stage peculiarities, that the body of the people rejected him. Walker took a middle course in this respect, and by uniting with a more thorough investigation of the principles of orthoepy many judicious critical remarks, succeeded far better than any of his predecessors.

The dictionary of Dr Jones next appeared, in which many things which Walker had censured in Sheridan were defended, and Walker, in his turn, was censured. About the same time, our own ingenious countryman, Mr Webster, attacked the whole business of establishing a standard of pronunciation, and particularly the system of Walker, with much zeal, and not a little severity. He considered unformity of pronunciation neither possible nor desirable, adopting the maxim of Johnson, that the best pronunciation was that most conformed to the orthography; than which scarcely any thing could be farther from truth. He predicted that Jones's Dictionary would supersede Walker's in England, as Walker's had Sheridan's and Kenrick's, and that the next twenty years would produce as many different standards as the last had done. He was also an advocate for the truly republican plan of establishing an American pronunciation of the English language, which he supposed would eventually become the prevailing pro

nunciation.

The twenty years, however, have passed, without fulfilling his prediction. The dictionary of Jones proved as unsuccessful a competitor with Walker's in England, as Webster's did in America; nor has any subsequent effort worthy of notice been made to supplant Walker, whilst his work has been multipled by thousands and tens of thousands in this country and in England.

The public have decided that a standard in orthoepy is no more impracticable than in grammar or orthography, and have awarded to Walker nearly the same place in the former which Murray and Johnson hold in the latter. The literati of this country have decided that it consists perfectly with our independence to adopt the English standards of orthoepy as well as of philology; and no man, who would preserve his reputation as a scholar, is any more at liberty to justify an incorrect pronunciation, by denying the existence or authority of a standard, than he is to justify incorrect grammar or orthography in the same way.

This department of our language, though the one in which inaccuracy is most sure to be exposed, has received, hitherto, very little attention from our literary men. The talents of Mr Pickering have been called forth to preserve the purity of our language from the encroachments of Americanisms, and most of our periodical works, which possess any literary merit or influence, have, as occasion required, lent a helping hand to this laudable object; while, on the subject of pronunciation, nothing that has come to

my knowledge has ever been done,* though there is a general agreement among the learned that something is needed. It is not the object of these remarks to supply this acknowledged deficiency, but to point out some of the more obvious defects in Walker as a standard for us, and some of the principal inaccuracies in orthoepy which obtain among many of our more correct speakers. I am aware of the difficulty of establishing exceptions to an acknowledged standard; still as no one, perhaps, claims perfection for Walker's standard, and as those who adopt it, all agree in departing from it in some cases, it seems desirable that these departures should, if possible, be reduced to some rules.

1. We ought not to follow Walker when he gives a pronunciation as an exception, which common usage among us has conformed to his rules.

Examples of this kind are, quirrister for chorister, cow-cumber for cucumber; Room for Rome; re-son for raisin; clark and sargent for clerk and sergeant, &c. In these, and similar cases, the pronunciation which prevails among us is right, in the estimation of Walker himself, and to exchange it for a wrong one because men in Great Britain have done so, would be altogether ridiculous.

2. When he confounds sounds that are distinct among us. The sound of the diphthong ai as heard in the words hair, fair, pear, declare, &c., and which is in strictness the long sound of a corresponding to the short one in hat, man, &c., Walker tells us, is " exactly the same as the slender sound of a in lade, pain,” which corresponds to the sound of short e in led, pen, &c. (Prin. No. 73, 202.)

Mr Nares remarks of this vowel sound, that it is entirely lost in use, and does not exist now in the language, except in the monosyllable aye. This is the more to be lamented," adds this judicious writer," as it is a rich and masculine sound, which could not fail to give strength and energy to our language, as appears from the effect of it in the Latin and Greek languages, in pronouncing which we do retain it." Now this "rich and masculine /sound," which Walker does not even notice, is almost universally preserved in use, on this side of the Atlantic, in nearly, if not quite every case where the first, or slender sound of a in Walker's notation is followed by r, in the same syllable, or by a vowel; as care, there, bear, fair, hair, prayer, Isaiah; to all which Walker gives the sound of a in hate. I have been told by well educated English

* At a meeting of delegates from the Colleges held several years since in Boston, this subject was committed to a gentleman eminently qualified to do it the justice, Rev. Dr Porter of Andover, who partially prepared a manuscript for the press. The failure of his health obliged him to relinquish the task, and from the pressure of professional duties and his still feeble state of health, it has never been resumed.

men, that correct speakers in Great Britain do not follow Walker in this respect; but, be this as it may, there is a pretty numerous class of words like those I have mentioned, in which the proper long sound of a, or ai, as in hair, is distinctly and uniformly heard in this country, except when a servile conformity to Walker has triumphed over the correct habits and the good sense of individuals; and any attempt to expel this sound from our language should be reprobated by every friend to correct speaking.

3. When he contravenes his own principles.

I do not mean that, when his principles and his notation are inconsistent, we are always to reject the notation and follow the principles; though this would be safe for a general rule, as he would be less likely to err in settling principles, than in applying them so variously as he was obliged to; but that whenever common usage conforms to his principles, we ought not to alter that usage to conform to his notation.

He tells us (Prin. 463) that t before long u, preceded by the accent, becomes sh, tch, or tsh, and instances in the words signatshure, ligatshure, forfeitshure; yet in his notation he gives to two of these words, and to some others in the same predicament, the simple sound of t; signa-ture, liga-ture, &c., whilst in forfeit-ure, feat-ure, and many others, he conforms to his rule.

A similar case occurs (Prin. 176) where he says, u long, after r in the same syllable, is pronounced exactly as if written oo, yet his notation gives protrewd and protroosion. In both these cases propriety manifestly requires uniformity in the sound of the letters specified, and there seems to be no reason for departing from his rule, especially as it accords entirely with the best usage in our country.

The most remarkable, and by far the most important defect in Walker, on the score of inconsistency, is found in his treatment of the syllables tion, sion, tial, cial, tian, cious, dious, &c., which in his notation, he makes sometimes one syllable, and sometimes two. It is not true, that Walker, as Webster affirms, "mistakes the principles on which these terminations are formed," for in his Principles he always treats them as one syllable. Nor does it make the least difference whether we say with Webster, that ti and ci becomes sh before on, al, &c., or with Walker, that "t and c become sh, before ion, ial, &c., and that the vowels form but one syllable;" so long as both agree that tion becomes shun; cial, shal; tiate, shate, &c. (Prin. 272, 291, 357, 459, 461, 463.)

To the rule which makes these terminations a single syllable, the Principles of Walker contain no exceptions, yet with a manifest, and most reprehensible inconsistency, he divides these in his notation of many words, whilst in others he conforms to his rules. Thus, we have pro-vin-shal and pro-vin-she-ate; so-shal-ness and

so-she-a-ble; an-shent-ly and tran-she-ent-ly; pru-den-shal and pruden-she-ality; con-dish-on-ally and con-dish-e-on-ality; con-dishon-ary and con-dish-e-on-ate; o-shun and o-she-an-ic; krist-yan, krist-yan-ize, and kris-tche-anity. A striking instance of Walker's inconsistency on this point occurs in his remarks under the word Pronunciation. "The very same reasons," he says, "which oblige us to pronounce partiality, propitiation, especially, &c. as if written parsheality, propisheation, espesheally, &c. oblige us to pronounce pronunciation as if written pronunsheation;" yet in his notation of these three words, where the very same reasons" operate, he in two of them divides the diphthong, and in the other (es-pesh-ally) makes it but one syllable, according to his rule.

Now nothing is clearer, than that the "same reasons" in orthoepy, as in every thing else, should lead to the same results. And I think it equally clear, that the principles of Walker in these cases, which agree perfectly with those of Sheridan and Webster in making the terminations in question single syllables, are correct; and that his notation, wherever he divides these syllables, should be uniformly rejected, as it is, with the exception of a very few words, by most good speakers in this country.

4. Where he admits in his notation different sounds to a word, but gives the preference to one which is not prevalent among correct speakers.

An instance in point occurs in the verb to pour, which he says, (Prin. 316) is sometimes pronounced pore, sometimes poor, and sometimes power, yet his notation gives a decided preference to the last sound. Mr Nares gives only the first, and good usage among us, I think, invariably gives the same, and doubtless ought to preserve it. A case in some respects similar occurs in the words rout (a road), tour, and wound (to hurt), with their compounds. Good usage among us is divided on these words. In our Southern states the French sound root, toor, woond, &c. prevails pretty generally, whilst in New England the proper English pronunciation, as in stout, pound, &c. is as generally preserved. Walker remarks of the French sound of the vowels, that they are the prevailing sounds in the polite world, but adds, "I am, however, of Mr Nares's opinion, who says that this pronunciation ought to be entirely banished. But where is the man bold enough to risk the imputation of vulgarity by such an expulsion?" This "expulsion," which seemed to Walker and Nares so desirable, and which must seem so to every correct English ear, may be effected in this country by preserving the good habits of our fathers.

There is a considerable class of words which may be ranked under this head, where the notation of Walker, in conformity to that "jus et norma loquendi," popular usage, accents the first syllable, though he at the same time protests against the innovation.

Commendable, ácceptableness, réceptacle, péremptorily, &c. are examples of this kind. Popular usage in this country does not require a man to risk the dislocation of his jaws by uttering words in this manner, and an attempt to conform to this pronunciation would be in no sense desirable.

There are some cases not comprehended under either of the foregoing heads, in which correct speakers among us generally depart from Walker's notation, and should, I think, continue to do So. A few of these cases may be mentioned.

The dipthong oo, according to Walker, has its short sound corresponding to u in bull, only in the following words, wool, wood, good, hood, foot, stood, understood, withstood; whereas by the best speakers among us, it is given to a much larger number. There is a manifest difference between the sound which we invariably give to oo in book, look, soon, &c. and that which we give to the same vowel in boot, loon, moon, &c. though Walker marks the former just like the latter. On the other hand the distinction which he makes between the sound of a in master, and in mastiff, mast, mastless, &c. is not recognised generally by correct speakers, and is founded merely in caprice.

There are also several words which occur frequently and almost exclusively in Scripture, which have uniformly in our country been pronounced differently from Walker's notation, when, though correct analogy is doubtless on his side, the reasons against following him, seem to me to outweigh those in favour of it. Instances of this are Magdale-ne for Magdalen, and ye for yea. The common pronunciation of these words has been uniform among the sons of the Pilgrims, if not among their progenitors, and is associated with so many feelings of veneration for Scripture phrases, that whilst it continues the common pronunciation, ministers, at least, ought not to depart from it for the mere sake of orthoepy. Ye for ya, is liable to the still further objection, that it frequently obscures the Instances of this occur in the following passages, among 'Ye, hath God said ye shall not eat?" "Ye; have ye never read," &c. Ye, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus." Ye, and all that will live godly shall suffer persecution." (Gen. iii. 1; Matt. xxi. 16; Phill. iii. 16; 2 Tim. iii. 12.)

sense.

many others.

66

66

66

The adverb yea at the beginning of each of these sentences is not distinguished from the pronoun ye by a hearer, if the same sound is given it, as either of them would make good grammar and complete sense in the connexion. The words of this description are not numerous, and it seems far better to let them go down to posterity as they came to us, than to attempt reducing them to rule at the expense of so much convenience, and with the hope of so little benefit.