as if written menáss; and though they place the accent on the last syllable of canal, like the English, they broaden the a in the last syllable, as if the word were spelt canawl. It may be farther observed, that they place an accent on the comparative adverb as, in the phrases as much, as little, as many, as great, etc. while the English, except in some very particular emphatical cases, lay no stress on this word, but pronounce these phrases like words of two or three syllables without any accent on the first.
But besides the mispronunciation of single words, there is a tone of voice with which these words are accompanied, that distinguishes a native of Ireland or Scotland as much as an improper sound of the letters. This is vulgarly, and, if it does not mean stress only, but the kind of stress, I think, not improperly called the accent.[1] For though there is an asperity in the Irish dialect, and a drawl in the Scotch, independent of the slides or inflexions they make use of, yet it may with confidence be affirmed, that much of the peculiarity which distinguishes these dialects may be reduced to a predominant use of one of these slides. Let any one who has sufficiently studied the speaking voice to distinguish the slides, observe the pronunciation of an Irishman and a Scotchman, who have much of the dialect of their country, and he will find that the former abounds with the falling, and the latter with the rising inflection;[2] and if this is the case, a teacher, if he understands these slides, ought to direct his instruction so as to remedy the imperfection. But as avoiding the wrong, and seizing the right at the same instant, is perhaps too great a task for human powers, I would advise a native of Ireland, who has much of the accent, to pronounce almost all his words, and end all his sentences, with the rising slide; and a Scotchman in the same manner, to use the falling inflexion: this will, in some measure, counteract the natural propensity, and bids fairer for bringing the pupil to that nearly equal mixture of both slides which distinguishes the English speaker, than endeavouring at first to catch the agreeable variety. For this purpose the teacher ought to pronounce all the single words in the lesson with the falling inflexion to a Scotchman, and with the rising to an Irishman; and should frequently give the pauses in a sentence the same inflexions to each of these pupils, where he would vary them to a native of England. But while the human voice remains unstudied, there is little expectation that this distinction of the slides should be applied to these useful purposes.
Besides a peculiarity of inflexion, which I take to be a falling circumflex, directly opposite to that of the Scotch, the Welsh pronounce the sharp consonants and aspirations instead of the flat. (See Principles, No. 29, 41.) Thus for big they say pick; for blood, ploot; and for good, coot. Instead of virtue and vice, they say firtue and fice; instead of zeal and praise, they say seal and prace; instead of these and those, they say thece and thoce; and instead of azure and osier, they say aysher and osher; and for jail, chail. Thus there are nine distinct consonant sounds which, to the Welsh, are entirely useless. To speak with propriety, therefore, the Welsh ought for sometime to pronounce the flat consonants and aspirations only; that is, they ought not only to pronounce them where the letters require the flat sound, but even where they require the sharp sound; this will be the best way to acquire a habit; and when this is once done, a distinction will be easily made, and a just pronunciation more readily acquired.
There is scarcely any part of England, remote from the capital, where a different system of pronunciation does not prevail. As in Wales they pronounce the sharp consonants for the flat, so in Somersetshire they pronounce many of the flat instead of the sharp: thus for Somersetshire, they say Zomersetshire; for father, vather; for think, think; and for sure, zhure.[3]
There are dialects peculiar to Cornwall, Lancashire, Yorkshire, and every distant county in England; but as a consideration of these would lead to a detail too minute for the present occasion, I shall conclude these remarks with a few observations on the peculiarities of my countrymen, the Cocknies; who, as they are the models of pronunciation to the distant provinces, ought to be the more scrupulously correct.
First Fault of the Londoners.
Pronouncing s indistinctly after st.
The letter s after st, from the very difficulty of its pronunciation, is often sounded inarticulately. The inhabitants of London, of the lower order, cut the knot, and pronounce it in a distinct syllable, as if e were before it, but this is to be avoided as the greatest blemish in speaking: the three last letters in posts, fists, mists, etc. must all be distinctly heard in one syllable, and without permitting the letters to coalesce. For the acquiring of this sound, it will be proper to select nouns that end in st, or ste; to form them into plurals, and pronounce them forcibly and distinctly every day. The same may be observed of the third person of verbs ending in sts or stes, as persists, wastes, hastes, etc.
Second Fault.
Pronouncing w for v, and inversely.
The pronunciation of v for w, and more frequently of w for v, among the inhabitants of London, and those not
- ↑ See this more fully exemplified in Elements of Elocution, vol. II. page 13.
- ↑ Or rather the rising circumflex. For an explanation of this inflexion, see Rhetorical Grammar, third edition, page 79.
- ↑ See the word Change.
