Chapter III: Part 3

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, _wind_ is an exception; for general practice has determined that _i_ should, in this word, have its second or short sound.[40] Whether this deviation was admitted at first to distinguish this word from the verb _to 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, as _o_ in ho´-ly; but when the accent falls on a consonant, the preceding vowel is short, as in _flat´-ter_.

It is also a general rule, that when a consonant closes a syllable, the preceding vowel is short, as in _fan-cy_, _habit_; altho this rule has its exceptions, as _Cam-bridge_, _dan-ger_, and perhaps _man-ger_.

From this rule, the English except also _[2a]ngel_, _[2a]ncient_. In this all the standard authors agree, except Kenrick and Burn, who mark _a_ in _ancient_ both 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 give _a_ its 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 give _a_, in the words mentioned, the same sound as in _anguish_, _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, that _a_ in these words must formerly have had its third or fourth sound; which is evident from the old orthography; for angel, at least, was spelt like _grant_, _command_, &c. _aungel_, _graunt_, _commaund_. In giving _a_ its first sound therefore, the modern English have not only infringed the rule of analogy, but have deviated from former practice.

In the word _chamber_, _a_ has its fourth sound. It is necessary to remark this; as there are many people in America, who give _a_ its 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. Thus _sensible_ is derived from _sensus_ in Latin or _sense_ in 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 terminations _ing_, _ful_, _less_, _ness_, _ed_, _est_, _ist_, _ly_, retain the accent on the syllable where it is laid in their primitives; as _proceed_, _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 the _same_ terminating syllable, have the accent at the _same_ distance from that termination. Thus all words ending in _tion_, _sion_, _cion_, _cial_, _cian_, have the accent on the last syllable but one;[42] and this without any regard to derivation or to the number of syllables in the word.

Thus most words in _ty_, if they consist of more syllables than two, have the accent on the antepenult; as _probity_, _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. _Mortal_ has the accent on the first syllable. Here the first rule takes place, for the first syllable, having _mors_, death, for its root, is the most important. But the derivative, _mortality_, conforms to the analogy of words ending in _ty_ and 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 out _old_ errors, they may prevent the introduction of _others_.

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 as _designation_, _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 in _sanctify_, which is composed of two radicals, _sanctus_ and _fio_, we observe two accents; the strongest on the first syllable. The same may be observed in _magnanimity_, from _magnus_ and _animus_, in _promogeniture_, &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 in _mathematics_, the two accents lie on the proper syllables; but in _mathematician_, the last accent is removed to a less important place. In _imperceptible_, the principal accent, with propriety, lies on the third syllable, which being derived from a verb (_capio_) is the most important. The particle _im_, 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 derivative _imperceptibility_, 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 the whole accent, such a word loses its original meaning, or at least its force, as may be observed in the word _hussy_, a corruption of _house-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-house_ is, by some people, pronounced _work-us_.

On this head, I shall only observe further, that some words of many syllables have three accents; of which we have an example in _val'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; as _figurative_, _literature_, _applicable_. The difficulty is very great, when the middle syllables abound with consonants, even in trissyllables, as _ag'grandize_; but is itself a sufficient reason for not accenting the first syllable of such words as _acceptable_ and _refractory_. 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 a _pleasureable or of a_ painful 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 of prose consists in a proper mixture of important and unimportant syllables.[46][K]

DIFFERENCES _of_ PRONUNCIATION _and_ CONTROVERTED POINTS EXAMINED.

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 of _i_ in the termination _ive_. In such words as _motive_, _relative_, &c. the people, excepting the more polished part, give _i_ its first sound. This is a local practice, opposed to the general pronunciation of the English on both sides of the Atlantic, sometimes to the rules of accent, and always to derivation. In dissyllables, as _motive_, _active_, the genius of our language requires that the accent should be laid on _one_ syllable, and that the other should be short.[47] But by prolonging _i_ in 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 French _motif_, _relatif_, always requires that _i_ in the termination _ive_ should have the sound of _ee_ short, as in _live_, _give_. This is merely the short sound of the French _i_, 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 pronounce _practise_, _prejudice_, with _i_ long. 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 of _e_ before _r_, like _a_; as _marcy_ for mercy. This mistake must have originated principally in the name of the letter _r_, which, in most of our school books, is called _ar_. 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 pronouncing _e_ before _r_, like _u_, _murcy_. This is an error. The true sound of the short _e_, as in _let_, 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 of _i_ short or _e_, before the dipthong _ow_; as _kiow_, _piower_ or _peower_. This fault usually occurs after _p_, _c_ hard, or those other consonants which are formed near the seat of _ee_ in the mouth, or in passing from which to the succeeding vowel, the organs naturally take the position necessary to pronounce _ee_. But the most awkward countryman pronounces _round_, _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 a certain 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 bred people 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 pronounce _cow_, _power_, or _gown_ with 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 of _ow_: Otherwise in passing from that position to the aperture necessary to pronounce _ow_, he will inevitably articulate _ee_, _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 of _kind_, _sky_, _guide_, &c. in which we hear the short _e_ before _i_, _keind_, or _kyind_, _skey_, &c. This is the same barbarous dialect, as the _keow_ and _veow_ of the eastern country people. Yet, strange as it may seem, it is the elegant pronunciation of the fashionable people both in England and America. Even Sheridan, who has laid it down as a rule that _i_ is a dipthong, composed of _aw_ and _ee_, has prefixed a _y_ short to its sound in several words; as _kyind_, _skyi_, _gyide_, &c. We may with equal propriety prefix _e_ to the dipthong _ow_, or to _o_ in _poll_, or to _oo_ in _fool_, 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 of _r_ as in _ware_, _there_. In the best English pronunciation, the sound of _r_ is 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 pronounce _off_, _soft_, _drop_, _crop_, with the sound of _a_, _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 a _t_ at the end of _once_ and _twice_, _oncet_ and _twicet_. This gross impropriety would not be mentioned, but for its prevalence among a class of very well educated people; particularly in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

_Fotch_ for _fetch_ is very common, in several states, but not among the better classes of people. _Cotched_ for _caught_ is more frequent, and equally barbarous.

_Skroud_ and _skrouge_ for _croud_, are sometimes heard among people that should be ashamed of the least vulgarism.

_Mought_ for _might_ is heard in most of the states, but not frequently except in a few towns.[M]

_Holpe_ for _help_ I have rarely heard except in Virginia. _Tote_ is local in Virginia and its neighborhood. In meaning it is nearly equivalent to _carry_. 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 of _char_, is an English word, still used in many parts of England, as a _char-man_, a _char-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 of _w_ for _v_ is a prevailing practice in England and America: It is particularly prevalent in Boston and Philadelphia.[52] Many people say _weal_, _wessel_, for _veal_, _vessel_.

These letters are easily mistaken for each other, and the name of the letter _w_ now used, is a proof that the letter _v_ was formerly called _u_ or _oo_. The letter in the Roman language had the sound we now give _w_ in _will_. _Via_ and _vinum_, pronounced _wia_, _winum_, have suffered but a small change of pronunciation in our _way_, _wine_. In old English books, down to Shakespear, _v_ was written for the short _u_, as _vp_, _vnder_; for _up_, _under_. On the other hand, _u_ was written where we now write _v_, as _uery_, _euery_, for _very_, _every_. It seems therefore, that _v_ had formerly the sound of _w_ or _oo_; and that instead of corrupting the language, the Cockneys in London, and their imitators in America, who say _weal_, _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 no _w_ in their language, but where we write _w_, they write _v_, and where we write _wh_, they invariably write _hv_; as _vind_, _wind_; _vej_, _way_; _vader_, _wade_; _hvad_, _what_; _hvide_, _white_; _hvi_, _why_. The Germans, whose language is another branch of the same stock, invariably pronounce _w_ as we do _v_; _wall_, _vall_; _wir_, _vir_, _we_; _wollen_, _vollen_, _will_; and _v_ they pronounce as we do _f_; as _vergessen_, _fergessen_, which is the same as the English _forget_.

The retaining the old sound of _v_ is a proof of the force of custom; but since the nation in general have annexed to it a precise sound, as well as to _w_, 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 words _shall_, _quality_, _quantity_, _qualify_, _quandary_, _quadrant_, are differently pronounced by good speakers. Some give _a_ a broad sound, as _shol_, _quolity_; and others, its second sound, as in _hat_. With respect to the four first, almost all the standard writers[53] agree to pronounce _a_ short, as in _hat_: And this is the stage pronunciation. It is correct, for it is more agreeable to the analogy of the language; that being the proper sound of the English _a_ which is heard in _hat_ or _bar_. 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 give _a_ in all these words, as also in _quash_, its second sound.[54]

The words _either_, _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 give _ei_, in these words, the sound of _ee_. 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 verb _conceive_, _conceeve_, and the noun _conceit_, _consate_. Such an inconsistency will hardly find advocates, except among the prejudiced and uninformed.

_Importance_ is, by a few people, pronounced imp[1o]rtance; with the first sound of _o_. The reason alleged is, that it is a derivative of _import_, and _o_ should 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-ive_ for _deci-sive_ is mere affectation.

_Reesin_ for _raisin_ is very prevalent in two or three principal towns in America. One of the standard authors gives us this pronunciation; and another gives us both _raisin_ and _reesin_. But all the others pronounce the word _raisin_, with _a_ long; and derivation, analogy and general custom, all decide in favor of the practice.

_Leisure_ is sometimes pronounced _leesure_, and sometimes _lezhure_: The latter is the most general pronunciation in America. It is almost singular in its spelling; _seizure_ being the only word in analogy with it; and this is a derivative from _seize_. The true original orthography of _leisure_ was _leasure_; this was in analogy with _pleasure_, _measure_, and its ancient pronunciation still remains.

_Dictionary_ has been usually pronounced _dicsonary_; But its derivation from _diction_, the analogous pronunciation of _tion_ in other cases, and all the standard writers require _dicshunary_, or _dicshonary_.

One author of eminence pronounces _defile_ in 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 to _oblige_, authorities differ. The standard writers give us both _oblige_ and _obleege_, 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 prefer _obleege_, in the analogy of _fatigue_, _machine_, _antique_, _pique_, _marine_, _oblique_, which uniformly preserve the French _i_ or English _ee_. Yet Chesterfield called this affectation, and it might be so in his age; for the opinions of men are capricious. The English analogy requires _i_ long in _oblige_; and perhaps this should incline all parties to meet each other on that best principle.

Some people very erroneously pronounce _chaise_, _sha_ in the singular, and _shaze_ in the plural. The singular number is _shaze_, and the plural, _shazes_.

Our modern fashionable speakers accent _European_ on 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 in _ean_ have the accent on the last syllable but two: Witness _Mediterra'nean_, _Pyre'nean_, _Hercu'lean_, _subterra'nean_. I do not advert to an exception,[55] and why _European_ should be made one, it is difficult to determine. The reason given by some, that _e_ in the penultima represents the Latin dipthong _æ_, which was long, is of little weight, opposed to the general practice of a nation, and to an established 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 requires _Euro'pean_, and this is supported by as good authorities as the other.

_Rome_ is very frequently pronounced _Room_, 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 give _o_ its first sound. It seems very absurd to give _o_ its first sound in _Romish_, _Romans_, and pronounce it _oo_ in _Rome_, the radical word. I know of no language in Europe, in which _o_ has not one uniform sound, viz. the sound we give it in _rose_. 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 have restored the analogy of pronunciation in giving _o_ its first found in _Rome_; and a desire of uniformity would lead us to extend the practice.[56]

In the pronunciation of _arch_ in many compound words, people are not uniform. The disputed words are _archangel_, _archetype_, _architecture_, _architrave_, _archives_. There seems to be no settled principle of analogy, by which the question can be determined. Etymology would require _ch_, in Greek and Hebrew derivatives, to have uniformly the sound of _k_; but before most consonants, such a pronunciation is harsh; for which reason it is generally softened into the English _ch_, as _archbishop_. But before vowels, as in the words just enumerated, the best practice has decided for the sound of _k_; and euphony, as well as derivation, favors the decision.[N]

The sound of _ch_ in _chart_ is likewise disputed; and the standard authors are directly opposed to each other. There is as good foreign authority on one side as the other; but in America, _ch_ has generally its soft or English sound. This must perhaps be preferred, contrary to etymology; for we uniformly give _ch_ that sound in _charter_, which is from the same original; and this also distinguishes the word from _cart_; a reason which is not without its weight.

There are many people who omit the aspirate in most words which begin with _wh_; as _white_, _whip_, &c. which they pronounce _wite_, _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, _h_ is not silent in a single word beginning with _wh_. In this point our standard authors differ; two of them aspirating the whole of these words, and three, marking _h_ in most of them as mute. But the omission of _h_ seems 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, _w_ is silent in four only, with their derivatives; viz. _who_, _whole_, _whoop_, _whore_.

One or two authors affect to pronounce _human_, and about twenty other words beginning with _h_, as tho they were spelt _yuman_.[57] This is a gross error. The only word that begins with this sound, is _humor_, with its derivatives. In the American pronunciation, _h_ is silent in the following, _honest_, _honor_, _hour_, _humor_, _herb_, _heir_, with their derivatives. To these the English add _hospital_, _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 word _yelk_ is sometimes written _yolk_ and pronounced _yoke_. But _yelk_ is the most correct orthography, from the Saxon _gealkwe_; and in this country, it is the general pronunciation.

_Ewe_ is, by the English, often pronounced _yo_; 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 for _yew_.

The English speakers of eminence have shortened the vowel in the first syllable of _tyranny_, _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. In _child_, _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 say _pat-ron_, _mat-ron_; whereas the English say either _pa-tron_ or _pat-ron_, _ma__tron_ or _mat-ron_; but all agree in saying, _pat-ronage_. In _patriot_, _patriotism_, the English give _a_ its 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 of _a_ or _aw_; but the Americans almost universally preserve the analogous sound, as in _bath_, _path_. This is the correct pronunciation; and why should we reject it for _wroth_, 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 whether _g_ should have its hard or soft sound, in _homogeneous_ and _heterogeneous_: On this question the standard authors are not agreed. The hard sound, as in _go_, coincides with etymology; but analogy requires the other, as in _genius_. The same remarks apply to _g_ in _phlogiston_.

In the middle and southern states, _fierce_, _pierce_, _tierce_, are pronounced _feerce_, _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_, from _fiers_, _tiers_, and _pierce_ from _percer_. In the two former, the French pronounce both _i_ and _e_; but it is evident the English originally pronounced _e_ only; for the _i_ was omitted in the spelling of _fierce_, and was not introduced into _pierce_ till after Spenser wrote.

"--When he him knew and had his tale herd,
As _fers_ as a leon pulled out his swerd."

Chaucer, Knightes Tale 1600.

"The drought of March hath _perced_ to the rote."

Canterbury Tales.

"For they this queen attended; in whose steed,
Oblivion laid him down on Laura's herse:
Hereat the hardest stones were seen to bleed,
And grones of buried ghosts the heavens did perse."

Verses to Edmond Spenser.

_Pierce_ is also made to rhime with _rehearse_. Pope makes it rhime with _universe_.

"He, who thro vast immensity can pierce,
See worlds on worlds compose one universe."

Essay on Man, 23.

The rhime in the last quotation, is not unequivocal proof of the pronunciation in Pope's time; but the orthography in Chaucer's and Spenser's writings, are to me satisfactory evidence that _e_ in these words was short. The standard English pronunciation now is _ferce_, _perce_, _terce_, and it is universal in New England. I have only to add, that the sharp abrupt sound of _e_ in the two first words is most happily adapted to express the ideas.

The English pronounce _leap_, _lep_; and that in the present tense as well as the past. Some of our American horsemen have learnt the practice; but among other people, it is almost unknown. It is a breach of analogy, at least in the present tense; the American pronunciation, _leep_, is therefore the most correct and should not be relinquished.

In the fashionable world, _heard_ is pronounced _herd_ or _hurd_. This was almost unknown in America till the commencement of the late war, and how long it has been the practice in England, I cannot determine. By Chaucer's orthography, one would imagine that it had been handed down from remote antiquity; for he writes _herd_, _herde_, and _herden_.[58] In reading more modern poets, I have rarely found any instance of a verse's closing with this word; so that it is difficult to say what has been the general practice among the learned. But for centuries, the word has been uniformly spelt _heard_; the verb _hear_ is in analogy with _fear_, _sear_, and yet _e_ in the past time and participle has been omitted, as _heard_, not _heared_. That _herd_ was not formerly the pronunciation, is probable from this circumstance; the Americans were strangers to it when they came from England, and the body of the people are so to this day.[59] To most people in this country, the English pronunciation appears like affectation, and is adopted only in the capital towns, which are always the most ready to distinguish themselves by an implicit imitation of foreign customs. Analogy requires that we should retain our former practice; for we may as well change _feared_, _seared_, into _ferd_, _serd_, as to change _heard_ into _herd_.

_Beard_ is sometimes, but erroneously, pronounced _beerd_. General practice, both in England and America, requires that _e_ should be pronounced as in _were_, and I know of no rule opposed to the practice.

_Deaf_ is generally pronounced _deef_. It is the universal practice in the eastern states; and it is general in the middle and southern; tho some have adopted the English pronunciation, _def_. The latter is evidently a corruption; for the word is in analogy with _leaf_ and _sheaf_, and has been from time immemorial. So in Sir William Temple's works, Virg. Ecl.

----"We sing not to the deaf,
An answer comes from every trembling leaf."

_Leaf_ and _deaf_, with a different orthography, are repeatedly made to rhime in Chaucer's works; as in the Wife of Bath's Prologue, L. 6217,

"For that I rent out of his book a lefe,
That of the stroke myn ere wex al _defe_."

So also line 6249.

This was the orthography of his time, and an almost conclusive evidence that _deaf_ was pronounced _deef_.[60] This pronunciation is generally retained in America, and analogy requires it.

This dissertation will be closed with one observation, which the reader may have made upon the foregoing criticisms: That in many instances the Americans still adhere to the analogies of the language, where the English have infringed them. So far therefore as the regularity of construction is concerned, we ought to retain our own practice and be our own standards. The English practice is an authority; but considering the force of custom and the caprice of fashion, their practice must be as liable to changes and to errors, as the practice of a well educated yeomanry, who are governed by habits and not easily led astray by novelty. In the instances where we have adhered to analogy, no consideration can warrant us in resigning our practice to the authority of a foreign court, which, thro mere affectation, may have embraced many obvious errors. In doubtful cases, to pay a suitable deference to the opinions of others, is wise and prudent; but to renounce an obvious principle of propriety because others have renounced it, is to carry our complaisance for the faults of the great, much farther than we can justify, and in a _nation_, it is an act of servility that wants a name.

FOOTNOTES:

[38] Dr. Sheridan has coined a word for these combinations; he calls them _digraphs_, that is, _double written_.

[39] Vocal and aspirate.

[40] On the stage, it is sometimes pronounced with _i_ long, either for the sake of rhime, or in order to be heard. Mr. Sheridan marks it both ways; yet in common discourse he pronounces it with _i_ short, as do the nation in general.

[41] The most significant words, and consequently the most important, are nouns and verbs; then follow adjectives, pronouns, auxiliary verbs and participles.--Particles are the least important.

[42] I consider these terminations as single syllables.

[43] Such is the tendency of people to uniformity, that the _commonalty_, for the most part, form the word regularly, and pronounce it _commonality_. Analogy requires that both these words should end in _ity_; but custom has established them as exceptions.

[44] From this remark we must except some derivatives from the Greek; as geography, philology, antithesis, hypothesis, &c. which have but one accent. Etymology requires these words to be accented on the first and third syllables; but the genius of the language, or the analogy of termination has prevailed over etymological reasons. Etymology however resumes her rights in the derivatives, _geographical_, _philological_, &c. where each radical syllable is distinguished by an accent.

[45] To prove the utility of accent in marking the signification of words, it is only necessary to advert to the two words _omission_ and _commission_. These words have the accent on the second syllable; but when we use them by way of contrast, we lay a strong accent on the first syllable of each, by which the opposition of sense is distinguished. "Sins of o'mission and com'mission." Thus when we use the word _regain_, we often lay an accent on _re_ almost equal to that on _gain_; because the sense of the word depends much, or rather wholly, on the particle.

[46] In the following passage, alliteration or the similarity of the weak syllables, has a very bad effect. "We tread, as with_in an en_chanted circle, where nothing appears as it truly is."----Blair Serm. 9.

A difficulty of pronunciation is obvious in the following sentence, "This caution while it _admirably_ protects the public liberty, can never bear hard upon individuals." Change the accent from the first to the second syllable of _admirably_, and the difficulty vanishes.

"And yet the labyrinth is more _admirable than the_ Pyramids."----Trans. of Herodotus, Euterpe.

[47] Except compounds, as _earthquake_, _bookcase_.

[48] The final _e_ must be considered as the cause of this vulgar dialect. It is wished that some bold genius would dare to be right, and spell this class of words without _e_, _motiv_. By reason of an embarrassing orthography, one half the trouble of learning English, is bestowed in acquiring errors, and correcting them after they are formed into habits. To prevent the continuance of this erroneous practice, I have, in the first part of the Institute, distinguished the silent _e_, by an Italic character.

[49] To remedy the evil, in some degree, this letter is named _er_, in the Institute. In a few instances this pronunciation is become general among polite speakers, as clerks, sergeant, &c.

[50] Hence the surprising similarity between the idioms of the New England people and those of Chaucer, Shakespear, Congreve, &c. who wrote in the true English stile. It is remarked by a certain author, that the inhabitants of islands best preserve their native tongue. New England has been in the situation of an island; during 160 years, the people except in a few commercial towns, have not been exposed to any of the causes which effect great changes in language and manners.

[51] I have once met with the word in Chaucer's Plowman's Tale 2014.

"The other side ben pore and pale,
And peple yput out of prese,
And semin caitiffs sore a cale,
And er in one without encrease;
Iclepid Lollers and Londlese;
Who _toteth_ on 'hem thei ben untall;
They ben arayid all for pece,
But falshed foule mote it befall."

[52] I am at a loss to determine, why this practice should prevail in Boston and not in Connecticut. The first and principal settlers in Hartford came from the vicinity of Boston. Vast numbers of people in Boston and the neighborhood use _w_ for _v_; yet I never once heard this pronunciation in Connecticut.

[53] By standard writers, I mean, Kenrick, Sheridan, Burn, Perry and Scott.

[54] The distinction in the pronunciation of _a_ in _quality_, when it signifies the property of some body, and when it is used for high rank, appears to me without foundation in rule or practice.

[55] _Hymenean_ and _hymeneal_ are, by some writers, accented on the last syllable but one; but erroneously. Other authorities preserve the analogy.

[56] This is the sound which the rhime requires in the following verses:

"Give eare to me that ten years fought for Rome,
Yet reapt all grace at my returning home."

Rel. An. Poet. p. 204.

[57] Particularly _Perry_. I am surprized that his pronunciation has found so many advocates in this country, as there is none more erroneous.

I would just remark here that many writers use _an_ before _h_ aspirate, instead of _a_; which practice seems not well founded. The rapid sound of the article _a_ is indistinct, but opens the mouth to a proper position to pronounce _h_; whereas _n_ places the end of the tongue under the upper teeth, and the mouth assumes a new position, before the aspiration can be formed. _A_ hundred, _a_ house, &c. are therefore much more easily articulated, than _an_ hundred, _an_ house.

Thus _a_ should always be used before _y_ consonant, and consequently before _u_ when it has the same sound, as in _union_, _universal_, &c. Indeed I cannot account for the use of _an_ before _y_, on any other principle than this, that the persons who use it do not pronounce _y_ at all. If they make _y_ the same as _ee_, it is consistent to write _an_ before it; but this is an error.

[58] See Canterbury Tales and Prologue. L. 221, 955, 1599, 15382.

[59] To prove that the Americans have a corrupt pronunciation, we are often told that our ancestors came from the western counties of England. This is but partially true.

The company that purchased New England, was indeed called the _Plymouth Company_, being composed principally of persons belonging to the county of Devon. But many of the principal settlers in these states came from London and its vicinity; some from the middle counties, the ancient kingdom of Mercia; and a few from the northern counties. To show the falsehood of the charge, with respect to the language, it may be asserted with truth, that there is not the least affinity between the language of the New England people and the specimens of the Devonshire dialect, given in the English Magazines.

[60] The digraph _ea_ seems not to have been much used in that age; for _speak_ authors wrote _speke_; for _dear_, _dere_; for _leaf_, _lefe_.

DISSERTATION III.

_Examination of controverted Points, continued._--_Of modern
Corruptions in the English Pronunciation._

EXAMINATION _of_ CONTROVERTED POINTS, _continued_.

In the preceding dissertation I have endeavored to settle a number of controverted points and local differences in pronunciation, on the most satisfactory principles hitherto discovered. I now proceed to some other differences of consequence to the language, and particularly in America.

_Gold_ is differently pronounced by good speakers, and differently marked by the standard writers. Two of them give us _goold_, as the standard, and three, _gold_ or _goold_. But we may find better principles than the opinions or practice of individuals, to direct our judgement in this particular. The word indeed has the pronunciation, _goold_, in some of the collateral branches of the Teutonic, as in the Danish, where it is spelt _guld_. But in the Saxon, it was written _gold_, and has been uniformly written so in English. Besides, we have good reason to believe that it was, in early times, pronounced _gold_, with the first sound of _o_, for the poets invariably make it rhime with _old_, _behold_, and other words of similar sound. Thus in Chaucer:

"With nayles yelwe, and bright as any _gold_,
He hadde a bere's skin, cole blake for old."

Knight's Tale, L. 2143.

IN Pope:

"Now Europe's laurels on their brows behold,
But stain'd with blood, or ill exchang'd for _gold_."

Essay on Man, Book 4.

The rhime is here a presumptive proof that the poets pronounced this word with the first sound of _o_, and it is a substantial reason why that pronunciation should be preferred. But analogy is a still stronger reason; for bold, told, fold, and I presume every similar word in the language, has the first sound of _o_. These are good reasons why _gold_ should have that sound; reasons which are permanent, and superior to any private opinions.

Similar reasons, and equally forceable, are opposed to the modern pronunciation of _wound_. I say _modern_; for in America _woond_ is a recent innovation. It was perhaps an ancient dialect; for the old Saxon and modern Danish orthography warrant this conjecture.

But in English the spelling has uniformly corresponded with _bound_, _sound_, and if we may judge from the rhimes of our poets, the pronunciation has also been analogous. Thus in Skelton's Elegy on Henry, Earl of Northumberland, 1489, we have the following lines:

"Most noble erle! O foul mysurd[61] ground
Whereon he gat his finall deadly _wounde_."

Rel. An. Eng. Poet. vol. 1. page 113.

So in a song which seems to have been written in the reign of Henry VIII.

"Where griping grefes the hart would _wounde_
And doleful dumps the mynde oppresse,
There musicke with her silver sound,
With speed is wont to send redresse."

Ibm. page 165.

Similar rhimes occur in almost every page of modern poetry.

"Warriors she fires with animated sounds,
Pours balm into the bleeding lover's _wounds_."

Pope.

The fashionable pronunciation of _wound_ destroys the rhime and infringes the rule of analogy; two objections to it which can be removed only by universal practice. Does this practice exist? By no means. One good authority[62] at least, directs to the analogous pronunciation; and another compiler directs to both--the regular and the fashionable. But were _woond_ the universal practice in Great Britain, this should not induce us to lay aside our own practice for a foreign one. There is but a small part, even of the well bred people in this country, who have yet adopted the English mode; and the great body of the people uniformly pursue analogy. The authority of practice therefore, is, in this country, opposed to the innovation. Shall we then relinquish what every man must acknowlege to be _right_, to embrace the corruptions of a foreign court and stage? Will not the Atlantic ocean, the total separation of America from Great Britain, the pride of an independent nation, the rules of the language, the melody of English poetry, restrain our rage for imitating the errors of foreigners?

But it is said that _woond_ is softer than _wound_, and therefore more agreeable. Suppose the assertion to be true, will it follow that the softest pronunciation should be preferred?

It is acknowleged on all hands, that a correspondence between sound and sense is a beauty in language, and there are many words in our language, the sounds of which were borrowed from the sensible objects, the ideas of which they are designed to express. Such are the _dashing_ of waters, the _crackling_ of burning faggots, the _hissing_ of serpents, the _lisping_ of infants, and the _stuttering_ of a _stammerer_. These are considered as beauties in a language. But there are other words, the sounds of which are not adopted in imitating audible noises, which are either soft or harsh, and by the help of association are particularly calculated to express ideas, which are either agreeable or disagreeable to the mind. Of this kind are _soft_ and _harsh_, _sweet_ and _sour_, and a multitude of others. On the supposition therefore, that _woond_ is the softer pronunciation, this is a good reason why it should _not_ be adopted; for the idea it conveys is extremely disagreeable, and much better represented by a harsh word.[63]

_Skeptic_ for _sceptic_ is mere pedantry; a modern change that has no advantage for its object. The Greek derivation will be pleaded as an authority; but this will not warrant the innovation, without extending it to _scene_, _scepter_, and many others. Will the advocates write and pronounce the latter _skene_, _skepter_? If not, they should be satisfied with analogy and former practice. It is remarkable however, that notwithstanding the authority of almost all the modern dictionaries is in favor of skeptic, no writer of reputation, whose works I have seen, has followed the spelling. The old orthography, _sceptic_, still maintains its ground.

_Sauce_ with the fourth sound of _a_ is accounted vulgar; yet this is the ancient, the correct, and the most general pronunciation. The _aw_ of the North Britons is much affected of late; _sawce_, _hawnt_, _vawnt_; yet the true sound is that of _aunt_, _jaunt_, and a change can produce no possible advantage.

The words _advertisement_ and _chastisement_ are differently accented by the standard authors, and by people on both sides of the Atlantic. Let us find the analogy. The original words, _advertise_ and _chastise_, are verbs, accented uniformly on the last syllable. Let us search thro the language for verbs of this description, and I presume we shall not find another instance, where, in nouns formed from such verbs, by the addition of _ment_, the seat of the accent is changed. We find amusement, refinement, refreshment, reconcilement, and many, perhaps all others, preserve the accent of their primitives; and in this analogy we find the reason why _chastisement_ and _advertisement_ should be accented on the last syllable but one. This analogy is a substantial and permanent rule, that will forever be superior to local customs.[64]

Similar remarks may be made respecting _acceptable_, _admirable_, _disputable_, _comparable_, which our polite speakers accent on the first syllable. The first is indeed accented on the second syllable, by most authors, except Sheridan, who still retains the accent on the first.

It was an old rule of grammarians, that the genius of our language requires the accent to be carried as far as possible towards the beginning of the word. This is seldom or never true; on the contrary, the rule is directly opposed to the melody, both of poetry and prose. Under the influence, however, of this rule, a long catalogue of words lost their true pronunciation, and among the rest, a great number of adjectives derived from verbs by an addition of the termination _able_. Some of these are restored to their analogy; others retain the accent on the first syllable.

Notwithstanding the authority of Sheridan, I presume few people will contend for the privilege of accenting _acceptable_ on the first syllable. How the organs of any man can be brought to articulate so many consonants in the weak syllables, or how the ear can relish such an unnatural pronunciation, is almost inconceiveable. In spite of the pedantry of scholars, the ease and melody of speaking, have almost wholly banished the absurd practice, by restoring the accent to the second syllable.