Our attention may now advert to the perfect digraph =WH=.
Alexander Gill, a contemporary of Shakespeare, and Head Master of St
Paul’s Schools, wrote, “_W, aspiratum, consona est, quam scribunt per_
wh, _et tamen aspiratio præcedit_.” (W, aspirated, is a consonant which
is written _wh_, and yet the Aspirate precedes it.) Dr Lowth
(1710–1787), Bishop of London, is quoted by Mr Walker as having directed
that WH should be pronounced “HW,” this having been the relative
positions of the letters during the Anglo-Saxon period. The erudite
theory of the great Hebrew and Saxon scholar had a fascination for the
theoretical orthoepist of whom Mr Cull, F.S.A., the learned editor of
Ogilvie’s Dictionary, writes:—
Mr Walker did not profess to record the current pronunciation of his
day, but he sought to establish principles and even rules to govern
the pronunciation; and would change the pronunciation of words to
bring them within his rules.
It is probable that Dr Lowth, who, practically, is the responsible
author of this theory of inversion, was led to his conclusions as much
by his belief that W was a vowel as by the historical considerations
alluded to above. As regards W being always a vowel, Dr Lowth’s argument
was successfully refuted by Walker himself, whose statements in this
respect, Posterity has endorsed. W is a vowel only when forming the
latter half of a diphthong. And, moreover, even if the W were a vowel,
Dr Lowth could have shewn no good reason for inverting the order of
letters in pronouncing the digraph WH. The retrospective influence of a
post-aspirate has no power to produce a breathing _on_ a vowel, or _on_
a consonant; but generally to cause a vowel to _terminate_ in a jerked
breath (_h‘_) or a consonant to become unvocalised. And again; that
Anglo-Saxon writers had been wont to twist H round to the fore, was an
irrelevant fact, and one that ought to have had no weight with the
worthy bishop or with Mr John Walker when engaged in dictating laws of
pronunciation to the English lieges of King George III. When Walker
wrote the following sentence concerning Dr Johnson, he was in truth
constructing a formula for his own epitaph:—
His Dictionary has been deemed lawful plunder for every subsequent
lexicographer; and so servilely has he been copied, that his mistakes
re-appear in several other dictionaries.
And so it is that Mr Walker’s second-hand rule with regard to WH has
retained the implicit allegiance of all his successors who have had
pronouncing dictionaries to compile. In the presence of such massive
authority, to speak is to be silenced, and to differ is to be crushed.
But still, as is seen in many things, the most imposing and august array
of venerable doctrine cannot always stifle the “still small voice” of a
contrary conviction. Who shall say that Dr Primrose had not been looking
over a collection of pronouncing dictionaries, when he remarked that, as
ten millions of circles can never make a square, so the united voice of
myriads cannot lend the smallest foundation to the untrue.
A purpose of this treatise is to respectfully solicit of modern
authorities a reconsideration of the doctrine of transposition or dictum
relative to the WH; and at the same time to lay certain data before the
general reader.
Clear notions concerning the ordinary W are necessary to a proper
appreciation of that variety occurring in WH.
The =vowel-W= is simply _oo_; thus, in _pew_, “_ew_” is a diphthong
and equal in sound to _ēoo_.
The =consonant-W= is a buzzed _oo_ plus a rapid transition into the
sound that succeeds it. Let [Illustration: buzzed oo] represent the
buzzed _oo_, and ❨ the rapid transition:
W = ([Illustration: buzzed oo]❨).
If, while pronouncing _oo_, we narrow the labial aperture by
approximating the edges of the upper and lower lips, the sound
[Illustration: buzzed oo] is produced. If, while producing the sound
[Illustration: buzzed oo], we enlarge the labial aperture with sudden
rapidity (❨), a perfect consonant-W results. Thus:
“we” = [Illustration: buzzed oo]❨ē; and, “woo” = [Illustration: buzzed
oo]❨oo.
Let WH be represented by ʍ. The difference between W and ʍ is that W is
produced by vocalised breath and certain lip-movements as described
above; whereas ʍ is produced by the _same lip-movements, but with
unvocalised breath_. Hence, in lieu of the buzzing sound, we find in ʍ a
whispered or “whistled breath.” It is this breath-sound of ʍ which has
been so persistently mistaken for the Aspirate H. The sole office of the
H in this digraph is to prescribe the unvocalization of the W. The
nature of the subject renders it difficult to parade proofs of these
facts on the pages of a book, in order to convince persons who, having a
veneration for Mr Walker’s hoo hoo theory, might wish to uphold in
theory that which they probably depart from in practice. By careful
attention to most thoroughly good speakers it will be noticed that an
unvocalised W (ʍ) is the phonic rendering of the digraph WH; although
the “whistled breath” may be mistaken for an Aspirate by a careless
observer, or by one resolute in error.
It is not easy to understand why these facts are not more widely
recognised and insisted upon by modern orthoepists and writers on
phonological science; and it is very difficult to attribute a cause to
the longevity of the erroneous notions that Mr Walker was an early means
of disseminating. When we see in our pronouncing dictionaries that
_whip_ is to be pronounced “hwip,” the only belief open to us is that
their writers intend two vowel-sounds to be heard in a word containing
only one vowel; for they can scarcely mean that the h shall aspirate a
consonantal _w_, nor that a jerked _h‘_ shall precede the word (thus
_h‘_ + _wip_), nor can they desire that the h shall aspirate a
whistle—Hʍip. To say the least, the rendering of any of these would
require a vocal gymnast to make it effective. But if two vowels _are_ to
be employed, the first must needs be aspirated and the second not; so
that a phonetic spelling of _whip_ and _why_ would be “hoo ip” and “hoo
i”! And, according to Mr Walker and his disciples, this is the correct
pronunciation. But the fact remains that even those gentlemen, who in
their dictionaries have scrupulously reproduced Mr Walker’s rule, have
seldom been known to violate the principles of a correct pronunciation
by adhering to it when speaking. The sore straits to which the rule
occasionally reduces them might elicit pity. “Hw” is found to be
unmanageable before _o_; and therefore we find that since the days of Mr
Walker, a perfect unanimity has prevailed among orthoepists with regard
to the extrusion of W from the pronunciation of every word in which the
digraph WH precedes an o; whence it comes that in all dictionaries in
common use, _whole_, _whom_, _who_, &c., are phonetically expressed
“hole,” “hoom,” “hoo,” &c.; for, according to their method, to retain
the W were to give these words the sound of hoo ole, hoo oom, and hoo
oo! If, on the other hand, one remembers that WH is an unvocalized W, no
more hesitation will be experienced in giving it its due before an _o_
than before any other vowel. ʍole, ʍoom, and ʍoo, are quite as easy to
pronounce as ʍist ʍip, or ʍale. _Who_ is, however, very frequently made
an exception by the best speakers of English, and pronounced “_hoo_.”
The word lost its ʍ in the seventeenth century, and does not seem in a
fair way to recover it.
Mr Ellis, so far as the writer is aware, is the only authority who has
entered a protest against the modern conception of WH; and he gives it
as his opinion that, from the earliest times, WH—whether mistaken for Hw
or Hoo—has always been and still is, if rightly pronounced, WH.
This digraph is peculiar to the English language. English-speaking
people differ in their manner of using it. In the south of England, it
is seldom more than W; and _which_ and _what_ are pronounced “wich” and
“wot.” The educated classes must, by courtesy, be supposed without the
pale of this accusation. In the northern parts of England WH is
decidedly more correctly used; in Scotland the pronunciation of it is
perfect. In few cases would it be other than absurd to seek, out of
England, for a criterion of English pronunciation; but this is one of
the exceptions wherein the norm is best found north of the Tweed. Scotch
H’s are harsh and grating, or like the H of HU (see page 37), or akin to
the results of those guttural spasms that attend the primiparous
aspirate-labours of a reformed H-dropper; and the Scotch are known to
wrongfully accuse Englishmen of dropping H’s, that in reality have been
properly aspirated; but the Scotch neither exaggerate nor neglect the
proper rendering of WH, and even their farm-labourers are worthy to be
taken as models.[13] _Whale_, _whelp_, _when_, _where_, _whole_, are, in
Scotland, distinctly and properly, ʍale, ʍelp, ʍen, ʍere, and ʍole.
Notwithstanding this indisputable fact, the four varieties of Ogilvie’s
excellent dictionary (the northern Scotchman’s lexical fetish) give
“hwale,” “hwen,” &c., as being the received pronunciation. In so doing
they agree with all contemporary productions of their kind. The
_rationale_ of the inversion is a mystery; but a clue to the cause of
this and other errors-upon-precedent, would very probably be found to
have Mr John Walker at one end of it and the conservative spirit of
subsequent orthoepists at the other.