Page:Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (Walker, 4th edition, London, 1806).pdf/63

Rh the Capital, where we do not find the least distinction of sound between while and wile, whet and wet, where and wear. Trifling as this difference may appear at first sight, it tends greatly to weaken and impoverish the pronunciation, as well as sometimes to confound words of a very different meaning. The Saxons, as Dr. Lowth observes, placed the h before the w, as hwat; and this is certainly its true place: for, in the pronunciation of all words beginning with wh, we ought to breathe forcibly before we pronounce the w, as if the words were written hoo-at, hoo-ile, etc. and then we shall avoid that feeble, cockney pronunciation, which is so disagreeable to a correct ear.

. J is pronounced exactly like soft g, and is perfectly uniform in its sound, except in the word hallelujah, where it is pronounced like y.

. K has exactly the sound of hard c: it is always silent before n in the same syllable, as knee, kneel, knack, knight, know, knuckle, knab, knag, knap, knare, knave, knit, knock, knot, knoll.

. It has been a custom within these twenty years to omit the k at the end of words when preceded by c. This has introduced a novelty into the language, which is that of ending a word with an unusual letter, and is not only a blemish in the face of it, but may possibly produce some irregularity in future formatives; for mimicking must be written with the k, though to mimic is without it. If we use colic as a verb, which is not uncommon, we must write colicking and colicked; and though physicking and physicked are not the most elegant words, they are not quite out of the line of formation. This omission of k is, however, too general to be counteracted, even by the authority of Johnson: but it is to be hoped it will be confined to words from the learned languages: and indeed, as there is not the same vanity of appearing learned in the Saxon, as in the Latin and Greek, there is no great fear that thick and slick will lose their k, though they never had it in the original.

. Ben Jonson says L melteth in the sounding, and is therefore called a liquid. This, however, cannot be the reason that r is called a liquid; for no two letters can, in this respect, be more opposite. See No. 21.

L is mute in almond, calf, half, calve, halve, chaldron, falcon, folk, yolk, (better written yelk with the l sounded) fusil, halser, malmsey, salmon, salve, talbot (a species of dog). See.

. L is mute also between a and k in the same syllable, as balk, chalk, talk, stalk, walk.

. L is silent likewise between a and m in the same syllable, as alms, balm, calm, palm, psalm, qualm, shalm; but when the m is detached from the l by commencing mother syllable, the l becomes audible. Thus, though the l is mute in psalm, it is always heard in psal-mist, psal-mody, and pal-mistry; but in balmy and palmy, where the y is an adjective termination of our own, no alteration is made in the sound of the substantive which sinks the l. (386) Calmer and calmest ought to have the l mute, as they are only degrees of comparison; and palmer and palmerworm (except in the language of scripture, where the l in palmerworm ought to be heard) are only a sort of verbal nouns, which never alter the sound of the original word, and therefore ought to have the l mute. But though l is sometimes mute in the noun salve, and in the verb to salve, it is always heard in salver (a kind of plate). See.

. L ought always to be suppressed in the auxiliary verbs would, could, should: it is sometimes suppressed in fault; but this suppression is become vulgar, (see the word). In soldier, likewise, the l is sometimes suppressed, and the word pronounced so-jer; but this is far from being the most correct pronunciation: l ought always to be heard in this word, and its compounds soldierly, soldiership, etc.

. L, preceded by a mute, and followed by e, in a final syllable, has an imperfect sound, which does not do much honour to our language. The l, in this situation, is neither sounded like el nor le, but the e final is suppressed, and the preceding mute articulates the l, without either a preceding or a succeeding vowel; so that this sound may be called a monster in Grammar—a syllable without a vowel! This will easily be perceived in the words able, table, circle, etc. which are pronounced as if written abl, tabl, circl, etc. and in those still more Gothick and uncouth abbreviated participial terminations, peopled, bridled, saddled, trifles, gaffles, etc. pronounced pee-pl'd, bri-dl'd, sad-dl'd, tri-flz, gaf-flz, etc. (359) (472)

. This letter has not only, like f and s, the privilege of doubling itself at the end of a word, but it has an exclusive privilege of being double where they remain single; though by what right cannot well be conceived. Thus, according to the general rule, when a verb ends in a single consonant, preceded by a single vowel, and the accent is on the last syllable, the consonant is doubled when a participial termination is added, as abet, abetting, beg, begging, begin, beginning, etc. but when the accent is not on the last syllable of the verb, the consonant remains single, as suffered, suffering, benefiting, etc. but the l is doubled, whether the accent be on the last syllable or not, as duelling, levelling, victualling, travelling, traveller, etc. This gross irregularity, however, would not have been taken notice of in this place, if it had not suggested an absurdity in pronunciation, occasioned by the omission of l. Though the latter l is useless in traveller, victualler, etc. it is not so in