[lit-ideas] Re: Windy Whim
- From: David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:50:51 -0700
Still noting sound.
My friend P. gave me a "critical pronouncing dictionary." The
author, John Walker, was born in Colney Hatch, north London, which in
his day was not yet famous for its lunatic asylum. He was an actor
who thought that variations in pronunciation are an error, one that
can be corrected:
But still it may be objected to such an undertaking [as this
dictionary], that the fluctuation of pronunciation is so great as to
render all attempts to settle it useless. What will it avail us, it
may be said, to know the pronunciation of the present day, if, in a
few years, it will be altered? And how are we to know even what the
present pronunciation is, when the same words are often differently
pronounced by different speakers, and those, perhaps, of equal
numbers and reputation. To this it may be answered, that the
fluctuation of our language, with respect to its pronunciation, seems
to have been greatly exaggerated. Except for a very few single
words, which are generally noticed in the following Dictionary and
the word where e comes before r, followed by another consonant, as
merchant, service etc. the pronunciation of the language is probably
in the same state in which it was a century ago: and had the same
attention been then paid to it as now, it is not likely even that
change would have happened."
That there should be some agreements re. pronunciation we can
understand. That a friend of Garrick in 1791 (mine is a later
edition) should believe that clarity of enunciation is a virtue is
not strange. Slightly odd is the embrace of the idea by independent
Americans, who bought the abridged version of the dictionary done by
"a citizen of Philadelphia" for their schools' use. And how did they
read the following? "But the utility of a work of this kind is not
confined to those parts of language where the impropriety is gross
and palpable: beside such imperfections in pronunciation as disgust
every ear not accustomed to them, there are a thousand insensible
deviations, in the more minute parts of language, as the unaccented
syllables may be called, which do not strike the ear so forcibly as
to mark any direct impropriety in particular words, but occasion only
such a general imperfection as gives a bad impression upon the
whole. Speakers with these imperfections pass very well in common
conversation; but when they are required to pronounce with emphasis,
and for that purpose to be more distinct and definite in their
utterance, her their ear fails them; they have been accustomed only
to loose, cursory speaking, and, for want of firmness of
pronunciation, are like those painters who draw the muscular
exertions of the human body without any knowledge of anatomy."
Wanting to hear how it was being suggested that Americans should
sound, naturally I turned to "tomato." Not in the dictionary.
"Potato," long, open "o's," long, "slender English a" equivalent to
French "épée." "Water," "broad German a, as in French "age," "u" as
in cup and sup: waaatur. Neither wawter nor wadduh is offered as a
possible substitute. "Awe," same a as in water. No hint of "ah."
"Human," the "h" is not silent.
David Ritchie,
Portland,
Oregon------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
