fer him to the selections here given, (No. 544, 545) to show the inanity of such a plea. Upon the whole, therefore, I flatter myself that men of learning will be gratified to see the subject in a clearer point of view than any in which it has ever been exhibited; and the plain English scholar will be indebted to me for giving him as clear and distinct an idea of the connexion between the Greek and Latin accent and quantity, and the accent and quantity of his native tongue, as if he had Homer and Horace by heart; and for placing him out of the reach of those pert minor critics, who arc constantly insulting him with their knowledge of the dead languages.
Of the Quantity of the Unaccented Vowels not in the same Syllable with Consonants.
547. Accented syllables, as we have before observed, (179) are so strongly marked as to be easily comprehended when they are once settled by custom or analogy; but those immediately before or after the accent are in a state of uncertainty, which some of our best judges find themselves unable to remove. Some grammarians have called all the open vowels before or after the accent short, though the ear so evidently dictates the contrary in the u in utility, the o in obedience, etc. Some have saved themselves the trouble of farther search by comprehending these vowels under the epithet obscure: nay, so unfixed do the sounds of these vowels seem, that Dr. Kenrick, whose Rhetorical Dictionary shows he was possessed of very great philological abilities, seems as much at a loss about them as the meanest grammarian in the kingdom; for when he comes to mark the sound of the vowel o in the first syllable of a series of words with the accent on the second, he makes the o in promulge, propel, and prolix, long, as they ought to be; and the same letter in proboscis, proceed, and procedure, short. Dominion, domestic, donation, and domain, are marked as if pronounced dom-inion, dom-estic, don-ation, and dom-ain, with the o short; while the first of docility, potential, and monotony, have the o marked long, as in donor, potent, and modish; though it is certain to a demonstration, that the etymology, accent, and letters, being the same, the same sound must be produced, unless where custom has precisely marked a difference; and that the first syllables of promulge, propel, and prolix, and those of proboscis, proceed, and procedure, have no such difference, seems too evident to need proof.[1]
548. I know it may be demanded, with great plausibility, how do I know that there is not this very inconsistency in custom itself? What right have I to suppose that custom is not as vague and capricious in these syllables as in those under the accent? To which I answer: if custom has determined the sound of these vowels, the dispute is at an end. I implicitly acquiesce in the decision; but if professors of the art disagree in their opinions, it is a shrewd sign that custom is not altogether so clear in its sentence; and I must insist on recurring to principles till custom has unequivocally decided.
549. Every vowel that is neither shortened by the accent, nor succeeded by a double consonant, naturally terminates a syllable; and this terminating vowel, though not so properly long as if the accent were on it, would be very improperly termed short, if by short, as is often the case, be meant shut. (65) According to this idea of syllabication, it is presumed that the word opinion would fall into three distinct parts, and every part be terminated by a consonant but the first, thus, o-pin-ion.
550. But it may be demanded, what reason is there in the nature of the thing for dividing the word in this manner, rather than into op-in-ion, where a consonant ends every syllable? In this, as in many other cases, of delicacy, we may be allowed to prove what is right, by first proving what is wrong. Every ear would be hurt, if the first syllable of opinion and opulence were pronounced exactly alike, op-in-ion would be as different from o-pin-ion, as o-pu-lence from op-u-lence, and consequently a different syllabication ought to be adopted; but as opulence is rightly divided into op-u-lence, opinion must be divided into o-pin-ion; that is, the o must be necessarily separated from the p, as in o-pen; for, as was before observed, every vowel pronounced alone has its open sound, as nothing but its junction with a consonant can shut it, and consequently unaccented vowels net necessarily joined to a consonant are always open: therefore, without violating the fundamental laws of pronunciation, opinion must necessarily be divided into o-pin-ion, and not op-in-ion, and the o pronounced as in the word open, and not as in opulence: which was the thing to be proved.
551. If these reasons are valid with respect to the vowel in question, they have the same force with respect to every other vowel, not shut by a consonant, throughout the language. That the vowels in this situation are actually open, we may easily perceive by observing that vowel, which, from its diphthongal and semi-consonant sound, is less liable to suffer by obscure pronunciation than any other. The letter u, in this situation, always preserves itself full and open, as
- ↑ I am aware that this ingenious writer seems to avoid this inconsistency, by premising, in his Rhetorical Grammar, page 43, that he has sometimes marked the o in words beginning with a preposition with the oratorial, and sometimes with the colloquial pronunciation: thus, in commune, communicate, etc. the oratorial sound is given as in the first syllable of common, while the colloquial sound changes the o into u, as if the words were written cummune, cummunicate, etc. but the distinction in these examples does not touch the point: here there is a change only of one short sound for another, and not any promiscuous use of a long and short, or open and shut sound of the same letter. Dr. Kenrick himself, when he marks the o in proboscis, proceed, and procedure, does not adopt the short u, as he does in commune, communicate, etc. nor is he aware of the essential difference with respect to the quantity of the vowel, in the double consonant in one set of words, and the single one in the other.
