CHAPTER VIII.

THE PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOEPY.

s. 240. The present chapter is one, not upon the details of the pronunciation of the English language, but upon the principles of orthoepy. For the details of pronunciation the reader is referred to Nares' Orthoepy, and to the common pronouncing dictionaries, with the preliminary recommendation to use them with caution. _Orthoepy_, a word derived from the Greek _orthon_ (_upright_), and _epos_ (_a word_), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy differs from orthography by determining how words are spoken, whereas orthography decides how they are spelt. The one is a question of speech, the other a question of spelling. Orthography presupposes orthoepy.

s. 241. Of pronunciation there are two kinds, the colloquial and the rhetorical. In common conversation we pronounce the _i_ in _wind_, like the _i_ in _bit_; in rehearsing, or in declamation, however, we pronounce it like the _i_ in _bite_; that is, we give it a diphthongal sound. In reading the Scriptures we say _bless['e]d_; in current speech we say _blest_. It is the same with many words occurring in poetry.

s. 242. Errors in pronunciation are capable of being classified. In the first place, they may be arranged according to their situation. The man who pronounces the verb _to surv['e]y_, as if it was _s['u]rvey_ (that is, with the accent on the wrong syllable), errs in respect to the accentuation of the word; the situation, or seat of his error, being the accent. To say _or[=a]tor_ instead of _or[)a]tor_ is to err in respect to the quantity of the word, the seat of the error being in the quantity; and to pronounce the _a_ in _father_, as it is pronounced in Yorkshire, or the _s_ in _sound_, as it is pronounced in Devonshire (that is, as _z_), is to err in {173} the matter of the articulate sounds. To mispronounce a word because it is misspelt[34] is only indirectly an error of orthoepy. It is an error, not so much of orthoepy, as of orthography; and to give a wrong inflection to a word is not bad pronunciation but bad grammar. For practical purposes, however, many words that are really points of grammar and of orthography, may be dealt with as points of orthoepy.

That the preceding classification is natural I am induced to believe by the following circumstances. Errors in the way of articulation generally arise from a source different from those of accent and of quantity. Errors in accent and quantity are generally referable to insufficient grammatical or etymological knowledge, whilst the errors of articulation betray a provincial dialect.

The misdivision of syllables, an orthoepical error of a fourth kind, has in the English, and perhaps in other languages, given rise to a peculiar class of words. There have been those who have written _a nambassador_ for _an ambassador_, misdividing the syllables, and misdistributing the sound of the letter _n_. The double form (_a_ and _an_) of the English indefinite article, encourages this misdivision. Now, in certain words an error of this kind has had a permanent influence. The English word _nag_ is, in Danish, _oeg_; the _n_, in English, having originally belonged to the indefinite _an_, which preceded it. The words, instead of being divided thus, _an ag_, were divided thus, _a nag_, and the fault became perpetuated. That the Danish is the true form we collect, firstly, from the ease with which the English form is accounted for, and, secondly, from the old Saxon form _ehu_, Latin _equus_. In _adder_ we have the process reversed. The true form is _nadder_, old English; _natter_, German. Here the _n_ is taken from the substantive and added to the article. In _newt_ and _eft_ we have each form. The list of words of this sort can be increased.

s. 243. In the second place, faults of pronunciation may be arranged according to their cause.

{174}

1. _The fault of incompetent enunciation._--A person who says _sick_ for _thick_, or _elebben_ for _eleven_, does so, not because he knows no better, but because he cannot enounce the right sounds of _th_ and _v_. He is _incompetent_ to it. His error is not one of ignorance. It is an acoustic or a phonetic defect. As such it differs from--

2. _The fault of erroneous enunciation._--This is the error of a person who talks of _jocholate_ instead of _chocolate_. It is not that he _cannot_ pronounce rightly, but that he mistakes the nature of the sound required. Still more the person who calls _a hedge_ _a nedge_, and _an edge_ _a hedge_.

s. 244. Incompetent enunciation, and erroneous enunciation are, however, only the proximate and immediate causes of bad orthoepy. Amongst the remote causes (the immediate causes of _erroneous_ enunciation) are the following.

I. _Undefined notions as to the language to which a word belongs._--The flower called _anemone_ is variously pronounced. Those who know Greek say _anem[=o]ne_, speaking as if the word was written _anemohny_. The mass say, _anem[)o]ne_, speaking as if the word was written _anemmony_. Now, the doubt here is as to the language of the word. If it be Greek, it is _anem[=o]ne_.

[Greek: Haima rhodon tiktei, ta de dakrua tan anemonan].

BION.

And if it be English, it is (on the score of analogy) as undoubtedly _an['e]mmony_. The pronunciation of the word in point is determined when we have determined the language of it.

II. _Mistakes as to fact, the language of a word being determined._--To know the word _anem[=o]ne_ to be Greek, and to use it as a Greek word, but to call it _anem[)o]ny_, is not to be undecided as to a matter of language, but to be ignorant as to a matter of quantity.

III. _Neglect of analogy._--Each and all of the following words, _orator_, _theatre_, _senator_, &c. are in the Latin language, from whence they are derived, accented on the second syllable; as _or['a]tor_, _the['a]tre_, _sen['a]tor_. In English, on the contrary, they are accented on the first; as _['o]rator_, _th['e]atre_, {175} _s['e]nator_. The same is the case with many other words similarly derived. They similarly suffer a change of accent. So many words do this, that it is the rule in English for words to throw their accent from the second syllable (counting from the end of the word) to the third. It was on the strength of this rule,--in other words, on the analogies of _orator_, &c., that the English pronunciation of the Greek word [Greek: anemone] was stated to be _an['e]mmone_. Now, to take a word derived from the Latin, and to look to its original quantity only, without consulting the analogies of other words similarly derived, is to be neglectful of the analogies of our own language, and attentive to the quantities of a foreign one.

These, amongst others, the immediate causes of erroneous enunciation, have been adduced not for the sake of exhausting, but for the sake of illustrating the subject.

s. 245. In matters of orthoepy it is the usual custom to appeal to one of the following standards.

I. _The authority of scholars._--This is of value up to a certain point only. The fittest person for determining the classical pronunciation of a word like _anemone_ is the classical scholar; but the mere classical scholar is far from being the fittest person to determine the analogies that such a word follows in English.

II. _The usage of educated bodies, such as the bar, the pulpit, the senate, _&c.__--These are recommended by two circumstances: 1. The chance that each member of them is sufficiently a scholar in foreign tongues to determine the original pronunciation of derived words, and sufficiently a critic in his own language to be aware of the analogies that are in operation. 2. The quantity of imitators that, irrespective of the worth of his pronunciation, each individual can carry with him. On this latter ground the stage is a sort of standard.

The objection to the authority of educated bodies is its impracticability. It is only the usage of the component individuals that can be determined. Of these many may carry with them the dialects of their provinces, so that, although good standards on points of accent and quantity, they are bad ones upon points of articulation. {176}

III. _The authority of societies constituted with the express purpose of taking cognizance of the language of the country._--These, although recognized in Italy and other parts of the Continent, have only been proposed in Great Britain. Their inefficacy arises from the inutility of attempting to fix that which, like language, is essentially fluctuating.

IV. _The authority of the written language._--The value of this may be collected from the chapter on orthography.

V. These, amongst others, the standards that have been appealed to, are adduced not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to show the unsatisfactory nature of authority in matters of speech.

s. 246. For a person, on a point of pronunciation, to trust to his own judgment, he must be capable, with every word that he doubts about, of discussing three questions:--

I. _The abstract or theoretical propriety of a certain pronunciation._--To determine this he must have a sufficient knowledge of foreign tongues and a sufficient knowledge of English analogies. He must also have some test by which he can determine to what language an equivocal word belongs. Of tests for this purpose, one, amongst others, is the following:--Let it be asked whether the word _lens_ (in Optics) is English or Latin; whether it is to be considered as a naturalised word or a strange one. The following fact will give an answer. There is of the word _lens_ a plural number, and this plural number is the English form _lenses_, and not the Latin form _lentes_. The existence of an English inflection proves that the word to which it belongs is English, although its absence does not prove the contrary. That the word _anemone_ is English (and consequently pronounced _anem[)o]ne_) we know from the plural form, which is not _anemonae_, but _anemones_.

II. _The preference of one pronunciation over another on the score of utility._--The word _ascetic_, for certain orthographical reasons, notwithstanding its origin from the Greek word _aske['o]_, is called _assetic_. From similar reasons there is a tendency to call the word _sceptic_, _septic_. Theoretical propriety (and, be it observed, the analogy of _ascetic_ has not been overlooked) is in {177} favour of the word being sounded _skeptic_. The tendency of language, however, is the other way. Now, the tendency of language and the theoretical propriety being equal, there is an advantage (a point of utility) in saying _skeptic_, which turns the scale. By sounding the _k_ we distinguish the word _skeptic_ from _septic_. By this the language gains a point in perspicuity, so that we can talk of the _anti-skeptic_ writings of Bishop Warburton and of the _anti-septic_ properties of charcoal.

III. _The tendencies of language_.--From p. 153, we see that the combination _ew_ is an unstable combination, that it has a tendency to become _yoo_, and that the _y_ in _yoo_ has a tendency to change a _d_ preceding into _j_; in other words, we see the reason why, by many persons, _dew_ is pronounced _jew_.

It is generally an easier matter to say how a word will be sounded a hundred years hence, than to determine its present pronunciation. Theoretical propriety is in favour of _dew_, so also is the view in the way of utility. Notwithstanding this, posterity will say _jew_, for the tendencies of language are paramount to all other influences.

We may now judge of the relative value of the three lines of criticism exhibited above. Other things being equal, the language should have the advantage of the doubt, and the utility of a given pronunciation should prevail over its theoretical propriety. Where, however, the tendencies are overwhelming, we can only choose whether, in doubtful words, we shall speak like our ancestors, or like our posterity.[35]

* * * * *

{178}