CHAPTER II.

I.

IT is obsolete now to use the article _an_ before words beginning with long _u_ or with _eu_, and it has become more elegant, in modern style, to say, "a university," "a useful article," "a European," "a euphonious combination of sentences," &c., &c. It is also proper to say "such a one," not "such an one."

II.

Some people pronounce the plural of handkerchief, scarf, wharf, dwarf, _handkerchieves_, _scarves_, _wharves_, _dwarves_. This is an error, as these words, and perhaps a few others, are exceptions to the rule laid down, that nouns ending in _f_ and _fe_ shall change these terminations into _ves_ to form the plural.

III.

There is an illiterate mode of pronouncing the adverb _too_, which is that of contracting it into the sound of the preposition _to_; thus, "I think I paid _to much_ for this gun," "This line is _to long_ by half." The adverb _too_ should be pronounced like the numeral adjective _two_, and have the same full distinct sound in delivery, as, "I think I paid _two_ much for this gun," "This line is _two_ long by half."

IV.

One does not expect to hear such words as "necessi'ated," "preventative," &c., from people who profess to be educated; but one _does_ hear them, nevertheless, and many others of the same genus, of which the following list is a specimen, not a collection.

"Febuary" and "Febbiwerry," instead of February. "Seckaterry" instead of secretary. "Gover'ment" " government. "Eve'min" " evening. "Sev'm" " seven. "Holladiz" " holidays. "Mossle" " morsel.

"Chapped," according to orthography, instead of _chopped_, according to polite usage.

And we have even heard "continental" pronounced _continential_, though upon what authority we know not. Besides these, a multitude of others might be quoted, which we consider too familiar to particularize and "too numerous to mention."

V.

There is an old jest on record of a person hearing another pronounce the word curiosity "_curosity_," and remarking to a bystander, "That man murders the English language." "Nay," replies the person addressed, "he only knocks an eye (i) out." And I am invariably reminded of this old jest whenever I hear such pronunciations as the following,--"Lat'n" for Latin, "sat'n" for satin, and Britain pronounced so as to rhyme with _written_,--of which a few examples will be given on a subsequent page, not with the wild hope of comprising in so short a space _all_ the perversions of prosody which are constantly taking place, but simply with the intention of reminding careless speakers of some general principles they seem to have forgotten, and of the vast accumulation of error they may engraft upon themselves by a lazy adherence to the custom of the crowd. Before, however, proceeding to the words in question, it may be satisfactory to our readers to recall to their memory the observations of Lindley Murray on the subject. He says, "There is scarcely anything which more distinguishes a person of poor education from a person of a good one than the pronunciation of the _unaccented vowels_. When vowels are _under the accent_, the best speakers, and the lowest of the people, with very few exceptions, pronounce them in the same manner; but the _un_accented vowels in the mouths of the former have a distinct, open, and specific sound, while the latter often totally sink them, or change them into some other sound." The words that have chiefly struck me are the following, in which not only the i but some of the other vowels are submitted to the mutilating process, or, as I have heard it pronounced, _mutulating_.

Brit'n instead of Britain. Lat'n " Latin. Sat'n " Satin. Patt'n " Patten. Curt'n " Curtain. Cert'n " Certain. Bridle " Bridal. Idle " Idol. Meddle " Medal. Moddle " Model. Mentle " Mental. Mortle " Mortal. Fatle " Fatal. Gravle " Gravel. Travle " Travel. Sudd'n " Sudden. Infidle " Infidel. _Scroop_'-lous " _Scru-pu_-lous.

And a long train of _et cetera_, of which the above examples do not furnish a tithe.

_Note._--That to sound the _e_ in _garden_ and _often_, and the _i_ in _evil_ and _devil_, is a decided error. They should always be pronounced _gard'n_ and _oft'n_, _ev'l_ and _dev'l_.

Some people pronounce the _I_ in Irish and its concomitants so as to make the words Ireland, Irishmen, Irish linen, &c., sound as if they were written _Arland_, _A-rishmen_, _Arish_ linen, &c. This is literally "knocking an _i_ out."

VI.

It is affected, and contrary to authority, to deprive the _s_ of its sharp hissing sound in the words _precise_, _desolate_, _design_, and their derivatives.

VII.

There is one peculiarity which we feel bound to notice, because it has infected English speakers,--that of corrupting the _e_ and the _i_ into the sound of _a_ or _u_, in the words ability, humility, charity, &c.; for how often is the ear wrung by such barbarisms as, humi_lutty_, civi_lutty_, qua_laty_, quan_taty_, cru_alty_, char_aty_, human_aty_, barbar_aty_, horr_uble_, terr_uble_, and so on, _ad infinitum_!--an uncouth practice, to which nothing is comparable, except pronouncing _yalla_ for yellow.

VIII.

There is in some quarters a bad mode prevalent of pronouncing the plural of such words as _face_, _place_, &c., _fazes_, _plazes_, whilst the plural of _price_ seems everywhere subject to the same strange mutation. The words should be _faces_, _places_, _prices_, without any softening of the _c_ into _z_. There is, too, an ugly fashion of pronouncing the _ng_, when terminating a word or syllable, as _we_ pronounce the same combination of letters in the word _finger_, and making such words as "singer," "ringer," &c., rhyme with _linger_. Sometimes the double _o_ is elongated into the sound which we give to that dipthong in "room," "fool," "moon," &c., which has a very bad effect in such words as _book_, _look_, _nook_, _took_, &c.; and sometimes it is contracted into the sound of short _u_, making "foot," and some other words, rhyme with _but_.

IX.

And having remarked on the _lingering_ pronunciation, it is but fair to notice a defect, the reverse of this, namely, that of omitting the final _g_ in such words as _saying_, _going_, _shilling_, &c., and pronouncing them "sayin," "goin," "shillin." This is so common an error that it generally escapes notice, but is a greater blemish, where we have a right to look for perfection, than the peculiarities of the provinces in those who reside there.

X.

It is also a common fault to add a gratuitous _r_ to words ending with a vowel, such as Emma_r_, Louisa_r_, Julia_r_, and to make _draw_, _law_, _saw_, _flaw_, with all others of the same class, rhyme with _war_; to omit the _r_ in such words as _corks_, _forks_, _curtains_, _morsel_, &c.; in the word _perhaps_, when they conscientiously _pronounce_ the _h_; and sometimes in _Paris_; or to convert it into the sound of a _y_ when it comes between two vowels, as in the name _Harriet_, and in the words _superior_, _interior_, &c., frequently pronounced _Aah-yet_, _su-pe-yor_, _in-te-yor_, &c.

XI.

There is a vicious mode of amalgamating the final _s_ of a word (and sometimes the final _c_, when preceded and followed by a vowel) with the first letter of the next word, if that letter happens to be a _y_, in such a manner as to produce the sound of _sh_ or of _usu_ in _usual_; as, "A _nishe_ young man," "What _makesh_ you laugh?" "If he _offendsh_ you, don't speak to him," "_Ash_ you please," "Not _jush_ yet," "We always _passh_ your house in going to call on _Missh_ Yates,--she lives near _Palash_ Yard;" and so on through all the possibilities of such a combination. This is decided, unmitigated _cockneyism_, having its parallel in nothing except the broken English of the sons of Abraham; and to adopt it in conversation is certainly "not speaking like a Christian." The effect of this pronunciation on the ear is as though the mouth of the speaker were filled with froth, which impedes the utterance, and gives the semblance of a defect where nature had kindly intended perfection; but the radical cause of this, and of many other mispronunciations, is the carelessness, sometimes the ignorance, of teachers, who permit children to read and speak in a slovenly manner, without opening their teeth, or taking any pains to acquire a distinct articulation.

XII.

Whilst we are on the subject of Prosody, we must not omit to mention the vicious pronunciation occasionally given to the words _new_, _due_, _Tuesday_, _stupid_, and a few others, sometimes corrupted into _noo_, _doo_, _Toosday_, _stoopid_, &c., by way of refinement, perhaps, for lips which are too delicate to utter the clear, broad, English _u_.

XIII.

Never say "Cut it in _half_," for this you cannot do unless you could _annihilate one_ half. You may "cut it in two," or "cut it in halves," or "cut it through," or "divide it," but no human ability will enable you to _cut it in half_.

XIV.

Never speak of "lots" and "loads" of things. Young men allow themselves a diffusive license of speech, and of quotation, which has introduced many words into colloquial style that do not at all tend to improve or dignify the language, and which, when heard from _ladies_' lips, become absolute vulgarisms. A young man may talk recklessly of "lots of bargains," "lots of money," "lots of fellows," "lots of fun," &c., but a lady may _not_. Man may indulge in any latitude of expression within the bounds of sense and decorum, but woman has a narrower range,--even her mirth must be subjected to rule. It may be _naive_, but must never be grotesque. It is not that we would have _primness_ in the sex, but we would have refinement. Women are the purer and the more ornamental part of life, and when _they_ degenerate, the Poetry of Life is gone.

XV.

"Loads" is a word quite as objectional as "lots," unless it can be reduced to a load of _something_, such as a _ship_-load, a _wagon_-load, a _cart_-load, a _horse_-load, &c. We often hear such expressions as "loads of shops," "loads of authors," "loads of compliments;" but as shops, authors, compliments, are things not usually piled up into loads, either for ships or horses, we cannot discover the propriety of the application.

XVI.

Some people, guiltless of those absurdities, commit a great error in the use of the word _quantity_, applying it to things of _number_, as "a quantity of friends," "a quantity of ships," "a quantity of houses," &c. _Quantity_ can be applied only where _bulk_ is indicated, as "a quantity of land," "a quantity of timber;" but we cannot say, "a quantity of fields," "a quantity of trees," because _trees_ and _fields_ are specific individualities. Or we may apply it where individualities are taken in the gross, without reference to modes, as "a quantity of luggage," "a quantity of furniture;" but we cannot say "a quantity of boxes," "a quantity of chairs and tables," for the same reason which is given in the former instances. We also apply the term _quantity_ to those things of number which are too minute to be taken separately, as "a quantity of beans," "a quantity of oats," &c., &c.

XVII.

Avoid favorite words and phrases; they betray a poverty of language or of imagination not creditable to a cultivated intellect. Some people are so unfortunate as to find all things _vulgar_ that come "betwixt the wind and their nobility;" others find them _disgusting_. Some are always _anticipating_, others are always _appreciating_. Multitudes are _aristocratic_ in all their relations, other multitudes are as _distingues_. These two words are chiefly patronized by those whose pretensions in such respects are the most questionable. To some timid spirits, born under malignant influences no doubt, most things present an _awful_ appearance, even though they come in shapes so insignificant as a cold day or an aching finger. But, thanks to that happy diversity of Nature which throws light as well as shadow into the human character, there are minds of brighter vision and more cheerful temperament, who behold all things _splendid_, _magnificent_, down to a cup of small beer, or a half-penny orange. Some people have a grandiloquent force of expression, thereby imparting a _tremendous_ or _thundering_ character even to little things. This is truly carrying their conceptions into the sublime,--sometimes a step beyond.

We have, however, no intention of particularizing _all_ the "pet" phrases which salute the ear; but the enumeration of a few of them may make the _candid_ culprit smile, and avoid those trifling absurdities for the future.

* * * * *

We would, under favor, suggest to the reader the advantage of not relying too confidently on knowledge acquired by habit and example alone. There are many words in constant use which are perverted from their original meanings; and if we were to dip into some standard dictionary occasionally, search out the true meanings of words with which we have fancied ourselves acquainted, and convict ourselves of _all_ the errors we have been committing in following the crowd, our surprise, perhaps, would equal that of Moliere's _Bourgeois Gentilhomme_ when he discovered that he had been talking _prose_ for forty years.

The words _feasible_, _ostensible_, _obnoxious_, _apparent_, _obtain_, _refrain_, _domesticated_, and _centre_, are expressions which, nine times out of ten, are misapplied, besides a host of others whose propriety is never questioned, so firmly has custom riveted the bonds of ignorance.

In closing this little volume, the writer begs leave to say that the remarks offered are intended only as "Hints," which they who desire perfection may easily improve, by a little exercise of the understanding, and a reference to more extensive sources, into a competent knowledge of their own tongue; also as _warnings_ to the careless, that their lapses do not pass so unobserved as they are in the habit of supposing.

Though many of the syntactical errors herein mentioned are to be found in the works of some of our best writers, they are _errors_ nevertheless, and stand as blemishes upon the productions of their genius, like unsightly excrescences upon a lovely skin. Genius is above grammar, and this conviction may inspire in some bosoms an undue contempt for the latter. But grammar is a constituent part of good education, and a neglect of it _might_ argue a _want_ of education, which would, perhaps, be mortifying. It is an old axiom that "civility costs nothing," and surely grammatical purity need not cost _much_ to people disposed to pay a little attention to it, and who have received a respectable education already. It adds a grace to eloquence, and raises the standard of language where eloquence is not.

A handsome man or handsome woman is not improved by a shabby or slatternly attire; so the best abilities are shown to a disadvantage through a style marked by illiteracies.