Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1878-05-11
LATIN PRONUNCIATION ONCE MORE

dollar per year
LATIN PRONUNCIATION ONCE MORE.
(Continued from last sSeeh.l
6. Upon he au thorl1y OF professor
Whitney, Prof. f. says that nve-
seventies of the words ofour language
are of classical origin, while ohis
t~wo-sevcuths have a German parsh-
tage. This is au astounding, indeed
an incred Bile statement. iienr,
Rogers, quoted by Worcester. thinks
the proportion of Anglo Sake"
words dve-cighthS; Duponc'ah three
fourth. ar four fitt!,s. Prof. j. >.
Hart r~ccsous the saxon AT SIN
,epths. Trench considers sixty per
cent. Saxon; thirty, Latin; I'VE
Greek: residue scattered. These are
estimates considering all the words
of The language. Thking only those
i'll ordinary u.s. the pf"p"r'i"h
of Saxon is greater. Prot. Marsh
tell, us tina; siX-Ieulls of the words
of the Bible. common version, are
Saxon. Ia Shakespeare the prop"f-
ton is the same. Treuch show, tIit
~fyYsixths Of the words of Ihs LORD :
prayer are Saxon. and e.tiinate>
thai four-fifihS of the words c"m'
monty. used are such. Proi. 1iar'
atr.m- that a much larger proper
tlousi number of Saxon words occur
in an ordinary English book than II
q dictionary. Worcester makes 81
estimate from au examination o
sixteen different authors, and mud
the Saxon words about four-hith-
We have not Prof. Whi,ney's WORK
but feel confident that there must To-
some mistake-that he could not nav
made the statement attributed Il
him.
Prof. F. upon this makea an argu
ment, that, as u language IS 10
.stbe greater part from the Latin,
il would seriously interfere with III
study of English etymology to CIV
the Roman pronunciation TO III
Latin. The broad basis for thl'
argument is cut down to less tina
one-half. Not one-fourth OF II
words in common use are OF Laii
origin. But there is force IN Tn
argument. If We study the p
mainly for its relations to the EngiieI
it would be somewhat of a drawba'
to give it the old pronunciation.
the principle is good, let Us extend
10 the Greek which furnishes i've y
cent. of our words aud nine-'ent
OF scientific terms. Does Pro
f. pronounce Greek also as though
were English? For example, do
he say, x~et-a-le, Greek for hea
because our word a~cephalouS l
uuires it But do we stu
Latin chiefly for its connection vi
English etymology? lsnot the ma
design to improve the mental powe'
Moreover we do not sacrifice ciym
ogy entirely by the Roman pro'U
citation. This addresses the
simply. The eye is still free 10
the relations in form between
English derivative aid it's La
primitive. Shall We knowingly p
nounce the Latin wrong for suct
reason a. this? Many Of the wo
we get from the Latin come throt
the French, shall we teach our C
1r,u tn ,~,rnunuura the French
though it: were English
just here Prot. +. calls to his
Prof. Krmp"r, OF BoonviIlc, eta
e. renerabue omea What does
great teacher Say ? Does he adopt
English and reject the Roman!
at all. For the sake OF the Eng
couuec i ,n> of the Latin, frof.
druls his pupils i'll the En9ilsh
uu~rciari,u. ..Ou the other liza
say. he "the Roman method, II
from its value a. reproducing Clc'
sound nd the German schC
have proved this.) and q
a kew to the vowel col
OF European aud Oriental IL
ing, is of great Importance
tn. derivation of word, an! III
p,ra,ivc Philology." We thank
Prof. F, for bringing this o
petent witness before tn" Mis-
hubble in connection with this
troyersy. Ii he has cOmfOrted
we must say that you were tina
~ Il oo,-G thk
Roman method reproduces VI
souuds and tina the Grrman sci
have proved il. Your inter.
iu,errogative shows how you W
uuder this statement. Prof. kt
teaches the English for culture
the Roman for culture and II
atty.
z. For the sake Of Greek and
proper names we should not Ill
Roman pronunciation, says Pr
There are fourteen thousand
names in our larger dictionari
informs us. Yes, there are, bu
MANY of them do intelligent
use in a lifetime? When
reading Latin we must say SCI
not Klzar, for it will not do
the great Roman general b
names, thinks Prof. F. If |
teaching q class to read Frel
would bid them call Paris as
in English and not Par-ee as
habitants do. If he were read
prophet jeremiah in HEIR
would call the prophet, II
meysh, as it is in Hebrew, Blu
miah as it is i'll English. LII
reading the Greek, in the six'
ter of the Acts, he would
Stephanos, but Stephen: no
naioi, but Cyrenians; not
but Cilicia, as though thu
Euglisi. No, Prof. F. woni'
any of these foolish thin
woull pronounce these prop
according to the orlhogral
erthoepy of tle language '
was reading, aud when he II