Wk.— Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. By John Walker. Glasgow:
Blackie & Son. 1847.
J.— Dictionary of the English Language. By Samuel Johnson. 4th
Edition. 1786.
O.— Comprehensive English Dictionary. By John Ogilvie, LL.D. London:
Blackie & Son. 1874.
N.— Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language. By P. Austin
Nuttall, LL.D. London: Geo. Routledge & Sons. 1873.
Wor.— Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. By Joseph E. Worcester. London:
Geo. Routledge & Sons. 1875.
S.— Etymological and Pronouncing Dictionary. By Rev. Jas. Stormonth.
London: Wm. Blackwood & Sons. 1879.
R.— Webster’s Improved Pronouncing Dictionary. By Chas. Robson.
London: Ward, Lock & Tyler. _No date_—recent.
C.— Dictionary of the English Language. By Arnold J. Cooley. London
and Edbro’: W. & R. Chambers. _No date_—recent edition.
D.— Chambers’ Etymological Dictionary. By Jas. Donald, F.R.G.S.
1878.
B.— Bell’s Standard Elocutionist. London: Wm. Mullan & Son. 1879.
If it be granted that of yore, orthoepists based their decisions with
regard to the silent H on no other authority than that of their own
assertions, or on dogmatic, or even spurious etymology, it flows as a
corollary that these ancient law-givers can claim no allegiance from
modern speakers. And again, if modern compilers of “pronouncing
dictionaries,” being the direct descendants of the ancient orthoepists,
assume the right of hereditary legislation, and persist in their
attempts to govern our modern pronunciation by the worthless traditions
of their predecessors, the yoke of their archaical jurisdiction must be
thrown off altogether. We may therefore approach the question of “What
words now have silent H’s?” entirely free from the bias of traditionary
lore, and from the pressure of antiquarian and etymological
considerations.
When preparing to obtain a firm basis upon which to found and sustain a
plea for the recognition of a standard pronunciation founded on
contemporary usage, the writer solicited the advice of Professor Bain,
whose friendly assistance was partly conveyed in the following:—
“Where usage conflicts, we must first decide who are to be received as
authorities. It seems to me that the stage is better than any other, and
the habits of great actors might be referred to. The cultivated society
of the metropolis ought to furnish a guide, but we can hardly fix upon a
person representing them.”
Acting according to the spirit of this advice, the writer has consulted
the USAGE OF CULTIVATED SOCIETY as represented by a number of gentlemen
whose various qualifications eminently fit them to fulfil the conditions
laid down by Dr Bain.[9] The result of the inquiry, and of personal and
attentive observation, furnishes the following rules:—
Rule I. =H is silent in Heir, Honest, Honor, Hour, and in their
formatives, inclusive of honorarium= (15) =and honorary= (18).
The figures represent the number of persons (among those consulted)
who adhere to the particulars of these rules.
Rule II. =In Humour and its formatives= (be they verbs, substantives, or
adjectives) =the H may be either silent= (10), =or not= (9).
=In Humor= (meaning fluid, moisture, &c.) =and its formatives, the H is
sounded=.
Rule III. =H is Aspirated in all other words in which it occurs.= These
include the following and all their formatives—Herb (17); Hotel (16);
Hospital (17); Humble (18); Humility (19), &c., &c.
NOTES. It is difficult to find a reason why an exception should be
made in favour of _honorarium_ and _honorary_; and, unless the H of
these words can offer a better plea for entering into the
pronunciation than can the H’s of the other formatives of Honor, we
may—after the style of Lucian in his trial of the letter T—move for
its expulsion. The rejection of an anomaly is a valuable improvement
of which judgment approves, and which a love of regularity will
vindicate and maintain. Uniformity presents so many advantages, that
small concessions of opinion will be willingly made in order to secure
it.
With regard to _Hostler_, there is a balance of opinion—(8) being in
favour of the Aspirate, and (11) against it. The pronunciation of the
word should be made depend on the spelling.
In 1775, Perry waged war with Kendrick concerning the H of _Humour_,
and threw down the gauntlet in favour of a y-sound. Subsequently,
Enfield entered the lists on the side of Kendrick; while Walker,
Sheridan, and a host of others, ranged themselves on the side of
Perry; and Smart at length proposed that the respective claims of H
and Y should become matters for the optional decision of a perplexed
public. Hence the phonetic rendering of the word in most modern
dictionaries is indifferently “yū’mur” or “hū’mur.” Webster’s verdict
was curt and concise: “The pronunciation “yumur” is odiously vulgar!”
His words lose their edge in our day, for the “odious” practice
prevails with a great number of good speakers. The present writer, if
permitted to advance an opinion, would say that to his mind to drop
the H “is a custom more honour’d in the breach than the observance;”
and that they secede in very good company who aspirate.
The H of _Humble_ has of recent years been reinstated in public favour
by the late Mr Charles Dickens, whose “Uriah Heep” remains a warning
to evil-doers and h-droppers. It would be a boon to all speakers of
English if a series of “Uriahs” could contrive to eliminate every
otiose H from the language.
H’s that occur in the body of words, as in fore_h_ead, ex_h_ibit, &c.,
are weaker than initial H’s; but a regard for them marks a refined
speaker. The h of “exhibition” may be considered lost, so also the h in
the “ham” of names—_e.g._, Bucking(h)am, Bal(h)am, &c. Long words,
especially of a classic origin, often pay dearly for suddenly acquired
popularity; and when any extraordinary event with which they are
nominally connected puts them accidentally into the mouths of the
people, they generally, in becoming household words, are clipped of much
of their early dignity.
In parenthesis, a word about the indefinite article. One very excellent
grammar says:—
Many of the best writers, as Macaulay, use _an_ before H (not silent)
when the accent is on the second syllable: “_an_ historical parallel.”
Some words beginning with a vowel are pronounced as if they began with
a consonantal _y_: ewe, eunuch, eulogy, European, useful, &c. Before
such words some writers use _an_.[10]
A journalistic acquaintance lately informed the writer that the use of
_an_ before _u_ (when = _y_) is a feature of English journalism, the
Scotch being more addicted to _a_. The former method is more correct to
the eye; the latter to the ear: uniformity favours the former. The
employment of _an_ before H-out-of-accent (_e.g._, hypothesis,
harmonium, hiatus, horizon) is a nicety, and arises from a fastidious
application of the law of Euphonic Adaptation.
Reverting for the last time to the history of the silent H, it is almost
necessary to mention that an ingenious American writer (to whom we have
already referred) was recently engaged disseminating opinions at
variance with those adduced in this work. In a cleverly-written article,
he says:—
I venture the conjecture, which, however, is somewhat more than a
conjecture, that the suppression of H was once very widely diffused
throughout England among all speakers, including the best, during
which time—a very long one—the function of H was to throw a stress on
the syllable which it ushered in, as it is in the Spanish word
_hijos_.
He further suggests that vulgar h-dropping of to-day may be a survival
of a former accepted method of pronunciation. _Se non è vero, è ben
trovato_, and this recognition of the emphasizing power of H is highly
commendable. But it cannot be conceded that the old English H was
normally passive, and only roused into phonic activity on occasions of
emphatic emergency; nor can it be allowed that the Spanish comparison is
a felicitous one, it being rather that which an opponent might have
adduced could he have deemed it to have had any bearing whatever on the
point in question. This writer ought to have borne in mind that the _h_
of _hijos_ happens to be mute, whereas the _j_ is an Aspirate. There is
nevertheless much valuable matter in his article. It is moreover of
service as an example of error; its author having fallen into a
conclusion that lies open to those who allow their attention and
judgment to become absorbed in the frolics of H’s in some of the old
MSS. He points out, for instance, that in the “Lay of Havelok the Dane”
(1280), the words _eye_, _earl_, _ever_, &c., have H’s; and he assumes
the spelling to have represented an allowable pronunciation, neglecting,
however, to take into consideration that this Lay is among the worst of
examples, from the fact of its being essentially a provincial production
(Sir F. Madden believes it to have hailed from Lincolnshire), and one in
which meaningless H’s are uncommonly prevalent and letters are curiously
placed. Although ancient writers habitually endeavoured to write a word
as they spoke it, they did not resist the temptation of occasionally
adding an idle letter, or of employing one as an orthographical
expedient. In modern German, H is made to serve in the latter capacity;
its duty being to lengthen the vowel that precedes it; _e.g._, in the
word _Bo_h_n_, “give it an understanding but no tongue.” The H prefixed
to “eye” in Havelok, if not simply a scrivener’s blunder, may be a
result of metathesis or of commutation, or of the two acting
simultaneously—Ormin (_circa_ 1210) wrote the word “eȝhe.” But, to
refrain from speculative meanderings, one may refer to Mr Ellis, who
mentions that in _Havelok_ H is unnecessarily prefixed in holde (line
30), hete (146), het (653), hof (1976), &c., &c., and with no sort of
uniformity; and, in giving the intended pronunciation, he affirms these
H’s to be meaningless as signs of aspiration.
The most that, with a due regard for fact and authority, can be conceded
to the writer of the magazine article above referred to, is that H,
being formerly a harsh sound, was not unfrequently omitted for the sake
of fluency in the same manner as whole syllables are occasionally lopped
off by careless speakers. This concession, by-the-bye, is not specified
in his treatise.