Page:Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (Walker, 4th edition, London, 1806).pdf/72

68 egzhibit, egzhale; but if the secondary accent be on the x, in the polysyllable exhibition, exhalation, etc. this letter is then sharp, as in exercise; (71) but in compound words, where the primitive ends in x, this letter retains its primitive sound, as fixation, taxation, vexation, vexatious, relaxation, etc. to which we may add the simples in our language, doxology and proximity; so that this propensity of x to become egz, seems confined to the inseparable preposition.

. X, like s, is aspirated, or takes the sound of h after it, only when the accent is before it: hence the difference been luxury and luxurious; anxious and anxiety: in the true pronunciation of which words, nothing will direct us but recurring to first principles. It was observed that s is never aspirated, or pronounced like sh, but when the accent is on the preceding syllable; (450) and that when the accent is on the succeeding vowel, though the s frequently is pronounced like z, it is never sounded zh: from which premises we may conclude, that luxury and luxurious ought to be pronounced luckshury and lugzurious, and not lug-zho-ryus, as Mr. Sheridan spells it. The same error runs through his pronunciation of all the compounds, luxuriance, luxuriant, luxuriate, etc. which unquestionably ought to be pronounced lug-zu-ri-ance, lug-zu-ri-ant, lug-zu-ri-ate, etc. in four syllables, and not in three only, as they are divided in his Dictionary.

. The same principles will lead us to decide in the words anxious and anxiety: as the accent is before the x in the first word, it is naturally divisible into ank-shious, and as naturally pronounced ank-shus; but as the accent is after the x in the second word, and the hissing sound cannot be aspirated, (456) it must necessarily be pronounced ang-ziety. But Mr. Sheridan, without any regard to the component letters of these words, or the different position of the accent, has not only spelled them without aspiration, but without letting the s, in the composition of the last word, go into z; for thus they stand in his Dictionary: ank-syus, ank-si-e-ty. (456)

. The letter x, at the beginning of words, goes into z, as Xerxes, Xenophon, etc. pronounced ZerxsesZerkses [sic], Zenophon, etc. it is silent at the end of the French billet-doux, and pronounced like s in beaux; often and better written beaus.

. Y, as a consonant, has always the same sound; and this has been sufficiently described in ascertaining its real character; (40) when it is a vowel at the end of a word or syllable with the accent upon it, it is sounded exactly like the first sound of i, as cy-der, ty-rant, re-ply, etc. but at the end of a word or syllable, without the accent, it is pronounced like the first sound of e, liberty, fury, tenderly, etc.

. Z is the flat s, and bears the same relation to it as b does to p, d to t, hard g to k, and v to f. Its common name is izzard, which Dr. Johnson explains into s hard; if, however, this be the meaning, it is a gross misnomer: for the z is not the hard, but the soft s: but as it has a less sharp, and therefore not so audible a sound, it is not impossible but it may mean s surd. Zed, borrowed from the French, is the more fashionable name of this letter; but, in my opinion, not to be admitted, because the names of the letters ought to have no diversity.

. Z, like s, goes into aspiration before a diphthong, or a diphthongal vowel after the accent, as is heard in vizier, glazier, grazier, etc. pronounced vizh-i-er, glazh-i-er, grazh-i-er, etc. The same may be observed of azure, razure, etc.

. Z is silent in the French word rendezvous; and is pronounced in the Italian manner, as if t were before it, in mezzotinto, as if written metzotinto.

Thus having endeavoured to exhibit a just idea of the principles of pronunciation, both with respect to single letters, and their various combinations into syllables and words. The attentive reader must have observed how much the sounds of the letters vary, as they are differently associated, and how much the pronunciation of these associations depends upon the position of the accent. This is a point of the utmost importance, and a want of attending to it has betrayed several ingenious men into the grossest absurdities. This will more fully appear in the observations on accent, which is the next point to be considered.

. The accent of the ancients is the opprobrium of modern criticism. Nothing can show more evidently the fallibility of the human faculties than the total ignorance we are in at present of the nature of the Latin and Greek accent. This would be still more surprising if a phenomenon of a similar kind did not daily present itself to our view. The accent of the English language, which is constantly sounding in our ears, and every moment open to investigation, seems as much a mystery as that accent which