PREPARATION FOR THE DICTIONARY.
It is not an uncommon experience by which a young man strikes at once the note of his career, then appears to wander or experiment, and returns more surely to his original expression, following that steadily to the end. It was thus with Webster. His "Grammatical Inst.i.tute,"
inclosing the perennial speller, was his first declaration; then he made ventures in different directions, but returned to studies in language, and finally embodied the results of his life-time in his great Dictionary. In reading biography, we wish to get at the ruling pa.s.sion of the man; how often the man himself seems bewildered in his search for it, groping in this direction and in that, uncertain, to use Dr.
Bushnell"s vigorous phrase, if he has yet grasped the handle of his being. It cannot be said that Webster ever laid aside his special studies and resumed them after long intervals. His earliest and most characteristic work, "A Grammatical Inst.i.tute," was always by him, and the Speller, which emerged from it, became of so much pecuniary importance that it could not fail to determine in many ways his occupation. The "Minerva" from the first had constant advertis.e.m.e.nts both of "A Grammatical Inst.i.tute" and of the early volume of "Dissertations"; there were frequent announcements of new editions of the Spelling-Book, and of the rate at which it could be had in quant.i.ties. Country merchants began to lay in supplies of Webster"s Spelling-Book, when they came to the nearest trading town, as confidently as they bought West India goods or English tools. Webster gave lectures, as he traveled north and south, upon the English language. His reputation was forming upon this line, and it is not unlikely that his partial failure in political and journalistic work was due to his identification with the occupation of a school-master. A more complete account would be that he did not do these things thoroughly well, because his strongest attraction was in another direction. He seems, through the twenty years or more which followed the first publication of his Spelling-Book, to have his hand close by the throttle-lever without knowing it. The practical demands of self-support no doubt controlled his inclinations, and forced him into one situation after another where his choice would not send him, and he spent these years in a struggle for maintenance. Then he was an impulsive, a generous, and an ambitious man. He loved society; he liked the stir of men and the bustle of management. As we have already seen, he was ready to venture all he had upon the stakes which his ardor set up. He took risks in publishing, which could be justified only by his own enthusiasm, and entertained himself with speculations in literature which were agreeable to contemplate, but often disastrous to realize.
There is a half-despairing letter to Josiah Quincy[13] which discloses the hard lines of his practical life. Trumbull had jested at Webster"s slight capital for house-keeping, and Webster himself reached points in his career where even Inst.i.tutes and Dissertations seemed to fail him.
The letter is dated at New Haven, February 12, 1811. He writes with some irritation, "My name has been so much bandied about that I am quite willing it should be seen and heard no more at present," and then pa.s.ses to the more important matters in his mind: "I am engaged in a work which gives me great pleasure, and the tracing of language through more than twenty different dialects has opened a new and before unexplored field.
I have within two years past made discoveries which, if ever published, must interest the literati of all Europe, and render it necessary to revise all the lexicons--Hebrew, Greek, and Latin--now used as cla.s.sical books. But what can I do? My own resources are almost exhausted, and in a few days I shall sell my house to get bread for my children. All the a.s.surances of aid which I had received in Boston, New York, etc., have failed, and I am soon to retire to a humble cottage in the country. To add to my perplexity, the political measures pursuing render it almost impossible to sell property, or to obtain money upon the best security.
A few thousand dollars, for which I can give security, would place me in a condition in the country to live with comfort and pursue my studies; but even this cannot be obtained till the measures of Congress a.s.sume a more auspicious aspect. Adieu, dear sir. The little Band will no doubt do their duty, but what can be done against the army of slaves?
Alexander Wolcott!! We must drink the cup of disgrace to the dregs!
Yours, in low spirits,
"N. WEBSTER, JUN."
If the letter was an indirect appeal to Mr. Quincy to advance a few thousand dollars on good security, it does not seem to have effected its purpose, and a man with money to lend would not have his confidence in the borrower"s capacity to repay it increased by knowing that the time of the loan was to be occupied in making astonishing discoveries in the roots of language. It has often been stated that Dr. Webster supported himself and large family, during the twenty or thirty years he was employed in the preparation of his great Dictionary, mainly by a copyright of one cent or less on his Spelling-Book, and it is quite certain that the several other enterprises in which he engaged never supported him while they were going on, and often resulted in losses.
But what a picture the letter presents of an impecunious scholar, bewitched by his pursuit, and sure that it was to end in some vast result! He writes like an inventor who needs but little to enable him to perfect a machine which is to revolutionize labor.
It was only a few years after the first publication of the Spelling-Book, and while Webster was still unmarried and trying his hand at various occupations, that he published "A Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Writings on Moral, Historical, Political, and Literary Subjects." The short-tailed word on the t.i.tle-page is an oddity intended probably to attract the reader"s attention and lead him to look within.
The contents embrace thirty essays, originally written or published between the years 1787 and 1790, but before the reader comes upon the table of contents he is likely to stop at the Preface with its antics of spelling. We are tolerably used by this time to reformed spelling, but Webster was a pioneer, and his contemporaries must have looked with some amazement at what they could only think of as deformed spelling. Here they could be told soberly:--
"During the course of ten or twelv yeers I hav been laboring to correct popular errors, and to a.s.sist my yung brethren in the road to truth and virtue; my publications for theez purposes hav been numerous; much time haz been spent, which I do not regret, and much censure incurred, which my hart tells me I do not dezerv. The influence of a yung writer cannot be so powerful or extensiv az that of an established karacter; but I hav ever thot a man"s usefulness depends more on exertion than on talents. I am attached to America by berth, education, and habit; but abuv all, by a philosophical view of her situation, and the superior advantages she enjoys, for augmenting the sum of social happiness....
"The reeder will obzerv that the orthography of the volum iz not uniform. The reezon iz, that many of the essays hav been published before, in the common orthography, and it would hav been a laborious task to copy the whole, for the sake of changing the spelling.
"In the essays ritten within the last yeer, a considerable change of spelling iz introduced by way of experiment. This liberty waz taken by the writers before the age of Queen Elizabeth, and to this we are indeted for the preference of modern spelling over that of Gower and Chaucer. The man who admits that the change of _housbonde_, _mynde_, _ygone_, _moneth_ into husband, mind, gone, month, iz an improovment, must acknowledge also the riting of helth, breth, rong, tung, munth, to be an improovment. There iz no alternativ. Every possible reezon that could ever be offered for altering the spelling of wurds, stil exists in full force; and if a gradual reform should not be made in our language, it will proov that we are less under the influence of reezon than our ancestors."
This pa.s.sage from the Preface, as well as those papers in the volume which follow the same style of orthography or rather cacography, will ill.u.s.trate well enough the unprincipled character of the reform as it lay in Webster"s mind. He acted upon the merest empiricism apparently, without any well-considered plan, making the spelling occasionally conform to the sound, but allowing even the same sounds to have different representation in different words. Indeed, in the extract given above, he appears to be rather a timid reformer, attacking such defenseless little words as _is_, and respectfully pa.s.sing by _would_ and _offered_. The general appearance of those essays in the volume which are printed after Webster"s own heart leads one happening upon them nowadays into some disappointment, since they are by no means to be ranked with the humorous writings of later mis-spellers, who have contrived to get some fun out of venerable words by pulling off their wigs and false teeth and turning them loose in the streets.
It is very likely that Webster"s first impulse to reform our spelling was given by Dr. Franklin"s writings on the subject. As is well known, that philosopher went so far as to devise new characters for compound letters such as _th_, _sh_, _ng_, antic.i.p.ating many of the later experiment in phonic writing. Webster entered with zeal into the notion, and held a correspondence with Franklin, in which the young man showed himself so ardent a disciple of the old as to win for himself a certain place as the doctor"s residuary legatee in ideas. "This indefatigable gentleman," says Webster of Franklin, "amidst all his other employments, public and private, has compiled a Dictionary on his scheme of a reform, and procured types to be cast for printing it. He thinks himself too old to pursue the plan; but has honored me with the offer of the ma.n.u.script and types, and expressed a strong desire that I should undertake the task. Whether this project, so deeply interesting to this country, will ever be effected, or whether it will be defeated by indolence and prejudice, remains for my countrymen to determine." The last clause, with all its obscurity, may be taken as a threat rather than as a self-reproach. The entire correspondence between Webster and Franklin is interesting as setting forth a certain excess of experimenting ardor in Franklin and an unlooked-for degree of conservatism in Webster. Franklin was the older man, but he was the more daring. One should credit him, however, with a certain amount of humor in his whims. He played with the English language, somewhat as he amused himself with conferring legacies at compound interest, to take effect in two hundred years, and giving away gravely millions of money by the immediate planting of a few hundreds.
If the first impulse came from Franklin, the controlling reason must be looked for in Webster"s patriotism. It was no trifling desire to put into practice an engaging theory, but a conviction of public gain which moved Webster to proclaim his reform. He has left abundant testimony to this effect. After giving a brief historical sketch of the changes to which the English language had been subjected, in the Appendix to his "Dissertations," he proceeds:--
"The question now occurs: ought the Americans to retain these faults which produce innumerable inconveniences in the acquisition and use of the language, or ought they at once to reform these abuses, and introduce order and regularity into the orthography of the AMERICAN TONGUE?" He throws all the emphasis possible upon these words by the use of large type, and then sketches the nature of the proposed reform, returning in the conclusion to his favorite position of the influence upon national speech and manners.
The whole statement is so interesting, especially when taken into comparison with the recent declarations of war by eminent American philologists, that I transfer it to these pages.
"Several attempts were formerly made in England to rectify the orthography of the language.[14] But I apprehend their schemes failed of success rather on account of their intrinsic difficulties than on account of any necessary impracticability of a reform. It was proposed, in most of these schemes, not merely to throw out superfluous and silent letters, but to introduce a number of new characters. Any attempt on such a plan must undoubtedly prove unsuccessful. It is not to be expected that an orthography, perfectly regular and simple, such as would be formed by a "Synod of Grammarians on principles of science,"
will ever be subst.i.tuted for that confused mode of spelling which is now established. But it is apprehended that great improvements may be made, and an orthography almost regular, or such as shall obviate most of the present difficulties which occur in learning our language, may be introduced and established with little trouble and opposition. The princ.i.p.al alterations necessary to render our orthography regular and easy are these:
"1. The omission of all superfluous or silent letters; as _a_ in _bread_. Thus _bread_, _head_, _give_, _breast_, _built_, _meant_, _realm_, _friend_, would be spelt _bred_, _hed_, _giv_, _brest_, _bilt_, _ment_, _relm_, _frend_. Would this alteration produce any inconvenience, any embarra.s.sment or expense? By no means. On the other hand, it would lessen the trouble of writing, and, much more, of learning the language; it would reduce the true p.r.o.nunciation to a certainty; and while it would a.s.sist foreigners and our own children in acquiring the language, it would render the p.r.o.nunciation uniform in different parts of the country, and almost prevent the possibility of changes.
"2. A subst.i.tution of a character that has a certain definite sound for one that is more vague and indeterminate. Thus by putting _ee_ instead of _ea_ or _ie_, the words _mean_, _near_, _speak_, _grieve_, _zeal_, would become _meen_, _neer_, _speek_, _greev_, _zeel_. This alteration could not occasion a moment"s trouble; at the same time it would prevent a doubt respecting the p.r.o.nunciation; whereas the _ea_ and _ie_, having different sounds, may give a learner much difficulty. Thus _greef_ should be subst.i.tuted for _grief_; _kee_ for _key_; _beleev_ for _believe_; _laf_ for _laugh_; _dawter_ for _daughter_; _plow_ for _plough_; _tuf_ for _tough_; _proov_ for _prove_; _blud_ for _blood_; and _draft_ for _draught_. In this manner ch in Greek derivatives should be changed into _k_; for the English _ch_ has a soft sound as in _cherish_; but _k_ always a hard sound. Therefore _character_, _chorus_, _colic_, _architecture_, should be written _karacter_, _korus_, _kolic_, _arkitecture_, and were they thus written no person could mistake their true p.r.o.nunciation. Thus _ch_ in French derivatives should be changed into _sh_; _machine_, _chaise_, _chevalier_, should be written _masheen_, _shaze_, _shevaleer_, and _pique_, _tour_, _oblique_, should be written _peek_, _toor_, _obleek_.
"3. A trifling alteration in a character, or the addition of a point, would distinguish different sounds without the subst.i.tution of a new character. Thus a very small stroke across _th_ would distinguish its two sounds. A point over a vowel in this manner, _?_ or _?_ or _i_, might answer all the purposes of different letters. And for the diphthong _ow_ let the two letters be united by a small stroke, or both engraven on the same piece of metal, with the left hand line of the _w_ united to the _o_. These, with a few other inconsiderable alterations, would answer every purpose, and render the orthography sufficiently correct and regular.
"The advantages to be derived from these alterations are numerous, great, and permanent.
"1. The simplicity of the orthography would facilitate the learning of the language. It is now the work of years for children to learn to spell; and after all, the business is rarely accomplished. A few men, who are bred to some business that requires constant exercise in writing, finally learn to spell most words without hesitation; but most people remain all their lives imperfect masters of spelling, and liable to make mistakes whenever they take up a pen to write a short note. Nay, many people, even of education and fashion, never attempt to write a letter without frequently consulting a dictionary. But with the proposed orthography, a child would learn to spell, without trouble, in a very short time, and the orthography being very regular, he would ever after find it difficult to make a mistake. It would, in that case, be as difficult to spell _wrong_ as it is now to spell _right_. Besides this advantage, foreigners would be able to acquire the p.r.o.nunciation of English, which is now so difficult and embarra.s.sing that they are either wholly discouraged on the first attempt, or obliged, after many years"
labor, to rest contented with an imperfect knowledge of the subject.
"2. A correct orthography would render the p.r.o.nunciation of the language as uniform as the spelling in books. A general uniformity thro the United States would be the event of such a reformation as I am here recommending. All persons, of every rank, would speak with some degree of precision and uniformity. Such a uniformity in these States is very desirable; it would remove prejudice, and conciliate mutual affection and respect.
"3. Such a reform would diminish the number of letters about one sixteenth or eighteenth. This would save a page in eighteen; and a saving of an eighteenth in the expense of books is an advantage that should not be overlooked.
"4. But a capital advantage of this reform in these States would be, that it would make a difference between the English orthography and the American. This will startle those who have not attended to the subject; but I am confident that such an event is an object of vast political consequence. For,
"The alteration, however small, would encourage the publication of books in our own country. It would render it, in some measure, necessary that all books should be printed in America. The English would never copy our orthography for their own use; and consequently the same impressions of books would not answer for both countries. The inhabitants of the present generation would read the English impressions; but posterity, being taught a different spelling, would prefer the American orthography.
"Besides this, a _national language_ is a band of _national union_.
Every engine should be employed to render the people of this country _national_; to call their attachments home to their own country; and to inspire them with the pride of national character. However they may boast of independence, and the freedom of their government, yet their _opinions_ are not sufficiently independent; an astonishing respect for the arts and literature of their parent country, and a blind imitation of its manners, are still prevalent among the Americans. Thus an habitual respect for another country, deserved indeed and once laudable, turns their attention from their own interests, and prevents their respecting themselves."
He supposes various objections to this reform: that it would oblige people to relearn the language; that it would render present books useless; that it would injure the language by obscuring etymology; that the distinction between words of different meanings and similar sound would be destroyed; that it was idle to conform the orthography of words to the p.r.o.nunciation, because the latter was continually changing. All these objections he considers and meets with arguments more familiar to us than they were to men of his day, and then concludes:--
"Sensible I am how much easier it is to _propose_ improvements than to _introduce_ them. Everything new starts the idea of difficulty, and yet it is often mere novelty that excites the appearance; for on a slight examination of the proposal the difficulty vanishes. When we firmly believe a scheme to be practicable, the work is half accomplished. We are more frequently deterred by fear from making an attack, than repulsed in the encounter.
"Habit also is opposed to changes, for it renders even our errors dear to us. Having surmounted all difficulties in childhood, we forget the labor, the fatigue, and the perplexity we suffered in the attempt, and imagine the progress of our studies to have been smooth and easy. What seems intrinsically right is so merely thro habit. Indolence is another obstacle to improvements. The most arduous task a reformer has to execute is to make people _think_; to rouse them from that lethargy, which, like the mantle of sleep, covers them in repose and contentment.
"But America is in a situation the most favorable for great reformations; and the present time is, in a singular degree, auspicious.
The minds of men in this country have been awakened. New scenes have been, for many years, presenting new occasions for exertion; unexpected distresses have called forth the powers of invention; and the application of new expedients has demanded every possible exercise of wisdom and talents. Attention is roused, the mind expanded, and the intellectual faculties invigorated. Here men are prepared to receive improvements, which would be rejected by nations whose habits have not been shaken by similar events.
"_Now_ is the time, and _this_ the country, in which we may expect success in attempting changes favorable to language, science, and government. Delay in the plan here proposed may be fatal; under a tranquil general government the minds of men may again sink into indolence; a national acquiescence in error will follow, and posterity be doomed to struggle with difficulties which time and accident will perpetually multiply.
"Let us, then, seize the present moment and establish a _national language_ as well as a national government. Let us remember that there is a certain respect due to the opinions of other nations. As an independent people, our reputation abroad demands that, in all things, we should be federal, be _national_; for, if we do not respect ourselves, we may be a.s.sured that other nations will not respect us. In short, let it be impressed upon the mind of every American, that to neglect the means of commanding respect abroad is treason against the character and dignity of a brave, independent people."
In the matter of p.r.o.nunciation, Webster a.s.serted similar principles in his earliest essays. He denounces the custom of referring to English standards for the determination of sounds. In the "Remarks on the Manners, Government, and Debt of the United States," which I quoted in the last chapter, he finds fault with his countrymen for their dependence upon England.
"This same veneration for eminent foreigners and the bewitching charms of fashion have led the Americans to adopt the modern corruptions of our language. Very seldom have men examined the structure of the language to find reasons for their practice. The p.r.o.nunciation and use of words have been subject to the same arbitrary or accidental changes as the shape of their garments. My lord wears a hat of a certain size and shape; he p.r.o.nounces a word in a certain manner; and both must be right, for he is a fashionable man. In Europe this is right in dress; and men who have not an opportunity of learning the just rules of our language are in some degree excusable for imitating those whom they consider as superiors. But in men of science this imitation can hardly be excused.
Our language was spoken in purity about eighty years ago, since which time great numbers of faults have crept into practice about the theatre and court of London. An affected, erroneous p.r.o.nunciation has in many instances taken place of the true, and new words or modes of speech have succeeded the ancient correct English phrases. Thus we have, in the modern English p.r.o.nunciation, their natshures, conjunctshures, const.i.tshutions, and tshumultshuous legislatshures, and a long catalogue of fashionable improprieties. These are a direct violation of the rules of a.n.a.logy and harmony; they offend the ear and embarra.s.s the language.
Time was when these errors were unknown; they were little known in America before the Revolution. I presume we may safely say that our language has suffered more injurious changes in America, since the British army landed on our sh.o.r.es, than it had suffered before in the period of three centuries. The bucks and bloods tell us that there is no proper standard in language; that it is all arbitrary. The a.s.sertion, however, seems but to show their ignorance. There are, in the language itself, decisive reasons for preferring one p.r.o.nunciation to another; and men of science should be acquainted with these reasons. But if there were none, and everything rested on practice, we should never change a general practice without substantial reasons. No change should be introduced which is not an obvious improvement."
Elsewhere, in a similar spirit, he writes: "Nothing but the establishment of schools and some uniformity in the use of books can annihilate differences in speaking, and preserve the purity of the American tongue. A sameness of p.r.o.nunciation is of considerable consequence in a political view, for provincial accents are disagreeable to strangers, and sometimes have an unhappy effect upon the social affections.... As an independent nation our honor requires us to have a system of our own, in language as well as government. Great Britain, whose children we are, and whose language we speak, should no longer be our standard; for the taste of her writers is already corrupted, and her language on the decline. But if it were not so, she is at too great a distance to be our model, and to instruct us in the principles of our own tongue.... Rapid changes of language proceed from violent causes, but these causes cannot be supposed to exist in North America. It is contrary to all rational calculation that the United States will ever be conquered by any one nation speaking a different language from that of the country. Removed from the danger of corruption by conquest, our language can change only with the slow operation of the causes before mentioned, and the progress of arts and sciences, unless the folly of imitating our parent country should continue to govern us and lead us into endless innovation. This folly, however, will lose its influence gradually, as our particular habits of respect for that country shall wear away, and our _amor patriae_ acquire strength, and inspire us with a suitable respect for our own national character. We have, therefore, the fairest opportunity of establishing a national language, and of giving it uniformity and perspicuity in North America, that ever presented itself to mankind."
His standard of p.r.o.nunciation is thus defined: "The rules of the language itself, and the general practice of the nation, const.i.tute propriety in speaking. If we examine the structure of any language we shall find a certain principle of a.n.a.logy running through the whole. We shall find in English that similar combinations of letters have usually the same p.r.o.nunciation, and that words having the same terminating syllable generally have the accent at the same distance from that termination. These principles of a.n.a.logy were not the result of design; they must have been the effect of accident, or that tendency which all men feel toward uniformity. But the principles, when established, are productive of great convenience, and become an authority superior to the arbitrary decisions of any man or cla.s.s of men. There is one exception only to this remark: When a deviation from a.n.a.logy has become the universal practice of a nation, it then takes place of all rules, and becomes the standard of propriety. The two points, therefore, which I conceive to be the basis of a standard in speaking are these: universal, undisputed practice, and the principle of a.n.a.logy. Universal practice is generally, perhaps always, a rule of propriety; and in disputed points, where people differ in opinion and practice, a.n.a.logy should always decide the controversy.
"There are authorities to which all men will submit; they are superior to the opinions and caprices of the great, and to the negligence and ignorance of the mult.i.tude. The authority of individuals is always liable to be called in question; but the unanimous consent of a nation, and a fixed principle interwoven with the very construction of a language, coeval and coextensive with it, are like the common laws of a land, or the immutable rules of morality, the propriety of which every man, however refractory, is forced to acknowledge, and to which most men will readily submit."
Here is the doctrine of majorities, and it will be seen that Webster"s conception of usage is not the usage of the most cultivated, but the general usage of a people. It was the democratic principle carried to its utmost length, and yet the notion of an inhering law was quite as strongly held. Our interest in this portion of his work is in the examples which he gives of the usage of his day. He points out a number of instances in which the different sections of the Union were at variance, and some of these characteristics have certainly disappeared.
Webster"s memoranda may be taken with some confidence, for he was a minute observer, and his opportunities of comparison were excellent.
In the Eastern States he finds a good many people saying _motive_; in the Middle States some who say _prejudice_. _E_ before _r_ is often p.r.o.nounced like _a_, as _marcy_ for _mercy_, an error which he refers rather illogically to the practice of calling the letter _r ar_, so that in his Spelling-Book he writes its sound _er_; "in a few instances," he says, "this p.r.o.nunciation is become general among polite speakers, as _clerk_, _sergeant_, etc." In calling attention to the New England custom of preferring the sound of _i_ short or _e_ before the diphthong _ow_, as in _kiow_ for _cow_, Webster gravely refers the disagreeable peculiarity "to the nature of their government and a distribution of their property." Let the reader reflect a moment before he reads Webster"s philosophical explanation, and see if his own cogitations lead him in the right direction. "It is an undoubted fact that the drawling nasal manner of speaking in New England arises almost solely from these causes. People of large fortunes, who pride themselves on family distinctions, possess a certain boldness, dignity, and independence in their manners, which give a corresponding air to their mode of speaking.
Those who are accustomed to command slaves form a habit of expressing themselves with the tone of authority and decision. In New England, where there are few slaves and servants, and less family distinctions than in any other part of America, the people are accustomed to address each other with that diffidence, or attention to the opinion of others, which marks a state of equality. Instead of commanding, they advise; instead of saying, with an air of decision, _you must_; they ask, with an air of doubtfulness, _is it not best_? or give their opinions with an indecisive tone; _You had better, I believe._ Not possessing that pride and consciousness of superiority which attend birth and fortune, their intercourse with each other is all conducted on the idea of equality, which gives a singular tone to their language and complexion to their manners.... Such are the causes of the local peculiarities in p.r.o.nunciation which prevail among the country people in New England, and which, to foreigners, are the objects of ridicule. The great error in their manner of speaking proceeds immediately from not opening the mouth sufficiently. Hence words are drawled out in a careless lazy manner, or the sound finds a pa.s.sage thro the nose."
This may have the merit of ingenuity, but in connection with it Webster makes a sounder observation when he compares New England perpetuating old English idioms because of her isolation, to an internal village contrasted with a city. "New England has been in the situation of an island; during one hundred and sixty years, the people, except in a few commercial towns, have not been exposed to any of the causes which effect great changes in language and manners."
To continue these notes: he finds the use of _w_ for _v_ prevalent in Boston and Philadelphia, as _weal_ for _veal_, but unknown in Hartford.
"Vast numbers of people in Boston and the neighborhood use _w_ for _v_; yet I never once heard this p.r.o.nunciation in Connecticut." He regards this use as the survival of old custom, but since the nation in general had made a distinction, every person should resign his peculiarities for the sake of uniformity. "The words _either_, _neither_, _deceit_, _conceit_, _receipt_, are generally p.r.o.nounced by the Eastern people _ither_, _nither_, _desate_, _consate_, _resate_. These are errors; all the standard authors agree to give _ei_ in these words the sound of _ee_. This is the practice in England, in the Middle and Southern States, and, what is higher authority, a.n.a.logy warrants the practice."
He hesitates between _oblige_ and _obleege_, the weight of authority being equally divided, but a.n.a.logy persuades him to the former. a.n.a.logy also requires European, though modern fashionable speakers have been introducing the innovation of European. "In the Middle and Southern States _fierce_, _pierce_, _tierce_, are p.r.o.nounced _feerce_, _peerce_, _teerce_. To convince the people of the impropriety of this p.r.o.nunciation, it might be sufficient to inform them that it is not fashionable on the English theatre.... The standard English p.r.o.nunciation now is _ferce_, _perce_, _terce_, and it is universal in New England." He arraigns the fashionable world for p.r.o.nouncing _heard_ as herd, instead of by its true sound of _heard_, in a.n.a.logy with _feared_. "_Beard_ is sometimes, but erroneously, p.r.o.nounced _beerd_.
General practice, both in England and America, requires that _e_ should be p.r.o.nounced as in _were_, and I know of no rule opposed to the practice." He objects to the innovation of _woond_ for _wound_, and enters upon a long discussion of the p.r.o.nunciation of _nature_, finally falling back upon his countrymen"s _natur_.