verse of the following distich:
"In martial pomp he clothes the angelic train,
While warring myr|iads shake | the ethe|rial plain."
Philosophic Solitude.
On Sheridan's principles, and by an elision of _e_ in _the_, the last
line is composed of pure Iambics; whereas in fact, the three last feet
are anapæsts; and to these the verse is, in some measure, indebted for
its melody and the sublimity of the description.
These considerations are directly opposed to the fashionable
pronunciation of _immediate_, and that whole analogy of words. In
addition to this, I may remark, that it is not the practice of people
in general. Whatever may be the character and rank of its advocates, in
this country they compose but a small part, even of the literati.
_Of_ MODERN CORRUPTIONS _in the_ ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION.
I proceed now to examin a mode of pronouncing certain words, which
prevails in England and some parts of America, and which, as it
extends to a vast number of words, and creates a material difference
between the orthography and pronunciation, is a matter of serious
consequence.
To attack established customs is always hazardous; for mankind, even
when they see and acknowlege their errors, are seldom obliged to the
man who exposes them. The danger is encreased, when an opposition is
made to the favorite opinions of the great; for men, whose rank and
abilities entitle them to particular respect, will sooner dismiss
their friends than their prejudices. Under this conviction, my present
situation is delicate and embarrassing: But as some sacrifices must
often be made to truth; and as I am conscious that a regard to truth
only dictates what I write, I can sincerely declare, it is my wish to
inform the understanding of every man, without wounding the feelings of
an individual.
The practice to which I allude, is that of pronouncing _d_, _t_, and
_s_ preceding _u_; which letter, it is said, contains the sound of _e_
or _y_ and _oo_; and that of course _education_ must be pronounced
_edyucation_; _na__ture_, _natyure_; and _superior_, _syuperior_:
From the difficulty of pronouncing which, we naturally fall into the
sound of _dzh_, _tsh_, and _sh_: Thus education becomes _edzhucation_
or _ejucation_; nature becomes _natshure_ or _nachure_; and superior
becomes _shuperior_.
How long this practice has prevailed in London, I cannot ascertain.
There are a few words, in which it seems to have been universal from
time immemorial; as, _pleasure_, and the other words of that analogy.
But I find no reason to suppose the practice of pronouncing _nature_,
_duty_, _nachure_, _juty_, prevailed before the period of Garrick's
reputation on the stage.
On the other hand, the writers on the language have been silent upon
this point, till within a few years; and Kenrick speaks of it as
a _Metropolitan pronunciation_, supported by _certain mighty fine
speakers_,[68] which implies that the practice is modern, and proves
it to be local, even in Great Britain. But the practice has prevailed
at court and on the stage for several years, and the reputation of
a Garrick, a Sheridan and a Siddons, has given it a very rapid and
extensive diffusion in the polite world. As the innovation is great and
extends to a multitude of words, it is necessary, before we embrace
the practice in its utmost latitude, to examin into its propriety and
consequences.
The only reasons offered in support of the practice, are, the English
or Saxon sound of _u_, which is said to be _yu_; and _euphony_, or the
agreeableness of the pronunciation.
But permit me to enquire, on what do the advocates of this practice
ground their assertion, that _u_ had in Saxon the sound of _eu_ or
_yu_? Are there any testimonies to support it, among old writers of
authority? In the course of my reading I have discovered none, nor have
I ever seen one produced or referred to.
Will it be said, that _yu_ is the name of the letter? But where did
this name originate? Certainly not in the old Saxon practice, for the
Saxons expressed this sound by _ew_, or _eo_: And I do not recollect
a single word of Saxon origin, in which the warmest sticklers for the
practice, give _u_ this sound, even in the present age. Kenrick, who
has investigated the powers of the English letters with much more
accuracy than even Sheridan himself, observes, that we might with equal
propriety, name the other vowels in the same manner, and say, _ya_,
_ye_, _yi_, _yo_, as well as _yu_.[69]
_U_ in _union_, _use_, &c. has the sound of _yu_; but these are all of
_Latin_ origin, and can be no proof that _u_ had, in _Saxon_, the sound
of _ew_ or _yu_.
The whole argument is founded on a mistake. _U_ in pure English has
not the sound of _ew_, but a sound that approaches it; which is
defined with great accuracy by the learned Wallis, who was one of the
first correct writers upon English Grammar, and whose treatise is
the foundation of Lowth's Introduction and all the best subsequent
compilations.[70]
This writer defines the English letter _u_ in these words, "Hunc sonum
Extranei sere assequenter, si dipthongum _iu_ conentur pronunciare;
nempe _i_ exile literæ _u_, vel _w_ preponentes; (ut in Hispanorum
ciudad, civitas.) _Non tamen idem est omnino sonus, quamvis, ad illum
proxime, accedat_; est enim _iu_ sonus compositus, at Anglorum et
Gallorum _u_ sonus simplex."[71]---- Gram. Ling. Angl. Sect. 2.
This is precisely the idea I have ever had of the English _u_; except
that I cannot allow the sound to be perfectly simple. If we attend to
the manner in which we begin the sound of _u_ in _flute_, _abjure_,
_truth_, we shall observe that the tongue is not pressed to the mouth
so closely as in pronouncing _e_; the aperture of the organs is not so
small; and I presume that good speakers, and am confident that most
people, do not pronounce these words _fleute_, _abjeure_, _treuth_.
Neither do they pronounce them _floote_, _abjoore_, _trooth_; but
with a sound formed by an easy natural aperture of the mouth, between
_iu_ and _oo_; which is the true English sound. This sound, however
obscured by affectation in the metropolis of Great Britain and the
capital towns in America, is still preserved by the body of the people
in both countries. There are a million descendants of the Saxons in
this country who retain the sound of _u_ in all cases, precisely
according to Wallis's definition. Ask any plain countryman, whose
pronunciation has not been exposed to corruption by mingling with
foreigners, how he pronounces the letters, _t_, _r_, _u_, _th_, and
he will not sound _u_ like _eu_, nor _oo_, but will express the real
primitive English _u_. Nay, if people wish to make an accurate trial,
let them direct any child of seven years old, who has had no previous
instruction respecting the matter, to pronounce the words _suit_,
_tumult_, _due_, &c. and they will thus ascertain the true sound of
the letter. Children pronounce _u_ in the most natural manner; whereas
the sound of _iu_ requires a considerable effort, and that of _oo_, a
forced position of the lips. Illiterate persons therefore pronounce
the genuin English _u_, much better than those who have attempted to
shape their pronunciation according to the polite modern practice.
As singular as this assertion may appear, it is literally true. This
circumstance alone would be sufficient to prove that the Saxons never
pronounced _u_ like _yu_; for the body of a nation, removed from the
reach of conquest and free from a mixture of foreigners, are the safest
repositories of ancient customs and general practice in speaking.
But another strong argument against the modern practice is, that
the pretended dipthong, _iu_ or _yu_, is heard in scarcely a single
word of Saxon origin. Almost all the words in which _d_, _t_ and _s_
are converted into other letters, as _education_, _due_, _virtue_,
_rapture_, _superior_, _supreme_, &c. are derived from the Latin or
French; so that the practice itself is a proof that the principles on
which it is built, are false. It is pretended that the English or Saxon
sound of _u_ requires the pronunciation, _edzhucation_, _natshure_, and
yet it is introduced almost solely into Latin and French words. Such an
inconsistency refutes the reasoning and is a burlesque on its advocates.
This however is but a small part of the inconsistency. In two other
particulars the absurdity is still more glaring.
1. The modern refiners of our language distinguish two sounds of
_u_ long; that of _yu_ and _oo_; and use both without any regard to
Latin or Saxon derivation. The distinction they make is founded on
a certain principle; and yet I question whether one of a thousand of
them ever attended to it. After most of the consonants, they give _u_
the dipthongal sound of _eu_; as in _blue_, _cube_, _due_, _mute_; but
after _r_ they almost invariably pronounce it _oo_; as _rule_, _truth_,
_rue_, _rude_, _fruit_. Why this distinction? If they contend for the
Saxon sound of _u_, why do they not preserve that sound in _true_,
_rue_, _truth_, which are of Saxon original; and uniformly give _u_ its
Roman sound, which is acknowleged on all hands to have been _oo_, in
all words of Latin original, as _rule_, _mute_, _cube_? The fact is,
they mistake the principle on which the distinction is made; and which
is merely accidental, or arises from the ease of speaking.
In order to frame many of the consonants, the organs are placed in
such a position, that in passing from it to the aperture necessary to
articulate the following vowel or dipthong, we insensibly fall into the
sound of _ee_. This in particular is the case with those consonants
which are formed near the seat of _e_; viz. _k_ and _g_. The closing of
the organs forms these mutes; and a very small opening forms the vowel
_e_. In passing from that close compression occasioned by _k_ and _g_,
to the aperture necessary to form any vowel, the organs are necessarily
placed in a situation to pronounce _ee_. From this single circumstance,
have originated the most barbarous dialects or singularities in
speaking English, which offend the ear, either in Great Britain or
America.
This is the origin of the New England _keow_, _keoward_; and of the
English _keube_, _ackeuse_, _keind_ and _geuide_.
There is just the same propriety in one practice as the other, and both
are equally harmonious.
For similar reasons, the labials, _m_ and _p_, are followed by _e_: In
New England, we hear it in _meow_, _peower_, and in Great Britain, in
_meute_, _peure_. With this difference however, that in New England,
this pronunciation is generally confined to the more illiterate part
of the people, and in Great Britain it prevails among those of the
first rank. But after _r_ we never hear the sound of _e_: It has been
before observed, that the most awkward countryman in New England
pronounces _round_, _ground_, _brown_, as correctly as men of the first
education; and our fashionable speakers pronounce _u_ after _r_ like
_oo_. The reason is the same in both cases: In pronouncing _r_ the
mouth is necessarily opened (or rather the glottis) to a position for
articulating a broad full sound. So that the vulgar singularities in
this respect, and the polite refinements of speaking, both proceed from
the same cause; both proceed from an accidental or careless narrow way
of articulating certain combinations of letters; both are corruptions
of pure English; equally disagreeable and indefensible. Both may be
easily corrected by taking more pains to open the teeth, and form full
bold sounds.
2. But another inconsistency in the modern practice, is the introducing
an _e_[72] before the second sound of _u_ as in _tun_; or rather
changing the preceding consonant; for in _nature_, _rapture_, and
hundreds of other words, _t_ is changed into _tsh_; and yet no person
pretends that _u_, in these words, has a dipthongal sound. On the other
hand, Sheridan and his copier, Scott, have in these and similar words
marked _u_ for its short sound, which is universally acknowleged to
be simple. I believe no person ever pretended, that this sound of _u_
contains the sound of _e_ or _y_; why then should we be directed to
pronounce _nature_, _natyur_? Or what is equally absurd, _natshur_?
On what principle is the _t_ changed into a compound consonant? If
there is any thing in this sound of _u_ to warrant this change, does
it not extend to all words where this sound occurs? Why do not our
standard writers direct us to say _tshun_ for _tun_, and _tshumble_ for
_tumble_? I can conceive no reason which will warrant the pronunciation
in one case, that will not apply with equal force in the other. And
I challenge the advocates of the practice, to produce a reason for
pronouncing _natshur_, _raptshur_, _captshur_, which will not extend
to authorize, not only _tshun_, _tshurn_, for _tun_, _turn_, but also
_fatshal_ for _fatal_, and _immortshal_ for _immortal_.[73] Nay, the
latter pronunciation is actually heard among some very respectable
imitators of fashion; and is frequent among the illiterate, in
those states where the _tshu's_ are most fashionable. How can it be
otherwise? People are led by imitation; and when those in high life
embrace a singularity, the multitude, who are unacquainted with its
principles or extent, will attempt to imitate the novelty, and probably
carry it much farther than was ever intended.
When a man of little education hears a respectable gentleman change
_t_ into _tsh_ in nature, he will naturally be led to change the same
letter, not only in that word, but wherever it occurs. This is already
done in a multitude of instances, and the practice if continued and
extended, might eventually change _t_, in all cases, into _tsh_.
I am sensible that some writers of novels and plays have ridiculed the
common pronunciation of _creatur_ and _nutur_, by introducing these and
similar words into low characters, spelling them _creater_, _nater_:
And the supporters of the court pronunciation allege, that in the
vulgar practice of speaking, the letter _e_ is sounded and not _u_: So
extremely ignorant are they of the nature of sounds and the true powers
of the English letters. The fact is, we are so far from pronouncing
e in the common pronunciation of _natur_, _creatur_, &c. that _e_ is
always sounded like short _u_, in the unaccented syllables of _over_,
_sober_, _banter_, and other similar words. Nay, most of the vowels, in
such syllables, sound like _i_ or _u_ short.[74] Liar, elder, factor,
are pronounced _liur_, _eldur_, _factur_, and this is the true sound of
_u_ in _creatur_, _nature_, _rapture_, _legislature_, &c.
I would just observe further, that this pretended dipthong _iu_ was
formerly expressed by _ew_ and _eu_, or perhaps by _eo_, and was
considered as different from the sound of _u_. In modern times, we
have, in many words, blended the sound of _u_ with that of _ew_,
or rather use them promiscuously. It is indifferent, as to the
pronunciation, whether we write _fuel_ or _fewel_. And yet in this
word, as also in _new_, _brew_, &c. we do not hear the sound of _e_,
except among the Virginians, who affect to pronounce it distinctly,
_ne-ew_, _ne-oo_, _fe-oo_. This affectation is not of modern date,
for Wallis mentions it in his time and reprobates it. "Eu, ew, eau,
sonanter per _e_ clarum et _w_; ut in _neuter_, _few_, _beauty_.
Quidem tamen accutius efferunt, acsi scriberentur _niew ter_, _fiew_,
_bieuty_. At prior pronunciatio rectior est."----Gram. Ling. Ang.
Here this author allows these combinations to have the sound of _yu_ or
_iu_; but disapproves of that refinement which some affect, in giving
the _e_ or _i_ short its distinct sound.
The true sound of the English _u_, is neither _ew_, with the distinct
sounds of _e_ and _oo_; nor is it _oo_; but it is that sound which
every unlettered person utters in pronouncing _solitude_, _rude_,
_threw_, and which cannot easily be mistaken. So difficult is it to
avoid the true sound of _u_, that I have never found a man, even among
the ardent admirers of the stage pronunciation, who does not retain the
vulgar sound, in more than half the words of this class which he uses.
There is such a propensity in men to be regular in the construction and
use of language, that they are often obliged, by the customs of the
age, to struggle against their inclination, in order to be wrong, and
still find it impossible to be uniform in their errors.
The other reason given to vindicate the polite pronunciation, is
_euphony_. But I must say with Kenrick,[75] I cannot discover the
euphony; on the contrary, the pronunciation is to me both disagreeable
and difficult. It is certainly more difficult to pronounce two
consonants than one. _Ch_, or, which is the same thing, _tsh_, is
a more difficult sound than _t_; and _dzh_, or _j_, more difficult
than _d_. Any accurate ear may perceive the difference in a single
word, as in _natur_, _nachur_. But when two or three words meet,
in which we have either of these compound sounds, the difficulty
becomes very obvious; as the _nachural feachurs of indivijuals_. The
difficulty is increased, when two of these _churs_ and _jurs_ occur in
the same word. Who can pronounce these words, "at this _junctshur_
it was _conjectshured_"--or "the act passed in a _tshumultshuous
legislatshur_," without a pause, or an extreme exertion of the
lungs? If this is euphony to an English ear, I know not what sounds
in language can be disagreeable. To me it is barbarously harsh and
unharmonious.
But supposing the pronunciation to be relished by ears accustomed
to it (for custom will familiarize any thing) will the pleasure
which individuals experience, balance the ill effects of creating a
multitude of irregularities? Is not the number of anomalies in our
language already sufficient, without an arbitrary addition of many
hundreds? Is not the difference between our written and spoken language
already sufficiently wide, without changing the sounds of a number of
consonants?
If we attend to the irregularities which have been long established
in our language, we shall find most of them in the Saxon branch. The
Roman tongue was almost perfectly regular, and perhaps its orthography
and pronunciation were perfectly correspondent. But it is the peculiar
misfortune of the fashionable practice of pronouncing _d_, _t_, and
_s_, before _u_, that it destroys the analogy and regularity of the
_Roman_ branch of our language; for those consonants are not changed
in many words of Saxon original. Before this affectation prevailed, we
could boast of a regular orthography in a large branch of our language;
but now the only class of words, which had preserved a regular
construction, are attacked, and the correspondence between the spelling
and pronunciation, destroyed, by those who ought to have been the first
to oppose the innovation.[76]
Should this practice be extended to all words, where _d_, _t_ and _s_
precede _u_, as it must before it can be consistent or defensible,
it would introduce more anomalies into our tongue, than were before
established, both in the orthography and construction. What a
perverted taste, and what a singular ambition must those men possess,
who, in the day light of civilization and science, and in the short
period of an age, can go farther in demolishing the analogies of
an elegant language, than their unlettered ancestors proceeded in
centuries, amidst the accidents of a savage life, and the shocks of
numerous invasions!
But it will be replied, _Custom is the legislator of language_, and
custom authorizes the practice I am reprobating. A man can hardly
offer a reason, drawn from the principles of analogy and harmony in a
language, but he is instantly silenced with the decisive, _jus et norma
loquendi_.[77]
What then is custom? Some writer has already answered this question;
"Custom is the plague of wise men and the idol of fools." This was
probably said of those customs and fashions which are capricious and
varying; for there are many customs, founded on propriety, which are
permanent and constitute laws.
But what kind of custom did Horace design to lay down as the standard
of speaking? Was it a local custom? Then the _keow_ of New England;
the _oncet_ and _twicet_ of Pennsylvania and Maryland; and the _keind_
and _skey_ of the London theaters, form rules of speaking. Is it the
practice of a court, or a few eminent scholars and orators, that he
designed to constitute a standard? But who shall determine what body of
men forms this uncontrollable legislature? Or who shall reconcile the
differences at court? For these eminent orators often disagree. There
are numbers of words in which the most eminent men differ: Can all be
right? Or what, in this case, is the _custom_ which is to be our guide?
Besides these difficulties, what right have a few men, however elevated
their station, to change a national practice? They may say, that
they consult their own ears, and endeavor to please themselves. This
is their only apology, unless they can prove that the changes they
make are real improvements. But what improvement is there in changing
the sounds of three or four letters into others, and thus multiplying
anomalies, and encreasing the difficulty of learning a language? Will
not the great body of the people claim the privilege of adhering to
their ancient usages, and believing their practice to be the most
correct? They most undoubtedly will.
If Horace's maxim is ever just, it is only when custom is national;
when the practice of a nation is uniform or general. In this case
it becomes the common law of the land, and no one will dispute its
propriety. But has any man a right to deviate from this practice,
and attempt to establish a singular mode of his own? Have two or
three eminent stage players authority to make changes at pleasure,
and palm their novelties upon a nation under the idea of _custom_?
The reader will pardon me for transcribing here the opinion of the
celebrated Michaelis, one of the most learned philologers of the
present century. "It is not," says he, "for a scholar to give laws nor
proscribe established expressions: If he takes so much on himself he
is ridiculed, and deservedly; it is no more than a just mortification
to his ambition, and the penalty of his usurping on the rights of the
people. Language is a democratical state, where all the learning in
the world does not warrant a citizen to supersede a received custom,
till he has convinced the whole nation that this custom is a mistake.
Scholars are not so infallible that every thing is to be referred to
them. Were they allowed a decisory power, the errors of language, I
am sure, instead of diminishing, would be continually increasing.
Learned heads teem with them no less than the vulgar; and the former
are much more imperious, that we should be compelled to defer to
their innovations and implicitly to receive every false opinion of
theirs."[78]
Yet this right is often assumed by individuals, who dictate to a
nation the rules of speaking, with the same imperiousness as a tyrant
gives laws to his vassals: And, strange as it may appear, even well
bred people and scholars, often surrender their right of private
judgement to these literary governors. The _ipse dixit_ of a Johnson,
a Garrick, or a Sheridan, has the force of law; and to contradict it,
is rebellion. Ask the most of our learned men, how they would pronounce
a word or compose a sentence, and they will immediately appeal to some
favorite author whose decision is final. Thus distinguished eminence in
a writer often becomes a passport for innumerable errors.