Chapter IV: Part 4

But with respect to _admirable_, _comparable_ and _disputable_, the authors who are deemed authorities are divided; some are in favor of the accent on the first syllable, and others adhere to analogy.

Setting aside custom, every reason for accenting these words on the first syllable, will apply with equal force to _adviseable_, _inclineable_, _requireable_, and a hundred others. They are all formed from verbs accented on the last syllable, by annexing the _same_ termination to the verb, and they are all of the _same_ part of speech. Let us examin them by the rules for accentuation, laid down in the preceding dissertation.

The primitive verbs of this class of words are usually compounded of a particle and principal part of speech; as _ad-mi-ro_, _com-paro_, _re-quæro_, &c. The last syllable, derived from a verb, is the most important, and in the primitives, is invariably accented. This is agreeable to the first rule. In nine tenths of the derivatives, the same syllable retains the accent; as, _perceiveable_, _available_, _deploreable_. In these therefore both rules are observed. The third rule, or that which arises from the terminating syllable, is also preserved in most of this class of words. It is therefore much to be regretted, that a false rule should have introduced an irregularity into the language, by excepting a few words from an analogy, which unites in itself every principle of propriety.

But the practice, with respect to the three words under consideration, is by no means general. I have taken particular notice of the pronunciation of people in every part of America, and can testify that, in point of numbers, the practice is in favor of analogy. The people at large say _admi'reable_, _dispu'teable_, _compa'reable_; and it would be difficult to lead them from this easy and natural pronunciation, to embrace that forced one of _ad'mirable_, &c. The people are right, and, in this particular, will ever have it to boast of, that among the unlearned is found the purity of English pronunciation.

Of this class of words, there are a few which seem to be corrupted in universal practice; as _reputable_. The reason why the accent in this word is more generally confirmed on the first syllable, may be this; there is but a single consonant between the first and second syllable, and another between the second and third; so that the pronunciation of the three weak syllables is by no means difficult. This word therefore, in which all authors, and as far as I know, all men, agree to lay the accent on the first syllable, and the orthography of which renders the pronunciation easy, must perhaps be admitted as an exception to the general rule.[65]

_Accessary_ or _accessory_, are differently accented by the best writers and speakers. But the ease of speaking requires that they should follow the rule of derivation, and retain the accent of the primitive, _access'ary_.

The fashionable pronunciation of such words as _immediate_, _ministerial_, _commodious_, is liable to particular exceptions. That _i_ has a liquid sound, like _y_, in many words in our language, is not disputed; but the classes of words which will admit this sound, ought to be ascertained. It appears to me that common practice has determined this point. If we attend to the pronunciation of the body of people, who are led by their own ease rather than by a nice regard to fashion, we shall find that they make _i_ liquid, or give it the sound of _y_ consonant, after those consonants only, which admit that sound without any change of their own powers. These consonants are _l_, _n_, _v_, and the double consonant _x_; as _valiant_, _companion_, _behavior_, _flexion_. Here _y_ might be substituted for _i_, without any change, or any tendency to a change, of the preceding consonant; except perhaps the change of _si_ in _flexion_ into _sh_, which is a general rule in the language, as it is to change _ti_ and _ci_ into the same sound.[66]

But when _i_ is preceded by _d_, change it into _y_, and we cannot pronounce it with our usual rapidity, without blending the two letters into the sound of _j_, which is a compound of _dzh_; at least it cannot be effected without a violent exertion of the speaker. _Immedyate_ is so difficult, that every person who attempts to pronounce it in that manner, will fall into _immejate_. Thus _commodious_, _comedian_, _tragedian_, are very politely pronounced _commojus_, _comejan_, _trajejan_. Such a pronunciation, changing the true powers of the letters, and introducing a harsh union of consonants, _dxh_, in the place of the smooth sound of _dia_, must be considered as a palpable corruption.

With respect to the terminations _ial_, _ian_, &c. after _r_, I must believe it impossible to blend these letters in one syllable. In the word _ministerial_, for example, I cannot conceive how _ial_ can be pronounced _yal_, without a pause after the syllables, _minister-_. Sheridan's manner of pronouncing the letters _ryan_, _ryal_, in a syllable, appears to be a gross absurdity: Even allowing _y_ to have the sound of _e_, we must of necessity articulate two syllables.

But supposing the modern pronunciation of _immediate_ to be liable to none of these exceptions, there is another objection to it, arising from the construction of our poetry. To the short syllables of such words as _every_, _glorious_, _different_, _bowery_, _commodious_, _harmonious_, _happier_, _ethereal_, _immediate_, _experience_, our poetry is in a great measure indebted for the _Dactyl_, the _Amphibrach_, and the _Anapæst_, feet which are necessary to give variety to versification, and the last of which is the most flowing, melodious and forceable foot in the language. By blending the two short syllables into one, we make the foot an Iambic; and as our poetry consists principally of iambics, we thus reduce our heroic verse to a dull uniformity. Take for example the following line of Pope.

"THAT sees immediate good by present sense"--

If we pronounce it thus:

THAT sees | imme|jate good | by pres|ent sense;

the line will be composed entirely of Iambics. But read it thus:

THAT sees | imme|di-ate good | by pres|ent sense;

and the third foot, becoming an anapæst, gives variety to the verse.

In the following line:

"SOME happier island in the watery waste:"

If we read _happier_ and _watry_, as words of two syllables, the feet will all be Iambics, except the third, which is a _Pyrrhic_. But if we read _happier_ and _watery_,[67] in three syllables, as we ought, we introduce two anapæsts, and give variety and flowing melody to the verse.

These remarks will be more fully confirmed by attending to the last verse of the following distich:

"In martial pomp he clothes the angelic train,
While warring myr|iads shake | the ethe|rial plain."

Philosophic Solitude.

On Sheridan's principles, and by an elision of _e_ in _the_, the last line is composed of pure Iambics; whereas in fact, the three last feet are anapæsts; and to these the verse is, in some measure, indebted for its melody and the sublimity of the description.

These considerations are directly opposed to the fashionable pronunciation of _immediate_, and that whole analogy of words. In addition to this, I may remark, that it is not the practice of people in general. Whatever may be the character and rank of its advocates, in this country they compose but a small part, even of the literati.

_Of_ MODERN CORRUPTIONS _in the_ ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION.

I proceed now to examin a mode of pronouncing certain words, which prevails in England and some parts of America, and which, as it extends to a vast number of words, and creates a material difference between the orthography and pronunciation, is a matter of serious consequence.

To attack established customs is always hazardous; for mankind, even when they see and acknowlege their errors, are seldom obliged to the man who exposes them. The danger is encreased, when an opposition is made to the favorite opinions of the great; for men, whose rank and abilities entitle them to particular respect, will sooner dismiss their friends than their prejudices. Under this conviction, my present situation is delicate and embarrassing: But as some sacrifices must often be made to truth; and as I am conscious that a regard to truth only dictates what I write, I can sincerely declare, it is my wish to inform the understanding of every man, without wounding the feelings of an individual.

The practice to which I allude, is that of pronouncing _d_, _t_, and _s_ preceding _u_; which letter, it is said, contains the sound of _e_ or _y_ and _oo_; and that of course _education_ must be pronounced _edyucation_; _na__ture_, _natyure_; and _superior_, _syuperior_: From the difficulty of pronouncing which, we naturally fall into the sound of _dzh_, _tsh_, and _sh_: Thus education becomes _edzhucation_ or _ejucation_; nature becomes _natshure_ or _nachure_; and superior becomes _shuperior_.

How long this practice has prevailed in London, I cannot ascertain. There are a few words, in which it seems to have been universal from time immemorial; as, _pleasure_, and the other words of that analogy. But I find no reason to suppose the practice of pronouncing _nature_, _duty_, _nachure_, _juty_, prevailed before the period of Garrick's reputation on the stage.

On the other hand, the writers on the language have been silent upon this point, till within a few years; and Kenrick speaks of it as a _Metropolitan pronunciation_, supported by _certain mighty fine speakers_,[68] which implies that the practice is modern, and proves it to be local, even in Great Britain. But the practice has prevailed at court and on the stage for several years, and the reputation of a Garrick, a Sheridan and a Siddons, has given it a very rapid and extensive diffusion in the polite world. As the innovation is great and extends to a multitude of words, it is necessary, before we embrace the practice in its utmost latitude, to examin into its propriety and consequences.

The only reasons offered in support of the practice, are, the English or Saxon sound of _u_, which is said to be _yu_; and _euphony_, or the agreeableness of the pronunciation.

But permit me to enquire, on what do the advocates of this practice ground their assertion, that _u_ had in Saxon the sound of _eu_ or _yu_? Are there any testimonies to support it, among old writers of authority? In the course of my reading I have discovered none, nor have I ever seen one produced or referred to.

Will it be said, that _yu_ is the name of the letter? But where did this name originate? Certainly not in the old Saxon practice, for the Saxons expressed this sound by _ew_, or _eo_: And I do not recollect a single word of Saxon origin, in which the warmest sticklers for the practice, give _u_ this sound, even in the present age. Kenrick, who has investigated the powers of the English letters with much more accuracy than even Sheridan himself, observes, that we might with equal propriety, name the other vowels in the same manner, and say, _ya_, _ye_, _yi_, _yo_, as well as _yu_.[69]

_U_ in _union_, _use_, &c. has the sound of _yu_; but these are all of _Latin_ origin, and can be no proof that _u_ had, in _Saxon_, the sound of _ew_ or _yu_.

The whole argument is founded on a mistake. _U_ in pure English has not the sound of _ew_, but a sound that approaches it; which is defined with great accuracy by the learned Wallis, who was one of the first correct writers upon English Grammar, and whose treatise is the foundation of Lowth's Introduction and all the best subsequent compilations.[70]

This writer defines the English letter _u_ in these words, "Hunc sonum Extranei sere assequenter, si dipthongum _iu_ conentur pronunciare; nempe _i_ exile literæ _u_, vel _w_ preponentes; (ut in Hispanorum ciudad, civitas.) _Non tamen idem est omnino sonus, quamvis, ad illum proxime, accedat_; est enim _iu_ sonus compositus, at Anglorum et Gallorum _u_ sonus simplex."[71]---- Gram. Ling. Angl. Sect. 2.

This is precisely the idea I have ever had of the English _u_; except that I cannot allow the sound to be perfectly simple. If we attend to the manner in which we begin the sound of _u_ in _flute_, _abjure_, _truth_, we shall observe that the tongue is not pressed to the mouth so closely as in pronouncing _e_; the aperture of the organs is not so small; and I presume that good speakers, and am confident that most people, do not pronounce these words _fleute_, _abjeure_, _treuth_. Neither do they pronounce them _floote_, _abjoore_, _trooth_; but with a sound formed by an easy natural aperture of the mouth, between _iu_ and _oo_; which is the true English sound. This sound, however obscured by affectation in the metropolis of Great Britain and the capital towns in America, is still preserved by the body of the people in both countries. There are a million descendants of the Saxons in this country who retain the sound of _u_ in all cases, precisely according to Wallis's definition. Ask any plain countryman, whose pronunciation has not been exposed to corruption by mingling with foreigners, how he pronounces the letters, _t_, _r_, _u_, _th_, and he will not sound _u_ like _eu_, nor _oo_, but will express the real primitive English _u_. Nay, if people wish to make an accurate trial, let them direct any child of seven years old, who has had no previous instruction respecting the matter, to pronounce the words _suit_, _tumult_, _due_, &c. and they will thus ascertain the true sound of the letter. Children pronounce _u_ in the most natural manner; whereas the sound of _iu_ requires a considerable effort, and that of _oo_, a forced position of the lips. Illiterate persons therefore pronounce the genuin English _u_, much better than those who have attempted to shape their pronunciation according to the polite modern practice. As singular as this assertion may appear, it is literally true. This circumstance alone would be sufficient to prove that the Saxons never pronounced _u_ like _yu_; for the body of a nation, removed from the reach of conquest and free from a mixture of foreigners, are the safest repositories of ancient customs and general practice in speaking.

But another strong argument against the modern practice is, that the pretended dipthong, _iu_ or _yu_, is heard in scarcely a single word of Saxon origin. Almost all the words in which _d_, _t_ and _s_ are converted into other letters, as _education_, _due_, _virtue_, _rapture_, _superior_, _supreme_, &c. are derived from the Latin or French; so that the practice itself is a proof that the principles on which it is built, are false. It is pretended that the English or Saxon sound of _u_ requires the pronunciation, _edzhucation_, _natshure_, and yet it is introduced almost solely into Latin and French words. Such an inconsistency refutes the reasoning and is a burlesque on its advocates.

This however is but a small part of the inconsistency. In two other particulars the absurdity is still more glaring.

1. The modern refiners of our language distinguish two sounds of _u_ long; that of _yu_ and _oo_; and use both without any regard to Latin or Saxon derivation. The distinction they make is founded on a certain principle; and yet I question whether one of a thousand of them ever attended to it. After most of the consonants, they give _u_ the dipthongal sound of _eu_; as in _blue_, _cube_, _due_, _mute_; but after _r_ they almost invariably pronounce it _oo_; as _rule_, _truth_, _rue_, _rude_, _fruit_. Why this distinction? If they contend for the Saxon sound of _u_, why do they not preserve that sound in _true_, _rue_, _truth_, which are of Saxon original; and uniformly give _u_ its Roman sound, which is acknowleged on all hands to have been _oo_, in all words of Latin original, as _rule_, _mute_, _cube_? The fact is, they mistake the principle on which the distinction is made; and which is merely accidental, or arises from the ease of speaking.

In order to frame many of the consonants, the organs are placed in such a position, that in passing from it to the aperture necessary to articulate the following vowel or dipthong, we insensibly fall into the sound of _ee_. This in particular is the case with those consonants which are formed near the seat of _e_; viz. _k_ and _g_. The closing of the organs forms these mutes; and a very small opening forms the vowel _e_. In passing from that close compression occasioned by _k_ and _g_, to the aperture necessary to form any vowel, the organs are necessarily placed in a situation to pronounce _ee_. From this single circumstance, have originated the most barbarous dialects or singularities in speaking English, which offend the ear, either in Great Britain or America.

This is the origin of the New England _keow_, _keoward_; and of the English _keube_, _ackeuse_, _keind_ and _geuide_.

There is just the same propriety in one practice as the other, and both are equally harmonious.

For similar reasons, the labials, _m_ and _p_, are followed by _e_: In New England, we hear it in _meow_, _peower_, and in Great Britain, in _meute_, _peure_. With this difference however, that in New England, this pronunciation is generally confined to the more illiterate part of the people, and in Great Britain it prevails among those of the first rank. But after _r_ we never hear the sound of _e_: It has been before observed, that the most awkward countryman in New England pronounces _round_, _ground_, _brown_, as correctly as men of the first education; and our fashionable speakers pronounce _u_ after _r_ like _oo_. The reason is the same in both cases: In pronouncing _r_ the mouth is necessarily opened (or rather the glottis) to a position for articulating a broad full sound. So that the vulgar singularities in this respect, and the polite refinements of speaking, both proceed from the same cause; both proceed from an accidental or careless narrow way of articulating certain combinations of letters; both are corruptions of pure English; equally disagreeable and indefensible. Both may be easily corrected by taking more pains to open the teeth, and form full bold sounds.

2. But another inconsistency in the modern practice, is the introducing an _e_[72] before the second sound of _u_ as in _tun_; or rather changing the preceding consonant; for in _nature_, _rapture_, and hundreds of other words, _t_ is changed into _tsh_; and yet no person pretends that _u_, in these words, has a dipthongal sound. On the other hand, Sheridan and his copier, Scott, have in these and similar words marked _u_ for its short sound, which is universally acknowleged to be simple. I believe no person ever pretended, that this sound of _u_ contains the sound of _e_ or _y_; why then should we be directed to pronounce _nature_, _natyur_? Or what is equally absurd, _natshur_? On what principle is the _t_ changed into a compound consonant? If there is any thing in this sound of _u_ to warrant this change, does it not extend to all words where this sound occurs? Why do not our standard writers direct us to say _tshun_ for _tun_, and _tshumble_ for _tumble_? I can conceive no reason which will warrant the pronunciation in one case, that will not apply with equal force in the other. And I challenge the advocates of the practice, to produce a reason for pronouncing _natshur_, _raptshur_, _captshur_, which will not extend to authorize, not only _tshun_, _tshurn_, for _tun_, _turn_, but also _fatshal_ for _fatal_, and _immortshal_ for _immortal_.[73] Nay, the latter pronunciation is actually heard among some very respectable imitators of fashion; and is frequent among the illiterate, in those states where the _tshu's_ are most fashionable. How can it be otherwise? People are led by imitation; and when those in high life embrace a singularity, the multitude, who are unacquainted with its principles or extent, will attempt to imitate the novelty, and probably carry it much farther than was ever intended.

When a man of little education hears a respectable gentleman change _t_ into _tsh_ in nature, he will naturally be led to change the same letter, not only in that word, but wherever it occurs. This is already done in a multitude of instances, and the practice if continued and extended, might eventually change _t_, in all cases, into _tsh_.

I am sensible that some writers of novels and plays have ridiculed the common pronunciation of _creatur_ and _nutur_, by introducing these and similar words into low characters, spelling them _creater_, _nater_: And the supporters of the court pronunciation allege, that in the vulgar practice of speaking, the letter _e_ is sounded and not _u_: So extremely ignorant are they of the nature of sounds and the true powers of the English letters. The fact is, we are so far from pronouncing e in the common pronunciation of _natur_, _creatur_, &c. that _e_ is always sounded like short _u_, in the unaccented syllables of _over_, _sober_, _banter_, and other similar words. Nay, most of the vowels, in such syllables, sound like _i_ or _u_ short.[74] Liar, elder, factor, are pronounced _liur_, _eldur_, _factur_, and this is the true sound of _u_ in _creatur_, _nature_, _rapture_, _legislature_, &c.

I would just observe further, that this pretended dipthong _iu_ was formerly expressed by _ew_ and _eu_, or perhaps by _eo_, and was considered as different from the sound of _u_. In modern times, we have, in many words, blended the sound of _u_ with that of _ew_, or rather use them promiscuously. It is indifferent, as to the pronunciation, whether we write _fuel_ or _fewel_. And yet in this word, as also in _new_, _brew_, &c. we do not hear the sound of _e_, except among the Virginians, who affect to pronounce it distinctly, _ne-ew_, _ne-oo_, _fe-oo_. This affectation is not of modern date, for Wallis mentions it in his time and reprobates it. "Eu, ew, eau, sonanter per _e_ clarum et _w_; ut in _neuter_, _few_, _beauty_. Quidem tamen accutius efferunt, acsi scriberentur _niew ter_, _fiew_, _bieuty_. At prior pronunciatio rectior est."----Gram. Ling. Ang.

Here this author allows these combinations to have the sound of _yu_ or _iu_; but disapproves of that refinement which some affect, in giving the _e_ or _i_ short its distinct sound.

The true sound of the English _u_, is neither _ew_, with the distinct sounds of _e_ and _oo_; nor is it _oo_; but it is that sound which every unlettered person utters in pronouncing _solitude_, _rude_, _threw_, and which cannot easily be mistaken. So difficult is it to avoid the true sound of _u_, that I have never found a man, even among the ardent admirers of the stage pronunciation, who does not retain the vulgar sound, in more than half the words of this class which he uses. There is such a propensity in men to be regular in the construction and use of language, that they are often obliged, by the customs of the age, to struggle against their inclination, in order to be wrong, and still find it impossible to be uniform in their errors.

The other reason given to vindicate the polite pronunciation, is _euphony_. But I must say with Kenrick,[75] I cannot discover the euphony; on the contrary, the pronunciation is to me both disagreeable and difficult. It is certainly more difficult to pronounce two consonants than one. _Ch_, or, which is the same thing, _tsh_, is a more difficult sound than _t_; and _dzh_, or _j_, more difficult than _d_. Any accurate ear may perceive the difference in a single word, as in _natur_, _nachur_. But when two or three words meet, in which we have either of these compound sounds, the difficulty becomes very obvious; as the _nachural feachurs of indivijuals_. The difficulty is increased, when two of these _churs_ and _jurs_ occur in the same word. Who can pronounce these words, "at this _junctshur_ it was _conjectshured_"--or "the act passed in a _tshumultshuous legislatshur_," without a pause, or an extreme exertion of the lungs? If this is euphony to an English ear, I know not what sounds in language can be disagreeable. To me it is barbarously harsh and unharmonious.

But supposing the pronunciation to be relished by ears accustomed to it (for custom will familiarize any thing) will the pleasure which individuals experience, balance the ill effects of creating a multitude of irregularities? Is not the number of anomalies in our language already sufficient, without an arbitrary addition of many hundreds? Is not the difference between our written and spoken language already sufficiently wide, without changing the sounds of a number of consonants?

If we attend to the irregularities which have been long established in our language, we shall find most of them in the Saxon branch. The Roman tongue was almost perfectly regular, and perhaps its orthography and pronunciation were perfectly correspondent. But it is the peculiar misfortune of the fashionable practice of pronouncing _d_, _t_, and _s_, before _u_, that it destroys the analogy and regularity of the _Roman_ branch of our language; for those consonants are not changed in many words of Saxon original. Before this affectation prevailed, we could boast of a regular orthography in a large branch of our language; but now the only class of words, which had preserved a regular construction, are attacked, and the correspondence between the spelling and pronunciation, destroyed, by those who ought to have been the first to oppose the innovation.[76]

Should this practice be extended to all words, where _d_, _t_ and _s_ precede _u_, as it must before it can be consistent or defensible, it would introduce more anomalies into our tongue, than were before established, both in the orthography and construction. What a perverted taste, and what a singular ambition must those men possess, who, in the day light of civilization and science, and in the short period of an age, can go farther in demolishing the analogies of an elegant language, than their unlettered ancestors proceeded in centuries, amidst the accidents of a savage life, and the shocks of numerous invasions!

But it will be replied, _Custom is the legislator of language_, and custom authorizes the practice I am reprobating. A man can hardly offer a reason, drawn from the principles of analogy and harmony in a language, but he is instantly silenced with the decisive, _jus et norma loquendi_.[77]

What then is custom? Some writer has already answered this question; "Custom is the plague of wise men and the idol of fools." This was probably said of those customs and fashions which are capricious and varying; for there are many customs, founded on propriety, which are permanent and constitute laws.

But what kind of custom did Horace design to lay down as the standard of speaking? Was it a local custom? Then the _keow_ of New England; the _oncet_ and _twicet_ of Pennsylvania and Maryland; and the _keind_ and _skey_ of the London theaters, form rules of speaking. Is it the practice of a court, or a few eminent scholars and orators, that he designed to constitute a standard? But who shall determine what body of men forms this uncontrollable legislature? Or who shall reconcile the differences at court? For these eminent orators often disagree. There are numbers of words in which the most eminent men differ: Can all be right? Or what, in this case, is the _custom_ which is to be our guide?

Besides these difficulties, what right have a few men, however elevated their station, to change a national practice? They may say, that they consult their own ears, and endeavor to please themselves. This is their only apology, unless they can prove that the changes they make are real improvements. But what improvement is there in changing the sounds of three or four letters into others, and thus multiplying anomalies, and encreasing the difficulty of learning a language? Will not the great body of the people claim the privilege of adhering to their ancient usages, and believing their practice to be the most correct? They most undoubtedly will.

If Horace's maxim is ever just, it is only when custom is national; when the practice of a nation is uniform or general. In this case it becomes the common law of the land, and no one will dispute its propriety. But has any man a right to deviate from this practice, and attempt to establish a singular mode of his own? Have two or three eminent stage players authority to make changes at pleasure, and palm their novelties upon a nation under the idea of _custom_? The reader will pardon me for transcribing here the opinion of the celebrated Michaelis, one of the most learned philologers of the present century. "It is not," says he, "for a scholar to give laws nor proscribe established expressions: If he takes so much on himself he is ridiculed, and deservedly; it is no more than a just mortification to his ambition, and the penalty of his usurping on the rights of the people. Language is a democratical state, where all the learning in the world does not warrant a citizen to supersede a received custom, till he has convinced the whole nation that this custom is a mistake. Scholars are not so infallible that every thing is to be referred to them. Were they allowed a decisory power, the errors of language, I am sure, instead of diminishing, would be continually increasing. Learned heads teem with them no less than the vulgar; and the former are much more imperious, that we should be compelled to defer to their innovations and implicitly to receive every false opinion of theirs."[78]

Yet this right is often assumed by individuals, who dictate to a nation the rules of speaking, with the same imperiousness as a tyrant gives laws to his vassals: And, strange as it may appear, even well bred people and scholars, often surrender their right of private judgement to these literary governors. The _ipse dixit_ of a Johnson, a Garrick, or a Sheridan, has the force of law; and to contradict it, is rebellion. Ask the most of our learned men, how they would pronounce a word or compose a sentence, and they will immediately appeal to some favorite author whose decision is final. Thus distinguished eminence in a writer often becomes a passport for innumerable errors.

The whole evil originates in a fallacy. It is often supposed that certain great men are infallible, or that their practice constitutes custom and the rule of propriety. But on the contrary, any man, however learned, is liable to mistake; the most learned, as Michaelis observes, often teem with errors, and not unfrequently become attached to particular systems, and imperious in forcing them upon the world.[79] It is not the particular whim of such men, that constitutes _custom_; but the common practice of a nation, which is conformed to their _general_ ideas of propriety. The pronunciation of _keow_, _keind_, _drap_, _juty_, _natshur_, &c. are neither right nor wrong, because they are approved or censured by particular men; nor because one is local in New England, another in the middle states, and the others are supported by the court and stage in London. They are wrong, because they are opposed to national practice; they are wrong, because they are arbitrary or careless changes of the true sounds of our letters; they are wrong, because they break in upon the regular construction of the language; they are wrong, because they render the pronunciation difficult both for natives and foreigners; they are wrong, because they make an invidious distinction between the polite and common pronunciation, or else oblige a _nation_ to change their general customs, without presenting to their view one _national_ advantage. These are important, they are permanent considerations; they are superior to the caprices of courts and theaters; they are reasons that are interwoven in the very structure of the language, or founded on the common law of the nation; and they are a living satire upon the licentiousness of modern speakers, who dare to slight their authority.

But let us examin whether the practice I am censuring is general or not; for if not, it cannot come within Horace's rule. If we may believe well informed gentlemen, it is not general even in Great Britain. I have been personally informed, and by gentlemen of education and abilities, one of whom was particular in his observation, that it is not general, even among the most eminent literary characters in London. It is less frequent in the interior counties, where the inhabitants still speak as the common people do in this country. And Kenrick speaks of it as an affectation in the metropolis which ought to be discountenanced.

But whatever may be the practice in England or Ireland, there are few in America who have embraced it, as it is explained in Sheridan's Dictionary. In the middle and southern states, there are a few, and those well bred people, who have gone far in attempting to imitate the fashion of the day.[80] Yet the body of the people, even in these states, remain as unfashionable as ever; and the eastern states generally adhere to their ancient custom of speaking, however vulgar it may be thought by their neighbors.[81] Suppose custom therefore to be the _jus et norma_, the rule of correct speaking, and in this country, it is directly opposed to the plan now under consideration.

As a nation, we have a very great interest in opposing the introduction of any plan of uniformity with the British language, even were the plan proposed perfectly unexceptionable. This point will be afterwards discussed more particularly; but I would observe here, that the author who has the most admirers and imitators in this country, has been censured in London, where his character is highly esteemed, and that too by men who are confessedly partial to his general plan. In the critical review of Sheridan's Dictionary, 1781, there are the following exceptions to his standard.

"Nevertheless our author must not be surprized if, in a matter, in its nature so delicate and difficult, as that concerning which he treats, a doubt should here and there arise, in the minds of the most candid critics, with regard to the propriety of his determinations. For instance, we would wish him to reconsider, whether, in the words which begin with _super_, such as _superstition_, _supersede_, he is right in directing them to be pronounced _shooper_. Whatever might be the case in Queen Anne's time, it doth not occur to us, that any one at present, above the lower ranks, speaks these words with the sound of _sh_; or that a good reason can be given, for their being thus sounded. Nay their being thus spoken is contrary to Mr. Sheridan's own rule; for he says that the letter _s_ always preserves its own proper sound at the beginning of words."

Here we are informed by this gentleman's admirers, that, in some instances, he has imposed upon the world, as the standard of purity, a pronunciation which is not heard, except among the _lower ranks of people_, and directly opposed to his own rule. The reviewers might have extended their remarks to many other instances, in which he has deviated from general practice and from every rule of the language. Yet at the voice of this gentleman, many of the Americans are quitting their former practice, and running into errors with an eagerness bordering on infatuation.

Customs of the court and stage, it is confessed, rule without resistance in monarchies. But what have we to do with the customs of a foreign nation? Detached as we are from all the world, is it not possible to circumscribe the power of _custom_, and lay it, in some degree, under the influence of propriety? We are sensible that in foreign courts, a man's reputation may depend on a genteel bow, and his fortune may be lost by wearing an unfashionable coat. But have we advanced to that stage of corruption, that our highest ambition is to be as particular in fashions as other nations? In matters merely indifferent, like modes of dress, some degree of conformity to local custom is necessary;[82] but when this conformity requires a sacrifice of any principle of propriety or moral rectitude, singularity becomes an honorable testimony of an independent mind. A man of a great soul would sooner imitate the virtues of a cottage, than the vices of a court; and would deem it more honorable to gain one useful idea from the humble laborer, than to copy the vicious pronunciation of a splendid court, or become an adept in the licentious principles of a Rochester and a Littleton.

It will not be disputed that Sheridan and Scott have very faithfully published the present pronunciation of the English court and theater. But if we may consult the rules of our language and consider them as of any authority; if we may rely on the opinions of Kenrick and the reviewers; if we may credit the best informed people who have travelled in Great Britain, this practice is modern and local, and considered, by the judicious and impartial, even of the English nation, as a gross corruption of the pure pronunciation.

Such errors and innovations should not be imitated, because they are found in authors of reputation. The works of such authors should rather be considered as lights to prevent our falling upon the rocks of error. There is no more propriety in our imitating the practice of the English theater, because it is described by the celebrated Sheridan, than there is in introducing the manners of Rochester or the principles of Bolingbroke, because these were eminent characters; or than there is in copying the vices of a Shylock, a Lovelace, or a Richard III. because they are well described by the masterly pens of Shakespear and Richardson. So far as the correctness and propriety of speech are considered as important, it is of as much consequence to oppose the introduction of that practice in this country, as it is to resist the corruption of morals, which ever attends the wealthy and luxurious stage of national refinements.

Had Sheridan adhered to his own rules and to the principle of analogy; had he given the world a consistent scheme of pronunciation, which would not have had, for its unstable basis, the fickle practice of a changeable court, he would have done infinite service to the language: Men of science, who wish to preserve the regular construction of the language, would have rejoiced to find such a respectable authority on the side of propriety; and the illiterate copiers of fashion must have rejected faults in speaking, which they could not defend.[83]

The corruption however has taken such deep root in England, that there is little probability it will ever be eradicated. The practice must there prevail, and gradually change the whole structure of the Latin derivatives. Such is the force of custom, in a nation where all fashionable people are drawn to a point, that the current of opinion is irresistible; individuals must fall into the stream and be borne away by its violence; except perhaps a few philosophers, whose fortitude may enable them to hold their station, and whose sense of propriety may remain, when their power of opposition has ceased.

But our detached situation, local and political, gives us the _power_, while pride, policy, and a regard for propriety and uniformity among ourselves, should inspire us with a _disposition_, to oppose innovations, which have not utility for their object.

We shall find it difficult to convince Englishmen that a corrupt taste prevails in the British nation. Foreigners view the Americans with a degree of contempt; they laugh at our manners, pity our ignorance, and as far as example and derision can go, obtrude upon us the customs of their native countries. But in borrowing from other nations, we should be exceedingly cautious to separate their virtues from their vices; their useful improvements from their false refinements. Stile and taste, in all nations, undergo the same revolutions, the same progress from purity to corruption, as manners and government; and in England the pronunciation of the language has shared the same fate. The Augustan era is past, and whether the nation perceive and acknowlege the truth or not, the world, as impartial spectators, observe and lament the declension of taste and science.

The nation can do little more than read the works and admire the beauties of the original authors, who have adorned the preceding ages. A few, ambitious of fame, or driven by necessity, croud their names into the catalogue of writers, by imitating some celebrated model, or by compiling from the productions of genius. Nothing marks more strongly the declension of genius in England, than the multitude of plays, farces, novels and other catchpenny pieces, which swell the list of modern publications; and that host of compilers, who, in the rage for selecting beauties and abridging the labor of reading, disfigure the works of the purest writers in the nation. Cicero did not waste his talents in barely reading and selecting the beauties of Demosthenes; and in the days of Addison, the beauties of Milton, Locke and Shakespear were to be found only in _their works_. But taste is corrupted by luxury; utility is forgotten in pleasure; genius is buried in dissipation, or prostituted to exalt and to damn contending factions, and to amuse the idle debauchees that surround a licentious stage.[84]

These are the reasons why we should not adopt promiscuously their taste, their opinions, their manners. Customs, habits, and _language_, as well as government should be national. America should have her _own_ distinct from all the world. Such is the policy of other nations, and such must be _our_ policy, before the states can be either independent or respectable. To copy foreign manners implicitly, is to reverse the order of things, and begin our political existence with the corruptions and vices which have marked the declining glories of other republics.

FOOTNOTES:

[61] Misused.

[62] Kenrick, who was not guided solely by the fashion of the day, but paid some regard to the regular construction of the language.

[63] Sheridan has repeated with approbation, a celebrated saying of Dean Swift, who was a stickler for analogy, in pronouncing _wind_ like _mind_, _bind_, with the first sound of _i_. The Dean's argument was, "I have a great m[2i]nd to f[2i]nd why you pronounce that word _w[2i]nd_." I would beg leave to ask this gentleman, who directs us to say _woond_, if any good reason can be _foond_ why he _soonds_ that word _woond_; and whether he expects a rational people, will be _boond_ to follow the _roond_ of court improprieties? We acknowlege that _w[2i]nd_ is a deviation from analogy and a corruption; but who pronounces it otherwise? Practice was almost wholly against Swift, and in America at least, it is as generally in favor of the analogy of _wound_. A partial or local practice, may be brought to support analogy, but should be no authority in destroying it.

[64] _Government_, _management_, retain also the accent of their primitives; and the nouns _testament_, _compliment_, &c. form another analogy.

[65] It is regretted that the adjectives, _indissoluble_, _irreparable_ were derived immediately from the Latin, _indissolubilis_, _irreparabilis_, and not from the English verbs, _dissolve_, _repair_. Yet _dissolvable_, _indissolvable_, _repairable_ and _irrepairable_, are better words than _indissoluble_, _reparable_, _irreparable_. They not only preserve the analogy, but they are more purely English words; and I have been witness to a circumstance which alone ought to determine their excellence and give them currency: People of ordinary education have found difficulty in understanding such derivatives as _irreparable_, _indissoluble_; but the moment the words _irrepairable_, _indissolveable_ are pronounced, they are led to the meaning by a previous acquaintance with the words _repair_ and _dissolve_. Numberless examples of this will occur to a person of observation, sufficient to make him abhor and reject the pedantry of authors, who have labored to strip their native tongue of its primitive English dress, and load it with fantastic ornaments.

[66] _Flexion_ resolved into its proper letters would be _fleksion_, that is _flekshun_; and _fleks-yun_ would give the same sound.

[67] To an ignorance of the laws of versification, we must ascribe the unwarrantable contraction of _watery_, _wonderous_, &c. into _watry_, _wondrous_.

[68] Rhetorical Grammar, prefixed to his Dictionary, page 32. London, 1773.

[69] Rhet. Gram. 33.

[70] His grammar was written in Latin, in the reign of Charles IId. The work is so scarce, that I have never been able to find but a single copy. The author was one of the founders of the Royal Society.

[71] This sound of _u_, foreigners will nearly obtain, by attempting to pronounce the dipthong _iu_; that is, the narrow _i_ before _u_ or _w_; (as in the Spanish word _ciudad_, a city.) Yet the sound (of _u_) is not exactly the same, altho it approaches very near to it; for the sound of _iu_ is compound; whereas the _u_ of the English and French is a simple sound.

[72] Lowth condemns such a phrase as, "the introducing an _e_" and says it should be, "the introducing _of_ an _e_." This is but one instance of a great number, in which he has rejected _good_ English. In this situation, _introducing_ is a participial noun; it may take an article before it, like any other noun, and yet govern an objective, like any transitive verb. This is the idiom of the language: but in most cases, the writer may use or omit _of_, at pleasure.

[73] I must except that reason, which is always an invincible argument with weak people, viz. "It is the practice of some great men." This common argument, which is unanswerable, will also prove the propriety of imitating all the polite and detestable vices of the great, which are now unknown to the _little vulgar_ of this country.

[74] Ash observes, that "in unaccented, short and insignificant syllables, the sounds of the five vowels are nearly coincident. It must be a nice ear that can distinguish the difference of sound in the concluding syllable of the following words, altar, alter, manor, murmur, satyr."----Gram. Diff. pref. to Dic. p. 1.

[75] For my part I cannot discover the euphony; and tho the contrary mode be reprobated, as vulgar, by certain mighty fine speakers, I think it more conformable to the general scheme of English pronunciation; for tho in order to make the word but two syllables, _ti_ and _te_ may be required to be converted into _ch_, or the _i_ and _e_ into _y_, when the preceding syllable is marked with the accute accent as in _question_, _minion_, _courteous_, and the like; there seems to be little reason, when the grave accent precedes the _t_, as in _nature_, _creature_, for converting the _t_ into _ch_; and not much more for joining the _t_ to the first syllable and introducing the _y_ before the second, as _nat-yure_. Why the _t_ when followed by neither _i_ nor _e_, is to take the form of _ch_, I cannot conceive: It is, in my opinion, a species of affectation that should be discountenanced.---- Kenrick Rhet. Gram. page 32. Dic.

[76] Well might Mr. Sheridan assert, that "Such indeed is the state of our written language, that the darkest hieroglyphics, or most difficult cyphers which the art of man has hitherto invented, were not better calculated to conceal the sentiments of those who used them, from all who had not the key, than the state of our spelling is to conceal the true pronunciation of our words, from all, except a few well educated natives." Rhet. Gram. p. 22. Dic. But if these well educated natives would pronounce words as they ought, one half the language at least would be regular. The Latin derivatives are mostly regular to the educated and uneducated of America; and it is to be hoped that the modern hieroglyphical obscurity will forever be confined to _a few well educated natives_ in Great Britain.

[77] "Quem penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi." Horace.----"Nothing," says Kenrick, "has contributed more to the adulteration of living languages, than the too extensive acceptation of Horace's rule in favor of custom. Custom is undoubtedly the rule of present practice; but there would be no end in following the variations daily introduced by caprice. Alterations may sometimes be useful--may be necessary; but they should be made in a manner conformable to the genius and construction of the language. Modus est in rebus. Extremes in this, as in all other cases, are hurtful. We ought by no means to shut the door against the improvements of our language; but it were well that some criterion were established to distinguish between improvement and innovation."----Rhet. Gram. page 6, Dict.

[78] See a learned "Dissertation on the influence of opinions on language and of language on opinions, which gained the prize of the Prussian Royal Academy in 1759. By Mr. Michaelis, court councellor to his Britannic Majesty, and director of the Royal Society of Gottingen."

[79]

The vulgar thus by imitation err,
As oft the learn'd by being singular.
So much they scorn the croud, that if the throng,
By chance go right, they purposely go wrong.

POPE.

[80] There are many people, and perhaps the most of them in the capital towns, that have learnt a few common place words, such as _forchin_, _nachur_, _virchue_ and half a dozen others, which they repeat on all occasions; but being ignorant of the extent of the practice, they are, in pronouncing most words, as vulgar as ever.

[81] It should be remarked that the late President of Pennsylvania, the Governor of New Jersey, and the President of New York college, who are distinguished for erudition and accuracy, have not adopted the English pronunciation.

[82] Not between different nations, but in the same nation. The manners and fashions of each nation should arise out of their circumstances, their age, their improvements in commerce and agriculture.

[83] Sheridan, as an improver of the language, stands among the first writers of the British nation, and deservedly. His Lectures on Elocution and on Reading, his Treatises on Education, and for the most part his Rhetorical Grammar, are excellent and almost unexceptionable performances. In these, he encountered practice and prejudices, when they were found repugnant to obvious rules of propriety. But in his Dictionary he seems to have left his only defensible ground, _propriety_, in pursuit of that phantom, _fashion_. He deserted his own principles, as the Reviewers observe: and where he has done this, every rational man should desert his _standard_.

[84] From this description must be excepted some arts which have for their object, the pleasures of sense and imagination; as music and painting; and sciences which depend on fixed principles, and not on opinion, as mathematics and philosophy. The former flourish in the last stages of national refinement, and the latter are always proceeding towards perfection, by discoveries and experiment. Criticism also flourishes in Great Britain: Men read and judge accurately, when original writers cease to adorn the sciences. Correct writers precede just criticism.

DISSERTATION IV.

_Of the Formation of Language.--Horne Tooke's theory of the
Particles.--Examination of particular Phrases._

FORMATION _of_ LANGUAGE.

Having discussed the subject of pronunciation very largely in the two preceding Dissertations, I shall now examin the _use of words in the construction of sentences_.

Several writers of eminence have attempted to explain the origin, progress and structure of languages, and have handled the subject with great ingenuity and profound learning; as Harris, Smith, Beatie, Blair, Condillac, and others. But the discovery of the true theory of the construction of language, seems to have been reserved for Mr. Horne Tooke, author of the "Diversions of Purley." In this treatise, however exceptionable may be particular instances of the writer's spirit and manner, the principles on which the formation of languages depends, are unfolded and demonstrated by an etymological analysis of the Saxon or Gothic origin of the English particles. From the proofs which this writer produces, and from various other circumstances, it appears probable, that the _noun_ or substantive is the principal part of speech, and from which most words are originally derived.

The invention and progress of articulate sounds must have been extremely slow. Rude savages have originally no method of conveying ideas, but by looks, signs, and those inarticulate sounds, called by grammarians, _Interjections_. These are probably the first beginnings of language. They are produced by the passions, and are perhaps very little superior, in point of articulation or significancy, to the sounds which express the wants of the brutes.[85]

But the first sounds, which, by being often repeated, would become articulate, would be those which savages use to convey their ideas of certain visible objects, which first employ their attention. These sounds, by constant application to the same things, would gradually become the _names_ of those objects, and thus acquire a permanent signification. In this manner, rivers, mountains, trees, and such animals as afford food for savages, would first acquire names; and next to them, such other objects as can be noticed or perceived by the senses. Those names which are given to ideas called _abstract_ and _complex_, or, to speak more correctly, those names which express a combination of ideas, are invented much later in the progress of language. Such are the words, faith, hope, virtue, genius, &c.