the organs of speech, without any key to the vowel sounds; for it is impossible to note the degrees of obscurity, as they are variously affected by position, and by connection with different consonants. In addition to the well defined vowels in his key, Mr. Worcester adds to each a mark for its obscure sound. This, with due limitations, is an improvement upon Walker, since it truly acknowledges that to be obscure which he vainly attempts to make clear. Still, we think Mr. Worcester may have extended this convenient notation too far, especially in regard to initial and final unaccented syllables. Take, for instance, the first syllables of the following words beginnin with a, and pronounced with the consonant after it :- abhor, abjure, ablution, accuse, accustom, advance, admit, alternative. In deliberate speaking, we should say that the short sound of a in these words is distinctly heard. Systems (of notation of sounds are made for those who sound all the syllables, except those in regard to which custom has already decided otherwise. If there is any truth in Voltaire's saying, -even after making all due allowance for the exaggeration, -that the English eat up half their words, it becomes those who respect their language to save as many as they can from being devoured. There are degrees of the obscure vowel sounds, which of course cannot be marked by separate notation. Thus, in the word alternative, cited above, if a in the first syllable is obscure, it is much more obscure in the penult. In final unaccented syllables, it is generally too obscure to be noted with the common short sound. Thus, in palace, it departs widely from this a sound and is usually pronounced pal-is; menace, men-is. Followed by some of the other consonants, it has a sound like short u; as medial, seaman, pedlar, compass. In polysyllables, its sound is generally very obscure in the penult or antepenult, without the accent; as in sanatory, temporary. In the beginning of a word, e, forming a syllable by itself, has the long sound, as eclipse, elect; when it takes a consonant, it has the short sound, as efface, employ, enjoy, erratic, exact. In the last syllable it is short and obscure, as chicken, kindred, kindness. All these examples of the letter e, in the unaccented syllables, are noted by Mr. Worcester as obscure. The words chosen in the key to exemplify this obscure sound are brier, fuel, celery. But these sounds are unaccented syllables generally his system of notation, which is much more comprehensive than Walker's, or any other that we have seen, containing all the legitimate vowel sounds, he would, if he had failed to satisfy himself, have succeeded far better than his predecessors in accomplishing the undertaking. Walker, in this particular, may often lead astray those who trust to his guidance without exercising their own judgment. Mr. Worcester, in the same particular, not professing to be an infallible guide, leaves what is necessarily obscure to be learned by imitation and experience. Orthography, according to the full grammatical import of the word, should correspond exactly to pronunciation. That it falls far short of this in the English language is well known, and is lamented by all who have given any attention to the subject; but it is now the sole duty of lexicographers and good writers to preserve the orthography as it is, in all cases where it is established by general usage, and in case of diversity to regard analogy; and to be consistent, so far as they are not overruled by custom, with their own principles. No dictation on this subject, which aims at radical changes, can succeed. We can make no essential alterations in order to adapt orthography to the true sounds, which of themselves are not in all cases fixed by custom, but on the contrary are still fluctuating from accident or diversity of taste. London, says Mr. Worcester, the great metropolis of English literature, has incomparably greater influence than any other city in giving law to pronunciation. But in that great Babel, the concert must be very imperfect. The court, parliament, coteries of the fashionable and of the literate, though in some respects independent, yet acting upon each other indirectly, tend to produce diversity and change. It was in the early part of the last century, during the last days of Queen Anne, or soon after, that Swift said, "In London, they clip their words after one manner about the court, another in the city, and a third in the suburbs; all which, reduced to writing, would entirely confound orthography." The great object should now be to hold fast what we have gained. It was a favorite notion of Dr. Webster, that "such gradual changes should be made in orthography, as shall accommodate the written to the spoken language, when they do not violate established principles, and especially when they purify words from corruptions, improve the regular words; for it is certain that no Englishman ever pronounced them according to Walker's notation. In attempting this, we chiefly regard the true accent, and the power of the letter i, which Walker represents by ē. Thus, beau'-tif-ful, des'-pik-a-ble, cir-cu'-it-ous, ed'-it-ur, de'-if-fy, fe-lis'-it-ty, as here spelled and divided, seem to give the true sound of i short. In a matter so subtile, we would avoid dogmatism; but it appears to us that in these, and in very numerous words like them, the true sound becomes obscured only by the rapid utterance of the syllable in question, and the want of vocal stress occasioned by the absence of accent. The great variety in the notation of unaccented vowels among the authors of pronouncing dictionaries shows how futile it is, in many, if not in most, cases of this kind, to fix, by artificial methods, that in which they all agree in practice; and of which custom, and the modes of articulation that are natural, or appear so from habit, have so established the pronunciation, that we can seldom deviate far, even by accident, if we agree in accentuation. To this agreement there are few exceptions. Mr. Worcester seems to have come pretty much to the same conclusion. After exhibiting a table of words to which he adds the pronunciation of Sheridan, Walker, Jones, Jameson, Knowles, and Smart, a curious piece of patchwork, we do not wonder that he determined to abandon them all, and to place the vowels of unaccented syllables in one category of obscure sounds. Having determined to do this, he did it with the same consistency which is a distinguishing excellence manifested in all the departments of his dictionary. After presenting the table of words variously pronounced by the distinguished orthoëpists above named, Mr. Worcester remarks, that "they agree with respect to two of the most important points in the pronunciation of words; namely, the syllable on which the accent is to be placed, and the quantity of the vowel in the accented syllable. Though, with regard to the mode of representing the pronunciation of most of the words, there is considerable diversity, yet it is doubtless true, that the pronunciation intended to be expressed differs, in reality, much less than it would seem to do; and that, in numerous instances, these orthoëpists agreed much better in their practice than in their mode of indicating it." If, however, Mr. Worcester had chosen to apply to the unaccented syllables generally his system of notation, which is much more comprehensive than Walker's, or any other that we have seen, containing all the legitimate vowel sounds, he would, if he had failed to satisfy himself, have succeeded far better than his predecessors in accomplishing the undertaking. Walker, in this particular, may often lead astray those who trust to his guidance without exercising their own judgment. Mr. Worcester, in the same particular, not professing to be an infallible guide, leaves what is necessarily obscure to be learned by imitation and experience. Orthography, according to the full grammatical import of the word, should correspond exactly to pronunciation. That it falls far short of this in the English language is well known, and is lamented by all who have given any attention to the subject; but it is now the sole duty of lexicographers and good writers to preserve the orthography as it is, in all cases where it is established by general usage, and in case of diversity to regard analogy; and to be consistent, so far as they are not overruled by custom, with their own principles. No dictation on this subject, which aims at radical changes, can succeed. We can make no essential alterations in order to adapt orthography to the true sounds, which of themselves are not in all cases fixed by custom, but on the contrary are still fluctuating from accident or diversity of taste. London, says Mr. Worcester, the great metropolis of English literature, has incomparably greater influence than any other city in giving law to pronunciation. But in that great Babel, the concert must be very imperfect. The court, parliament, coteries of the fashionable and of the literate, though in some respects independent, yet acting upon each other indirectly, tend to produce diversity and change. It was in the early part of the last century, during the last days of Queen Anne, or soon after, that Swift said, "In London, they clip their words after one manner about the court, another in the city, and a third in the suburbs; all which, reduced to writing, would entirely confound orthography." The great object should now be to hold fast what we have gained. - It was a favorite notion of Dr. Webster, that "such gradual changes should be made in orthography, as shall accommodate the written to the spoken language, when they do not violate established principles, and especially when they purify words from corruptions, improve the regular analogies of a language, and illustrate etymology." This he said when he published his Compendious Dictionary, in 1806. In his quarto dictionary (1828), he made some changes, and suggested many others; but in general to little purpose. He went far enough to create distrust, without effecting much as a reformer. Whoever has the curiosity to see wherein he made improvements, and in how many instances he failed in regard to consistency with his own principles, may be gratified by examining a review of this dictionary by Lyman Cobb (1831). It exhibits the proofs of the most thorough examination into a minute subject that we have ever met with. We trust that it has been in the hands of the learned editor who is about to publish a revised edition of the dictionary. Fas est et ab hoste doceri. Mr. Worcester has made no arbitrary changes in the orthography. In regard to words of various or doubtful orthography, which are few compared with the whole number, he has taken into account the manner in which they are affected by etymology, analogy, the authority of dictionaries, and general usage, before forming his judgment. So far as we have been able to examine the vocabulary, we find that he has preserved great consistency in the orthography of words that fall into the same class in their respective formations. In his introductory essay on orthography, he has inserted a list of about fourteen hundred words, which are variously spelt. A considerable portion consists of such as are not in common use. Of such as are in daily use, daily, dayly, is one of them, the difference consists, in many words, in the first syllable being either em or im; as empower, impower; en or in; enquire, inquire; and in the commutation of c and s, and of s and z, in the final syllables and the derivative formations from them. The list is of frightful length, when first looked upon; but when examined, the alarm diminishes, and the tendency, we think, is rather towards uniformity than increasing variety. Whoever has felt the pains and pleasures of severe study must look with admiration upon the indefatigable etymologist, who devotes his days and nights to hunting up the pedigree of a word in an unbroken line from this age back to the time of Moses. "I am no herald to inquire of men's pedigrees, it sufficeth me that I know their virtues"; so wrote a distinguished English patriot nearly two centuries ago. It is so with the bulk of readers. They care not for the lineal succesVOL. LXIV. - NO. 134. 18 |