Page:The grammar of English grammars.djvu/843

 of our accent." He has accordingly mentioned it in several different places of his works, and not always with that regard to consistency which becomes a precise theorist. It led him to new and variant ways of defining accent; some of which seem to imply a division of consonants from their vowels in utterance, or to suggest that syllables are not the least parts of spoken words. And no sooner has he told us that our accent is but one single mode of distinguishing a syllable, than he proceeds to declare it two. Compare the following citations: "As the pronunciation of English words is chiefly regulated by accent, it will be necessary to have a precise idea of that term. Accent with us means no more than a certain stress of the voice upon one letter of a syllable, which distinguishes it from all the other letters in a word."&mdash;Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram., p. 39. Again: "Accent, in the English language, means a certain stress of the voice upon a particular letter of a syllable which distinguishes it from the rest, and, at the same time, distinguishes the syllable itself to which it belongs from the others which compose the word."&mdash;Same work, p. 50. Again: "But as our accent consists in stress only, it can just as well be placed on a consonant as [on] a vowel."&mdash;Same, p. 51. Again: "By the word accent, is meant the stress of the voice on one letter in a syllable."&mdash;Sheridan's Elements of English, p. 55. Again: "The term [accent] with us has no reference to inflexions of the voice, or musical notes, but only means a peculiar manner of distinguishing one syllable of a word from the rest, denominated by us accent; and the term for that reason [is] used by us in the singular number.&mdash;This distinction is made by us in two ways; either by dwelling longer upon one syllable than the rest; or by giving it a smarter percussion of the voice in utterance. Of the first of these, we have instances in the words, glōry, fāther, hōly; of the last, in bat'tle, hab'it, bor'row. So that accent, with us, is not referred to tune, but to time; to quantity, not quality; to the more equable or precipitate motion of the voice, not to the variation of notes or inflexions."&mdash;Sheridan's Lectures on Elocution, p. 56; Flint's Murray's Gram., p. 85. How "precise" was Sheridan's idea of accent, the reader may well judge from the foregoing quotations; in four of which, he describes it as "a certain stress," "the stress," and "stress only," which enforces some "letter;" while, in the other, it is whimsically made to consist in two different modes of pronouncing "syllables"&mdash;namely, with equability, and with precipitance&mdash;with "dwelling longer," and with "smarter percussion"&mdash;which terms the author very improperly supposes to be opposites: saying, "For the two ways of distinguishing syllables by accent, as mentioned before, are directly opposite, and produce quite contrary effects; the one, by dwelling on the syllable, necessarily makes it long; the other, by the smart percussion&mdash;of the voice, as necessarily makes it short"&mdash;Ib., p. 57. Now it is all a mistake, however common, to suppose that our accent, consisting as it does, in stress, enforcement, or "percussion of voice," can ever shorten the syllable on which it is laid; because what increases the quantum of a vocal sound, cannot diminish its length; and a syllable accented will always be found longer as well as louder, than any unaccented one immediately before or after it. Though weak sounds may possibly be protracted, and shorter ones be exploded loudly, it is not the custom of our speech, so to deal with the sounds of syllables. Sheridan admitted that some syllables are naturally and necessarily short, but denied that any are naturally and necessarily long. In this, since syllabic length and shortness are relative to each other, and to the cause of each, he was, perhaps, hardly consistent. He might have done better, to have denied both, or neither. Bating his new division of accent to subject it sometimes to short quantity, he recognized very fully the dependence of quantity, long or short, whether in syllables or only in vowels, upon the presence or absence of accent or emphasis. In this he differed considerably from most of the grammarians of his day; and many since have continued to uphold other views. He says, "It is an infallible rule in our tongue that no vowel ever has a long sound in an unaccented syllable."&mdash;Lectures on Elocution, p. 60. Again: "In treating of the simple elements or letters, I have shown that some, both vowels and consonants, are naturally short; that is, whose sounds cannot possibly be prolonged; and these are the [short or shut] sounds of ĕ, ĭ, and ŭ, of vocal sounds; and three pure mutes, k, p, t, of the consonant; as in the words beck, lip, cut. I have shown also, that the sounds of all the other vowels, and of the consonant semivowels, may be prolonged to what degree we please; but at the same time it is to be observed, that all these may also be reduced to a short quantity, and are capable of being uttered in as short a space of time as those which are naturally short. So that they who speak of syllables as absolutely in their own nature long, the common cant of prosodians, speak of a nonentity: for though, as I have shown above, there are syllables absolutely short, which cannot possibly be prolonged by any effort of the speaker, yet it is in his power to shorten or prolong the others to what degree he pleases."&mdash;Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram., p. 52. And again: "I have already mentioned that when the accent is on the vowel, it of course makes the syllable long; and when the accent is on the consonant, the syllable may be either long or short, according to the nature of the consonant, or will of the speakers. And as all unaccented syllables are short, the quantity of our syllables is adjusted by the easiest and simplest rule in the world, and in the exactest proportion."&mdash;''Lect. on Elocution'', p. 66. This praise of our rule for the adjustment of quantity, would have been much more appropriate, had not the rule itself been greatly mistaken, perplexed, and misrepresented by the author. If it appear, on inspection, that "beck, lip, cut," and the like syllables, are twice as long when under the accent, as they are when not accented, so that, with a short syllable annexed or a long one prefixed, they may form trochees; then is it not true, that such syllables are either always necessarily and inherently short, or always, "by the smart percussion of the voice, as necessarily made short;" both of which inconsistent ideas are above affirmed of them. They may