545. In this view of the Latin and English quantity, we see how uncertain it is to argue from the former to the latter; for though the Latin accent is frequently a rule for placing the English accent, as in words derived whole from that language, as abdomen, acumen, &c. (503,) or preserving the same number of syllables, as in impudent, elegant, from impudens, elegans, &c. (503,) yet the quantity of the Latin seems to have no influence on that of the English. In words of two syllables, where one consonant comes between two vowels, as focus, basis, local, &c. though the vowel in the first syllable is short, in Latin, it is long in English; and inversely, florid, frigid, livid, &c have the vowels in the first syllable short, though these vowels are long in floridus, frigidus, lividus, &c.; so that if any thing ke a rule can be formed, it is, that when a word of three syllables in Latin, with the two first short, is anghcised by dropping the last syllable; we shorten the first syllable of the English dissyllable, unless it ends with the vowel u. (535.) Thus we see the shortening power of our English antepenul tamate accent, which shortens every antepenultimate vowel but u in our pronunciation of Latin words; as in mimicus, vividus, &c. and continues its shortening power in the penultimate accent of these words when anglicised into mimick and vivid; and hence it is that the short quantity of the first Towel in dissyllables is become so prevalent in our language, to the great detriment of its sound, and the disturbance of its simplicity.

It may be necessary, in the next place, to take a view of such words as are either of Saxon or French original, or not so immediately derived from the Latin, as to be influenced by its quantity.

Dissyllables with but one consonant in the middle, having the first syllable pronounced long

Diasyllables with but one consonant in the middle, having the first syllable pronounced short

From the perusal of this selection we see a great majority of words where the first vowel is sound ed short, and therefore, to some inspectors it may seem improbable that the original tendency of our Saxon language was to the long quantity of the penultimate vowel. But, as Mr. Nares very judiciously observes, "the rule is sufficiently general to be admitted, and is undoubtedly founded in the nature of our pronunciation:" for which he quotes Dr. Wallis, who says,"Hæc videtur genuina linguæ nostræ ratio antiqua." Elements of Orthoepy, page 225.

546. Those who have made the progress of languages their study, will observe, it is presumed, that the broad sounds of vowels change to the slender, the difficult consonants to the easier, and the long vowels to short ones. This, it is imagined, will be found to be true in all languages, as well as our own; and such alteration seems founded in the nature of man and of society. The next object to understanding a language being despatch, it is no wonder that short sounds have been encroaching on us, and depriving us of the tune of our words for the sake of gaining time. This is apparent in the abbreviation of simples when compounded, as in knowledge, shepherd, &c. (518) but as it is the business of art to correct and regulate the eccentricities of nature and the excesses of custom, it should be the care of every philosophick grammarian to keep his eye upon the original genius and general scope of his language, and to suffer custom to depart as little from them as possible. But although no inconsistency or want of analogy can alter any pronunciation which is once acknow ledged and settled, yet when a pronunciation is wavering, consistency, analogy, and general principles, ought to decide against a great majority of mere fashion and caprice.

Thus have I endeavoured to give a distinct view of the correspondence between the accent and quantity of the learned languages and our own; and to rescue a plain Englishman (who, as Ben Jonson says of Shakspeare, has little Latin and less Greek,) from the supercilious criticism of those Greeklings and Latinitasters, who are often remarkably ignorant of their own language, and yet frequently decide upon its accent and quantity, because they have a smattering of Greek and Latin. If the question turns upon the accent of an English word, the Latin word it is derived from is immediately produced, and sentence passed without appeal: and yet if the Englishman were to ask the rule on which this decision is founded, the scholar would, in all probability, be at a loss to tell him. Has every English word, he might say, the same accent as the Latin word from which it is derived? This the scholar could not answer in the affirmative, as the least recollection would tell him that parsimony, acrimony, &c. cannot be accented after the Latin parsimonia, acrimonia, &c. as the Latin is never accented higher than the antepenultimate. But perhaps the English word is adopted whole from the Latin. Here is undoubtedly a fair pretence for pronouncing it with the Latin accent; and yet we see how many exceptions there are to this rule (see No. 503, b.) Or perhaps, the English word, though anglicised, retains the same number of syllables. This, indeed, may be said to be a general rule for preserving the Latin accent, but so general as to be neglected in a thousand instances, (See No. 503, f, g, h, i, k.) But if the scholar, as is often the case, huddles quantity and accent together, and infers the English quantity from the Latin; the English scholar needs only to refer him to the selections here given, (No. 544, 545,) to show the inanity of such a plea. Upon the whole, therefore, I flatter myself that men of learning will be gratified to see the subject in a clearer point of view than any in which it has ever been exhibited; and the plain English scholar will be indebted to me for giving him as clear and distinct an idea of the connec tion between the Greek and Latin accent and quantity, and the accent and quantity of his native tongue, as if he had Homer and Horace by heart; and for placing him out of the reach of those pert minor criticks, who are constantly insulting him with their knowledge of the dead languages.

Of the Quantity of the Unaccented Vowels not in the same Syllable with Consonants.

547. Accented syllables, as we have before observed, (179,) are so strongly marked as to be easily comprehended when they are once settled by custom or analogy; but those immediately before or after the accent are in a state of uncertainty, which some of our best judges find themselves unable to remove. Some grammarians have called all the open vowels before or after the accent short, though the ear so evidently dictates the contrary in the u in utility, the o in obedience, &c. Some have saved themselves the trouble of farther search by comprehending these vowels under the epithet obscure; nay, so unfixed do the sounds of these vowels seem, that Dr. Kenrick, whose Rhetorical Dictionary shows he was possessed of very great philological abilities, scems as much at a loss about them as the meanest grammarian in the kingdom; for when he comes to mark the sound of the vowel o in the first syllable of a series of words with the accent en the second, he makes the o in promulge, propel, and prolix, long as they ought to be; and the same letter in proboscis, proceed, and procedure, short. Dominion, domestick, donation, and domain, are marked as if pronounced dom-inion, dom-estick, don-ation, and dom-ain, with the o short; while the first of docility, potential, and monotony, have the o marked long, as in donor, potent, and modish; though it is

* Alioquí, pro usu, abusus & inveteratus error nobis obtruderetur. Olim enim pro mutatione sonorum mutabantur & litera: & si quando consuetudo aliquid mutasset, scribendi quoque modus statim variabatur. Unde quum apud En & Plautum Sont & Servos diceretur & scriberetur, postea multis aurium deliciis o vocali rejecta, quod vastus illius Vaderetur sonus, litera substituta est, & sono expressa; ita ut eotum loco Sunt & Servus prolatum & scriptum ein soiplu Mekerchi Brugensis De Vet. et Rect. Pronun. Linguee Graræ Commentarius

certain to è demonstration, that the etymology, accent, and letters, being the same, the same sound must be produced, unless where custom has precisely marked a difference; and that the first syllahies of promulge, propel, and prolix, and those of proboscis, proceed, and procedure, have no such dif ference, seems too evident to need proof."

543. I know it may be demanded with great plausibility, how do I know that there is not this very inconsistency in custom itself? What right have I to suppose that custom is not as vague and capricious in these syllables as in those under the accent? To which I answer: if custom has determined the sound of these vowels, the dispute is at an end. I implicitly acquiesce in the decision; bat if professors of the art disagree in their opinions, it is a shrewd sign that custom is not alto gether so clear in its sentence; and I must insist on recurring to principles till custom has unequivocally decided.

549 Every vowel, that is neither shortened by the accent, nor succeeded by a double consonant, naturally terminates a syllable: and this terminating vowel, though not so properly long as if the accent were on it, would be very improperly termed short, if by short, as is often the case, be meant shut. (65.) According to this idea of syllabication it is presumed that the word opinion would fall into three distinct parts, and every part be terminated by a consonant but the first, thus o-pin-ion. 560. But it may be demanded, what reason is there in the nature of the thing for dividing the word in this manner, rather than into op-in-ion, where a consonant ends every syllable? In this, as in many other cases of delicacy, we may be allowed to prove what is right, by first proving what is wrong Every ear would be hurt, if the first syllable of opinion and opulence were pronounced exactly alike; op-in-ion would be as different from o-pin-ion, as o-pulence from op-u-lence, and consequeady a different syllabication ought to be adopted; but as opulence is rightly divided into op-ulence, opinion must be divided into o-pin-ion; that is, the o must be necessarily separated from the p, as in open; for, as was before observed, every vowel pronounced alone has its open sound, as nothing but its junction with a consonant can shut it, and consequently unaccented vowels not necessarily joined to a consonant are always open: therefore, without violating the fundamental laws of pronunciation, opinion must necessarily be divided into o-pin-ion and not op-in-ion, and the e pronounced as in the word open, and not as in opulence: which was the thing to be proved.

551. If these reasons are valid with respect to the vowel in question, they have the same force with respect to every other vowel not shut by a consonant throughout the language. That the vowels in this situation are actually open, we may easily perceive by observing that vowel, which, from its diphthongal and semi-consonant sound, is less liable to suffer by obscure pronunciation thar any other. The letter u, in this situation, always preserves itself full and open, as we may observe in itu, labration, &c. The o the most open of all the simple vowels, has the same tendency in obrdrace, opike, position, &c. the e in the first syllable of event, in the second of delegate, the first and third of euangelist, in the second of gaiety, nicety, &c. the a in the first of abate, and the second of pre, &c and the i in sallity. This unaccented letter being no more than e, and this sound when long, corresponding exactly with its short sound, which is not the case with any of the other towels, (65) (66,) the difference between the long and short, or open and shut sound of this letter, less perceptible than in any other: yet we may easily perceive that a delicate pronunciation evidently leaves it open when unaccented in indivisibility, as this word would not be justly pronounted if the i in every syllable were closed by a consonant, as if divided into in-div-is-ib-il-it-y; the first, third, and fifth syllables, would, indeed, be justly pronounced according to this division, as these have all accentual force, which shuts this vowel, and joins it to the succeeding consonant; bat in the second, fourth and sixth syllables, there is no such force, and consequently it must remain open and unconnected with the consonant; though, as was before observed, the long and short Bound of this vowel are so near each other, that the difference is less perceived than in the rest. Every ear would be displeased at such a pronunciation as is indicated by ut-til-lit-y, luc-cub-bra-tion, ep-pin-um, position, er-vent, ev-van-gel-ist, ab-hate, prob-bai-ble, &c.; but for exactly the same reasons that the vowels out of the stress ought to be kept open in these words, the slender i must be kept open in the same situation in the word in-di-vis-i-bil-i-ty, and every similar word in the language.t 552. From all this it will necessarily follow, that the custom adopted by the ancients and moċerms of joining the single consonant to the latter vowel in syllabication, when investigating the unknown sound of a word, has its foundation in reason and good sense; that the only reason why vowels are short and shut, is their junction with a consonant; so those that are not joined to conso nants, when we are not speaking metrically, cannot be said to be either short or shut: and that as all accented vowels, when final or pronounced alone, have their open sound, so those vowels that are alone or final m a syllable, must necessarily retain their open sound likewise, as nothing but uniting instantaneously with the succeeding consonant can shut them: and though nothing but a delicate ear will aurect as to the degree of openness with which we must pronounce the first unaccented o in docility, dermestick, potratual, proceed, monastick, monotony, &c. we may be assured that it is exactly under the same predicament, with respect to sound, in all these words: and as they can never be pronounced short and shut, as if written dossility, dommestick, &c. without hurting the dullest ear; so the e in ard, ampelist, &c. and the i in the third syllable of utility, and in the second, fourth, and sixth, of that, can never be sounded as if joined to the consonant without offending every delicate ear and overturning the first principles of pronunciation.

3

The only considerable exception to this general rule of syllabication which determines the mavad of the unaccented vowels, is when e succeeds the accent, and is followed by r as in literal, geperal, miery, &c. which can never be pronounced lit-e-ral, gen-e-ral, mis-e-ry, &c. without the appearance of affectation. In this situation we find the r corrupts the sound of the e, as it does that of * I am aware that this ingenious writer seems to avoid this inconsistency, by premising, in his Rhetorical Grammar page 6, that he has sometimes marked the 6 in words beginning with a preposition with the oratorial, and someInes with than coloquial pronunciation: thus, in commune, communicate, &c. the oratorial sound is given as in the first eriale of common, while the colloquial sound changes the o into u, as if the words were written cummune, cummunicate, but the distinction in these examples does not touch the point: here there is a change only of one short sound for an Gar, and not any promiscuous use of a long and short, or open and shut sound of the same letter. Dr. Kenrick him Ef, when he marks the o in proboscis, proceed, and procedure, does not adopt the short u, as he does in commune, com moumacute, but i træ in he aware of the essential difference with respect to the quantity of the vowel, in the double conso Baul is one set of words, and the single one in the other.

that Mr. Sheridan considered the unaccented vowel i, whether ending a syllable, or joined to the suc ding remnant, as standing for the same sound; for we see him sometimes making use of one division, and some mum of acuitiver chous he divides the word di-ner-si-ty with the i terminating the penultimate syllable, and w-ni-ver-sit-g and de sune i united to the consonant. The same variety takes place in the words di-vis-i-bil-i-tg and in-di-via i butt, whim Dr. Henrică divides all words of this termination regularly in the Drum r manner.

every other vowel when in a final unaccented syllable. For this consonant being nothing more than a jar, it unavoidably mixes with the e in this situation, and reduces it to the obscure sound of short u, (418,) a sound to which the other unaccented vowels before r have sometimes so evident a tendency.

554. An obscure idea of the principles of syllabication just laid down, and the contradiction to them perceived in this exception, has made most of our orthoepists extremely wavering and uncer tain in their division of words into syllables, when the unaccentede has preceded r, where we not only find them differing from each other, but sometimes even from themselves:

555. I have been the more copious in my collection of these varieties, that I might not appear to have taken the advantage of any oversight or mistake of the press: nor is it any wonder when the principles of syllabication so strongly incline us to leave the vowel e, like the other vowels, open before a single consonant; and the ear so decidedly tells us, that this letter is not always open when preceded by the accent, and followed by r, it is no wonder, I say, that a writer should be perplexed, and that he should sometimes incline to one side, and sometimes to the other. I am conscious Í have not always been free from this inconsistency myself. The examples therefore which I have selected, will, I hope, fully justify me in the syllabication I have adopted; which is, that of sometimes separating the e from the r in this situation, and sometimes not. When solemn and deliberate speaking has seemed to admit of lengthening the e, I have sometimes made it end the syllable; when this was not the case I have sometimes joined it to the r: thus, as e in the penultimate syllable of incarcerate, reverberate, &c. seems, in solemn speaking, to admit of a small degree of length and distinctness, it ends a syilable; but as no solemnity of pronunciation seems to admit of the same length and openness of the e in tolerate, deliberate, &c. it is united with r, and sounded in the notation by short u. It ought, however, to be carefully observed, that though the e in this situation is sometimes separated from the r, there is no speaking, however. deliberate and solemn, that will not admit of uniting it to r, and pronouncing it like short u, without offending the nicest and most critical ear.

556. It must also be noted that this alteration of the sound of e before r, is only when it follows the accent, either primary or secondary, (522) (530;) for when it is in the first syllable of a word, though unaccented, it keeps its true sound: thus, though the e is pronounced like u in alter, alteration, &c. yet in perfection, terrifick, &c. this letter is as pure as when the accent is on it in perfect, terrible, &c. 557. Something like the corruption of the sound of unaccented e before r, we may perceive in the colloquial pronunciation of the vowel o in the same situation; and accordingly we find our best orthoepists differ in their notation of this letter: thus memory, memorable, immemorable, memorably, memorize, have the o pronounced like short u by Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Scott; and memorandum, with the o, as in open; while Dr. Kenrick gives the o in all these words the sound it has in the conjunction or. Mr. Sheridan marks the unaccented o in corporal, corporate, and corporation, like the o in open; but Mr. Scott pronounces this o in corporal, corporate, and corporation, like short u, and the same letter in incorporate, and incorporation, like Mr. Sheridan; and Dr. Kenrick, like the in the former instances. Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Scott are uniform in their pronunciation of the same vowel like short u in armour, armorer, armory, pillory, suasory, persuasory, allegory, compulsory, cursory, and predatory; while Dr. Kenrick pronounces the o in armour and armory, like the o in open, and the same letter in pillory, allegory, and cursory, like the o in or, nor, &c. This diversity, among good judges, can arise from nothing but the same uncertainty of the sound of this letter that we have just observed of the e; but if we narrowly watch our pronunciation, we shall find that the unaccented o may be opened and lengthened, in deliberate speaking, without hurting the ear, which is not always the case with e; and this has induced me generally to separate the o from the succeeding when immediately following the accent; though I am sensible that the rapidity of colloquial speaking often reduces it to short u without offending the ear: but when the o is removed more than one syllable from the accent, the most deliberate speaking generally lets it slide into the other vowel, for which reason I have commonly marked it in this manner. See COMMAND.

558. It may, perhaps, appear to some of my readers, that too much time has been spent upon these nice distinctions of sound, in which judges themselves are found to disagree; but when we consider how many syllables in the language are unaccented, and that these syllables are those in

which the peculiar delicacy of the pronunciation of natives consists: when we reflect on the necesity of having as distinct and permanent sounds as possible, to which we may refer these fleeting and evanescent ones, we shall not look upon an attempt to arrest and investigate them as a useless part of philology.

559. A TABLE of the SIMPLE and DIPHTHONGAL VOWELS referred to by the Figures over the Letters in this Dictionary.

ENGLISH SOUNDS.

1. The long slender English a, as in fåte, på-per, &c. (73.)
2. The long Italian a, as in får, få-ther, pa-på, mam-må. (77.)
3. A. The broad German a, as in fàll wall, wå-ter. (83.)
4. 4. The short sound of the Italian a, as in fât, mât, mår-ry. (81.)

1. è. The long e, as in mẻ, hère, mè-tre, mè-diùm. (93.) 2. è. The short e, as in mēt, lêt, gêt. (95.)

1. 1. The long diphthongal i, as in plne, ti-tle (105.) 2. L. The short simple i, as in pin, tit-tle. (107.)

1. d. The long open o, as in nỏ, nôte, nò-tice. (162.) 2. 8. The long close o, as in move, prove, (164.)

3. d. The long broad o, as in når, för, ôr; like the broad å. (167.) 48. The short broad o, as in nôt, hôt, gôt. (163.)

1. à. The long diphthongal u, as in tåbe, cùbe, củ-pid. (171.)
24. The short simple u, as in tåb, cảp, sàp. (172.)

3. &. The middle or obtuse u, as in båll, fåll, pâll, (173.)
8. The long broad ỗ, and the short i, as in ỏil. (299.)
¿. The long broad ỏ, and the middle obtuse â, as in thôâ, pôând.(313.)
Th. The acute or sharp th, as in think, thin. (466.)

TH. The grave or flat TH, as in THIS, THat. (41,) (50,) (469.)

FRENCH SOUNDS. é in fée, épée.

a in fable, rable.

a in âge, Châlons.
a in fut, matin.

i in mitre, epitre.
e in mette, nette.

ai in laïque, naif.

i in inné, tittré.

o in globe, lobe.

ou in mouvoir, pouvoir
e in or, for, encor.
a in hotte, cotte.

iou in Cioutat, chiourme

eu in neuf, veuf.

ou in boule, foule, powie oï in cycloïde, heroïque. act in Aoûte.

560. When G is printed in the Roman character, it has its hard sound in get, gone, &c. as go Live, geese, dec.; when it has its soft sound it is spelled in the notation by the consonant J, as giant, ginger, fi-ant, jin-ger. The same may be observed of S: the Roman character denotes its bard sound in zin, ma, &c. as so, sit, sense, &c.; its soft sound is spelled by z as rose, raise, &c. roze, raze, &c.

ADVERTISEMENT.

In the course of a critical investigation of the powers of the letters in the foregoing Principles, there is scarcely a word of any difficulty or diversity of sound which has not been noticed, and the true pronunciation, with the reasons and authorities for it, pointed out; so that if the inspector should not meet with sufficient information in the Dictionary under the word, let him consult the Principles under the rowel, diphthong, or consonant, he wishes to be explained, it is highly probable he wil meet with the satisfaction he requires. Thus to know something more concerning the g in the word impugn, which some speakers pronounce and others suppress, let him look into the Principles under the letter G, No. 396, and he will find additional observations to those in the Dictionary un der the word. It is true that most of these doubtful, as well as other words, are referred to the Frine pies: but if this reference should by chance be omitted, it is hoped that this Advertisement supply the deficiency