are called mutes; such areb,d, andg, as may be perceived by pronouncing the syllables,eb,ed,eg. When a consonant has an imperfect sound, or hissing, which may be continued, after a contact of the organs, it is denominated a semivowel. Of this kind are ef, el, em, en, er, es, ev, ez, eth,[39] eth,[39]esh, ezh, ing. Of these, fourare aspirates, ef, es, eth, and esh. The others are vocal, having an imperfect sound.
The whole may be thus arranged.
Perfect mutes—p, k, t.Mutes—————b, d, g.vocal, } l, m, n, r, v, z, th,Semivowels— } zh, ng,aspirate,} f, s, th, sh.
They may also be classed according to the manner in which they are formed by the organs: Thus, those formed
By the lips, are called labials—b, p, f, v.By the teeth, are called dentals—d, t, th, z, s, sh, zh.By the palate, are called palatine—g, k, l, r.By the nose, are called nasal—m, n, ng.
On the subject of the alphabet, I have this remark further; that for want of a proper knowlege of the powers ofshandth, some material errors in printing have obtained in common practice.Share usually united in printing, and generally with propriety, for the combination represents a simple consonant. But in several compound wordssandhhave been improperly united, where one is silent or where each retains its own power, as indishonor, dishonest, dishabille, hogshead, household, falsehood, and some others. The union ofshin these words, is embarrassing, especially to children, who are led to pronounce themdish-onor,dish-onest. This error still prevails in printing, except in the last mentioned word, which is sometimes correctly printedfalsehood.
Th, tho not united in character, have a tendency to produce, in some words, a wrong pronunciation. For instance, we are very apt to sayWren-thaminstead ofWrent-ham.Hothamis also ambiguous; there is nothing in the orthography to direct us, whether to pronounce itHot-hamorHo-tham, altho custom decides in favor of the latter.
These remarks show the propriety of attending to our orthography, and of attempting to remove causes of error, when it can be done without much trouble or danger of giving offence.
Having briefly explained the English alphabet, I proceed to the rules of pronunciation.
In pronunciation, two things demand our notice; the proper sounds of the vowels and consonants, and the accent.
In pronouncing both vowels and consonants, the general rule is,that similar combinations of letters should be pronounced alike, except when general custom has decided otherwise. Thus ifiin the words,bind,find,mind, has its first sound, it ought to have the same sound in other similar combinations,kind,blind,grind. This is the rule ofanalogy, the great leading principle that should regulate the construction of all languages. But as languages are not formed at once by system, and are ever exposed to changes, it must necessarily happen that there will be in all languages, some exceptions from any general rule; some departures from the principle of uniformity.
The practice of a nation, when universal or ancient, has, in most cases, the force and authority of law; it implies mutual and general consent, and becomes a rule of propriety. On this ground, some deviations from the analogy of construction and pronunciation must be admitted in all languages. Thus from the analogy already mentioned,windis an exception; forgeneral practice has determined thatishould, in this word, have its second or short sound.[40]Whether this deviation was admitted at first to distinguish this word from the verbto wind, or whether there were other good reasons which cannot now be explored, or whether it was merely the work of ignorance or accident, it is unnecessary to enquire; the common consent of a nation is sufficient to stamp it with propriety.
Another rule in English, which admits of no exception, is, when the accent falls on a vowel, it is long, asoin ho´-ly; but when the accent falls on a consonant, the preceding vowel is short, as inflat´-ter.
It is also a general rule, that when a consonant closes a syllable, the preceding vowel is short, as infan-cy,habit; altho this rule has its exceptions, asCam-bridge,dan-ger, and perhapsman-ger.
From this rule, the English except alsoa2ngel,a2ncient. In this all the standard authorsagree, except Kenrick and Burn, who markainancientboth long and short. The English pronunciation is followed in the middle and southern states; but the eastern universities have restored these words to the analogy of the language, and giveaits second sound. It is presumed that no reason can be given for making these words exceptions to the general rule, but practice; and this is far from being universal, there being many of the best speakers in America, who givea, in the words mentioned, the same sound as inanguish,annals,angelic,antiquity.
The practice of the eastern universities therefore should be encouraged, rather than discountenanced; as it diminishes the number of anomalies. I shall only remark further, thatain these words must formerly have had its third or fourth sound; which is evident from the old orthography; for angel, at least, was spelt likegrant,command, &c.aungel,graunt,commaund. In givingaits first sound therefore, the modern English have not only infringed the rule of analogy, but have deviated from former practice.
In the wordchamber,ahas its fourth sound. It is necessary to remark this; asthere are many people in America, who giveaits first sound, which is contrary to analogy and to all the English authorities.
With regard to accent, that particular stress of voice which should distinguish some syllable of a word from others, three things are to be considered; the importance of the syllable; the derivation of the word; and the terminating syllable.
The importance of a syllable is discovered by resolving a word into the parts which compose it, or reducing it to its radicals. Thussensibleis derived fromsensusin Latin orsensein English. The first syllable therefore is that on which the meaning of the word principally depends; the others being an accessary termination.
The first syllable then is the most important and requires the accent. For the same reason,admire,compare,destroy, &c. have the accent on the second syllable in preference to the first; the last syllables being all derived from verbs, and the first being mere particles.[41]
Another rule for laying the accent of words arises from derivation. Thus all words that take the terminationsing,ful,less,ness,ed,est,ist,ly, retain the accent on the syllable where it is laid in their primitives; asproceed,proceeding,wonder,wonderful, &c.
But the most important article to be considered in the accentuation of words, is the terminating syllable. From the different terminations of words arise various analogies, the most of which are enumerated in the first part of my Institute. The principle which has operated to produce these analogies, is the ease of speaking or the harmony of enunciation. Consequently this principle must take place of all others; and we find that it frequently interferes with the two foregoing rules, and regulates practice in opposition to both.
The general rule, grounded on this principle, is, that words, having thesameterminating syllable, have the accent at thesamedistance from that termination. Thus all words ending intion,sion,cion,cial,cian, have the accent on the last syllable but one;[42]and this without any regard toderivation or to the number of syllables in the word.
Thus most words inty, if they consist of more syllables than two, have the accent on the antepenult; asprobity,absurdity,probability. I recollect but two exceptions, viz.commonalty,admiralty; the accent of which is laid upon the first syllable, as in their primitives.[43]
But let us observe the force of the last rule, in opposition to the others.Mortalhas the accent on the first syllable. Here the first rule takes place, for the first syllable, havingmors, death, for its root, is the most important. But the derivative,mortality, conforms to the analogy of words ending intyand has the accent on the last syllable but two. That the ease or harmony of pronunciation, is the cause of this change of accent, will be evident to any person who shall attempt to pronounce words of this class, with the accent on any other syllable than the antepenult.
Most of these rules admit a few exceptions, which are to be learnt by practice. Custom has made some inroads upon the rules of uniformity, and caprice is ever busy in multiplying anomalies. Still, rules will be of great service in ascertaining and fixing our language; for tho they may not root outolderrors, they may prevent the introduction ofothers.
But besides the principal accent, there is, in most polysyllables, an inferior accent laid on the third or fourth syllable from the principal. Indeed in some words, the two accents are so nearly equal, as to be scarcely distinguishable.
It is denied by some critics that there are more accents than one, in any word. But the composition of words, and the ease of speaking, both require a plurality of accent in a very great number of instances; and our ears inform us that such a plurality actually exists in practice. If a man will assert that in such words asdesignation,exaltation, there is but one syllable distinguished from the others by a superior stress of voice, he must deny the evidence of sense, and would not listen to argument.
I must however remark that most, if not all syllables, derived from some important word, have some degree of accent:[44]So that in compounds, there are usually as many accents as radicals. Thus insanctify, which is composed of two radicals,sanctusandfio, we observe two accents; the strongest on the first syllable. The same may be observed inmagnanimity, frommagnusandanimus, inpromogeniture, &c. except that in these the principal accent is on the third syllable.
Notwithstanding it is a general rule, that there are as many accents in a word, as radicals, yet one of them at least is frequently removed from the principal syllable, by the analogy of termination, which prevails over all other reasons. Thus inmathematics, the two accents lie on the proper syllables; but inmathematician, the last accent is removed to a less important place. Inimperceptible, the principal accent,with propriety, lies on the third syllable, which being derived from a verb (capio) is the most important. The particleim, being the privative, or that syllable which changes the meaning of the whole word from affirmative to negative, becomes important and has some degree of accent. But in the derivativeimperceptibility, while the first and third syllables retain an accent, the analogy of termination carries the principal accent to the fifth syllable, which is adventitious and less important than the others.[45]
In many compounds, as,earth-quake,rain-bow, each syllable is pronounced with the stress that belongs to accented syllables; and there is little or no distinction of accent. The reason is obvious: There is no difference in the importance of the syllables; both are equally necessary to convey the idea. By giving one syllable thewhole accent, such a word loses its original meaning, or at least its force, as may be observed in the wordhussy, a corruption ofhouse-wife; which, from an affectation of a unity of accent, and a hasty pronunciation, has sunk into a low word. From the same ridiculous affectation,work-houseis, by some people, pronouncedwork-us.
On this head, I shall only observe further, that some words of many syllables have three accents; of which we have an example inval'etu'dina'rian.
It has been already remarked that the composition of words, and the ease of speaking, require a plurality of accent. The reason why words of many syllables have two or three accents, is plain to any man that attempts to pronounce them without an accent.
We cannot pronounce more than two unaccented syllables with perfect ease; but four or five can hardly be articulated without an intervening accent. We glide over the unaccented syllables with such rapidity, that we have hardly time to place the organs in a position to articulate them. The difficulty is in proportion to the number: So that after passing over two or three, the voice very naturally rests or falls forceably upon a particular syllable. Hence the words most difficult to be pronounced, are those of four syllables, accented on the first; asfigurative,literature,applicable. The difficulty is very great, when the middle syllables abound with consonants, even in trissyllables, asag'grandize; but is itself a sufficient reason for not accenting the first syllable of such words asacceptableandrefractory. When one of the words which have the accent on the first, and three succeeding unaccented syllables, is followed by two or three particles, the passage is weak and often occasions hesitation in a speaker; as "applicable to the affairs of common life."
A remarkable instance of this, we find in Priestley's Preface to Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever; "Whether of apleasureable or of apainful nature." In this example there are six weak syllables following each other without interruption, and such passages are not reduceable to any kind of poetic feet. This assemblage of unimportant syllables makes a hiatus in language, which should, as far as possible, be avoided by a writer; for the melody ofprose consists in a proper mixture of important and unimportant syllables.[46][K]
Having laid down some general rules reflecting pronunciation, I proceed to examin local differences, and the most material points of controversy on this subject.
In the eastern states, there is a practice prevailing among the body of the people, of prolonging the sound ofiin the terminationive. In such words asmotive,relative, &c. the people, excepting the more polished part, giveiits first sound. This is a local practice, opposed to the generalpronunciation of the English on both sides of the Atlantic, sometimes to the rules of accent, and always to derivation. In dissyllables, asmotive,active, the genius of our language requires that the accent should be laid ononesyllable, and that the other should be short.[47]But by prolongingiin the last, the distinction of accent is totally destroyed.
In polysyllables, which often have two accents, this reason has less force, but the derivation, which is from the Frenchmotif,relatif, always requires thatiin the terminationiveshould have the sound ofeeshort, as inlive,give. This is merely the short sound of the Frenchi, and the consequence of the English accent on the first syllable. These reasons, with the authority of the most approved practice, should operate to discountenance the singular drawling pronunciation of the eastern people.[48]
The same reasons are opposed to another local practice of a similar nature in the middle states; where many people pronouncepractise,prejudice, withilong. I know of no authority for this beyond the limits of two or three states; and it is clear that the practice is not warranted by any principle in the language.
Another very common error, among the yeomanry of America, and particularly in New England, is the pronouncing ofebeforer, likea; asmarcyfor mercy. This mistake must have originated principally in the name of the letterr, which, in most of our school books, is calledar. This single mistake has spread a false pronunciation of several hundred words, among millions of people.[49]
To avoid this disagreeable singularity some fine speakers have run into another extreme, by pronouncingebeforer, likeu,murcy. This is an error. The true sound of the shorte, as inlet, is the correct and elegant pronunciation of this letter in all words of this class.
There is a vulgar singularity in the pronunciation of the eastern people, which is very incorrect, and disagreeable to strangers; that of prefixing the sound ofishort ore, before the dipthongow; askiow,piowerorpeower. This fault usually occurs afterp,chard, or those other consonants which are formed near the seat ofeein the mouth, or in passing from which to the succeeding vowel, the organs naturally take the position necessary to pronounceee. But the most awkward countryman pronouncesround,ground, &c. with tolerable propriety.
This, with some other peculiarities which prevail among the yeomanry of New England, springs from causes that do not exist, in the same degree, in any other part of America, perhaps not in the world. It may surprize those who have not turned their thoughts to this subject, that I should ascribe the manner of speaking among a people, to the nature of their government and a distribution of their property. Yet it is an undoubted fact that the drawling nasal manner of speaking in New England arises almost solely from these causes.
People of large fortunes, who pride themselves on family distinctions, possess acertain boldness, dignity and independence in their manners, which give a correspondent air to their mode of speaking. Those who are accustomed to command slaves, form a habit of expressing themselves with the tone of authority and decision.
In New England, where there are few slaves and servants, and less family distinctions than in any other part of America, the people are accustomed to address each other with that diffidence, or attention to the opinion of others, which marks a state of equality. Instead of commanding, they advise; instead of saying, with an air of decision,you must; they ask with an air of doubtfulness,is it not best?or give their opinions with an indecisive tone;you had better, I believe. Not possessing that pride and consciousness of superiority which attend birth and fortune, their intercourse with each other is all conducted on the idea of equality, which gives a singular tone to their language and complexion to their manners.
These remarks do not apply to the commercial towns; for people who are conversant with a variety of company lose most of their singularities, and hence well bredpeople resemble each other in all countries. But the peculiar traits of national character are found in the internal parts of a country, among that class of people who do not travel, nor are tempted by an intercourse with foreigners, to quit their own habits.[50]
Such are the causes of the local peculiarities in pronunciation, which prevail among the country people in New England, and which, to foreigners, are the objects of ridicule. The great error in their manner of speaking proceeds immediately from not opening the mouth sufficiently. Hence words are drawled out in a careless lazy manner, or the sound finds a passage thro the nose.
Nothing can be so disagreeable as that drawling, whining cant that distinguishes a certain class of people; and too much pains cannot be taken to reform the practice.
Great efforts should be made by teachers of schools, to make their pupils open the teeth, and give a full clear sound to every syllable. The beauty of speaking consists in giving each letter and syllable its due proportion of sound, with a prompt articulation.
Thus in order to pronouncecow,power, orgownwith propriety, the pupil should be taught, after placing the organs in the position required by the first consonant, to open his mouth wide, before he begins the sound ofow: Otherwise in passing from that position to the aperture necessary to pronounceow, he will inevitably articulateee,keow.
A similar method is recommended to those polite speakers who are so fond of imitating the English stage pronunciation as to embrace every singularity, however disagreeable. I refer to the very modern pronunciation ofkind,sky,guide, &c. in which we hear the shortebeforei,keind, orkyind,skey, &c. This is the same barbarous dialect, as thekeowandveowof the eastern country people. Yet, strange as it may seem, it is the elegant pronunciation of the fashionable people both in Englandand America. Even Sheridan, who has laid it down as a rule thatiis a dipthong, composed ofawandee, has prefixed ayshort to its sound in several words; askyind,skyi,gyide, &c. We may with equal propriety prefixeto the dipthongow, or tooinpoll, or toooinfool, or to any other vowel. It is presumed that the bare mention of such barbarisms will be sufficient to restrain their progress, both in New England and on the British theater.
Some of the southern people, particularly in Virginia, almost omit the sound ofras inware,there. In the best English pronunciation, the sound ofris much softer than in some of the neighboring languages, particularly the Irish and Spanish; and probably much softer than in the ancient Greek. But there seems to be no good reason for omitting the sound altogether; nor can the omission be defended on the ground, either of good practice or of rules. It seems to be a habit contracted by carelessness.
It is a custom very prevalent in the middle states, even among some well bred people, to pronounceoff,soft,drop,crop, with the sound ofa,aff,saft,drap,crap.This seems to be a foreign and local dialect; and cannot be advocated by any person who understands correct English.[L]
In the middle states also, many people pronounce atat the end ofonceandtwice,oncetandtwicet. This gross impropriety would not be mentioned, but for its prevalence among a class of very well educated people; particularly in Philadelphia and Baltimore.
Fotchforfetchis very common, in several states, but not among the better classes of people.Cotchedforcaughtis more frequent, and equally barbarous.
Skroudandskrougeforcroud, are sometimes heard among people that should be ashamed of the least vulgarism.
Moughtformightis heard in most of the states, but not frequently except in a few towns.[M]
HolpeforhelpI have rarely heard except in Virginia.Toteis local in Virginia and its neighborhood. In meaning it is nearly equivalent tocarry. I have taken great pains to discover the etymology of the local terms used in the several states; but this word has yet eluded my diligence.[51]
Chore, a corruption ofchar, is an English word, still used in many parts of England, as achar-man, achar-woman, but in America, it is perhaps confined to New England. It signifies small domestic jobs of work, and its place cannot be supplied by any other single word in the language.
These local words, and others of less note, are gradually growing into disuse, and will probably be lost: Except such as are necessary in some particular occupation.
The pronunciation ofwforvis a prevailing practice in England and America: It is particularly prevalent in Boston andPhiladelphia.[52]Many people sayweal,wessel, forveal,vessel.
These letters are easily mistaken for each other, and the name of the letterwnow used, is a proof that the lettervwas formerly calleduoroo. The letter in the Roman language had the sound we now givewinwill.Viaandvinum, pronouncedwia,winum, have suffered but a small change of pronunciation in ourway,wine. In old English books, down to Shakespear,vwas written for the shortu, asvp,vnder; forup,under. On the other hand,uwas written where we now writev, asuery,euery, forvery,every. It seems therefore, thatvhad formerly the sound ofworoo; and that instead of corrupting the language, the Cockneys in London, and their imitators in America, who sayweal,wery, have retained the primitive pronunciation. In confirmation of this opinion, it may be observed that the Danes, who speak a dialect of the Saxon, have nowin their language, but where we writew, they writev, andwhere we writewh, they invariably writehv; asvind,wind;vej,way;vader,wade;hvad,what;hvide,white;hvi,why. The Germans, whose language is another branch of the same stock, invariably pronouncewas we dov;wall,vall;wir,vir,we;wollen,vollen,will; andvthey pronounce as we dof; asvergessen,fergessen, which is the same as the Englishforget.
The retaining the old sound ofvis a proof of the force of custom; but since the nation in general have annexed to it a precise sound, as well as tow, every person should resign his peculiarities for the sake of uniformity.
But there are some points in pronunciation, in which the best informed people differ, both in opinion and practice.
The wordsshall,quality,quantity,qualify,quandary,quadrant, are differently pronounced by good speakers. Some giveaa broad sound, asshol,quolity; and others, its second sound, as inhat. With respect to the four first, almost all the standard writers[53]agree to pronounceashort, as inhat: And this isthe stage pronunciation. It is correct, for it is more agreeable to the analogy of the language; that being the proper sound of the Englishawhich is heard inhatorbar. With respect to the two last, authors differ; some give the first, some the second, and others the fifth sound. They all pretend to give us the court pronunciation, and as they differ so widely, we must suppose that eminent speakers differ in practice. In such a case, we can hardly hesitate a moment to call in analogy to decide the question, and giveain all these words, as also inquash, its second sound.[54]
The wordseither,neither,deceit,conceit,receipt, are generally pronounced, by the eastern people,ither,nither,desate,consate,resate. These are errors; all the standard authors agree to giveei, in these words, the sound ofee. This is the practice in England, in the middle and southern states, and, what is higher authority, analogy warrants the practice. Indeed it is very absurd to pronounce the verbconceive,conceeve, and the nounconceit,consate. Suchan inconsistency will hardly find advocates, except among the prejudiced and uninformed.
Importanceis, by a few people, pronounced impo1rtance; with the first sound ofo. The reason alleged is, that it is a derivative ofimport, andoshould preserve the same sound it has in the original. It seems however to be affectation, for the standard writers and general practice are opposed to it. Indeed it may be considered as a mere imitation of the French pronunciation of the same word.
Decis-ivefordeci-siveis mere affectation.
Reesinforraisinis very prevalent in two or three principal towns in America. One of the standard authors gives us this pronunciation; and another gives us bothraisinandreesin. But all the others pronounce the wordraisin, withalong; and derivation, analogy and general custom, all decide in favor of the practice.
Leisureis sometimes pronouncedleesure, and sometimeslezhure: The latter is themost general pronunciation in America. It is almost singular in its spelling;seizurebeing the only word in analogy with it; and this is a derivative fromseize. The true original orthography ofleisurewasleasure; this was in analogy withpleasure,measure, and its ancient pronunciation still remains.
Dictionaryhas been usually pronounceddicsonary; But its derivation fromdiction, the analogous pronunciation oftionin other cases, and all the standard writers requiredicshunary, ordicshonary.
One author of eminence pronouncesdefilein three syllables,def-i-le. In this he is singular; neither general practice, nor rules warrant the pronunciation; and all the other authorities are against him.
With respect tooblige, authorities differ. The standard writers give us bothobligeandobleege, and it is impossible to determine on which side the weight of authority lies. The direct derivation of the word from the French would incline us to preferobleege, in the analogy offatigue,machine,antique,pique,marine,oblique, which uniformly preserve the Frenchior Englishee. Yet Chesterfield called this affectation, and it might be so in his age; for the opinions of men are capricious. The English analogy requiresilong inoblige; and perhaps this should incline all parties to meet each other on that best principle.
Some people very erroneously pronouncechaise,shain the singular, andshazein the plural. The singular number isshaze, and the plural,shazes.
Our modern fashionable speakers accentEuropeanon the last syllable but one. This innovation has happened within a few years: I say innovation; for it is a violation of an established principle of the language, that words ending ineanhave the accent on the last syllable but two: WitnessMediterra'nean,Pyre'nean,Hercu'lean,subterra'nean. I do not advert to an exception,[55]and whyEuropeanshould be made one, it is difficult to determine. The reason given by some, thatein the penultima represents the Latin dipthongæ, which was long, is of little weight, opposed to the general practice of a nation, and to anestablished principle. The standard authors, in this instance, as in all others, where practice is not uniform, very absurdly give both pronunciations, that we may take our choice. As this is a very easy method of getting over difficulties, and passing along without giving offence, so it is a certain way to perpetuate differences in opinion and practice, and to prevent the establishment of any standard. Analogy requiresEuro'pean, and this is supported by as good authorities as the other.
Romeis very frequently pronouncedRoom, and that by people of every class. The authors I have consulted give no light upon this word, except Perry, who directs to that pronunciation. The practice however, is by no means general in America: There are many good speakers who giveoits first sound. It seems very absurd to giveoits first sound inRomish,Romans, and pronounce itooinRome, the radical word. I know of no language in Europe, in whichohas not one uniform sound, viz. the sound we give it inrose. It is perhaps the only vowel, in the sound of which all nations agree. In English it has other sounds; but the first is its proper one. A great proportion of people in America haverestored the analogy of pronunciation in givingoits first found inRome; and a desire of uniformity would lead us to extend the practice.[56]
In the pronunciation ofarchin many compound words, people are not uniform. The disputed words arearchangel,archetype,architecture,architrave,archives. There seems to be no settled principle of analogy, by which the question can be determined. Etymology would requirech, in Greek and Hebrew derivatives, to have uniformly the sound ofk; but before most consonants, such a pronunciation is harsh; for which reason it is generally softened into the Englishch, asarchbishop. But before vowels, as in the words just enumerated, the best practice has decided for the sound ofk; and euphony, as well as derivation, favors the decision.[N]
The sound ofchinchartis likewise disputed; and the standard authors are directly opposed to each other. There is asgood foreign authority on one side as the other; but in America,chhas generally its soft or English sound. This must perhaps be preferred, contrary to etymology; for we uniformly givechthat sound incharter, which is from the same original; and this also distinguishes the word fromcart; a reason which is not without its weight.
There are many people who omit the aspirate in most words which begin withwh; aswhite,whip, &c. which they pronouncewite,wip. To such it is necessary only to observe, that in the pure English pronunciation, both in Great Britain and New England, for it is exactly the same in both,his not silent in a single word beginning withwh. In this point our standard authors differ; two of them aspirating the whole of these words, and three, markinghin most of them as mute. But the omission ofhseems to be a foreign corruption; for in America, it is not known among the unmixed descendants of the English. Sheridan has here given the true English pronunciation. In this class of words,wis silent in four only, with their derivatives; viz.who,whole,whoop,whore.
One or two authors affect to pronouncehuman, and about twenty other words beginning withh, as tho they were speltyuman.[57]This is a gross error. The only word that begins with this sound, ishumor, with its derivatives. In the American pronunciation,his silent in the following,honest,honor,hour,humor,herb,heir, with their derivatives. To these the English addhospital,hostler,humble; but an imitation of these, which some industriously affect, cannot be recommended, as every omission of the aspirate serves to mutilate and weaken the language.
The wordyelkis sometimes writtenyolkand pronouncedyoke. Butyelkis the most correct orthography, from the Saxongealkwe; and in this country, it is the general pronunciation.
Eweis, by the English, often pronouncedyo; which is sometimes heard in America. But analogy and the general corresponding practice in this country, with the authority of some of the most accurate writers, decide foryew.
The English speakers of eminence have shortened the vowel in the first syllable oftyranny,zealous,sacrifice, &c. altho in the primitive words, all agree to give the vowel its first sound. This pronunciation has not spread among the people of this country; but our learned men have adopted it; and it seems in some degree to be the genius of our language. Inchild,clean,holy, &c. we uniformly give the first vowel its long sound; but when a syllable is added, we always shorten it;children,clenly,holyday.
On the other hand, many people in America saypat-ron,mat-ron; whereas the English say eitherpa-tronorpat-ron,matronormat-ron; but all agree in saying,pat-ronage. Inpatriot,patriotism, the English giveaits long sound; but a great part of the Americans, its short sound. In all these cases, where people are not uniform, I should prefer the short sound; for it appears to me the most analogous.
Wrath, the English pronounce with the third sound ofaoraw; but the Americans almost universally preserve the analogous sound, as inbath,path. This is the correct pronunciation; and why should we reject it forwroth, which is a corruption? If the English practice is erroneous, let it remain so; we have no concern with it: By adhering to our own practice, we preserve a superiority over the English, in those instances, in which ours is guided by rules; and so far ought we to be from conforming to their practice, that they ought rather to conform to ours.
It is disputed whethergshould have its hard or soft sound, inhomogeneousandheterogeneous: On this question the standard authors are not agreed. The hard sound, as ingo, coincides with etymology; but analogy requires the other, as ingenius. The same remarks apply toginphlogiston.
In the middle and southern states,fierce,pierce,tierce, are pronouncedfeerce,peerce,teerce. To convince the people of the impropriety of this pronunciation, it might be sufficient to inform them, that it is not fashionable on the English theater. For those who want better proofs, before they relinquish their practice, I would observe, that these words are derived to us from the French;fierce,tierce, fromfiers,tiers, andpiercefrompercer. In the two former, the French pronounce bothiande; but it is evident the English originally pronouncedeonly; for theiwas omitted in the spelling offierce, and was not introduced intopiercetill after Spenser wrote.