subordinate (_adj._). s[e]b[o]:d[n.]it serbord'nit.

sublime. s[e]blaim serblime.

[Footnote 19: The dictionary allows mitigated variants of some of these words.]

In culling these flowers of speech I was not blind to their great picturesque merits, but they must not be taken for jokes, at least they must not be thought of as conjuring smiles on the faces of Messrs. Jones, Michaelis and Rippmann: they are deadly products of honest study and method, and serious evidence whereby any one should be convinced that such a standard of English p.r.o.nunciation is likely to create h.o.m.ophones: and yet in searching the dictionary I have not found it guilty of many new ones.[20] For examples of h.o.m.ophones due to our 'standard' speech one might take first the 20 _wh_- words (given on page 14) which have lost their aspirate, and with them the 9 _wr_- words: next the 36 words in table iv and note, which have lost their trilled _R_: and then the 41 words from table vi on page 15; and that would start us with some 100 words, the confusion of which is due to our Southern English p.r.o.nunciation, since the differentiation of all these words is still preserved in other dialects. The differentiation of these 100 words would of course liberate their twins, so the total number of gains should be doubled.

[Footnote 20: A fair list might no doubt be made; the most amusing item would be--_Ophelia_ = _aphelia_: then _illusion_ = _elusion_, _paten_ = _pattern_, _seaman_ = _seamen_, _phial_ = _file_, _custody_ = _custardy_, and of course _verdure_ = _verger_ and _fissure_ = _fisher_. It would also allow _part.i.tion_ = _pet.i.tion_, _proscribe_ = _prescribe_, and _upbraid_ = _abrade_! I take these from the first edition.]

[Sidenote: Example of one cla.s.s.]

But number is not so important as the quality and frequency of the words involved, so I will instance one cla.s.s in detail, namely the words in which _aw_ and _or_ are confused. Here are a dozen of them:

core = caw.

door = daw*.

floor = flaw*.

h.o.a.r* = haw.

lore* = law.

more = maw*.

oar, ore = awe*.

pore = paw.

roar = raw.

soar, sore = saw, saw.

tore = taw.

yore* = yaw.

Of these 12 words, 6 exhibit stages or symptoms of obsolescence. I should think it extremely unlikely that _yore_ has been in any way incommoded by _yaw_; and _flaw_, which is now more or less cornered to one of its various meanings, was probably affected more by its own ambiguities than by _floor_; but others seem to be probable examples: _shaw_ and _lore_, and I think _maw_, are truly obsoletes, while _h.o.a.r_ and _daw_ are heard only in combination. _Awe_ is heard only in _awful_, and has there lost its significance. I should guess that this accident has strengthened its severity in literature, where it a.s.serts its aloofness sometimes with a full spelling [_aweful_] as in speech two p.r.o.nunciations are recognized, _awful_ and _awf'l_.

Now how do these words appear in Jones' dictionary? If there is to be any difference between the _aw_ and _ore_ sounds either the _R_ must be trilled as it still is in the north, or some vestige of it must be indicated, and such indication would be a lengthening of the _o_ (=_aw_) sound by the vestigial voicing of the lost trill, such as is indicated in the word _o'er_, and might be roughly shown to the eye by such a spelling as _shawer_ for _sh.o.r.e_ [thus _shaw_ would be [s][o]: and _sh.o.r.e_ would be [s][o]:[e]] and such distinction is still made by our more careful Southern English speakers, and is recognized as an existent variant by Jones.

Since the circ.u.mflex accent properly indicates a rise and fall of voice-pitch on a vowel-sound such as almost makes a disyllable of a monosyllable (e.g. in Milton's verse the word _power_ may fill either one or two places in the line) I will adopt it here to denote this fuller and differentiating p.r.o.nunciation of _ore_.

Now to all these words, and to the finals of such words as _ad[ore]_, _impl[ore]_, _ign[ore]_, Jones gives the diphthongal _aw_ as the normal South English p.r.o.nunciation, and he allows the longer _[ore]_ sound only as a variant, putting this variant in the second place.

Hence, all these _[ore]_ words are being encouraged to cast off the last remnant of their differentiation, which it is admitted that they have not yet quite lost.[21]

[Footnote 21: The two editions of Jones' dictionary do not exactly correspond, e.g. in the first edition the words _boar_ and _bore_ are under _baw_, and no other p.r.o.nunciation is mentioned. But in the second edition _b[ore]_ and _b[oar]_ are allowed as variants. In the first edition _four_, _fore_ and _for_ are all under _faw_ [f[e]:], and I find _pour_, _pore_, and _poor_ all under _paw_, though in every case there are variants, and on p. 404 he records that _sh.o.r.e_ and _sure_ may be p.r.o.nounced alike. Again, in the first edition, _yerr_ [j[e]:] is one normal for _year_ and also dialectal for _ear_ (!), while in the second edition only _y[ear]_ [ji:] is given for _year_, and _yerr_ is not mentioned at all. As I am sure that this sort of stuff must be almost more tedious and annoying to read than it is to write, I desist from further details, but cannot resist the opportunity of pointing out that in their English p.r.o.nunciation of Latin our cla.s.sical teachers and professors have wantonly introduced this mischievous h.o.m.ophony of _au_ and _or_ into Latin, although the proper p.r.o.nunciation of the 'diphthong' _au_ in Latin is not like our _awe_, but like the _ou_ of _out_. Thus with them _corda_ and _cauda_ are similar sounds, and the sacred _Sursum corda_ means 'c.o.c.k your tail' just as much as it means 'Lift up your hearts'.]

6. _THAT THE MISCHIEF IS BEING PROPAGATED BY PHONETICIANS._

[Sidenote: The use of phonetics in education.]

The phoneticians are doing useful work in supplying an educational need. By the phonetic system any spoken language can now be learned quickly and easily, just as by the _sol-fa_ system the teaching of music was made easy and simple. If a clergyman who had no practical knowledge of music were offered the post of minor canon in a cathedral, he would find it very difficult to qualify himself pa.s.sably, whereas any village schoolboy could learn all the music necessary for such an office, and learn that solidly too and soundly and durably, in a few lessons, truly in a few hours, by the _sol-fa_ method. The principle is the same in music and in speech, namely to have a distinct symbol for every separate sound; in music it is a name, the idea of which quickly becomes indissociable from the note of the scale which it indicates; in phonetics it is a written letter, which differs from the units of our literary alphabet only in this, that it has but one meaning and interpretation, and really is what all letters were originally intended to be. When you see it you know what it means.

[Sidenote: Its general adoption certain.]

The principle is but common sense, and practice confirms its validity.

I am persuaded that as soon as compet.i.tion has exposed the advantages which it ensures, not only in the saving of time, but in the rescuing of English children from the blighting fog through which their tender minds are now forced to struggle on the first threshold of life,[22]

then all spoken languages will be taught on that method. What now chiefly hinders its immediate introduction is not so much the real difficulty of providing a good simple system, as the false fear that all our literature may take on the phonetic dress; and this imagination is frightful enough to be a bugbear to reasonable people, although, so far as one can see, there is no more danger of this result than there is of all music appearing in sol-fa notation.

[Footnote 22: This is no exaggeration. Let a humane teacher think what an infant's mind is, the delicate bud of intelligence opening on the world, eager to adjust its awakening wonder to the realities of life, absolutely simple, truthful, and receptive, reaching out its tender faculties like the sensitive antennae of a new-born insect, that feel forth upon the unknown with the faultless instinct of eternal mind--one has only to imagine that condition to realize that the most ingenious malignity could hardly contrive anything to offer it so perplexing, cramping, and discouraging as the unintelligible and unreasonable absurdities of English literary spelling. That it somehow generally wrestles through is only a demonstration of the wrong that is done to it; and I would say, better leave it alone to find its own way, better teach it nothing at all, than worry it with the incomprehensible, indefensible confusion of such nonsense.]

[Sidenote: Demand of the market.]

Now here is a promising field for adventure. Not only is the creation of a new fount of type an elaborate and expensive process, but the elaboration of a good system and its public recognition when produced involve much time; so that any industrial company that is early in the market with a complete apparatus and a sufficient reputation will carry all before it, and be in a position to command and secure great monetary profit.

There is no doubt that the field is now strongly held by the Anglo-Prussian society which Mr. Jones represents.[23]

[Footnote 23: The peril that we are in of having Mr. Jones' degraded p.r.o.nunciation thus sprung upon us in England and taught in all our schools is really threatening. Indeed, as things are, there is little prospect of escaping from it, supposing the democracy should once awake to the commercial and spiritual advantages of teaching language phonetically: and that would seem to be only a question of time: the demand may come at any moment, and a complete machinery which has been skilfully prepared to meet the demand will offer practical conveniences to outbalance every other consideration.

Even supposing the authorities in the Education Department sufficiently alive to the situation which it is the purpose of this section of my essay to bring to the fore, yet even then, were they all unanimous, they could not give effect to their convictions, because--

They are forbidden to recommend or give preference to any particular book. They may not order or prohibit the use of any book, however good or bad they may know it to be, and they probably desire to avoid the suspicion of favouring the authors of books that have the advantage of national circulation.

However that may be, it is a lamentable situation that our high-salaried Board of Education, composed of the best trained intelligence of the country, should not be allowed to exercise its discretion efficiently. The people, no doubt, cannot be agreed as to the principles on which they desire to be educated, whether political, official, or religious, and they deprecate official control in such matters. Every one objecting to some principle, they consent in requiring that the central authority should have no principle at all; but this lack of principle should not be extended to paralyse action in questions that demand expert knowledge and judgement, such as this question of phonetic teaching--and it shows that the public by grudging authority to their own officers may only fall under a worse tyranny, which they will suffer just because it has no authority.]

In the preceding section Mr. Jones' dictionary was taken as authority for the actual condition of Southern English p.r.o.nunciation. It must now be considered in its other aspect, namely as the authoritative phonetic interpretation of our speech; my contention being that it is a wrong and mischievous interpretation.

It is difficult to keep these two questions quite apart. The first, which was dealt with in Section 5, was that Southern English is actively productive of h.o.m.ophones. This present Section 6 is contending that the mischief is being encouraged and propagated by the phoneticians, and Mr. Jones' books are taken as an example of their method.

[Sidenote: Fault of Mr. Jones' method.]

The reason why the work of these phoneticians is so mischievous is that they have chosen too low a standard of p.r.o.nunciation.

The defence that they would make would be something like this.

They might argue with some confidence, and not without a good show of reason, that the actual 'vernacular' talk of the people is the living language of any country: they would allege that a spoken language is always changing, and always will change; that the actual condition of it is the only scientific, and indeed the only possible basis for any system of tuition; and that it is better to be rather in advance of change than behind it, since the changes proceed inevitably by laws which education has no power to resist, nay, so inevitably that science can in some measure foresee the future.

This would, I suppose, fairly represent Mr. Jones' contention. Indeed, he plainly a.s.serts that his work is merely a record of existing facts, and he even says that he chose Southern English because it is most familiar and observable, and therefore capable of providing him with sufficient phenomena: and he might say that what I call 'low' in his standard is only the record of a stage of progression which I happen to dislike or have not nearly observed. And yet the argument is full of fallacies: and the very position that he a.s.sumes appears to me to be unsound. It is well enough to record a dialect, nor will any one grudge him credit for his observation and diligence, but to reduce a dialect to theoretic laws and then impose those laws upon the speakers of it is surely a monstrous step. And in this particular instance the matter is complicated by the fact that Southern English is not truly a natural dialect; Mr. Jones himself denotes it as P.S.P.=Public School p.r.o.nunciation, and that we know to be very largely a social convention dependent on fashion and education, and inasmuch as it is a product of fashion and education it is not bound by the theoretical laws which Mr. Jones would attribute to it; while for the same reason it is unfortunately susceptible of being affected by them, if they should be taught with authority. These phoneticians would abuse a false position which they have unwarrantably created. This Southern English, this P.S.P., is a 'fashionable' speech, fashionable that is in two senses; and Mr. Jones would fashion it.

[Sidenote: judged by practical effects.]

But I wish to put my case practically, and, rather than argue, I would ask what are the results of learning English on Mr. Jones' system?

What would be the condition of a man who had learnt in this way?

[Sidenote: His three styles.]

I shall a.s.sume that the pupil has learnt his p.r.o.nunciation from the dictionary, the nature of which is now known to my readers: but they should also know that Mr. Jones recognizes and teaches three different styles, which he calls the A, B, and C styles, 'A, the p.r.o.nunciation suitable for recitation or reading in public; B, the p.r.o.nunciation used in careful conversation, or reading aloud in private; and C, the p.r.o.nunciation used in rapid conversation.'

In a polemic against Mr. Jones his adversary has therefore to combat a dragon with three heads, and the heroic method would be to strike all three of them off at one blow. To effect this it seems to me that one has only to remark that a system which is forced to teach a dialect [a dialect, observe, not a language] in three forms where one is sufficient, is _ipso facto_ condemned. This objection I will establish presently; at present I am content to confine my attention to one head, for I maintain that in practice those who will take the trouble to learn three forms of one speech must be a negligible number; the practical pupils will generally be content to master one, and that will, no doubt, be the highly recommended style B, and its corresponding dictionary; they will rule out A and C as works of supererogation; and indeed those would be needless if B were satisfactory.

[Sidenote: In deliberate repit.i.tions.]

So, then, we are asking what is the condition of a man who has learned the dictionary standard?

(1) In common talk if we speak so indistinctly as not to be understood, we repeat our sentence with a more careful articulation.

As Sweet used to say, the only security against the decay of language through careless articulation into absolute unintelligibility is the personal inconvenience of having to repeat your words when you are indistinctly heard. 'What' leaps out from the dictionary with a shout to the rescue of all his fellows. And when you have experienced this warcry 'what? what?' oftener than you like, you will raise the standard of your p.r.o.nunciation (just as you would raise your voice to a deaf listener) merely to save yourself trouble, even though you were insensible to the shame of the affront.

[Sidenote: In a.s.severation.]