Page:Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (Walker, 4th edition, London, 1806).pdf/43

Rh noun livelihood follows the same analogy; but the adjective live-long, as the live-long day, has the i short, as in the verb. When the accent is not on the i in this termination, it is always short, as sportive, plaintive, etc. rhyming with give, (150) except the word be a gentile, as in Argīve.

. All the other adjectives and substantives of this termination, when the accent is not on it, have the i invariably short, as offensive, defensive, etc. The i in salique is short, as if written sallick, but long in oblique, rhyming with pike, strike, etc. while antique has the i long and slender, and rhymes with speak. Dr. Kenrick, Mr. Elphinston, Mr. Perry, Buchanan, and Barclay, have obleek for oblique; Mr. Scott has it both ways, but gives the slender sound first; and Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Nares, and W. Johnston, oblīke. The latter is, in my opinion, more agreeable to polite usage, but the former more analogical; for as it comes from the French oblique, we cannot write it oblike, as Mr. Nares wishes, any more than antique, antike, for fear of departing too far from the Latin antiquus and obliquus. Opaque, Mr. Nares observes, has become opake; but then it must be remembered, that the Latin is opacus, and not opacuus.

. All the terminations in ize have the i long, except to endenize; which, having the accent on the second syllable, follows the general rule, and has the i short, pronounced as the verb is. (140) To these observations we may add, that though evil and devil suppress the i, as if written ev'l and dev'l, yet that cavil and pencil preserve its sound distinctly; and that Latin ought never to be pronounced as it is generally at schools, as if written Latt'in. Cousin and cozen, both drop the last vowels, as if spelled cozn, and are only distinguishable to the eye.

Thus we see how little regularity there is in the sound of this letter, when it is not under the accent, and, when custom will permit, how careful we ought to be to preserve the least trace of analogy, that "confusion may not be worse confounded." The sketch that has been just given may, perhaps, afford something like a clew to direct us in this labyrinth, and it is hoped it will enable the judicious speaker to pronounce with more certainty and decision.

. It was remarked under the vowel A, that when a hard g or c preceded that vowel, a sound like e interposed, the better to unite the letters, and soften the sound of the consonant. The same may be observed of the letter I. When this vowel is preceded by g hard or k, which is but another form for hard c, it is pronounced as if an e were inserted between the consonant and the vowel: thus sky, kind, guide, guise, disguise, catechise, guile, beguile, mankind, are pronounced as if written ske-y, ke-ind, gue-ise, dis-gue-ise, cat-e-chise, gue-ile, begue-ele, manke-ind. At first sight we are surprised that two such different letters as a and i should be affected in the same manner by the hard gutturals, g, c, and k; but when we reflect that i is really composed of a and e, (37) our surprise ceases; and we are pleased to find the ear perfectly uniform in its procedure, and entirely unbiased by the eye. From this view of the analogy we may see how greatly mistaken is a very solid and ingenious writer on this subject, who says, that "ky-ind for kind is a monster of pronuciation, heard only on our stage." Nares's English Orthöepy, pag. 28. Dr. Beattie, in his Theory of Language, takes notice of this union of vowel sounds, page 266. See No. 92.

It may not, perhaps, seem unworthy of notice, that when this letter is unaccented in the numerous terminations ity, ible, etc. it is frequently pronounced like short u, as if the words sensible, visible, etc. were written sensubble, visubble, etc. and charity, chastity, etc. like charutty, chastutty, etc. but it may be observed, that the pure sound of i like e in these words, is as much the mark of an elegant speaker as that of the u in singular, educate, etc. See No. 179.

. Grammarians have generally allowed this letter but three sounds. Mr. Sheridan instances them in not, note, prove. For a fourth, I have added the o in love, dove, etc. for the fifth, that in or, nor, for; and a sixth, that in woman, wolf, etc.

. The first and only peculiar sound of this letter is that by which it is named in the alphabet: it requires the mouth to be formed, in some degree, like the letter, in order to pronounce it. This may be called its long open sound, as the o in prove may be called its long slender sound. (65) This sound we find in words ending with silent e, as tone, bone, alone; or when ending a syllable with the accent upon it, as mo-tion, po-tent, etc. likewise in the monosyllables, go, so, no. This sound is found under several combinations of other vowels with this letter, as in moan, groan, bow, (to shoot with) low, (not high) and before st in the words host, ghost, post, most, and before ss in gross.

. The second sound of this letter is called its short sound, and is found in not, got, lot, etc. though this, as in the other short vowels, is by no means the short sound of the former long one, but corresponds exactly to that of a, in what, with which the words not, got, lot, are perfect rhymes. The long sound, to which the o in not and sot are short ones, is found under the diphthong au in naught, and the ou in sought; corresponding exactly to the a in hall, ball, etc. The short sound of this letter, like the short sound of a in father, (78) (79) is frequently, by inaccurate speakers, and chiefly those among the vulgar, lengthened to a middle sound approaching to its long sound, the o in or. This sound is generally heard, as in the case of a, when it is succeeded by two consonants: thus Mr. Smith pronounces broth, froth, and moth, as if written brawth, frawth, and mawth. Of the propriety or impropriety of this, a well-educated ear is the best judge; but, as was observed under the article A, (79) if this be not the sound heard