Page:Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (Walker, 4th edition, London, 1806).pdf/91

Rh

. I have been the more copious in my collection of these varieties, that I might not appear to have taken the advantage of any oversight or mistake of the press: nor is it any wonder when the principles of syllabication so strongly incline us to leave the vowel e, like the other vowels, open before a single consonant; and the ear so decidedly tells us, that this letter is not always open when preceded by the accent, and followed by r, it is no wonder, I say, that a writer should be perplexed, and that he should sometimes incline to one side, and sometimes to the other. I am conscious I have not always been free from this inconsistency myself. The examples therefore which I have selected, will, I hope, fully justify me in the syllabication I have adopted; which is, that of sometimes separating the e from the r in this situation, and sometimes not. When solemn and deliberate speaking has seemed to admit of lengthening the e, I have sometimes made it end the syllable; when this was not the case, I have sometimes joined it to the r: thus, as e in the penultimate syllable of incarcerate, reverberate, etc. seems, in solemn speaking, to admit of a small degree of length and distinctness, it ends a syllable; but as no solemnity of pronunciation seems to admit of the same length and openness of the e in tolerate, deliberate, etc. it is united with r, and sounded in the notation by short u. It ought, however, to be carefully observed, that though the e in this situation is sometimes separated from the r, there is no speaking, however deliberate and solemn, that will not admit of uniting it to r, and pronouncing it like short u, without offending the nicest and most critical ear.

. It must also be noted, that this alteration of the sound of e before r is only when it follows the accent, either primary or secondary; (522) (530) for when it is in the first syllable of a word, though unaccented, it keeps its true sound: thus, though the e is pronounced like u in alter, alteration, etc. yet in perfection, terrific, etc. this letter is as pure as when the accent is on it in perfect, terrible, etc.

. Something like the corruption of the sound of unaccented e before r we may perceive in the colloquial pronunciation of the vowel o in the same situation; and accordingly we find our best orthöepists differ in their notation of this letter: thus memory, memorable, immemorable, memorably, memorize, have the o pronounced like short u by Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Scott; and memorandum, with the o, as in open; while Dr. Kenrick gives the o in all these words the sound it has in the conjunction or. Mr. Sheridan marks the unaccented o in corporal, corporate, and corporation, like the o in open; but Mr. Scott pronounces this o in corporal, corporate, and corporation, like short u, and the same letter in incorporate and incorporation like Mr. Sheridan; and Dr. Kenrick, like the o in the former instances. Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Scott are uniform in their pronunciation of the same vowel like short u in armour, armorer, armory, pillory, suasory, persuasory, allegory, compulsory, cursory, and predatory; while Dr. Kenrick pronounces the o in armour and armory like the o in open, and the same letter in pillory, allegory, and cursory, like the o in or, nor, etc. This diversity, among good judges, can arise from nothing but the same uncertainty of the sound of this letter that we have just observed of the e; but if we narrowly watch our pronunciation, we shall find that the unaccented o may be opened and lengthened, in deliberate speaking, without hurting the ear, which is not always the case with e; and this has induced me generally to separate the o from the succeeding r, when immediately following the accent; though I am sensible that the rapidity of colloquial speaking often reduces it to short u without offending the ear: but when the o is removed more than one syllable from the accent, the most deliberate speaking generally lets it slide into the other vowel; for which reason I have commonly marked it in this manner. See.

. It may, perhaps, appear to some of my readers, that too much time has been spent upon these nice distinctions of sound, in which judges themselves are found to disagree; but when we consider how many syllables in the language are unaccented, and that these syllables are those in which the peculiar delicacy of the pronunciation of natives consists; when we reflect on the necessity of having as distinct and permanent sounds as possible, to which we may refer these fleeting and evanescent ones, we shall not look upon an attempt to arrest and investigate them as a useless part of philology.