Page:Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (Walker, 4th edition, London, 1806).pdf/75

Rh And Milton, in the same manner, the verb to commerce:

. Something very analogous to this we find in the nouns we verbalize, by changing the s sharp of the noun into the s flat, or z of the verb, (437) as a use, and to use; where we may remark, that when the word in both parts of speech is a monosyllable, and so not under the laws of accent, the verb, however, claims the privilege of lengthening the sound of the consonant, when it can, as well as when it cannot, prolong the accentuation: thus we not only find grass altered to graze, brass to braze, glass to glaze, price to prize, breath to breathe, etc. but the c or s sharp altered to the s flat in advice to advise, excuse to excuse, device to devise, etc. The noun adopting the sharp hissing sound, and the verb the soft buzzing one, without transferring the accent from one syllable to another. The vulgar extend this analogy to the noun practice and the verb to practise, pronouncing the first with the i short, and the c like sharp s, as if written practiss, and the last with the i long, and the s like z, as if written practize; but correct speakers pronounce the verb like the noun; that is, as if written practiss. The noun prophesyprophecy [sic], and the verb to prophesy, follow this analogy, only by writing the noun with the c, and the verb with the s, and without any difference of sound, except pronouncing the y in the first like e, and in the last like i long; where we may still discover a trace of the tendency to the barytone pronunciation in the noun, and the oxytone in the verb. (467) See the words.

. This seems to be the favourite tendency of English verbs; and where we find it crossed, it is generally in those formed from nouns, rather than the contrary: agreeably to this, Dr. Johnson has observed, that though nouns have often the accent on the latter, yet verbs have it seldom on the former syllable; those nouns which, in the common order of language, must have preceded the verbs, often transmit this accent to the verbs they form, and inversely: thus the noun water must have preceded the verb to water, as the verb to correspond must have preceded the noun correspondent; and to pursue must claim priority to pursuit. So that we may conclude, whenever verbs deviate from this rule, it is seldom by chance, and generally in those words only where a superior law of accent takes place.

. As words increase in syllables, the more easily is their accent known. Nouns sometimes acquire a syllable by becoming plural; adjectives increase a syllable by being compared; and verbs by altering their tense, or becoming participles: adjectives becomes adverbs, by adding ly to them; and preposititions precede nouns or verbs without altering the accent of the word to which they are prefixed: so that when once the accent of dissyllables is known, those polysyllables, whose terminations are perfectly English, have likewise their accent invariably settled. Thus lion becomes lioness; poet, poetess; polite becomes politer, or politely, or even politelier; mischief, mischievous; happy, happiness; nay, lioness becomes lionesses; mischief, mischievousness; and service, serviceable, serviceableness, serviceably, and unserviceably, without disturbing the accent, either on account of the prepositive un, or the subjunctives able, ably, and ableness.

. Hence we may perceive the glaring absurdity which prevails even in the first circles; that of pronounaingpronouncing [sic] the plural of princess, and even the singular, with the accent on the second syllable, like success and successes; for we might just as well say, dutchéss, and dutchésses, as princéss and princésses; nor would a correct ear be less hurt with the latter than the former.

. So few verbs of three syllables follow the analogy observable in those of two, that of protracting the accent to the last syllable, that this economy seems peculiar to dissyllables: many verbs, indeed, of three syllables, are compounded of a preposition of two syllables: and then, according to the primary law of formation, and not the secondary of distinction, we may esteem them radical, and not distinctive: such are contradict, intercede, supercede, contraband, circumscribe, superscribe, etc. while the generality of words ending in the verbal terminations ise and ize, retain the accent of the simple, as criticise, tyrannise, modernise etc. and the whole tribe of trisyllable verbs in ate, very few excepted, refuse the accent on the last syllable: but words of three syllables often take their accent from the learned languages from which they are derived; and this makes it necessary to inquire how far English accent is regulated by that of the Greek and Latin.

As our language borrows so largely from the learned languages, it is not wonderful that its pronunciation should be in some measure influenced by them. The rule for placing the Greek accent was, indeed, essentially different from that of the Latin; but words from the Greek, coming to us through the Latin, are often so much latinized as to lose their original accent, and to fall into that of the Latin; and it is the Latin accent which we must chiefly regard, as that which influences our own.

The first general rule that may be laid down is, that when words come to us whole from the Greek or Latin, the same accent ought to be preserved as in the original: thus horizon, sonorous, decorum, dictator, gladiator, mediator, delator, spectator, adulator, etc. preserve the penultimate