considers them as short, the consonant being the accented letter in each of them, as marked above.

Mr Sheridan finds great fault with the compilers of dictionaries, vocabularies, and spelling-books, for always placing the accentual mark over a vowel; "By which," he says, "they must mislead provincials and foreigners in the pronunciation of perhaps one half of the words in our language." "The Scots," he says, "never lay the accent upon sonant in any word in the whole language." I, on the contrary, have heard them pronounce Race, read, road, rude, with the accent on the consonant instead of the vowel.

the con

Taking Dr Johnson's definition of quantity, that it is "the measure of time in pronouncing a syllable," and reckoning that measure as two to one, when applied to long and short syllables, agreeably to Lord Kames' and Sheridan's ideas, we shall find, that in pronouncing the words Baby, poetry, society, notoriety, there is, in each of these words, one syllable, and only one, that requires to be prolonged to double the time of any of the rest. It may, however, be proper to observe, that though the third syllable is the only long syllable in the word notoriety, the first and last having secondary accents, prosodians, in scanning verse, would consider these syllables as long; but unaccented syllables are never so considered by them.

OF SYLLABICATON.

"The best and easiest rule for dividing words into syllables in spelling, is to divide them as they are naturally divided in a right pronunciation.”—Dr LOWTH.

"The syllables of the words are divided according to the mode of pronouncing them, which certainly is the natural division, though it be contrary to the fantastic mode followed in our spelling-books and grammars.”—SHERIDAN.

"Till Dr Kenrick's Rhetorical Dictionary appeared, we have scarcely seen any thing like an attempt to divide words as they are pronounced; but the Latin and Greek syllabication implicitly adopted, to the evident disadvantage of children, and embarrassment of foreigners. Sound alone should be the criterion of syllabication, and we ought to reduce a compound word to its simple impulses of the voice, as we would a bar of music to its simple notes." "A person who is preacquainted with the whole compound sound of a word, and wants to convey the sound of each part to one unacquainted with it, must adopt the analytic method, by dividing it into such partial sounds as, when put together again, will exactly form the whole; as, Or-thog-ra-phy, the-ol-ogy."-WALKER.

After such respectable authority in favour of a natural division of words into syllables, joined to the almost universal adoption of it by the compilers of dictionaries, vocabularies, and spelling-books, I was much surprised to find Mr Lindley Murray, who has displayed so much ability and accuracy with respect to other grammatical knowledge, endeavouring to support the old exploded system by arguments which his own principles will not support. He says, "the words Business, colonel, victuals, &c. are pronounced as two syllables, though they are really three;" and he divides them thus, Bu'-si-ness, co

lo-nel, vic-tu-als. "A syllable," says he, "is so much of a word as can be pronounced at once.” Sheridan and Walker have shown, that each of these words can be pronounced at twice. Therefore, agreeably to his own definition, they really are words of two syllables.

Mr Murray thinks of puzzling "the advocates for dividing according to the pronunciation," by asking, "How they would divide the words Business, colonel, victuals?" It does not require the abilities of a Lowth, a Sheridan, or a Walker, to answer this question. If the object of division be, to take in part of a word at the end of a line when there is not room for the whole, I would divide them thus,-Busi-ness, colo-nel, vict-uals, without finding fault with any person who chose to divide them differently. But if the object be, as Walker expresses it, "to convey the sound of each part to one unacquainted with it," there is no mode of dividing these words which can effect this; it must be done by varying the orthography thus,-Biz'ness, cur'nel, vit/lz, as Sheridan and Walker have done. In support of his mode of division, he says, "The best authorities, as well as a great majority of them, may be adduced." Where are they to be found? I do not know any respectable author but himself, who has written on the subject these last forty years, that approves of such a mode of division.

OF SPELLING WORDS AS THEY ARE PRONOUNCED.

If the difficulty of attaining a just pronunciation of the English language be owing to its numerous anomalies, as it is alleged, the spelling of its words as they are pronounced must, in a system of Or

thoepy, as Mr Walker remarks, be "highly rational and useful." But on examination it will be found, that orthoepists have made these anomalies appear more numerous than they are, by often departing unnecessarily from the common orthography.-Walker, remarking "the transient indistinct pronunciation of some of the vowels," says, "If the accent be kept strongly on the first syllable of the word tolerable, as it always ought to be, we find scarcely any distinguishable difference to the ear, if we substitute u or o, instead of a, in the penultimate syllable. Thus tolerable, toleroble, toleruble, are exactly the same word to the ear, if pronounced without premeditation, or transposing the accent for the real purpose of distinction." If this remark be just when applied to a vowel occurring in a syllable having the secondary accent, it must be more so when applied to vowels which occur in syllables entirely devoid of accent. For example, in the word vocal, Walker retains the a, while Sheridan unnecessarily changes it to e, and Jones to u. Both Sheridan and Walker have as unnecessarily changed the a in image, damage, &c., into i; for, "if the accent be kept strongly on the first syllable," and the syllable age pronounced with the short name-sound of a, as marked by W. Johnston and Perry, the ear will perceive no difference by a change of the vowel a into i. The same remark will apply to the word nature; which, if pronounced with the short name-sound of u, will come so near to Walker's pronunciation, (which he himself acknowledges,)" as scarcely to be distinguishable from it ;" and this articulation requires no guard against that coarse pronunciation, which, he admits,

In

the sibilation and aspiration of the t is liable to. his Principles of English Pronunciation (294), he says, he cannot conceive why, Sheridan "should spell melodious, me-lo-dzhus, and commodious, commo-dyus, as there can be no possible difference in the sound of these terminations. If the y is distinctly pronounced, it sufficiently expresses the aspiration of the d, and is the preferable mode of delineating the sound." Why has he not adopted this preferable mode in his Dictionary? That this mode is more analogical than the one he has adopted is evident. May not yus convey as accurately the sound of the termination ious in the words odious, tedious, as in the words bilious, minious? That of allowing d to run into j, and t into tsh, is a coarseness introduced by Sheridan, and too readily adopted by Walker, although he says, (Principles, 293), "It is not however pretended, that this is the politest pronunciation."

To be able to spell words perfectly as they are pronounced, would require the formation of such an alphabet as, Dr Johnson says, "would be formed by a synod of grammarians upon the principles of science; that every sound may have its own character, and every character a single sound." And even such an alphabet would require marks to indicate long and short quantity. Which of the schemes of notation that have been exhibited approaches nearest to that perfect alphabet must be left to the decision of those grammarians who are best qualified to make the investigation" upon the principles of science."

To convey to foreigners and children the proper pronunciation of words, the greatest attention must be paid to syllabication. There is a principle in