Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1839-03-29

ingredient is ingrejent, &c. This, in a pas
sage read or spoken with solennily, wouiu DC
/ intoierdbie. In like manner, the syllable ~,
perpelually occurring in our language, as IN
the words congratuIstiun, 1atuent, natural
&C., will, even when most carefully spoken,
receive sufficient degree OF the asplrate, WIN
out the speakers following Walkers direction
to pronounce them congratshulashun, haisbu-
lent, natshura, &c.
| Knowles, still later writer, denounces
| Walkers pronunciation in some classes oil
words, as absolute vuigdrity or peddnfry.
| 6. The pronunciation Of 20 and eio alter 2, as
90, in rule, rude, (rool rood) brew, crew, (broo
croo,) is all wrong and not the common nor
best usage in England. 1t is rather dandy
ism, than the polite usage.
7. The writing Of bangle, blangk, 6ringk 10
express the pronunciation OF bank, 0fGnh,
brink, as in Emerson, Sanders, and COBB, is
most egregious error. Walkers ear must nave
been extremely inaccurate thus TO mislead him.
In Leonard's Spelling Book there are two or
three errors which ought not to pass unnotic-
ed. One is the distinction he makes between
the sound Of a in fate pain, player, and 10
fare, pear, beur, prayer. Other writers nave
made similar mistake.
Now the real fact is, that a long before =, is
followed by slight sound Of e. The voice
begins with the sound of in fate, but II is
impossible TO pass from that sound to the letter
r, without uttering rapid or feeble SOUND Of e.
But this is not peculiar 10 the enumeration OF
longs it is the fact also with the other long
vowes. Afire more, lore, poor, nlare, are
pronounced mier, nioer, ioer, po0er, n1ue', and
cannot be pronounced in different manner
But this enuncation Icing necessary, and
unavoidable there is no necessity oil desgnal-
ing any popularity Of sound
The same remarks are applicable TO the
sound of a in bar, far and in fast, 6rdhch.-
The slight difference of sound, II any can be
perceived, Is wholly owing to the consouant
that follows the vowel. The same is the case
with in lot, and lost.
Another fault in Leonard's book, adopted
probably from Worcester's Dictionary rs the
marking of Obscure sounds ofthe vowels. This
is Objectionable for two reasons first because
such sounds are So indetermnate that IL is iui-
possible to ascertain and distinguish them
and secondly, because no such marks can be
of any use indeed il any regard is had to
them, they only perpex the learner. There is
no one thing in Worcesters Dictionary 50 OBJ
iectionable as this notation OF obscure sounds,
except perhaps his giving different modes OF
pronouncing more than thousand irortis, and
thus contributing 10 keep the language unset
tied.
10 conclusion, would remark that the Eng
llsh oriheoplsts diiier IN a thousand WORDS anu
leave US in worse situation than we were be-
fore they published their books, We want
none of their peculiar notions. The actual
RECOMMENDATIONS OF educated people in this coun-
try differs little from that OF educated people
in England less, much less than the nota-
tons Of the orlhoepists differ from each other.
GARRIcK.
p. s. The errors of Walker are, to grea-
ter or less extent, TO be found in the Spelling
Books of Marshall, Bolles, Cobb, Pickei, Bent
ley, Sears, Crandal, Cummings, &c. But ia
many parts Of this country, Walkers Dictlon-
airy is no longer in use. II was ushered into
this country, as standard OF pronunciation,
but we see by English authorities, that it has
never been so considered in England. II is |
proper that the American public should be dis
abused of their mistake on this subject. In
England, am informed the higher classes of
society never learn their pronunciation from
books they are governed only by usdgej and
in this country, usage, unless il has been per-
vered by Walkers book, is our best standard.
Perfect uniformity is not to be expected.