The English Language Part 36

{172}

CHAPTER VIII.

THE PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOEPY.

-- 240. The present chapter is one, not upon the details of the p.r.o.nunciation of the English language, but upon the principles of orthoepy.

For the details of p.r.o.nunciation the reader is referred to Nares' Orthoepy, and to the common p.r.o.nouncing dictionaries, with the preliminary recommendation to use them with caution. _Orthoepy_, a word derived from the Greek _orthon_ (_upright_), and _epos_ (_a word_), signifies the right utterance of words. Orthoepy differs from orthography by determining how words are spoken, whereas orthography decides how they are spelt. The one is a question of speech, the other a question of spelling. Orthography presupposes orthoepy.

-- 241. Of p.r.o.nunciation there are two kinds, the colloquial and the rhetorical. In common conversation we p.r.o.nounce the _i_ in _wind_, like the _i_ in _bit_; in rehearsing, or in declamation, however, we p.r.o.nounce it like the _i_ in _bite_; that is, we give it a diphthongal sound. In reading the Scriptures we say _blessed_; in current speech we say _blest_. It is the same with many words occurring in poetry.

-- 242. Errors in p.r.o.nunciation are capable of being cla.s.sified. In the first place, they may be arranged according to their situation. The man who p.r.o.nounces the verb _to survey_, as if it was _survey_ (that is, with the accent on the wrong syllable), errs in respect to the accentuation of the word; the situation, or seat of his error, being the accent. To say _or[=a]tor_ instead of _or[)a]tor_ is to err in respect to the quant.i.ty of the word, the seat of the error being in the quant.i.ty; and to p.r.o.nounce the _a_ in _father_, as it is p.r.o.nounced in Yorks.h.i.+re, or the _s_ in _sound_, as it is p.r.o.nounced in Devons.h.i.+re (that is, as _z_), is to err in {173} the matter of the articulate sounds. To misp.r.o.nounce a word because it is misspelt[34] is only indirectly an error of orthoepy. It is an error, not so much of orthoepy, as of orthography; and to give a wrong inflection to a word is not bad p.r.o.nunciation but bad grammar. For practical purposes, however, many words that are really points of grammar and of orthography, may be dealt with as points of orthoepy.

That the preceding cla.s.sification is natural I am induced to believe by the following circ.u.mstances. Errors in the way of articulation generally arise from a source different from those of accent and of quant.i.ty. Errors in accent and quant.i.ty are generally referable to insufficient grammatical or etymological knowledge, whilst the errors of articulation betray a provincial dialect.

The misdivision of syllables, an orthoepical error of a fourth kind, has in the English, and perhaps in other languages, given rise to a peculiar cla.s.s of words. There have been those who have written _a namba.s.sador_ for _an amba.s.sador_, misdividing the syllables, and misdistributing the sound of the letter _n_. The double form (_a_ and _an_) of the English indefinite article, encourages this misdivision. Now, in certain words an error of this kind has had a permanent influence. The English word _nag_ is, in Danish, _og_; the _n_, in English, having originally belonged to the indefinite _an_, which preceded it. The words, instead of being divided thus, _an ag_, were divided thus, _a nag_, and the fault became perpetuated. That the Danish is the true form we collect, firstly, from the ease with which the English form is accounted for, and, secondly, from the old Saxon form _ehu_, Latin _equus_. In _adder_ we have the process reversed. The true form is _nadder_, old English; _natter_, German. Here the _n_ is taken from the substantive and added to the article. In _newt_ and _eft_ we have each form. The list of words of this sort can be increased.

-- 243. In the second place, faults of p.r.o.nunciation may be arranged according to their cause.

{174}

1. _The fault of incompetent enunciation._--A person who says _sick_ for _thick_, or _elebben_ for _eleven_, does so, not because he knows no better, but because he cannot enounce the right sounds of _th_ and _v_. He is _incompetent_ to it. His error is not one of ignorance. It is an acoustic or a phonetic defect. As such it differs from--

2. _The fault of erroneous enunciation._--This is the error of a person who talks of _jocholate_ instead of _chocolate_. It is not that he _cannot_ p.r.o.nounce rightly, but that he mistakes the nature of the sound required.

Still more the person who calls _a hedge_ _a nedge_, and _an edge_ _a hedge_.

-- 244. Incompetent enunciation, and erroneous enunciation are, however, only the proximate and immediate causes of bad orthoepy. Amongst the remote causes (the immediate causes of _erroneous_ enunciation) are the following.

I. _Undefined notions as to the language to which a word belongs._--The flower called _anemone_ is variously p.r.o.nounced. Those who know Greek say _anem[=o]ne_, speaking as if the word was written _anemohny_. The ma.s.s say, _anem[)o]ne_, speaking as if the word was written _anemmony_. Now, the doubt here is as to the language of the word. If it be Greek, it is _anem[=o]ne_.

[Greek: Haima rhodon tiktei, ta de dakrua tan anemonan].

BION.

And if it be English, it is (on the score of a.n.a.logy) as undoubtedly _anemmony_. The p.r.o.nunciation of the word in point is determined when we have determined the language of it.

II. _Mistakes as to fact, the language of a word being determined._--To know the word _anem[=o]ne_ to be Greek, and to use it as a Greek word, but to call it _anem[)o]ny_, is not to be undecided as to a matter of language, but to be ignorant as to a matter of quant.i.ty.

III. _Neglect of a.n.a.logy._--Each and all of the following words, _orator_, _theatre_, _senator_, &c. are in the Latin language, from whence they are derived, accented on the second syllable; as _orator_, _theatre_, _senator_. In English, on the contrary, they are accented on the first; as _orator_, _theatre_, {175} _senator_. The same is the case with many other words similarly derived. They similarly suffer a change of accent. So many words do this, that it is the rule in English for words to throw their accent from the second syllable (counting from the end of the word) to the third. It was on the strength of this rule,--in other words, on the a.n.a.logies of _orator_, &c., that the English p.r.o.nunciation of the Greek word [Greek: anemone] was stated to be _anemmone_. Now, to take a word derived from the Latin, and to look to its original quant.i.ty only, without consulting the a.n.a.logies of other words similarly derived, is to be neglectful of the a.n.a.logies of our own language, and attentive to the quant.i.ties of a foreign one.

These, amongst others, the immediate causes of erroneous enunciation, have been adduced not for the sake of exhausting, but for the sake of ill.u.s.trating the subject.

-- 245. In matters of orthoepy it is the usual custom to appeal to one of the following standards.

I. _The authority of scholars._--This is of value up to a certain point only. The fittest person for determining the cla.s.sical p.r.o.nunciation of a word like _anemone_ is the cla.s.sical scholar; but the mere cla.s.sical scholar is far from being the fittest person to determine the a.n.a.logies that such a word follows in English.

II. _The usage of educated bodies, such as the bar, the pulpit, the senate, _&c.__--These are recommended by two circ.u.mstances: 1. The chance that each member of them is sufficiently a scholar in foreign tongues to determine the original p.r.o.nunciation of derived words, and sufficiently a critic in his own language to be aware of the a.n.a.logies that are in operation. 2. The quant.i.ty of imitators that, irrespective of the worth of his p.r.o.nunciation, each individual can carry with him. On this latter ground the stage is a sort of standard.

The objection to the authority of educated bodies is its impracticability.

It is only the usage of the component individuals that can be determined.

Of these many may carry with them the dialects of their provinces, so that, although good standards on points of accent and quant.i.ty, they are bad ones upon points of articulation. {176}

III. _The authority of societies const.i.tuted with the express purpose of taking cognizance of the language of the country._--These, although recognized in Italy and other parts of the Continent, have only been proposed in Great Britain. Their inefficacy arises from the inutility of attempting to fix that which, like language, is essentially fluctuating.

IV. _The authority of the written language._--The value of this may be collected from the chapter on orthography.

V. These, amongst others, the standards that have been appealed to, are adduced not for the sake of exhausting the subject, but to show the unsatisfactory nature of authority in matters of speech.

-- 246. For a person, on a point of p.r.o.nunciation, to trust to his own judgment, he must be capable, with every word that he doubts about, of discussing three questions:--

I. _The abstract or theoretical propriety of a certain p.r.o.nunciation._--To determine this he must have a sufficient knowledge of foreign tongues and a sufficient knowledge of English a.n.a.logies. He must also have some test by which he can determine to what language an equivocal word belongs. Of tests for this purpose, one, amongst others, is the following:--Let it be asked whether the word _lens_ (in Optics) is English or Latin; whether it is to be considered as a naturalised word or a strange one. The following fact will give an answer. There is of the word _lens_ a plural number, and this plural number is the English form _lenses_, and not the Latin form _lentes_. The existence of an English inflection proves that the word to which it belongs is English, although its absence does not prove the contrary. That the word _anemone_ is English (and consequently p.r.o.nounced _anem[)o]ne_) we know from the plural form, which is not _anemonae_, but _anemones_.

II. _The preference of one p.r.o.nunciation over another on the score of utility._--The word _ascetic_, for certain orthographical reasons, notwithstanding its origin from the Greek word _askeo_, is called _a.s.setic_. From similar reasons there is a tendency to call the word _sceptic_, _septic_. Theoretical propriety (and, be it observed, the a.n.a.logy of _ascetic_ has not been overlooked) is in {177} favour of the word being sounded _skeptic_. The tendency of language, however, is the other way. Now, the tendency of language and the theoretical propriety being equal, there is an advantage (a point of utility) in saying _skeptic_, which turns the scale. By sounding the _k_ we distinguish the word _skeptic_ from _septic_. By this the language gains a point in perspicuity, so that we can talk of the _anti-skeptic_ writings of Bishop Warburton and of the _anti-septic_ properties of charcoal.

III. _The tendencies of language_.--From p. 153, we see that the combination _ew_ is an unstable combination, that it has a tendency to become _yoo_, and that the _y_ in _yoo_ has a tendency to change a _d_ preceding into _j_; in other words, we see the reason why, by many persons, _dew_ is p.r.o.nounced _jew_.

It is generally an easier matter to say how a word will be sounded a hundred years hence, than to determine its present p.r.o.nunciation.

Theoretical propriety is in favour of _dew_, so also is the view in the way of utility. Notwithstanding this, posterity will say _jew_, for the tendencies of language are paramount to all other influences.

We may now judge of the relative value of the three lines of criticism exhibited above. Other things being equal, the language should have the advantage of the doubt, and the utility of a given p.r.o.nunciation should prevail over its theoretical propriety. Where, however, the tendencies are overwhelming, we can only choose whether, in doubtful words, we shall speak like our ancestors, or like our posterity.[35]

{178}

CHAPTER IX.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ORTHOGRAPHY.

-- 247. Orthoepy determines the correct p.r.o.nunciation of words, and deals with a language as it is _spoken_; orthography determines the correct spelling of words, and deals with a language as it is _written_. The term is derived from the Greek words _orthos_ (_upright_), and _graphe_, or _grafae_ (_writing_). Orthography is less essential to language than orthoepy; since all languages are spoken, whilst but a few languages are written. Orthography presupposes orthoepy. Orthography addresses itself to the eye, orthoepy to the ear. Orthoepy deals with the articulate sounds that const.i.tute syllables and words; orthography treats of the signs by which such articulate sounds are expressed in writing. A _letter_ is the sign of an articulate (and, in the case of _h_, of an inarticulate) sound.

A full and perfect system of orthography consists in two things:--1. The possession of a sufficient and consistent alphabet. 2. The right application of such an alphabet. This position may be ill.u.s.trated more fully.

-- 248. First, in respect to a full and perfect alphabet. Let there be in a certain language, simple single articulate sounds, to the number of forty, whilst the simple single signs, or letters, expressive of them, amount to no more than _thirty_. In this case the alphabet is insufficient. It is not full enough: since ten of the simple single articulate sounds have no corresponding signs whereby they may be expressed. In our own language, the sounds (amongst others) of _th_ in _thin_, and of _th_ in _thine_, are simple and single, whilst there is no sign equally simple and single to spell them with.

An alphabet, however, may be sufficient, and yet imperfect. It may err on the score of inconsistency. Let there be in a {179} given language two simple single sounds, for instance, the _p_ in _pate_, and the _f_ in _fate_. Let these sounds stand in a given relation to each other. Let a given sign, for instance, [Hebrew: P] (as is actually the case in Hebrew), stand for the _p_ in _pate_; and let a second sign be required for the _f_ in _fate_. Concerning the nature of this latter sign, two views may be taken. One framer of the alphabet, perceiving that the two sounds are mere modifications of each other, may argue that no new sign (or letter) is at all necessary, but that the sound of _f_ in _fate_ may be expressed by a mere modification of the sign (or letter) [Hebrew: P], and may be written thus [Hebrew: P], or thus [Hebrew: P]' or [Hebrew: P]', &c.; upon the principle that, like sounds should be expressed by like signs. The other framer of the alphabet, contemplating the difference between the two sounds, rather than the likeness, may propose, not a mere modification of the sign [Hebrew: P], but a letter altogether new, such as _f_, or [phi], &c., upon the principle that sounds of a given degree of dissimilitude should be expressed by signs of a different degree of dissimilitude.

Hitherto the expression of the sounds in point is a matter of convenience only. No question has been raised as to its consistency or inconsistency.

This begins under conditions like the following:--Let there be in the language in point the sounds of the _t_ in _tin_, and of the _th_ in _thin_; which (it may be remembered) are precisely in the same relation to each other as the _p_ in _pate_ and the _f_ in _fate_. Let each of these sounds have a sign (or letter) expressive of it. Upon the nature of these signs, or letters, will depend the nature of the sign or letter required for the _f_ in _fate_. If the letter expressing the _th_ in _thin_ be a mere modification of the letter expressing the _t_ in _tin_, then must the letter expressive of the _f_ in _fate_ be a mere modification of the letter expressing the _p_ in _pate_, and _vice versa_. If this be not the case, the alphabet is inconsistent.

In the English alphabet we have (amongst others) the following inconsistency:--The sound of the _f_ in _fate_, in a certain relation to the sound of the _p_ in _pate_, is expressed by a totally distinct sign; whereas, the sound of the _th_ in _thin_ (similarly related to the _t_ in _tin_) is expressed by no new sign, but by a mere modification of _t_; viz., _th_. {180}

A third element in the faultiness of an alphabet is the fault of erroneous representation. The best ill.u.s.tration of this we get from the Hebrew alphabet, where the sounds of [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T'], mere _varieties_ of each other, are represented by distinct and dissimilar signs, whilst [Hebrew: T] and [Hebrew: T], sounds _specifically_ distinct, are expressed by a mere modification of the same sign, or letter.

-- 249. _The right application of an alphabet._--An alphabet may be both sufficient and consistent, accurate in its representation of the alliances between articulate sounds, and in nowise redundant; and yet, withal, it may be so wrongly applied as to be defective. Of defect in the use or application of the letters of an alphabet, the three main causes are the following:--

1. _Unsteadiness in the power of letters._--Of this there are two kinds. In the first, there is one sound with two (or more) ways of expressing it.

Such is the sound of the letter _f_ in English. In words of Anglo-Saxon origin it is spelt with a single simple sign, as in _fill_; whilst in Greek words it is denoted by a combination, as in _Philip_. The reverse of this takes place with the letter _g_; here a single sign has a double power; in _gibbet_ it is sounded as _j_, and in _gibberish_ as _g_ in _got_.