incorrect" of all English orthoepists would be tolerated for such a length of time as Walker has been. In weighing the merits of the different orthoepists, who are held up as authorities, it is essentially necessary to know of what part of Great Britain they were natives, or where they were brought up. For our part, we feel no great deference for any Scottish authority, as to the pronunciation of English; unless in the case of a Scot, who has been brought up and educated in England, so as to have become in fact an Englishman, as far as respects his organs of speech. We have already had in this country great numbers of Scottish and Irish teachers; and they, together with Scottish Dictionaries and Spelling Books, have had no inconsiderable influence in the Middle States, upon our pronunciation and language; particularly in the misuse of those little puzzling words shall. and will, and should and would, which are continually misapplied in the Middle States, even by some well educated persons. We have an unfeigned respect for Scottish learning and science, and for the estimable men of that nation who have taken up their abode with us; but although that intelligent and yankee-like people, can (as an English Reviewer has observed,) master all human science, they cannot master the familiar distinction between shall and will, and should and would. In that high Scottish authority, the Edinburgh Review, we find perpetual violations of our English idiom in the use of these words; and even the professed rhetoricians of that nation, Dr. Blair, and Dr. Campbell, have committed the same error. We cannot, therefore, safely follow their dictionary-makers and spelling bookmakers, as guides in ascertaining the delicacies and proprieties. of the English language. On this account, we have much less confidence in such writers as Scott, and Fulton, and Knight, with numerous others, than we have in John Walker alone. From what part of the island Mr. Jones comes, (his name is Welsh,) we know not; and not knowing this fact, nor his previous studies, we cannot place so much reliance as we otherwise might, upon his statements, where he differs from Mr. Walker. But it is the less necessary to scrutinize, very minutely, the weight of authority due to these several individuals, because, as we are informed by Mr. Worcester, they all acknowledge themselves to be much indebted to Walker, and speak of him in high terms; and, what is of more consequence in the present question, that they agree with Walker as to "the great mass of the words" in the language. In this, we may add, Mr. Worcester is also corroborated by American gentlemen who have travelled in England, and who (with rare exceptions,) inform us, that as to the great body of the words contained in Walker's Dictionary, there can be no doubt that all concur in giving them the same pronunciation that he does.

We know not how to account for the difference of opinion upon this point, except upon the supposition of a difference of ear; for we do not suppose that Mr. Webster, or those who agree with him, intend to misstate the fact. We do not personally know, what we ought, in order to judge upon this point, how good an ear he has; if good originally, it must at his present advanced age be less susceptible and less sure than in earlier life. But to the objections made against Walker, Mr. Worcester has given a full and satisfactory answer in his valuable Preface. He introduces his comparison of Walker and the other orthoepists, with a remark, which has already occurred in this article, but is too important to be lost sight of; that when Walker and other orthoepists exhibit their notation of sounds, they intend to give the reader that exact and finished pronunciation which would be used in public speaking, and not the more lax and careless utterance which is often heard in common conversation. Mr. Worcester then proceeds to observe, on some particular objections. He says

"Walker has been thought to be too sparing in the use of his second or Italian sound of a as heard in father. In the following words and their compounds, he pronounces a with its fourth sound, as in fat; but Nares and Jones give it the sound of a in father." (Mr. W. here gives a list of words, advance, advan tage, after, &c. being eighty-one in all.) "With regard to most of the words in the preceding list, Perry agrees in his pronunciation with Nares and Jones. Fulton and Knight also agree with them as it respects a considerable part; but with regard to a portion of these words, they adopt an intermediate sound of a, not so short as a in fat, nor so broad as a in father." To these remarks of Mr. Worcester, we would add one other-that although Jones differs from Walker as to some of the words in this list, yet it is evident from his own remarks, that the modern usage is beginning to incline against him, if not positively settled. His words are "I must venture to express my humble opinion, that giving to these and similar words the flat, dead sound of a in lack, latch, pan, &c., is encouraging a mincing modern affectation, and departing from the genuine euphonical pronunciation of our language." And Walker states, (Principles No. 79, note,) that Mr. Smith, a distinguished orthoepist, who does not approve of this pronunciation of the vowel a, candidly admits it to be "the general pronunciation of the polite and learned world."

Mr. Worcester further remarks-that "Walker has been censured for not making a distinction, in his notation, between the sound of a in bare, fure, hair, pair, &c., and in fate, pale, name, &c. This, however, is not a defect peculiar to Walker, but is common to him with other orthoepists. No distinction is

made in the sound of a in these words by Kenrick, Sheridan, Nares, Jones, or Fulton and Knight; and our countryman, Mr. Webster, in his Spelling Book, places them all under the first or long sound of a.

We shall detain the reader by a few additional remarks only, upon these matters of detail. Mr. Worcester observes-that "the manner in which the sounds of the vowels are affected by being followed by the letter r in words of one syllable, or in words of more than one syllable, when the following syllable begins with any other consonant than r, has not always been sufficiently attended to. Sheridan has not introduced in any instance, what Walker designates as the second sound of a, as in far and father, but marks a in far, par, cart, part,&c., with the same sound as in hat, carry, parry, &c.; nor does Perry introduce what Walker marks as the third sound of o in nor; but he marks o in border and sordid with the same short sound as in borrow and sorrow; and both he and Sheridan mark o in for and nor with the short sound, as in lot." Mr. Worcester adds, as a remark of his own, and we believe it is so, that there is an obvious difference in the sound of u as heard in cur, curb, fur, hurdle, &c., from its proper short sound in burrow, curry, furrow, duck, &c.; but we do not know that this difference has been noticed by any orthoepist."

The orthoepists have all adopted systems of notation, which, like the alphabet itself, are in some degree incomplete. The distinction to which the editor here alludes, in the sounds of the vowels, will, perhaps, upon a closer examination, be found in most, if not all instances, to be rather a difference in the quantity or length, than in the quality or character of the vowelsound. The vowel is, in fact, so much more lengthened when followed by r, than it is by the other letters, that even monosyllables, with that consonant, produce much the same effect upon the ear, as words which are acknowledged to be dissyllables. The following examples will abundantly show this:lair, layer; mare, mayor; dire, dyer; hire, higher; sore, sower; your or ure, ewer; lyre, liar, etc. In consequence of this tendency of the letter r to lengthen the vowel preceding it, and thus to produce the effect of a dissyllable, the noun fire, which we always treat as a monosyllable, and which ought to have its adjective a dis-syllable, does in fact make its adjective a trisyllable, fi-e-ry, instead of firey, as analogy would require, and as we recollect to have seen it printed in some English work of the last century. If, then, upon a more exact analysis, it should be found, that this modified sound of the vowels before r, in certain combinations, is only a difference in the quantity, it will deserve consideration, how far any practical system of notation should exhibit the difference in quantity as well as in the quality or character of the sounds.

In the grisly group of objectionable sounds, as some of our orthoepists seem to consider them, stands conspicuous that of the vowel u, in nature, fortune, &c. The general pronunciation of this class of words in England, as laid down by Walker, is, natshure, for-tshune, &c., which, as our orthoepists remark, is certainly different from that which had long prevailed among us, at least in the Northern States; for there it used to be universally, and is now so among among the uninstructed, natur, fortun, or fort'n, &c. ; a mode of pronouncing, which is considered in England as vulgar, and to be avoided. Yet we find, that this pronunciation, novel as it is imagined to be by some of our writers, is laid down as correct, both by Scottish and English orthoepists. Here, then, we have the simple fact, that such' is the pronunciation in Great Britain; the only remaining inquiry therefore is, whether we shall adopt it or not. Some British orthoepists, it is true, have attempted to make a slight change in the mode of denoting this sound of u, and accordingly express the last syllables of the words in question, by tyure. But this distinction is rather to the eye, than to the ear; for unless we should be extremely precise in uttering these words, the organs of speech naturally slide into a sound, which, for all practical purposes, is better expressed by tshure, than by tyure. Of this any one may convince himself, by taking two distinct words, where the combination of sounds is exactly the same as in these examples, but where the ear is not misled by the eye; as in the colloquial expressions, can't you, won't you, which fall upon the ear like can't tshoo, won't tshoo. It is true, that we can, by an effort, contrary to ordinary practice, sound them can't tyoo, won't tyoo, &c. ; but the impression made in the ordinary utterance of them, is what we have stated.

One or two remarks of a more general nature shall close this article, already extended to a length which nothing would perhaps have excused, with many of our readers, but an earnest wish, if possible, to put an end to the continual disputes between English and American orthoepists, upon points on which they do not differ very widely, if they would candidly endeavour to understand each other.

Among other things, it has always appeared extraordinary to us, that any man should contend, that the pronunciation of Old and New England was the same; for, without going into parti-. culars, we all know, that even the illiterate in our country will distinguish an Englishman by his pronunciation, and will designate him as an "old countryman," as we have often heard them do. Again; it is often asserted, that the uniform pronunciation throughout New-England, is the true English pronunciation, handWe believe ed down from past ages. But this we much doubt. it has been brought about, if not entirely, yet principally, by

means of the Scotch dictionary of Perry; which, as Mr. Worcester justly observes, "has heretofore had a very extensive circulation in this country, and has been of great influence in fixing the prevailing pronunciation, especially in the Northern States." We may add, that its influence has been extended to the Middle and Southern States, by our native instructers, who, in times past, have mostly come from the North. We believe, too, it will be found, that where we differ from the English, particularly in some of the vowels, it will be found that we agree with the Scotch.

It is also a very common error to suppose, that Sheridan and Walker introduced a pronunciation that was entirely new. In the first place, it would appear very absurd for a dictionary-maker to publish a work, either with entirely new meanings, or a new system of pronunciation; he would be sure of not finding a very ready market for it. But further; it is the opinion of English scholars, that their pronunciation has remained without any material change for the last century, at least; and the facts stated by Walker, from Steele and Ben Johnson, (see Walker's principles, No. 92) seem to indicate, that even some of the supposed innovations may be traced back to an early date. Walker himself, in his preface, gives it as the result of his inquiries-that "except a very few single words, which are generally noticed in the following dictionary, and the words where e comes before r followed by another consonant, as merchant, service, &c. the pronunciation of the language is probably in the same state in which it was a century ago.

A principal cause of the irregularities in our pronunciation is, the irregularity of our orthography, or the ever-varying powers of our letters, particularly the vowels. Swift complained of this embarrassment a century ago, in his letter to the Earl of Oxford, (before cited) as one of the things, which "had contributed not a little to the maiming of our language." But his sound judgment would give no countenance to the projectors of that age, who would have spelled the words "exactly as we speak;" which he denounces as "a foolish opinion ;" and which, he adds, "beside the obvious inconvenience of utterly destroying our etymology, would be a thing we should never see an end of. Not only the several towns and counties of England have a different way of pronouncing, but even here in London, they clip their words after one manner about the court, another in the city, and a third in the suburbs; and in a few years, it is probable, will all differ from themselves, as fancy or fashion shall direct; all which reduced to writing would entirely confound orthography." Johnson very justly remarks, that "anomalous formations" will be found in every language; and that Milton, "in his zeal for analogy," wrote highth instead of height.