From these considerations the question must arise
(5) Whether it is not our duty to take steps to prevent the continuance and growth of this evil. [To give an example--the word _mourn_. If we persist in misp.r.o.nouncing this word as _morn_, and make no distinction between _mourning_ and _morning_, then that word will perish. We cannot afford to lose it: it is a good example of our best words, as may be seen by looking it up in the concordances to Shakespeare and the Bible: and what is true of this word is true of hundreds of others.]
(6) It is pointed out that our fashionable Southern English dialect, our Public School p.r.o.nunciation, is one chief source of this damage.
(7) Attention is called to the low standard of p.r.o.nunciation adopted by our professional phoneticians, and to the falsity of their orthodox teaching.
(8) The damage to the language which is threatened by their activity is exposed.
(9) It is questioned how far it is possible to adopt living dialectal forms to save words that would otherwise perish.
(10) Respect for the traditions of neglected dialects is advocated.
(11) As to what differentiations of words should be insisted on [e.g.
the _lore_ = _law_ cla.s.s].
(12) The necessity of observing vowel distinctions in unaccented syllables, [e.g. Every one now p.r.o.nounces the _o_ in the new word _petrol_, and yet almost every one thinks it impossible to p.r.o.nounce the _o_ in the old word _symbol_; which is absurd.]
(13) The necessity for better phonetic teaching in our schools.
(14) The quality of the new words introduced into the language; and the distinction between mere scientific labels, and those names of common new objects which must be constantly spoken.
(15) The claims of the Southern English dialect to general acceptance is questioned.
(16) The general consideration that the spread of the English language over the world must accelerate the disuse and loss of the most inconvenient h.o.m.ophones.
These matters invite expert discussion, and it is our hope that every such question will receive due treatment from some one whose knowledge qualifies him to handle it; and that when any principle or detail is definitely recognized as desirable, then the consensus of good writers and speakers will adopt it. This implies wide recognition, support, and co-operation; and though the Society has already gone far to secure this, it may yet seem that the small aristocracy of letters will be insufficient to carry through such a wide reform of habit: but it should be remembered that they are the very same persons whose example maintains the existing fashions. And, again, when it is urged against us that the democratic Press is too firmly established in its traditions to be moved by such an influence, it is overlooked that the great majority of those who write for the Press, and maintain or even create the style by which it holds the public ear, are men of good education, whose minds are thoroughly susceptible to all intellectual notions, and often highly sensitive to aesthetic excellence. They are all of them in a sense trained experts, and though working under tyrannous conditions are no less alive in pride and self respect than those who command more leisure, and they will readily and eagerly follow where their circ.u.mstances might forbid them to lead. The conviction too that they are honourably a.s.sisting in preserving the best traditions of our language will add zest to their work; while the peculiar field of it will provide a wholesome utilitarian test, which must be of good service to us by checking the affectations and pedantries into which it may be feared that such a society as the S.P.E. would conceivably lapse. Their co-operation is altogether desirable, and we believe attainable if it be not from the first a.s.sured.
R.B.