BUT, WHERE WORDS ARE SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT PRONUNCIATIONS, THE AUTHORITIES OF OUR BEST TO WHICH ARE PREFIXED PRINCIPLES OF ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION IN WHICH, THE SOUNDS OF LETTERS, SYLLABLES, AND WORDS ARE CRITICALLY INVESTIGATED AND SYSTEMATI LIKEWISE, RULES TO BE OBSERVED BY THE Natives of Scotland, Ireland and London, FOR AVOIDINg their resPECTIVE PECULIARITIES; AND DIRECTIONS TO FOREIGNERS, FOR ACQUIRING A KNOWLEDGE OF THE USE OF THIS DICTIONARY, THE WHOLE INTERSPERSED WITH OBSERVATIONS, ETYMOLOGICAL, CRITICAL, AND GRAMMATICAL. * Quare, si fieri potest, & verba omnia, & vox, hujus alumnum urbis oleant: ut oratio Roma plane videatur, non civitate donata." —QUINTILIAN TO WHICH IS ANNEXED A KEY TO THE CLASSICAL PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK, LATIN, AND SCRIPTUre proper naMES, ac. BY JOHN WALKER, ·AUTHOR OF ELEMENTS OF ELOCUTION, RHYMING DICTIONARY, &zc. STEREOTYPED BY B. AND J. COLLINS, EW YORK. NEW-YORK: PUBLISHED BY COLLINS AND HANNAY, NO. 230, PEARL STREET 7233,28 ADVERTISEMENT TO THE STEREOTYPE EDITION. THE importance of the Stereotype art, in its application to literary works of acknowledged reputation, has been so long known, and so justly estimated by the Publick, that no additional arguments in its favour are at this period necessary, especially when adopted in works of the kind here exhibited. In both England and France, the most popular books have received this form of printing; and they are now judiciously preferred to editions printed in the ordinary manner. In our own country also, the experience of several years has given practical proof of the utility of this art; a considerable number of works being already stereotyped, and repeated editions of them having been demanded by the Publick. The detection of various errors in the most correct edition of Walker's ProBouncing Dictionary that could be procured as a standard in the stereotyping of this work, induced the Puousner to have the whole minutely examined and carefully corrected. In the course of this revision, multitudes of errors were found, particularly in the figures embodied in the volume, and which were designed to refer to the Principles of Pronunciation prefacing the Dictionary. In the present incorrect state of the various editions of Walker's Dictionary, the reader is deprived in a great measure of the use of those important Principles of Pronunciation; and is often misled and confused by this great defect. It is presumed that no mouern editions of Walker's Dictionary are exempt from this imputation of in correctness; as no publishers have given notice of any examination or correction in this particular. Besides those errors in the figures of reference, many others, which had accumulated by frequent republication, have been corrected in the present stereotype edition PREFACE. FEW subjects have of late years more employed the pens of every class of criticks, than the im provement of the English language. The greatest abilities in the nation have been exerted in cultivating and reforming it; nor have a thousand minor criticks been wanting to add their mite of amend. ment to their native tongue. Johnson, whose large mind and just taste made him capable of enriching and adorning the Language with original composition, has condescended to the drudgery of disentaging, explaining, and arranging it, and left a lasting monument of his ability, labour, and patience: and Dr Lowth, the politest scholar of the age, has veiled his superiority in his short Introduction to English Grammar. The ponderous felio has gravely vindicated the rights of analogy; and the light ephemeral sheet of news has corrected errors in Grammar as well as in Politicks, by slyly marking them in Italics. Nor has the improvement stopped here. While Johnson and Lowth have been insensibly operating on the orthography and construction of our Language, its pronunciation has not been nepicted. The importance of a consistent and regular pronunciation was too obvious to be overkoked; and the want of this consistency and regularity has induced several ingenious men to erdeavour at a reformation; who, by exhibiting the irregularities of pronunciation, and pointing out its analogies, have reclaimed some words that were not irrecoverably fixed in a wrong sound, and prevented others from being perverted by ignorance or caprice. Among those writers who deserve the first praise on this subject, is Mr. Elphinston; who, in his Principles of the English Language, has reduced the chaos to a system; and, by a deep investigation of the analogies of our tongue, has laid the foundation of a just and regular pronunciation. After him, Dr. Kenrick contributed a portion of improvement by his Rhetorical Dictionary ; in wach the words are divided into syllables as they are pronounced, and figures placed over the vowels, to indicate their different sounds. But this gentleman has rendered his Dictionary extremely imperfect, by entirely omitting a great number of words of doubtful and difficult pronunCiation—those very words for which a Dictionary of this kind would be most consulted. To hmm succeeded Mr. Sheridan, who not only divided the words into syllables, and placed figures ever the vowels as Dr. Kenrick had done, but, by spelling these syllables as they are pronounced, seemed to complete the idea of a Prenouncing Dictionary, and to leave but little expectation of future improvement. It must, indeed, be confessed, that Mr. Sheridan's Dictionary is greatly Fuperior to every other that preceded it; and his method of conveying the sound of words, by spring them as they are pronounced, is highly rational and useful.-But here sincerity obliges me to stop The numerous instances I have given of impropriety, inconsistency, and want of acquaintance with the analogies of the Language, sufficiently show how imperfect* I think his Dictu Gary is upon the whole, and what ample room was left for attempting another that might better Bower the pupose of a Guide to Pronunciation. The last writer on this subject is Mr Nares, who, in his Elements of Orthoepy, has shown a dearness of method and an extent of observation which deserve the highest encomiums. His preface alone proves him an elegant writer, as well as a philosophical observer of Language: and his Aisthabetical Index, referring near five thousand words to the rules for pronouncing them, is a new and saetul method of treating the subject: but he seems, ou many occasions, to have mistaken the best age, and to have paid too little attention to the first principles of pronunciation. Hoge I have ventured to give my opinion of my rivals and competitors, and I hope without envy or set cuncrit Penaps it would have been policy in me to have been silent on this head, for fear al pitti iz the public's in mind that others have written on the subject as well as myself: but this is a narrow policy, which, under the colour of tenderness to others, is calculated to raise ourselves at A writer, who is conscious he deserves the attention of the Publick, (and unless he mtus funcions he ought not to write,) must not only wish to be compared with those who have ruu be.ɑre tum, bat will promote the comparison, by informing his readers what others have Ger, and on what he founds his pretensions to a preference; and if this be done with fairness and at out acrimony, it can be no more inconsistent with modesty, than it is with honesty and plain work I have to offer on the subject has, I hope, added something to the publick stock; it not toy exhin the principles of pronunciation on a more extensive plan than others have done, £ndes the words into syllables, and marks the sounds of the vowels like Dr. Kenrick, spells the da as they are pronounced like Mr. Sheridan, and directs the inspector to the rule by the word 18 Mr Nares; but, where words are subject to different pronunciations, it shows the reasons gom analogy for each, produces authorities for one side and the other, and points out the promun *atoes winch to preferable. In short, I have endeavoured to unite the science of Mr. Elphinston, the method of Mr. Nares, and the general utility of Mr. Sheridan; and, to add to these advanta ** Lave given critical observations on such words as are subject to a diversity of pronunciation, Ballave invite of the inspector to decide according to analogy and the best usage. But to all works of this kind there lies a formidable objection: which is, that the promunciation Language is necessarily indefinite and fugitive, and that all endeavours to delineate or settle But in vain. Dr. Johnson, in his Grammar, prefixed to his Dictionary, says. "Most of the *Sew Przar pirs. Na 124, 128, 129, 338, 454, 462, 479, 480, 550; and the words. Assume, Collect, Covetous, Donative, Ayumara, batuty, &c. and the inseparable preposition Dis. writers of English Grammar have given long tables of words pronounced otherwise than they are 'written; and seem not sufficiently to have considered, that, of English as of all living tongues, 'there is a double pronunciation one, cursory and colloquial; the other, regular and soleinn "The cursory pronunciation is always vague and uncertain, being made different in different "mouths, by negligence, unskilfulness, or affectation. The solemn pronunciation, though by no means immutable and permanent, is yet always less remote from the orthography, and less liable "to capricions innovation. They have, however, generally formed their tables according to the 6 cursory speech of those with whom they happened to converse, and, concluding that the whole "nation combines to vitiate language in one manner, have often established the jargon of the lowest of the people as the model of speech. For pronunciation, the best general rule is, to consider "those as the most elegant speakers, who deviate least from the written words." Without any derogation from the character of Dr. Johnson, it may be asserted, that in these observations we do not perceive that justness and accuracy of thinking for which he is so remarkable. It would be doing great injustice to him, to suppose that he meant to exclude all possibility of conveying the actual pronunciation of many words that depart manifestly from their orthography, or of those that are written alike, and pronounced differently, and inversely. He has marked these differences with great propriety himself, in many places of his Dictionary; and it is to be regret ed that he did not extend these remarks farther. It is impossible, therefore, he could suppose, that because the almost imperceptible glances of colloquial pronunciation were not to be caught and described by the pen, that the very perceptible difference between the initial accented syllables of morey and monitor, or the final unaccented syllables of finite and infinite, could not be sufficiently marked upon paper. Cannot we show that cellar, a vault, and seller one who sells, have exactly the same sound? or that the monosyllable full, and the first syllable of fulminate, are sounded differently, because there are some words in which solemnity will authorize a different shade of pronunciation from familiarity? Besides, that colloquial pronunciation which is perfect, is so much the language of solemn speaking, that, perhaps, there is no more difference than between the same picture painted to be viewed near and at a distance. The symmetry in both is exactly the same; and the distinction lies only in the colouring. The English Language, in this respect, seems to have a great superiority over the French, which pronounces many letters in the poetic and solemn style, that are wholly silent in the prosaic and familiar. But if a solemn and familiar pronunciation really exists in our language, is it not the business of a grammarian to mark both? And if he caunot point out the precise sound of unaccented syllables, (for these only are liable to obscurity,) he may, at least, give those sounds which approach the nearest, and by this means become a little more useful than those who so liberally leave every thing to the ear and taste of the speaker. The truth is, Dr. Jobuson seems to have had a confused idea of the distinctness and indistinctness with which, on solemn or familiar occasions, we sometimes pronounce the unaccented vowels; and with respect to these, it must be owned, that his remarks are not entirely without foundation. The English Language, with respect to its pronunciation, is evidently divisible into accented and unaccented sounds. The accented syllables, by being pronounced with greater force than the unaccented, have their vowels as clearly and distinctly sounded as any given note in musick; while the unaccented vowels, for want of the stress, are apt to slide into an obscurity of soun 1, which, though sufficiently distinguishable to the ear, cannot be so definitely marked out to the eye by other sounds as those vowels that are under the accent. Thus some of the vowels, when neither under the accent, nor closed by a consonant, have a longer or a shorter, an opener or a closer sound, according to the solemnity or familiarity, the deliberation or rapidity of our delivery. This will be perceived in the sound of the e in emotion, of the o in obedience, and of the u in momment. In the hasty pronunciation of common speaking, the e in emotion is often shortened, as if spelt im-motion; the o in obedience shortened and obscured, as if written ub-be-de-ence; and the u in monument, changed into e, as if written mon-ne-ment; while the deliberate and elegant sound of these vowels is the long open sound they have, when the accent is on them in equal, over, and unit; but a when unaccented, seems to have no such diversity; it has generally a short obscure sound, whether ending a syllable, or closed by a consonant. Thus the a in abte has its definite and distinct sound; but the same letter in tolerablef goes into an obscure indefinite sound approaching the short ; nor can any solemnity or deliberation give it the long open sound it has in the first word. Thus, by distinguishing vowels into their accented and unaccented sounds, we are enabled to see clearly what Dr. Johnson saw but obscurely; and by this distinction entirely to obviate the objection. Equally indefinite and uncertain is his general rule, that those are to be considered as the most elegant speakers who deviate least from the written words. It is certain, where custom is equal, this ought to take place; and if the whole body of respectable English speakers were equally di vided in their pronunciation of the word busy, one half pronouncing it bew-ze, and the other half biz-ze, that the former ought to be accounted the most elegant speakers; but till this is the case, the latter pronunciation, though a gross deviation from orthography, will still be esteemed the most elegant. Dr. Johnson's general rule, therefore, can only take place where custom has not plainly decided; but, unfortunately for the English Language, its orthography and pronunciation are so widely different, that Dr. Watts and Dr. Jones lay it down as a maxim in their Treatises on Spelling, that all words which can be sounded different ways, must be written according to that sound which is most distant from the true pronunciation; and consequently, in such a Language, a Pro nouncing Dictionary must be of essential use. But still it may be objected to such an undertaking that the fluctuation of pronunciation is so great as to render all attempts to settle it useless. What will it avail us, it may be said, to know the pronunciation of the present day, if, in a few years, it will be altered? And how are we to know even what the present pronunciation is, when the same words are often differently pronounced by different speakers, and those perhaps of equal numbers and reputation? To this it may be answered, that the fluctuation of our language, with respect to its pronunciation, seems to have been greatly exaggerated.§ Except a very few single words which are generally noticed in the following See the words Collect, Command, Despatch, Domestick, Efface, Occasion. Principles, No. 178. The old and new 'Are, with all the various dialects, must have occasioned infinite irregularity in the pronunciation of the Greek tongue; and if we may judge of the Latin pronunciation by the ancient inscriptions. it was little less va rious and irregular than the Greek. Aulus Gellius tells us, that Nigidius, & grammatan who lived a little more than a century before him, accented the first syllable of Valeri; but, says he, "si quis nun: Valerium appellans in casu vo * candi secundum id præceptum Nigidii acuerit primam, non aberit quin rideatur."-Whoever now should place the |