(5) Whether it is not our duty to take steps to prevent the
continuance and growth of this evil. [To give an example--the word
_mourn_. If we persist in mispronouncing this word as _morn_, and make
no distinction between _mourning_ and _morning_, then that word will
perish. We cannot afford to lose it: it is a good example of our
best words, as may be seen by looking it up in the concordances to
Shakespeare and the Bible: and what is true of this word is true of
hundreds of others.]
(6) It is pointed out that our fashionable Southern English dialect,
our Public School Pronunciation, is one chief source of this damage.
(7) Attention is called to the low standard of pronunciation adopted
by our professional phoneticians, and to the falsity of their orthodox
teaching.
(8) The damage to the language which is threatened by their activity
is exposed.
(9) It is questioned how far it is possible to adopt living dialectal
forms to save words that would otherwise perish.
(10) Respect for the traditions of neglected dialects is advocated.
(11) As to what differentiations of words should be insisted on [e.g.
the _lore_ = _law_ class].
(12) The necessity of observing vowel distinctions in unaccented
syllables, [e.g. Every one now pronounces the _o_ in the new word
_petrol_, and yet almost every one thinks it impossible to pronounce
the _o_ in the old word _symbol_; which is absurd.]
(13) The necessity for better phonetic teaching in our schools.
(14) The quality of the new words introduced into the language; and
the distinction between mere scientific labels, and those names of
common new objects which must be constantly spoken.
(15) The claims of the Southern English dialect to general acceptance
is questioned.
(16) The general consideration that the spread of the English language
over the world must accelerate the disuse and loss of the most
inconvenient homophones.
These matters invite expert discussion, and it is our hope that every
such question will receive due treatment from some one whose knowledge
qualifies him to handle it; and that when any principle or detail is
definitely recognized as desirable, then the consensus of good writers
and speakers will adopt it. This implies wide recognition, support,
and co-operation; and though the Society has already gone far to
secure this, it may yet seem that the small aristocracy of letters
will be insufficient to carry through such a wide reform of habit:
but it should be remembered that they are the very same persons whose
example maintains the existing fashions. And, again, when it is urged
against us that the democratic Press is too firmly established in its
traditions to be moved by such an influence, it is overlooked that the
great majority of those who write for the Press, and maintain or even
create the style by which it holds the public ear, are men of good
education, whose minds are thoroughly susceptible to all intellectual
notions, and often highly sensitive to æsthetic excellence. They
are all of them in a sense trained experts, and though working under
tyrannous conditions are no less alive in pride and self respect than
those who command more leisure, and they will readily and eagerly
follow where their circumstances might forbid them to lead. The
conviction too that they are honourably assisting in preserving the
best traditions of our language will add zest to their work; while
the peculiar field of it will provide a wholesome utilitarian test,
which must be of good service to us by checking the affectations and
pedantries into which it may be feared that such a society as the
S.P.E. would conceivably lapse. Their co-operation is altogether
desirable, and we believe attainable if it be not from the first
assured.