Page:Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (Walker, 4th edition, London, 1806).pdf/87

Rh

. In this view of the Latin and English quantity, we see how uncertain it is to argue from the former to the latter; for though the Latin accent is frequently a rule for placing the English accent, as in words derived whole from that language, as abdomen, acumen, etc. (503) or preserving the same number of syllables, as in impudent, elegant, from impudens, elegans, etc. (503) yet the quantity of the Latin seems to have no influence on that of the English. In words of two syllables, where one consonant comes between two vowels, as focus, basis, local, etc. though the vowel in the first syllable is short in Latin, it is long in English; and inversely, florid, frigid, livid, etc. have the vowels in the first syllable short, though these vowels are long in floridus, frigidus, lividus, etc. so that if any thing like a rule can be formed, it is, that when a word of three syllables in Latin, with the two first short, is anglicised by dropping the last syllable; we shorten the first syllable of the English dissyllable, unless it ends with the vowel u. (535) Thus we see the shortening power of our English antepenultimate accent, which shortens every antepenultimate vowel but u in our pronunciation of Latin words; as in mimicus, vividus, etc. and continues its shortening power in the penultimate accent of these words when anglicised into mimick and vivid; and hence it is that the short quantity of the first vowel in dissyllables is become so prevalent in our language, to the great detriment of its sound, and the disturbance of its simplicity.

It may be necessary, in the next place, to take a view of such words as are either of Saxon or French original, or not so immediately derived from the Latin, as to be influenced by its quantity.