Part 2.

"It is nearly the same here as in physics, where motion, the source of life, becomes the principle of destruction. When a language abounds with original writers in every kind, the more a person is endowed with abilities, the more difficult he thinks it will be to surpass them. A mere equality would not satisfy his ambition; like them he wants the pre-eminence. He therefore tries a new road. But as every stile analogous to the character of the language and to his own, has been already used by preceding writers, he has nothing left but to deviate from analogy. Thus in order to be an original, he is obliged to contribute to the ruin of a language, which, a century sooner, he would have helped to improve.

"Tho such writers may be criticized, their superior abilities must still command success. The ease there is in copying their defects, soon persuades men of indifferent capacities, that they shall acquire the same degree of reputation. Then begins the reign of strained and subtle conceits, of affected antitheses, of specious paradoxes, of frivolous and far-fetched expressions, of new-fangled words, and in short, of the jargon of persons, whose understandings have been debauched by bad metaphysics. The public applauds; foolish and ridiculous writings, the beings of a day, are surprisingly multiplied; a vicious taste infects the arts and sciences, which is followed by a visible decrease of men of abilities."

One would think that Condillac had designed here to give a description of the present taste of the English writers, and a state of their literature.

The foregoing sentiments seem to have been borrowed from Velleius Paterculus. Hist. Rom. L. 1. Cap. 17.

The same passage is copied by Sig. Carlo Denina, Professor of Eloquence and Belles Lettres in the University of Turin, in his "Revolutions of Literature," page 47; and if I mistake not, the sentiments are adopted by Lord Kaims, in his Sketches of the History of Man.

Similar reasons may be assigned for the prevalence of an affected and vitious pronunciation.

[5] Dr. Witherspoon is an exception. His stile is easy, simple and elegant. I consider Dr. Franklin and Dr. Witherspoon as the two best writers in America. The words they use, and their arrangement, appear to flow spontaneously from their manner of thinking. The vast superiority of their stiles over those of Gibbon and Gillies, is owing to this circumstance, that the two American writers have bestowed their labor upon _ideas_, and the English historians upon _words_.

[6] The same taste prevailed in Rome, under the Emperors, when genius was prostituted to the mean purposes of flattery. "It must be acknowleged indeed, that after the dissolution of the Roman republic, this art began to be perverted by being too much admired. Men grew excessively fond of the numerous stile, and readily sacrificed the strength and energy of their discourse to the harmony of their language. Pliny the younger often complains of this contemptible affectation: And Quintilian speaks of certain prose writers in his time, who boasted that their compositions were so strictly numerous, that their hearers might even beat time to their measures. And it should seem that even in Tully's time, this matter was carried to excess; since even then the orators dealt so much in numbers, that it was made a question, wherein they differed from the Poets."----Mason's Essay on the Power and Harmony of Prosaic Numbers. Introduction, page 4.

This was an abuse of the art. Melody should be studied; but not principally.

[7] Wallis, Johnson, Kenrick, Sheridan, with a multitude of inferior compilers.

[8] He found the inhabitants of the maritime towns somewhat civilized,[9] and in their manners resembling the Gauls, with whom they had some commercial intercourse. It is probable that the Britons came originally from the continent, from which their island is separated by a strait of no great extent.

[9] "Ex his omnibus, long esunt humanissimi, qui Cantium incolunt: Quæ regio est maritima omnis; _neque multum_ a Gallica differunt consuetudine."----Cesar De Bello Gallico, Lib. 5.

[10] Tacitus. Jul. Agric. Vit 11.

[11] "Erat autem prisca isthæc Gallis et Britannis communis lingua, ultra omnium historiarum memoriam antiquæ."----Wallis Gram.

[12] This is said upon the hypothesis, that the ancient Celtic or British had a common origin with the Hebrew, Phenician and Greek. For proofs of this, see the notes at the end.

[13] Temple's Introd. to Hist. of England.

[14] At the conquest of Belisle. See the Preface to Mallet's North. Antiq. page 23.

[15] Works, Vol. 3. Introd. to Hist. Eng.

[16] Indeed a good reason may be given for the apparent difference in the several branches of the old Celtic. In this language, words are declined by changing the initial letters, or by prefixing an article with an apostrophe. By these means, words are so altered, that a superficial observer may confound the radical letters, with those which are added for the sake of expressing different relations. Thus the British word _pen_ signifies, a head; _pen gûr_, a man's head; _i ben_, his head; _i phen_, her head; _y'm mhen_, my head. This by the way is no contemptible evidence that the British was derived from the Phenician or Hebrew, in the latter of which, words are declined by prefixes, as well as suffixes.

For the difference between the Irish and British, Lluyd assigns other reasons. The ancestors of the Irish and Highland Scots, who were called Guydelians, might have been the original Celts, who first inhabited Britain; and the Cymri or Welsh, another race, or a branch of the Celtic Cimbri, might, either by colonization or conquest, take possession of Britain, and introduce a very different dialect of the same radical language. The Irish language might be somewhat changed by Cantabrian words, imported by the Scots from Spain; and the Cymraeg or British might suffer considerable changes during 400 years subjection to the Romans. See Pref. to Mallet's North. Antiq. page 42.

[17] "Erat autem illa Anglo-Saxonum lingua antiquæ Teutonicæ propago, (nisi antiquæ Gothicæ seu Geticæ potius dixeris, unde forsan ipsa Teutonica duxerit originem) ut et Francica illa in Galliam advecta, et hodierna Germanica, Belgica, Danica, Suevica, Borussica, aliæque affines linguæ."----WALLIS.

[18] Mallet's North. Antiq.

[19] "~Alloi de Persai eisi hoide, Panthelaioi, Derousiaioi, Germanioi~."----Herodotus in Clio. ed. 1570, page 34.

[20] 1362.

[21] In this act of Edward III. there is an express reservation in favor of particular law-phrases or technical terms, which, by long use, had acquired peculiar force and propriety, and whose place could not be well supplied by English words or phrases. Hence the number of French words still used in law proceedings.

[22] We have the testimony of Robert, Earl of Gloucester (who wrote under Henry III. and Edward I.) to this purpose. Page 364.

"Vor bote a man couth French, me tolth of hym well lute, Ac lowe men holdeth to Englyss and to her kunde speeche yute."

For but a man knoweth French, men told of him well little, and lowe men holdeth to English and to their native tongue.---- That is, unless a man could speak French he was little esteemed.

[23] 1731.

[24] "Ex hac malefano novetatis pruritu, Belgæ Gallicas voces passim civitate sua donando patrii sermonis puritatem nuper non leviter inquinârunt, et Chaucerus Poeta, pessimo exemplo, _integris vocum plaustris ex eadem Gallia in nostram linguam invectis_, eam, nimis antea a Normannorum victoriæ adulteratam, omni fere nativa gratia et nitore spoliavit."----Skinner Etymol. L. A. Pref.

[25] Raimond IV. of Aragon, count of Provence, rendered his Court a temple of the muses, and to this resorted the lovers of the Belles Lettres from every part of Europe. About the year 1300, a taste for the Provençal language and poetry was imbibed in Italy, and soon after in England.--Denina, Chap. 4.

[26] A remarkable example of this kind of stile, we have in Elphinstone's principles of the English Language. The author has taken great pains to be obscure, and has succeeded to admiration.

Of this kind of stile, the reader may see a specimen in the following passage, taken from Young's spirit of Athens. Page 6.

"Surely, in every mind, there is an emulation of virtuous superiority, which, however fortune or the meaner passions may hebitate its powers, still, at every example of success in the particular object of its predilection, glows into a momentary flame, which from frequent resuscitation may acquire a stability and strength sufficient to reach at the attainment of what, at first, was regarded solely as matter of admiration; the idea of imitation which hath thus enraptured the fancy, may in times of perilous crisis somewhat elevate the mind and influence the conduct; and if such ever may be the effect, what other lecture can ballance the utility of that, which thus animates the man, and urges him to noble and disinterested services in a good, great and public cause."

The author could hardly have invented an arrangement, better calculated to obscure his meaning.

It is said of Moliere, that before he would suffer a new play of his to be acted, he read it to an old woman, and judged, by the effect it had upon her, what reception it would meet with on the stage. It is a pity, some modern writers do not copy the example.

[27] Dr. Blair has made a few excellent remarks on this fault, under the article _Precision_, Lecture 10. I do not remember to have seen any other criticisms upon this subject.

[28] Ossian.

[29] See Blair, Lecture 6, and Condillac, in his Essay on the Origin of Human Knowlege. The _dancing_ of David, and others, mentioned in the Old Testament, was a solemn exercise, in which action was joined with words to express ideas.

It is said to have been a dispute between Cicero and Roscius, whether the former could express an idea by a greater variety of _words_, or the latter by a greater variety of _gesture_.----"Satis constat, contendere cum (Ciceronem) cum ipso histrione (Roscio) solitum, utrum ille sæpius eandem sententiam variis gestibus efficeret, an ipse per eloquentiæ copiam sermone diverso pronunciaret."----Macrob. Saturn, 2. 10.

[30] I cannot think the French _devenir_ prefixed to a verb answers exactly to both these English forms. The deficiency of the French in this respect, may be observed in the following passage:

"S'il est vrai que vous _aimiez_ la justice, & que vous _alliez_ en Créte pour apprendre les loix du bon roi Minos, n'endurcissez point votre coeur contre mes soupirs & contre mes larmes."----Telemaque, Liv. 4.

If we translate the passage thus: "If it is true that you _love_ justice and _go_ to Crete," &c. we lose the force of the verb _alliez_; for the sense is evidently, _are going_, _are now on your journey_. "If it is true that you _love_ justice and _are going_ to Crete," &c.

In French the verbs _aimiez_ and _alliez_ are both in the same tense, and have the same form of construction; in English the verbs should be in the same tense, but have different forms of construction. In French the force of _alliez_ is collected from the sense of the passage; but in English, it is expressed by a particular construction.

[31] On the first invention of printing, letters were cut in wood and fixed. They were afterwards engraved upon metal, still fixed. The third stage of improvement was the casting of moveable types. It is probable that this was a work of labor and expense; and it must have been a long time, before they cast more than one kind of character. Hence the German character was used in England.

[32] The Germans and Dutch are exceptions: They use their old characters in their own language; but they use the Latin character and language in works of science.

[33] This may be supplied by uniting the two characters _s_ and _h_ in one, and naming the combination _Esh_.

[34] The Germans, who invented printing, had not proper types for the two Saxon or English characters; they therefore made use of _th_ as a substitute for both, which defect we have not yet supplied.

[35] Or _tsera_, _tsvilis_.

[36] "Eundem olim (_ph_) sonum habuisse ac _f_ inscriptiones veteres confirmant, in quibus alterum pro altero promiscue adhiberi cernimus: ut _phidelis_" (pro fidelis.)---- Middleton de Lat. Liter. Pron. Dis.

Our letter _f_ has some degree of aspiration in its sound; but had its original Roman sound been precisely that of the Greek ~Ph~ _phi_, it is probable that _f_ would have been wholly used in derivatives where the _phi_ occurred. I suspect that _ph_ in Latin must have been originally more strongly aspirated than _f_; but the transition from the sound of the one to that of the other was easy, and the distinction was gradually lost.

[37] We may except Kenrick, who has paid some regard to principles, in marking the pronunciation.

DISSERTATION II.

_Of the English Alphabet._--_Rules of Pronunciation._--_Differences of Pronunciation and controverted Points examined._

_Of the_ ENGLISH ALPHABET.

From a general history of the English language, and some remarks upon that subject, I proceed to examin its elements, or the powers of the letters which compose our alphabet.

There are in English, twenty five characters or letters which are the representatives of certain sounds, either simple or combined; a, b, c, d, e, f, g, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z. The English have also the character _h_, which marks an aspiration or strong breathing, but has very little sound of its own.[G]

Letters, according to the sounds they represent, or the purposes they serve, are very naturally divided into three kinds; _vowels_, _dipthongs_, and _consonants_.

In order to obtain clear ideas of our alphabet, let us attend to the following definitions:

1. A vocal sound, formed by opening the mouth, and by a single position of the organs of speech, is a simple sound or vowel. Most of the vowels in English are capable of being prolonged at pleasure, without varying the position of the organs.

2. No more than one simple sound can be formed by one aperture of the mouth, and one position of the organs of speech. The only difference that can be made with the same position of the organs, is, to prolong and shorten the same sound.

3. Two simple sounds, closely united in pronunciation, or following each other so rapidly that the distinction is scarcely perceptible, form a dipthong. In pronouncing a dipthong, two positions of the parts of the mouth are required.

4. Those letters which are not marks of articulate sounds, but represent indistinct sounds, formed by some contact of the parts of the mouth, or by compressing those parts, check all sound, are denominated consonants.

By the first definition we ascertain the number of vowels in English. In pronouncing each of the letters [1a], [4a], [3a], [1e], [1o], [6o], [2u], we observe but one position or aperture of the mouth; the sounds are therefore simple, and the letters are called _vowels_. The six first sounds are capable of being prolonged at pleasure.

By the second definition, we determine which sounds are the same in quality, and different only in the time of being pronounced. Thus _i_ in _fit_ has the same quality of sound as _ee_ in _feet_, for both are pronounced with the same disposition of the organs; but the first is the shortest articulation of the sound, and the last, a long or grave articulation. The other vowels have also their short or abrupt sounds; _a_ in _late_ has its short sound in _let_; _a_ in _cart_ has its short sound in _carry_; _a_ in _fall_ has its short sound in _folly_; _oo_ in _fool_ its short sound in _full_. _O_ is sometimes shortened in common parlance, as in _colt_; but the distinction between _o_ in _coal_ and _colt_, seems to be accidental or caused by the final consonant, and not sufficiently settled or important to require a separate consideration.

By the third definition we are enabled to ascertain the dipthongs in our language. The letters _i_, _u_ and _y_ are usually classed among the vowels; but the first or long sound of each requires, in pronunciation, two positions of the organs of speech, or rather a transition from the position necessary to form one simple sound, to the position necessary to form another simple sound. We begin the sound of _i_ nearly with the same aperture of the glottis, as we do the broad _a_ or _aw_: The aperture however is not quite so great: We rapidly close the mouth to the position where we pronounce _ee_, and there stop the sound. This letter is therefore a dipthong. _Y_ has no property but what belongs to _i_.

_U_ also is not strictly a vowel; nor is it, as it is commonly represented, composed of _e_ and _oo_. We do not begin the sound in the position necessary to sound _ee_, as is obvious in the words _salute_, _salubrious_, _revolution_; but with a greater aperture of the mouth and with a position perfectly easy and natural. From that position we pass to the position with which we pronounce _oo_, and there close the sound.

It must however be observed that when these letters, _i_, _u_, are followed by a consonant, the two sounds of the dipthong are not clearly distinguishable. We do not, in _fight_, hear the sound of _ee_; nor the sound of _oo_ in _cube_. The consonant compresses the organs and closes the sound of the word so suddenly, that the ear can distinguish but a simple vocal sound: And notwithstanding these letters are dipthongs, when considered by themselves, yet in combination with consonants, they are often marks of simple sounds or vowels.

The short sound of _i_ and _y_, is merely short _ee_. The sound of _u_ in _tun_, is a separate vowel, which has no affinity to any other sound in the language.[H]

The sound of _oi_ or _oy_ is dipthongal, composed of the third or broad _a_, and _ee_. The sound of _ou_ or _ow_ is also dipthongal, compounded of third _a_ and _oo_. The sound however does not require quite so great an aperture of the mouth as broad _a_; the position is more natural, and the articulation requires less exertion.

The union of _a_ and _w_ in _law_, has been very erroneously considered a dipthong. Whatever might have been the ancient pronunciation of these letters (and it is probable that good reasons operated to produce their union) they now exhibit but one simple vocal sound. The same may be observed of _ee_, _oo_, _au_, _ai_, _ea_, _ei_, _ie_, _eo_, _oa_, and perhaps some other combinations, each of which actually exhibits the sound of one letter only, which sound is as simple as that of _a_ or _o_.[38]

Under the head of dipthongs we may perhaps range _wa_, _we_, _wo_, _wi_, &c. _W_ has nearly the short sound of _oo_; for _will_, _dwell_ are pronounced as if written _ooill_, _dooell_. It is a controverted point, whether _w_ should be classed with the vowels or consonants. I shall only observe, that it is pronounced by opening the mouth, without a contact of the parts; altho, in a rapid pronunciation, it approaches to a consonant.[I] It is however very immaterial, whether we class it with the vowels or consonants; as all grammarians agree that its sound is that of _oo_ short. It ought to be named _oo_ or _we_; which would save children much of the trouble they now experience, in learning its proper sound from that awkward name _double u_.

The sound of _y_ in the beginning of words, is, by some writers, called a vowel, but by most of them a consonant. Lowth has asserted, that it has every property of a vowel and not one of a consonant. Sheridan considers _y_ in _youth_, _year_, &c. as the short _ee_. But if these writers would attend to the manner in which we pronounce _yes_, _ye_, they would acknowlege that _y_ has some property different from _ee_; for it is very evident that they are not pronounced _ee-es_, _ee-e_. The fact is, that in the American pronunciation of _y_, the root of the tongue is pressed against the upper part of the mouth, above the palate, more closely than it is in pronouncing _ee_, and not so closely as in pronouncing _g_ hard. The transition however from _y_ to _ee_ or to _g_, is extremely easy, and hence the mistake that _y_ is short _ee_, as also the convertibility of _y_ with _g_.[J] It appears to me that _y_ in the beginning of words, is more clearly a consonant than _w_.

In many words, _i_ has the power of _y_ consonant; particularly after _l_ and _n_; as _filial_, _union_.

The vowels therefore in English are all heard in the following words; late, half, hall, feet, pool, note, tun, fight, truth. The five first have short sounds or duplicates; which may be heard in let, hat, hot, fit, pull; and the letters _i_ and _u_ are but accidentally vowels. The pure primitive vowels in English are therefore seven.

The dipthongs may be heard in the following words; lie or defy, due, voice or joy, round or now. To these we may add _ua_ in _persuade_; and perhaps the combinations of w and the vowels, in _well_, _will_, &c.

The consonants in English are nineteen; but for want of proper characters, five of them are expressed or marked by double letters. We annex two sounds to _th_; one to _sh_; one to _ng_; and one to _si_ or _su_, as may be heard in the following words; think, this, shall, bring, confusion or pleasure. These characters should be called _eth_, _esh_, _eng_, _ezh_; and _th_ should have two names, the aspirate as in _think_, and the vocal as in _this_; the latter sound might be distinguished by a small mark drawn thro _th_. This improvement is so obvious and easy, and would be so convenient for the learners of the language, that I must believe it will soon be introduced.

The consonants may be divided into _mutes_ and _semivowels_. When a consonant compresses the lips, or the tongue and roof of the mouth, so closely as to check all sound, it is called a _perfect mute_: Such are _p_, _k_, and _t_, as may be perceived by pronouncing the syllables, _ep_, _ek_, _et_. When the compression of the organs is more gentle and does not stop all sound immediately, the letters are called mutes; such are _b_, _d_, and _g_, as may be perceived by pronouncing the syllables, _eb_, _ed_, _eg_. When a consonant has an imperfect sound, or hissing, which may be continued, after a contact of the organs, it is denominated a semivowel. Of this kind are ef, el, em, en, er, es, ev, ez, eth,[39] eth,[39] esh, ezh, ing. Of these, four are aspirates, ef, es, eth, and esh. The others are vocal, having an imperfect sound.

The whole may be thus arranged.

Perfect mutes---p, k, t. Mutes-----------b, d, g. vocal, } l, m, n, r, v, z, th, Semivowels-- } zh, ng, aspirate,} f, s, th, sh.

They may also be classed according to the manner in which they are formed by the organs: Thus, those formed

By the lips, are called labials--b, p, f, v. By the teeth, are called dentals--d, t, th, z, s, sh, zh. By the palate, are called palatine--g, k, l, r. By the nose, are called nasal--m, n, ng.

On the subject of the alphabet, I have this remark further; that for want of a proper knowlege of the powers of _sh_ and _th_, some material errors in printing have obtained in common practice. _Sh_ are usually united in printing, and generally with propriety, for the combination represents a simple consonant. But in several compound words _s_ and _h_ have been improperly united, where one is silent or where each retains its own power, as in dishonor, dishonest, dishabille, hogshead, household, falsehood, and some others. The union of _sh_ in these words, is embarrassing, especially to children, who are led to pronounce them _dish-onor_, _dish-onest_. This error still prevails in printing, except in the last mentioned word, which is sometimes correctly printed _falsehood_.

_Th_, tho not united in character, have a tendency to produce, in some words, a wrong pronunciation. For instance, we are very apt to say _Wren-tham_ instead of _Wrent-ham_. _Hotham_ is also ambiguous; there is nothing in the orthography to direct us, whether to pronounce it _Hot-ham_ or _Ho-tham_, altho custom decides in favor of the latter.

These remarks show the propriety of attending to our orthography, and of attempting to remove causes of error, when it can be done without much trouble or danger of giving offence.

RULES _of_ PRONUNCIATION.

Having briefly explained the English alphabet, I proceed to the rules of pronunciation.

In pronunciation, two things demand our notice; the proper sounds of the vowels and consonants, and the accent.

In pronouncing both vowels and consonants, the general rule is, _that similar combinations of letters should be pronounced alike, except when general custom has decided otherwise_. Thus if _i_ in the words, _bind_, _find_, _mind_, has its first sound, it ought to have the same sound in other similar combinations, _kind_, _blind_, _grind_. This is the rule of _analogy_, the great leading principle that should regulate the construction of all languages. But as languages are not formed at once by system, and are ever exposed to changes, it must necessarily happen that there will be in all languages, some exceptions from any general rule; some departures from the principle of uniformity.

The practice of a nation, when universal or ancient, has, in most cases, the force and authority of law; it implies mutual and general consent, and becomes a rule of propriety. On this ground, some deviations from the analogy of construction and pronunciation must be admitted in all languages. Thus from the analogy already mentioned, _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.

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.

It is unnecessary, and perhaps impossible, to describe the whole process of the formation of languages; but we may reason from the nature of things that the _necessary_ parts of speech would be the first formed; and it is very evident from etymology that all the others are derived from these, either by abbreviation or combination. The necessary parts of speech are the _noun_ and _verb_; and perhaps we may add the _article_. Pronouns are not necessary, but from their utility, must be a very early invention.

That the noun and verb are the only parts of speech, absolutely necessary for a communication of ideas among rude nations, will be obvious to any person who considers their manner of life, and the small number of their necessary ideas. Their employments are war and hunting; and indeed some tribes are so situated as to have no occupation but that of procuring subsistence. How few must be the ideas of a people, whose sole employment is to catch fish, and take wild beasts for food! Such nations, and even some much farther advanced towards civilization, use few or no prepositions, adverbs and conjunctions, in their intercourse with each other, and very few adjectives. Some tribes of savages in America use no adjectives at all; but express qualities by a particular form of the verb; or rather blend the affirmation and quality into one word.[86] They have, it is said, some connecting words in their own languages, some of which have advanced towards copiousness and variety. But when they attempt to speak English, they use nouns and verbs long before they obtain any knowlege of the particles. They speak in this manner, go, way---- sun, shine---- tree, fall---- give, Uncas, rum; with great deliberation and a short pause between the words. They omit the connectives and the abbreviations, which may be called the "wings of Mercury." Thus it is evident, that, among such nations, a few nouns and verbs will answer the purposes of language.

Many of this kind of expressions remain in the English language to this day. _Go away_ is the savage phrase with the article _a_, derived perhaps from _one_, or what is more probable, added merely to express the sound, made in the transition from one word to the other, for if we attend to the manner in which we pronounce these or two similar words, we shall observe that we involuntarily form the sound expressed by _a_ or _aw_. In some such manner are formed _astray_, _awhile_, _adown_, _aground_, _ashore_, _above_, _abaft_, _among_, and many others. They are usually called adverbs and prepositions; but they are neither more nor less than nouns or verbs, with the prefix _a_.[87] That all the words called adverbs and prepositions, are derived in like manner, from the principal parts of language, the noun and verb, is not demonstrable; but that _most_ of them are so derived, etymology clearly proves.

HORNE TOOKE's THEORY _of the_ PARTICLES.

This theory derives great strength from analizing the words called _conjunctions_. It will perhaps surprize those who have not attended to this subject, to hear it asserted, that the little conjunction _if_, is a _verb_ in the Imperative Mode. That this is the fact can no more be controverted than any point of history, or any truth that our senses present to the mind. _If_ is radically the same word as _give_; it was in the Saxon Infinitive, _gifan_, and in the Imperative, like other Saxon verbs, lost the _an_; being written _gif_. This is the word in its purity; but in different dialects of the same radical tongue, we find it written _gife_, _giff_, _gi_, _yf_, _yef_, and _yeve_. Chaucer used _y_ instead of _g_.[88]

"Unto the devil rough and blake of hewe _Yeve_ I thy body and my panne also."

Freres Tale, 7204.

But the true Imperative is _gif_, as in the Sad Shepherd. Act 2. Sc. 2.

----"My largesse Hath lotted her to be your brother's mistress _Gif_ she can be reclaimed; _gif_ not, his prey."

This is the origin of the conjunction _if_; and it answers, in sense and derivation to the Latin _si_, which is but a contraction of _sit_. Thus what we denominate the Subjunctive mode is resolvable into the Indicative. "_If_ ye love me, ye will keep my commandments," is resolvable in this manner; "Give, (give the following fact, or suppose it) ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." Or thus, "Ye love me, give that, ye will keep my commandments." But on this I shall be more particular when I come to speak of errors in the use of verbs.

_An_ is still vulgarly used in the sense of _if_. "_An_ please your honor," is the usual address of servants to their masters in England; tho it is lost in New England. But a word derived from the same root, is still retained; viz. the Saxon _anan_, to give; which is sometimes pronounced _nan_, and sometimes _anan_. It is used for _what_, or _what do you say_; as when a person speaks to another, the second person not hearing distinctly, replies, _nan_, or _anan_; that is, _give_ or _repeat_ what you said. This is ridiculed as a gross vulgarism; and it is indeed obsolete except among common people; but is strictly correct, and if persons deride the use of the word, it proves at least that they do not understand its meaning.

Unless, _lest_ and _else_, are all derivatives of the old Saxon verb _lesan_, _to dismiss_, which we preserve in the word _lease_, and its compounds. So far are these words from being conjunctions, that they are, in fact, verbs in the Imperative mode; and this explanation serves further to lay open the curious structure of our language. For example:

"Unless ye believe ye shall not understand," may be thus resolved; "Ye believe; _dismiss_ (that fact) ye shall not understand." Or thus, "_Dismiss_ ye believe, (that circumstance being away) ye shall not understand." Thus by analizing the sentence we find no Subjunctive mode; but merely the Indicative and Imperative.

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry," is resolvable in the same manner: "Kiss the Son, _dismiss_ (that) he will be angry." _Else_ is used nearly in the same sense, as in Chaucer, Freres Tale, 7240:

"Axe him thyself, if thou not trowest me, Or _elles_ stint a while and thou shalt see."

That is, "If thou dost not believe me, ask him thyself, or _dismissing_ (omitting that) wait and thou shalt be convinced."

_Though_, or _tho_, commonly called a conjunction, is also a verb in the Imperative Mode. It is from the verb _thafian_ or _thafigan_, which, in the Saxon, signified to _grant_ or _allow_. The word in its purity is _thaf_ or _thof_; and so it is pronounced by many of the common people in England, and by some in America.

"_Tho_ he slay me, yet will I trust in him," may be thus explained; "_Allow_ (suppose) he should slay me, yet will I trust in him." That this is the true sense of _tho_, is evident from another fact. The old writers used _algife_ for _although_; and its meaning must be nearly the same.

"----Whose pere is hard to find, _Algife_ England and France were thorow saught."

Rel. An. Poet. 115.

_Since_ is merely a participle of the old verb _seon_, to see. In ancient authors we find it variously written; as _sith_, _sithence_, _sin_, _sithen_, &c. and the common people in New England still pronounce it _sin_, _sen_ or _sence_. Of all these, _sin_ or _sen_, which is so much ridiculed as vulgar, comes nearest to the original _seen_.[89] This explanation of _since_ unfolds the true theory of languages, and proves that all words are originally derived from those which are first used to express ideas of sensible objects. Mankind, instead of that abstract sense which we annex to _since_, if we have any idea at all when we use it, originally said, _seen the sun rose, it has become warm_; that is, after the sun rose, or that circumstance being _seen_ or _past_. We use the same word now, with a little variation; but the etymology is lost to most people, who still employ the word for a precise purpose, intelligible to their hearers.

_But_ has two distinct meanings, and two different roots. This is evident to any person who attends to the manner of using the word. We say, "_But to proceed_;" that is, _more_ or _further_. We say also, "All left the room, _but_ one;" that is, except one. These two significations, which are constantly and insensibly annexed to the word, will perhaps explain all its uses; but cannot be well accounted for, without supposing it to have two etymologies. Happily the early writers furnish us with the means of solving the difficulty. Gawen Douglass the poet, was cotemporary with Chaucer, or lived near his time, was Bishop of Dunkeld in Scotland, and probably wrote the language in the purity of his age and country. As the Scots in the Low Lands, are descendants of the Saxons, in common with the English, and from their local situation, have been less exposed to revolutions, they have preserved more of the Saxon idiom and orthography than their southern brethren. In Douglass we find two different words to express the two different meanings, which we now annex to one; viz. _bot_ and _but_. The first is used in the sense of _more_, _further_ or _addition_; and the last in the sense of _except_ or _take away_.

"_Bot_ thy work shall endure in laude and glorie, _But_ spot or falt condigne eterne memorie."

The first Mr. Horne derives from _botan_, _to boot, to give more_; from which our English word _boot_, which is now for the most part confined to jockeys, is also derived; and the other from _be utan_,[90] _to be out or away_. That these etymologies are just is probable, both from old writings and from the present distinct uses of the word _but_. This word therefore is the blending or corruption of _bot_ and _beut_, the Imperatives of two Saxon verbs, _botan_ and _beutan_.[91]

_And_ is probably a contraction of _anan_, to give, the verb before mentioned; and _ad_, the root of the verb _add_, and signifying _series_ or _remainder_. _An ad, give the remainder._

The word _with_, commonly called a preposition, is likewise a verb. It is from the Saxon _withan_, to join; or more probably from _wyrth_, to be, or the German _werden_, devenir, to be. The reason for this latter conjecture, is that we have preserved the Imperative of _wyrth_ or _werden_, in this ancient phrase, "woe _worth_ the day;" that is, woe be to the day. The German verb, in its inflections, makes _wirst_ and _wurde_; and is undoubtedly from the same root as the Danish _værer_, to be. But whether _with_ has its origin in _withan_, to join, or in _werden_, to be, its sense will be nearly the same; it will still convey the idea of connection. This will plainly appear to any person who considers, that _by_ is merely a corruption of _be_, from the old verb _beon_; and that this word is still used to express connection or nearness; "He lives _by_ me;" "He went _by_ me;" that is, he lives _be_ me.

This verb _be_ was formerly used in this phrase; _be my faith, be my troth_; that is, _by my faith_, as in Chevy Chace.[92] We still find the same verb in a multitude of compounds, _be-come_, _be-yond_, _be-tween_, _be-side_, _be-fore_. Thus we see what are called _prepositions_, are mere combinations or corruptions of verbs; they are not a primitive part of language, and if we resolve this phrase, _he went beyond me_, we shall find it composed of these words, _he went_, _be_, _gone_, _me_; _yond_ being nothing but the participle of _go_.

Will my grammatical readers believe me, when I assert that the affirmation _yea_, or _yes_, is a verb? That it is so, is undeniable. The English _yea_, _yes_, and the German _ja_, pronounced _yaw_, are derived from a verb in the Imperative Mode; or rather, they are but corruptions of _aye_, the Imperative of the French _avoir_, to have. The pure word _aye_, is still used in English. The affirmation _yea_ or _yes_, is _have_, an expression of assent, _have what you say_.[93]

That all the words, called _adverbs_, are abbreviations or combinations of nouns, verbs and adjectives, cannot perhaps be proved; for it is extremely difficult to trace the little words, _when_, _then_, _there_, _here_, &c. to their true origin.[94] But excepting a few, the whole class of words, denominated _adverbs_, can be resolved into other parts of speech. The termination _ly_, which forms a large proportion of these words, is derived from the Saxon _liche_, _like_.

"And as an angel heaven_lich_ she sung."

Chaucer, Cant. Tales, 1057.

We have in a few words retained the original pronunciation, as _Godlike_; but in strictness of speech, there is no difference between _Godlike_ and _Godly_.[95]

Notwithstanding it is evident that conjunctions, prepositions, and adverbs are not original and necessary parts of speech, yet as species of abbreviations, or compound terms to express assemblages of ideas, they may be considered as very useful, and as great improvements in language. Every person, even without the least knowlege of etymology, acquires a habit of annexing a certain idea, or certain number of ideas to _unless_, _lest_, _yes_, _between_, and the other particles; he uses them with precision, and makes himself understood by his hearers or readers. These words enable him to communicate his ideas with greater facility and expedition, than he could by mere names and affirmations. They have lost the distinguishing characteristics of verbs, person, time, and inflection. It is therefore convenient for grammatical purposes, to assign them distinct places and give them names, according to their particular uses. Such of these old verbs as exhibit some connection between the members of a discourse, may be properly denominated _conjunctions_. Others, that are used to show certain relations between words and are generally prefixed to them, may be well called _prepositions_. A third species, which are employed to qualify the sense of other words, may, from their position and uses in a discourse, be denominated _adverbs_. But the foregoing investigation is necessary to unfold the true principles on which language is constructed, and the philosophical enquirer is referred for a more general view of the subject, to Mr. Horne Tooke's _Diversions of Purley_.

The _verb_ or _word_ is so called by way of eminence; the ancient grammarians having considered it as the principal part of speech. The _noun_ is however entitled to the precedence; it is of equal importance in language, and undoubtedly claims priority of origin. Philosophy might teach us that the _names_ of a few visible objects would be first formed by barbarous men, and afterwards the words which express the most common actions. But with respect to names of abstract ideas, as they are usually called, they not only precede the formation of the verbs which represent the action, but it often happens that the same word is used, with a prefix to denote the action of the object to which the name is given. For example, _love_ and _fear_ are the names of certain passions or affections of the mind. To express the action or exertion of these affections, we have not invented distinct terms; but custom has for this purpose prefixed the word _do_ or _to_, which, in its primitive sense, is _to act_, _move_, or _make_.[96] Thus I _do love_, or _do fear_, are merely, I _act, love_, or _act, fear_; and _to love_ and _to fear_ in the Infinitive, are _act, love_, and _act, fear_.

To confirm these remarks, let it be considered that formerly _do_ and _did_ were almost invariably used with the verb; as _I do fear_, _he did love_; and the omission of these words in affirmative declarations is of a modern date. They are still preserved in particular modes of expression; as in the negative and interrogative forms, and in emphatical assertions.

The present hypothesis will derive additional strength from another circumstance. Grammarians allege that the termination of the regular preterit tense, _ed_, is a corruption of _did_. If so, it seems to have been originally optional, either to place the word _did_, which expressed the _action_ of the object, before or after the _name_. Thus, _he feared_, is resolvable into _he fear did_, and must be a blending of the words in a hasty pronunciation. But it was also a practice to say _he did fear_, which arrangement is not yet lost nor obscured; but in no case are both these forms used, _he did feared_; a presumptive evidence of the truth of the opinion, that _ed_ is a contraction of _did_. Indeed I see no objection to the opinion but this, that it is not easy on this supposition, to account for the formation of _did_ from _do_. If _did_ is itself a contraction of _doed_, the regular preterit, which is probable, whence comes _ed_ in this word? To derive _ed_ in other words from _did_ is easy and natural; but this leaves us short of the primary cause or principle, and consequently in suspense, as to the truth of the opinion. Yet whatever may be the true derivation of the regular ending of the past time and perfect participle of English verbs, the use of _do_, _did_ and _to_ before the verb, is a strong evidence, that at least one class of affirmations are formed by the help of _names_, with a prefix to denote the action of the objects expressed by the names. _I fear_, therefore, is a phrase, composed of the pronoun _I_, and the noun _fear_; and the affirmation, contained in the phrase, is derived from the single circumstance of the position of the name after _I_. _I fear_ is a modern substitute for _I do fear_; that is, _I act, fear_; all originally and strictly _nouns_. But by a habit of uniting the personal name _I_ with the name of the passion _fear_, we instantly recognize an affirmation that the passion is exerted; and _do_, the primitive name of _act_, has become superfluous.

EXAMINATION _of_ PARTICULAR PHRASES.

Having made these few remarks on the formation of our language, I shall proceed to examin the criticisms of grammarians on certain phrases, and endeavor to settle some points of controversy with respect to the use of words; and also to detect some inaccuracies which prevail in practice.

NOUNS.

Writers upon the subject of propriety in our language, have objected to the use of _means_, with the article _a_ and the definitive pronouns singular, _this_ and _that_. The objection made is, that as this word ends in _s_, it must be plural, and cannot be joined in construction with words in the singular. This objection supposes that all nouns ending with _s_ are plural; but this would perhaps prove too much, and make it necessary to consider all nouns, _not_ ending in _s_, as singular, which cannot be true, even on the principles of those who bring the objection. The supposition in both cases would be equally well founded.

It appears to me however, that the sense of the word, and particularly the universal practice of the English nation, ought to have induced the critical grammarian, who wished to reduce the language to some certainty, to suppress the objection. The word _means_, applied to a single instrument of action, or cause, conveys a _single_ idea; and I presume, was generally used for this purpose, till Bishop Lowth questioned the propriety of the practice; at least _mean_ is scarcely used as a noun, in any author from Chaucer to Lowth. On the contrary, the best writers have used _means_ either in the singular or plural number, according as they had occasion to express by it an idea of one cause or more.

"By _this means_, it became every man's interest, as well as his duty to prevent all crimes."----Temple, Works, vol. 3. p. 133.

"And by _this means_ I should not doubt," &c.---- Wilkins Real Character, book 1.

"And finding themselves by _this means_ to be safe."----Sidney on Gov. chap. 3. sect. 36.

"For he hopeth by _this means_ to acquit himself."----Rawley's Sylva Sylvarum.

"And by _that means_ they lost their barrier."----Moyle on the Lacedem. Gov.

"Clodius was now quæstor and by _that means_ a senator."----Middleton L. of Cic. vol. 1. p. 261.

"By _this means_ however, there was nothing left to the Parliament of Ireland."----Blackstone's Com. vol. 1. p. 102.

In this manner was the word used by the elegant writers in Queen Anne's reign.

But we have not only the authority of almost every good writer in the language, for this use of _means_ in the singular as well as plural number, but we have the authority of almost unanimous national practice in speaking. It is rare to hear _mean_ used as a noun, and by those only who are fettered by the arbitrary rules of grammarians. I question whether the word, in the singular form, has obtained such an establishment, as to be entitled to a place among the English nouns. The use of it appears like pedantry. No man, whatever may be his rank and abilities, has a right to reject a mode of speech, established by immemorial usage and universal consent. Grammars should be formed on _practice_; for practice determines what a language is. I do not mean a _local_ practice, for this would subject us to perpetual variety and instability; but _national_ or _general_ practice. The latter, it has been remarked, is the standard of propriety, to which all local idioms and private opinions should be sacrificed. The business of a grammarian is not to examin whether or not national practice is founded on philosophical principles; but to _ascertain_ the national practice, that the learner may be able to weed from his own any local peculiarities or false idioms.

If _this means_ and _a means_ are now, and have immemorially been, used by good authors and the nation in general, neither Johnson, Lowth, nor any other person, however learned, has a right to say that the phrases are not _good English_. That this is the fact, every person may satisfy himself, by consulting the good authors and observing the universal practice in discourse.

Besides, the general practice of a nation is not easily changed, and the only effect that an attempt to reform it can produce, is, to make _many_ people doubtful, cautious, and consequently uneasy; to render a _few_ ridiculous and pedantic by following nice criticisms in the face of customary propriety; and to introduce a distinction between the learned and unlearned, which serves only to create difficulties for both.

Dr. Priestley is the only writer upon this subject who seems to have been guided by just principles. He observes, with great propriety, that "Grammarians have leaned too much to the analogies of the Latin language, contrary to our mode of speaking and to the analogies of other languages, more like our own. It must be allowed, that the custom of speaking, is the original and only just standard of any language." Pref. to Gram. page 9. His criticisms are exceedingly judicious, and are entitled to the consideration of the student, in preference to those of Lowth, or any other English author. He considers _means_ as belonging "to that class of words which do not change their termination on account of number." It is used in both numbers, _a means_, or _these means_, with equal propriety.

To the same class of words belong _pains_, _news_, and perhaps some others. Every person who has read good English authors, or lived where the language is spoken in purity, must have observed that the word _pains_ is usually preceded by _much_, and followed by a verb in the singular number; _much pains was taken_. If the word is a plural noun, it should neither be followed by a singular verb, nor preceded by _much_; for we never prefix _much_ to plurals. The most untutored ear would be offended at _much papers_, _much labors_. But do we not always say _much pains_? Do we ever say _many pains were_ taken? I confess I never yet heard or saw the expression. Yet Lowth contends that _pains_ is plural. This criticism upon the word is an authority in vindication of an erroneous practice of using it with a plural verb, even when it is preceded by _much_. So in Sheridan's Art of Reading, we observe these words; "If so _much pains were_ thought necessary among them," &c. Temple indulges the same mistake; "I know how _much pains have been_ taken to deduce the words _Baro_ and _feudum_ from the Latin and Greek, and even from the Hebrew and Egyptian tongue." Works, vol. 3. p. 365.

Might not these writers have used, _much sheep were killed_, with the same propriety?

The sense of the word _pains_ does not require that we should consider it as a plural; for it signifies _labor_ or _fatigue_, in contradistinction to those uneasy sensations, each of which singly is called a _pain_, and to express a number of which _pains_ is used as a plural. On the other hand we have the authority of general practice for uniting with it _much_, which can in no case be used with a plural, and also a verb in the singular number.

--"And taken _much pains_ so to proportion the powers of the several magistrates."----Sidney on Gov. sect. I.

"I found _much art_ and _pains_ employed."----Middleton.

"He will assemble materials with _much pains_."----Bolling. on Hist.