§ 222. Real reduplications of consonants,i.e., reduplications of theirsound, are, in all languages, extremely rare. I am fully aware of certain statements made respecting the Laplandic and Finlandic languages,viz., that doubled consonants are, in them, of common occurrence. Notwithstanding this, I have an impression that it is generally under one condition that true reduplication takes place. In compound and derived words, where the original rootends, and the superadded affixbeginswith the same letter, there is a reduplication of the sound, and not otherwise. In the wordsoulless, thelis doubled to the ear as well as to the eye; and it is a false pronunciation to call itsouless(soless). In the "Deformed Transformed" it is made to rhyme withno less, improperly.
"Clay, not dead but soulless,Though no mortal man would choose thee,An immortal no lessDeigns not to refuse thee."
"Clay, not dead but soulless,Though no mortal man would choose thee,An immortal no lessDeigns not to refuse thee."
"Clay, not dead but soulless,
Though no mortal man would choose thee,
An immortal no less
Deigns not to refuse thee."
In the following words, all of which are compounds, we have true specimens of the doubled consonant.
It must not, however, be concealed, that, in the mouths even of correct speakers, one of the doubled sounds is often dropped.
§ 223.True aspirates rare.—The criticism applied to words likepitted, &c., applies also to words likePhilip,thin,thine, &c. There is therein no sound ofh. How the so-called aspirates differ from their corresponding lenes has not yet been determined. That it isnotby the addition ofhis evident.Phandthare conventional modes of spelling simple single sounds, which might better be expressed by simple single signs.
In our own language thetrueaspirates, like the true duplications, are found only in compound words; and there they are often slurred in the pronunciation.
Now in certain languages thetrueaspirates are of common occurrence,i.e., sounds like thetinnuthook, thephinhaphazard, &c., are as frequent as the sounds ofp,b,s, &c. In the spelling of these sounds by means of the English we are hampered by the circumstance ofthandphbeing already used in a different sense.
EUPHONY; THE PERMUTATION AND THE TRANSITION OF LETTERS.
§ 224. 1. Let there be two syllables, of which the one ends inm, and the other begins withr, as we have in the syllablesnum-and-rusof the Latin wordnumerus.
2. Let an ejection of the intervening letters bring these two syllables into immediate contact,numrus. Themandrform an unstable combination. To remedy this there is a tendency (mark, not an absolute necessity) to insert an intervening sound.
In English, the form which the Latin wordnumerustakes isnumber; in Spanish,nombre. Thebmakes no part of the original word, but has been inserted for the sake of euphony; or, to speak more properly, by a euphonic process. The word euphony is derived fromεὖ(well), andφώνη(fônæ, a voice). The province of euphony has not been very accurately determined.
§ 225. In the wordnumber,nombre, the letter inserted wasb; and forbbeing the particular letter employed, there is a reason derived from thesystemof articulate sounds.
1. That the letter inserted should be a consonant is evident. Thevowele(innumerus) had been previously ejected.
2. That it should be a mute is evident. A liquid would have given the unstable or unpronounceable combinationsmnr,mlr,mrr,mmr.
3. That it should be a consonant, either of seriesbor of seriess, was natural; it being seriesband seriesswith whichmandrare respectively connected.
4. That it should be a consonant of seriesb, rather than one of seriess, we collect from the fact thatmsr(numsrus) ormzr(numzrus) give inharmonious, and, consequently, unstable combinations.
5. That of thebseries, it should beborv(flat) rather thanporf(sharp), we infer from the fact ofmandrboth being flat.
6. Ofvandb, the latter alone gives a stable combination, so that we have the Spanish formnombre, and notnomvre.
In this we have an illustration of the use of attending to the nature and connections of articulate sounds in general.
§ 226. The affinity ofmfor the seriesb, ofnfor the seriest, gives occasion to further euphonic changes. The combinationsmt,md,mþ,mð, are unstable. The syllablesemt,emd, are liable to one of two modifications. Eitherporbwill be inserted, and so make themempt(as intempt),embd(as inEmbden), or else themwill becomen, forming the syllableent,end,enþ,enð.
Similar tendencies, in a certain degree, affect the combinationsenp,enb. They are liable to becomeemp, oremb. Any one may see that the wordenperorembarrasses the utterance.
§ 227. The combinationtuptis stable, so also is the combinationtuft. But the combinationtupthis unstable: since thepis lene, theþis a (so-called) aspirate. Hence arises a process of accommodation by which the word becomes eithertuptortufth(tufþ).
In respect to the unstable combinationtupth, we may observe this,viz.that the ways of altering it are two. Either the first letter may be accommodated to the second,tufþ, or the second may be accommodated to the first,tupt. Which of these two changes shall take place is determined by the particular habit of the language. In Greek we add to the radical syllableτυπ-, the inflectional syllable -θην. Thefirstletter,π, is accommodated to the second,θ, and the word becomesτυφθην(tyfþæn), as inἐτύφθην(etyfþæn). In English we add to the radical syllablestag, the inflectional syllables. Here thesecondletter is accommodated to the first, and the resulting word is notstaks, butstagz.
§ 228. The Irish Gaelic, above most other languages, illustrates a euphonic principle that modifies the vowels of a word. The vowelsa,o,u, are full, whilsti,e,y, are small. Now if to a syllable containing a small vowel, asbuil, there be addeda syllable containing a broad one, as-am, a change takes place. Either the first syllable is accommodated to the second, or the second to the first; so that the vowels respectively contained in them are either both full or both small. Hence arises, in respect to the word quoted, either the formbualam, or else the formbuilim.
§ 229. In the wordsgiveandgavewe have a change of tense expressed by a change of vowel. In the wordspriceandprizea change of meaning is expressed by a change of consonant. Inclotheandcladthere is a change both of a vowel and of a consonant. In the wordsto useanda usethere is a similar change, although it is not expressed by the spelling. To the ear the verbto useends inz, although not to the eye. The following are instances of the permutation of letters.
Permutation of Vowels.
Permutation of Consonants.
Inhaveandhadwe have theejectionof a sound; inworkandwrought, thetranspositionof one. Important changes are undergone by the soundsk,g, and the allied onesnk,ng,y, as will be seen in the chapter on verbs.
Permutation of Combinations.
It must be noticed that the list above is far from being an exhaustive one. The expression too of the changes undergone has been rendered difficult on account of the imperfection of our orthography. The whole section has been written in illustration of the meaning of the wordpermutation, rather than for any specific object in grammar.
§ 230. In all the words above the change of sound has been brought about by the grammatical inflection of the word wherein it occurs. This is the case with the wordslifeandlive, and with all the rest. With the German wordleben, compared with the corresponding wordlive, in English, the change is similar. It is brought about, however, not by a grammatical inflection, but by a difference of time, and by a difference of place. This indicates the distinction between the permutation of letters and the transition of letters. In dealing with permutations, we compare different parts of speech; in dealing with transitions, we compare different languages, or different stages of a single language.
ON THE FORMATION OF SYLLABLES.
§ 231. In respect to the formation of syllables, I am aware of no more than one point that requires any especial consideration.
In certain words, of more than one syllable, it is difficult to say to which syllable an intervening consonant belongs. For instance, does thevinriver, and thevinfever, belong to the first or the second syllable? Are the words to be divided thus,ri-ver,fe-ver? or thus,riv-er,fev-er?
The solution of the question lies by no means on the surface.
In the first place, the case is capable of being viewed in two points of view—an etymological and a phonetic one.
That thecandrinbecome,berhymed, &c. belong to the second syllable, we determine at once by taking the words to pieces; whereby we get the wordscomeandrhymedin an isolated independent form. But this fact, although it settles the point in etymology, leaves it as it was in phonetics; since it in nowise follows, that, because thecin thesimplewordcomeis exclusively attached to the letter that follows it, it is, in thecompoundwordbecome, exclusively attached to it also.
To the following point of structure in the consonantal sounds the reader's attention is particularly directed.
1. Let the vowela(as infate) be sounded.—2. Let it be followed by the consonantp, so as to form the syllableāp. To form the sound ofp, it will be found that the lips close on the sound ofa, and arrest it. Now, if the lips be left to themselves they will notremainclosed on the sound, but will open again, in a slight degree indeed, but in a degree sufficient to cause a kind of vibration, or, at any rate, to allow anescape of the remainder of the current of breath by which the sound was originally formed. To re-open in a slight degree is the natural tendency of the lips in the case exhibited above.
Now, by an effort, let this tendency to re-open be counteracted. Let the remaining current of breath be cut short. We have, then, only this,viz., so much of the syllableāpas can be formed by theclosureof the lips. All that portion of it that is caused by their re-opening is deficient. The resulting sound seems truncated, cut short, or incomplete. It is the sound ofp,minusthe remnant of breath. All of the soundpthat is now left is formed, not by theescapeof the breath, but by thearrestof it.
Thepināpis afinalsound. With initial sounds the case is different. Let the lips beclosed, and let an attempt be made to form the syllablepaby suddenly opening them. The sound appears incomplete; but its incompleteness is at thebeginningof the sound, and not at the end of it. In the natural course of things there would have been a current of breathpreceding, and this current would have given a vibration, now wanting. All the sound that is formed here is formed, not by thearrestof breath, but by theescapeof it.
I feel that this account of the mechanism of the apparently simple soundp, labours under all the difficulties that attend thedescriptionof a sound; and for this reason I again request the reader to satisfy himself either of its truth or its inaccuracy, before he proceeds to the conclusions that will be drawn from it.
The account, however, being recognised, we have in the current natural sound ofptwo elements:—
1. That formed by the current of air and the closure of the lips, as ināp. This may be called the sound of breatharrested.
2. That formed by the current of air and the opening of the lips, as inpā. This may be called the sound of breathescaping.
Now what may be said ofpmay be said of all the other consonants, the wordstongue,teeth, &c. being used instead oflips, according to the case.
Let the sound of breath arrested be expressed byπ, and that of breath escaping be expressed byϖ, the two together form the current natural soundp(π+ϖ=p).
Thusāp(as quoted above) isp-ϖ, orπ; whilstpa(sounded similarly) isp-π, orϖ.
In the formation of syllables, I consider that the sound of breath arrested belongs to the first, and the sound of breath escaping to the second syllable; that each sound being expressed by a separate sign, the wordhappyis divided thus,haπ-ϖy; and that such is the case with all consonants between two syllables. Thewholeconsonant belongs neither to one syllable nor the other. Half of it belongs to each. The reduplication of thepinhappy, thetinpitted, &c, is a mere point of spelling, of which more will be said in the chapter on orthography.
ON QUANTITY.
§ 232. The dependent vowels, as theainfat,iinfit,uinbut,oinnot, have this character;viz.they are all uttered with rapidity, and pass quickly in the enunciation, the voice not resting on them. This rapidity of utterance becomes more evident when we contrast with them the prolonged sounds of theainfate,eeinfeet,ooinbook,oinnote; wherein the utterance is retarded, and wherein the voice rests, delays, or is prolonged. Thefandtoffateare separated by a longer interval than thefandtoffat; and the same is the case withfit,feet, &c.
Let thenand thetofnotbe each as 1, theoalso being as 1: then each letter, consonant or vowel, shall constitute ⅓ of the whole word.
Let, however, thenandtofnotebe each as 1, theobeing as 2. Then, instead of each consonant constituting ⅓ of the whole word, it shall constitute but ¼.
Upon the comparative extent to which the voice is prolonged, the division of vowels and syllables intolongandshorthas been established: theoinnotebeing long, theoinnotbeing short. And the longness or shortness of a vowel or syllable is said to be its quantity.
§ 233. The division ofvowelsinto long and short coincidesnearlywith the division of them into independent and dependent. Mark the wordvowels, and mark the wordnearly. In the length and shortness of vowels there are degrees. This is especially the case with the broad vowels. Theainfatheris capable of being pronounced either very quickly, or very slowly. It may be attend most rapidly and yet preserve its broad character,i.e., become neither theainfat, nor theainfate.
In the independence and dependence of vowels there are no degrees.
Subject to the views laid down in the next section, the voweleeinseeingis long, and it is certainly independent. Whether thesyllable see-be long is another question.
1. All long vowels are independent, but all independent vowels are not long.
2. All dependent vowels are short, but all short vowels are not dependent.
Clear notions upon these matters are necessary for determining the structure of the English and classical metres.
§ 234. The qualified manner in which it was stated that thevowelin the wordseeingwas long, and the attention directed to the wordvowelsin the preceding section, arose from a distinction, that is now about to be drawn, between the length ofvowelsand the length ofsyllables.
The independent vowel in the syllablesee-is long; and long it remains, whether it stand as it is, or be followed by a consonant, as inseen, or by a vowel, as insee-ing.
The dependent vowel in the wordsitis short. If followed by a vowel it becomes unpronounceable, except as theeainseator theiinsight. By a consonant, however, it may be followed, and still retain its dependent character and also its shortness. Such is the power it has in the word quoted,sit. Followed by asecondconsonant, it still retains its shortness,e.g.,sits. Whatever the comparative length of thesyllables,seeandseen,sitandsits, may be, the length of their respectivevowelsis the same.
Now, if we determine the character of the syllable by the character of the vowel, all syllables are short wherein there is a short vowel, and all are long wherein there is a long one. Measured by the quantity of the vowel the wordsitsis short, and the syllablesee-inseeingis long.
But it is well known that this view is not the view commonly taken of the syllablessee(inseeing) andsits. It is well known, that, in the eyes of a classical scholar, thesee(inseeing) is short, and that in the wordsitstheiis long. The classic differs from the Englishman thus,—He measures hisquantity, not by the length of the vowel but, by the length of the syllable taken altogether.The perception of this distinction enables us to comprehend the following statements.
I. That vowels long by nature mayappearto become short by position, andvice versâ.
II. That, by a laxity of language, thevowelmay be said to have changed its quantity, whilst it is thesyllablealone that has been altered.
III. That, if one person measures his quantities by the vowels, and another by the syllables, what is short to the one, shall be long to the other, andvice versâ. The same is the case with nations.
IV. That one of the most essential differences between the English and the classical languages is that the quantities (as far as they go) of the first are measured by the vowel, those of the latter by the syllable. To a Roman the wordmonumentconsists of two short syllables and one long one; to an Englishman it contains three short syllables.
These remarks are appreciated when we consider the comparative characters of the classical and the English prosody.
ON ACCENT.
§ 235. In the wordtyrantthere is an emphasis, or stress, upon the first syllable. In the wordpresumethere is an emphasis, or stress, on the second syllable. This emphasis, or stress, is calledAccent. The circumstance of a syllable bearing an accent is sometimes expressed by a mark (´); in which case the word is said to be accentuated,i.e., to have the accent signified in writing.
Words accented on the last syllable—Brigáde,preténce,harpoón,reliéve,detér,assúme,besoúght,beréft,befóre,abroád,abóde,abstrúse,intermíx,superádd,cavaliér.
Words accented on the last syllable but one—An´chor,ar´gue,hásten,fáther,fóxes,smíting,húsband,márket,vápour,bárefoot,archángel,bespátter,disáble,terrífic.
Words accented on the last syllable but two—Régular,an´tidote,for´tify,suscéptible,incontrovértible.
Words accented on the last syllable but three (rare)—Réceptacle,régulating,tálkativeness,ábsolutely,lúminary,inévitable, &c.
A great number of words are distinguished by the accent alone. The following list is from Nares' Orthoepy, a work to which the reader is referred.
That class of words that by a change of accent are converted from nouns into verbs (súrvey,survéy,cóntrast,contrást, &c.) will be noticed more at large in the Chapter on Derivation.
§ 236. In words likethínking,fóxes,lon´ger,len´gthen, &c. we have two parts; first the original word, the root, or the radical part, asthink,fox,long,length, &c.; and next, the inflectional, or the subordinate part,-ing,-es,-er,-en, &c.
To assert as a universal rule that theaccent is always on the root, and never on the subordinate part of a word, is too much. Although in theEnglishlanguage such an assertion (with one exception) is found true; by the French and other languages it is invalidated.
In words likelen´g-then-ing, we have asecondinflectional or subordinate syllable; and the accent remains in its original place,absolutely, but not relatively.It is all the farther from the end of the word.Besides indicating the propriety of determining the place of the accent by counting from the end, rather than the beginning of a word, this circumstance indicates something else.
Imagine the English participles to be declined, and to possess cases, formed by the addition of fresh syllables. In this case the wordlen´gtheningwould become a quadri-syllable. But to throw the accent to the fourth syllable from the end is inconvenient. Hence a necessity of removing it from the radical, and placing it on an inflectional syllable.
The German wordlében(tolive) illustrates the foregoing sentence.Léb-is the root,léb-end=living, from whencelebéndig=lively(with the accent on an inflectional syllable), although this last word might without inconvenience have been accented on the first syllable; that being only the third from the end.
Confusion between the radical and inflectional syllables of a word, arising from the situation of the accent, may work the deterioration of a language.
§ 237. Intýrantandpresúme, we deal with single words; and in eachwordwe determine whichsyllableis accented.Contrasted with the sort of accent that follows, this may be called averbalaccent.
In the line,
Better forus, perhaps, it might appear,(Pope'sEssay on Man,I.169.)
Better forus, perhaps, it might appear,
Better forus, perhaps, it might appear,
(Pope'sEssay on Man,I.169.)
(Pope'sEssay on Man,I.169.)
the pronounusis strongly brought forward. An especial stress or emphasis is laid upon it, denoting thatthere are other beings to whom it might not appear, &c. This is collected from the context. Here there is alogicalaccent. "When one word in a sentence is distinguished by a stress, as more important than the rest, we may say that it isemphatical, or that anemphasisis laid upon it. When one syllable in a word is distinguished by a stress, and more audible than the rest, we say that it is accented, or that an accent is put upon it. Accent, therefore, is to syllables what emphasis is to sentences; it distinguishes one from the crowd, and brings it forward to observation."—(Nares' Orthoepy, Part II. Chap. I.)
§ 238. Accent plays an important part in determining the nature of certain compound words—For this, see the Chapter on Composition.
It also plays an important part in determining the nature of the English metres—See Prosody.
Thirdly (the subject of the present section), it plays an important part in all systems of orthography.
The quotation from Professor Lee's Hebrew Grammar, in p.149, is referred to; and a particular attention to a somewhat difficult subject is requisite.
Theuin the wordmonumentis what a classic would callshort.
The secondsyllablein the wordmonumentis what a classical scholar would callshort. The vowel isshort, and the syllable taken altogether isshort. Herein it agrees with the first syllablemon-. It differs, however, from the syllablemon-in being destitute of an accent,mónument. With the third syllable-ment, it agrees in the eyes of an Englishman, but differs in the eyes of a scholar. The vowelsuandeare equally short, and, as the Englishman measures by the vowelthe syllables-uand-mentare both short. Not so, however, with the scholar. He measures by the syllable and determines that thee, although naturally a short vowel, is madelongby position. However, in being each destitute of an accent the syllables-uand-mentagree. Be it remarked a second time that the accent inmónumentlies on the first syllable.
Now the-uinmónumentalthoughshort, is notdependent.
If, however, the syllable-nutake an accent; that is, if the place of the accent be removed from the first to the second syllable, the vowelustill being kept short, we have a word which we spell thus,monumment. Now theuinmonummentis not only short, but dependent. It is upon this effect of an accent that the quotation from Lee's Hebrew Grammar, p.149, especially bears.
And now two questions arise:—1. How is it that the accent has the effect of rendering such a syllable as theuinmonummentdependent? 2. Why do we in spelling such a syllable double the consonant?
An accent falling upon a syllable must, of necessity, do one of two things: it must affect the vowel, or it must affect the consonant. If it affect the vowel, the vowel becomes the predominant part of the syllable, as inmónooment; but, if it affect the consonant, the consonant becomes the predominant part of the syllable, asmonum´ment.
In words likemonummentthe consonant is, strictly speaking, as single as it is inmonument, ormonooment. Itsabsolutesound is the same. Not so itsrelativesound. This is exaggerated by two circumstances:—1, The comparative shortness of the vowelu; 2, the fact of the accent falling on it. The increased relative importance of the lettermin the wordmonummentis mistaken for a reduplication of the sound. This is the reason why in most languages the shortness of a vowel is expressed by the doubling of the consonant following; this doubling being no true reduplication of the sound, but a mere orthographical conventionality.
§ 239. Accent and quantity, as may have been collected from pp.164-167, donotcoincide. Nothing shows this moreclearly than words like the adjectiveaugúst, and the substantiveAúgust(the month), where the quantity remains the same, although the accent is different. The following quotation from Mr. Guest's English Rhythms is made for the sake of four things:—
1. Of showing that the generality of writers have the credit of confusing accent with quantity—
2. Of showing that there is a reason for such a confusion having existed—
3. Of indicating the propriety of the expressions in italics—It is not stated that the consonantcis doubled, but that it is added to the first syllable. The difference lies, not in its reduplication, but in its distribution.
4. Of taking a slight exception—A syllable (accented or unaccented) must be either independent or dependent; if the latter, then in most immediate contact with the consonant that follows.
"Besides the increase of loudness, and the sharper tone which distinguishes the accented syllable, there is also a tendency to dwell upon it, or, in other words, to lengthen its quantity. We cannot increase the loudness or the sharpness of a tone without a certain degree of muscular action: and to put the muscles in motion requires time. It would seem that the time required for producing a perceptible increase in the loudness or sharpness of a tone is greater than that of pronouncing some of our shorter syllables. If we attempt, for instance, to throw the accent on the first syllable of the wordbecome, we must either lengthen the vowel, and pronounce the wordbee-come,or add the adjoining consonant to the first syllable, and so pronounce the wordbec-ome. We often find it convenient to lengthen the quantity even of the longer syllables, when we wish to give them a very strong and marked accent. Hence, no doubt, arose the vulgar notion, that accent always lengthens the quantity of a syllable."It is astonishing how widely this notion has misled men, whose judgment, in most other matters of criticism, it would be very unsafe to question. Our earlier writers, almost to a man, confound accent with quantity."—B. i. C. iv.
"Besides the increase of loudness, and the sharper tone which distinguishes the accented syllable, there is also a tendency to dwell upon it, or, in other words, to lengthen its quantity. We cannot increase the loudness or the sharpness of a tone without a certain degree of muscular action: and to put the muscles in motion requires time. It would seem that the time required for producing a perceptible increase in the loudness or sharpness of a tone is greater than that of pronouncing some of our shorter syllables. If we attempt, for instance, to throw the accent on the first syllable of the wordbecome, we must either lengthen the vowel, and pronounce the wordbee-come,or add the adjoining consonant to the first syllable, and so pronounce the wordbec-ome. We often find it convenient to lengthen the quantity even of the longer syllables, when we wish to give them a very strong and marked accent. Hence, no doubt, arose the vulgar notion, that accent always lengthens the quantity of a syllable.
"It is astonishing how widely this notion has misled men, whose judgment, in most other matters of criticism, it would be very unsafe to question. Our earlier writers, almost to a man, confound accent with quantity."—B. i. C. iv.
THE PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOEPY.
§ 240. The present chapter is one, not upon the details of the pronunciation of the English language, but upon the principles of orthoepy. For the details of pronunciation the reader is referred to Nares' Orthoepy, and to the common pronouncing dictionaries, with the preliminary recommendation to use them with caution.Orthoepy, a word derived from the Greekorthon(upright), andepos(a word), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy differs from orthography by determining how words are spoken, whereas orthography decides how they are spelt. The one is a question of speech, the other a question of spelling. Orthography presupposes orthoepy.
§ 241. Of pronunciation there are two kinds, the colloquial and the rhetorical. In common conversation we pronounce theiinwind, like theiinbit; in rehearsing, or in declamation, however, we pronounce it like theiinbite; that is, we give it a diphthongal sound. In reading the Scriptures we sayblesséd; in current speech we sayblest. It is the same with many words occurring in poetry.
§ 242. Errors in pronunciation are capable of being classified. In the first place, they may be arranged according to their situation. The man who pronounces the verbto survéy, as if it wassúrvey(that is, with the accent on the wrong syllable), errs in respect to the accentuation of the word; the situation, or seat of his error, being the accent. To sayorātorinstead oforătoris to err in respect to the quantity of the word, the seat of the error being in the quantity; and to pronounce theainfather, as it is pronounced in Yorkshire, or thesinsound, as it is pronounced in Devonshire (that is, asz), is to err inthe matter of the articulate sounds. To mispronounce a word because it is misspelt[34]is only indirectly an error of orthoepy. It is an error, not so much of orthoepy, as of orthography; and to give a wrong inflection to a word is not bad pronunciation but bad grammar. For practical purposes, however, many words that are really points of grammar and of orthography, may be dealt with as points of orthoepy.
That the preceding classification is natural I am induced to believe by the following circumstances. Errors in the way of articulation generally arise from a source different from those of accent and of quantity. Errors in accent and quantity are generally referable to insufficient grammatical or etymological knowledge, whilst the errors of articulation betray a provincial dialect.
The misdivision of syllables, an orthoepical error of a fourth kind, has in the English, and perhaps in other languages, given rise to a peculiar class of words. There have been those who have writtena nambassadorforan ambassador, misdividing the syllables, and misdistributing the sound of the lettern. The double form (aandan) of the English indefinite article, encourages this misdivision. Now, in certain words an error of this kind has had a permanent influence. The English wordnagis, in Danish,ög; then, in English, having originally belonged to the indefinitean, which preceded it. The words, instead of being divided thus,an ag, were divided thus,a nag, and the fault became perpetuated. That the Danish is the true form we collect, firstly, from the ease with which the English form is accounted for, and, secondly, from the old Saxon formehu, Latinequus. Inadderwe have the process reversed. The true form isnadder, old English;natter, German. Here thenis taken from the substantive and added to the article. Innewtandeftwe have each form. The list of words of this sort can be increased.
§ 243. In the second place, faults of pronunciation may be arranged according to their cause.
1.The fault of incompetent enunciation.—A person who sayssickforthick, orelebbenforeleven, does so, not because he knows no better, but because he cannot enounce the right sounds ofthandv. He isincompetentto it. His error is not one of ignorance. It is an acoustic or a phonetic defect. As such it differs from—
2.The fault of erroneous enunciation.—This is the error of a person who talks ofjocholateinstead ofchocolate. It is not that hecannotpronounce rightly, but that he mistakes the nature of the sound required. Still more the person who callsa hedgea nedge, andan edgea hedge.
§ 244. Incompetent enunciation, and erroneous enunciation are, however, only the proximate and immediate causes of bad orthoepy. Amongst the remote causes (the immediate causes oferroneousenunciation) are the following.
I.Undefined notions as to the language to which a word belongs.—The flower calledanemoneis variously pronounced. Those who know Greek sayanemōne, speaking as if the word was writtenanemohny. The mass say,anemŏne, speaking as if the word was writtenanemmony. Now, the doubt here is as to the language of the word. If it be Greek, it isanemōne.