writers of English Grammar have given long tables of words pronounced otherwise than they are written; and seem not sufficiently to have considered, that, of English as of all living tongues, there is a double pronunciation one, cursory and colloquial; the other, regular and solemn "The cursory pronunciation is always vague and uncertain, being made different in different mouths, by negligence, unskilfulness, or affectation. The solemn pronunciation, though by no "means immutable and permanent, is yet always less remote from the orthography, and less liable “to capricious innovation. They have, however, generally formed their tables according to the cursory speech of those with whom they happened to converse, and, concluding that the whole "nation combines to vitiate language in one manner, have often established the jargon of the low"est of the people as the model of speech. For pronunciation, the best general rule is, to consider "those as the most elegant speakers, who deviate least from the written words." Without any derogation from the character of Dr. Johnson, it may be asserted, that in these obGervations we do not perceive that justness and accuracy of thinking for which he is so remarkable. It would be doing great injustice to him, to suppose that he meant to exclude all possibility of conveying the actual pronunciation of many words that depart manifestly from their orthography, or of those that are written alike, and pronounced differently, and inversely. He has marked these differences with great propriety himself, in many places of his Dictionary; and it is to be regretted that he did not extend these remarks farther. It is impossible, therefore, he could suppose, that because the almost imperceptible glances of colloquial pronunciation were not to be caught and described by the pen, that the very perceptible difference between the initial accented syllables of money and monitor, or the final unaccented syllables of finite and infinite, could not be sufficiently marked upon paper. Cannot we show that cellar, a vault, and seller one who sells, have exactly the same sound? or that the monosyllable full, and the first syllable of fulminate, are sounded differently, because there are some words in which solemnity will authorize a different shade of pronunciation from familiarity? Besides, that colloquial pronunciation which is perfect, is so much the language of solemn speaking, that, perhaps, there is no more difference than between the same picture painted to be viewed near and at a distance. The symmetry in both is exactly the same; and the distinction lies only in the colouring. The English Language, in this respect, seems to have a great superiority over the French, which pronounces many letters in the poetic and solemn style, that are wholly silent in the prosaic and familiar. But if a solemn and familiar pronunciation really exists in our language, is it not the business of a grammarian to mark both? And if he cannot point out the precise sound of unaccented syllables, (for these only are liable to obscurity,) he may, at least, give those sounds which approach the nearest, and by this means become a little more useful than those who sa liberally leave every thing to the ear and taste of the speaker. The truth is, Dr. Jolinson seems to have had a confused idea of the distinctness and indistinctness with which, on solemn or familiar occasions, we sometimes pronounce the unaccented vowels; and with respect to these, it must be owned, that his remarks are not entirely without foundation. The English Language, with respect to its pronunciation, is evidently divisible into accented and unaccented sounds. The accented syllables, by being pronounced with greater force than the unaccented, have their vowels as clearly and distinctly sounded as any given note in musick; while the unaccented vowels, for want of the stress, are apt to slide into an obscurity of soun 1, which, though sufficiently distinguishable to the ear, cannot be so definitely marked out to the eye by other. sounds as those vowels that are under the accent. Thus some of the vowels, when neither under the accent, nor closed by a consonant, have a longer or a shorter, an opener or a closer sound, according to the solemnity or familiarity, the deliberation or rapidity of our delivery. This will be perceived in the sound of the e in emotion,* of the o in obedience, and of the u in monument. In che hasty pronunciation of common speaking, the e in emotion is often shortened, as if spelt im-moth; the o in obedience shortened and obscured, as if written ub-be-de-ence; and the u in monument, changed into e, as if written mon-ne-ment; while the deliberate and elegant sound of these vowels is the long open sound they have, when the accent is on them in equal, over, and unit; but a when anaccented, seems to have no such diversity; it has generally a short obscure sound, whether ending a syllable, or closed by a consonant. Thus the a in able has its definite and distinct sound; but the same letter in tolerablef goes into an obscure indefinite sound approaching the short ; nor can any solemnity or deliberation give it the long open sound it has in the first word. Thus, by distinguishing vowels into their accented and unaccented sounds, we are enabled to see clearly what Dr. Johnson saw but obscurely; and by this distinction entirely to obviate the objection. Equally indefinite and uncertain is his general rule, that those are to be considered as the most elegant speakers who deviate least from the written words. It is certain, where custom is equal, this ought to take place; and if the whole body of respectable English speakers were equally di vided in their pronunciation of the word busy, one half pronouncing it bew-ze, and the other half biz-ze, that the former ought to be accounted the most elegant speakers; but till this is the case, the latter pronunciation, though a gross deviation from orthography, will still be esteemed the most elegant. Dr. Johnson's general rule, therefore, can only take place where custom has not plainly deciled; but, unfortunately for the English Language, its orthography and pronunciation are so widely diferent, that Dr. Watts and Dr. Jones lay it down as a maxim in their Treatises on Spelling, at all words which can be sounded different ways, must be written according to that sound which is most distant from the true pronunciation; and consequently, in such a Language, a Pro Bouncing Dictionary must be of essential use. But still it may be objected to such an undertaking 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 an. swered, that the fluctuation of our language, with respect to its pronunciation, seems to have been greatly exaggerated.§ Except a very few single words which are generally noticed in the following So the words Collect, Command, Despatch, Domestick, Efface, Occasion. Principles, No. 178. The old and new 'Arte, with all the various dialects, must have occasioned infinite irregularity in the pronunciation of the Greek tongue; and if we may judge of the Latin pronunciation by the ancient inscriptions, it was little less vaious and irregular than the Greek. Aulus Gellius tells us, that Nigidias, a grammaan who lived a little more thar. ntury before him, accented the first syllable of Valeri; but, says he, "si quis nun Valerium appellans in casu vo 1 secundum id præceptum Nigidii acuerit primam, non abcrit quia rideatur."Whoever now should place the Dictionary, and the words where e comes before r, followed by another consonant, as merchan, service, &c. the pronunciation of the language is probably in the same state in which it was a cen tury ago; and had the same attention been then paid to it as now, it is not likely even that change would have happened. The same may be observed of those words which are differently pronounced by different speakers: if the analogies of the language had been better understood, it is scarcely conceivable that so many words in polite usage would have a diversity of pronunciation, which is at once so ridiculous and embarrassing; nay, perhaps it may be with confidence asserted, that if the analogies of the language were sufficiently known and so near at hand as to be applicable on inspection to every word, that not only many words which are wavering between contrary usages would be settled in their true sound, but that many words, which are fixed by custom to an im proper pronunciation, would by degrees grow regular and analogical; and those which are so al ready would be secured in their purity, by a knowledge of their regularity and analogy. But the utility of a work of this kind is not confined to those parts of language where the impropriety is gross and palpable; besides such imperfections in pronunciation as disgust every ear not accustomed to them, there are a thousand insensible deviations, in the more minute parts of lan guage, 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, here 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. This is one reason, perhaps, why we find the elocution of so few people agreeable when they read or speak to an assembly, while so few offend us by their utterance in common conversation. A thousand faults lie concealed in a miniature, which a microscope brings to view; and it is only by pronouncing on a larger scale, as publick speaking may be called, that we prove the propriety of our elocution. As therefore, there are o deviations from analogy which are not at any rate tolerable, there are others which only, as it were rnish the pronunciation, and make it less brilliant and agreeable. There are few who have turned teir thoughts on this subject, without observing that they sometimes pronounce the same word or syllable in a different manner; and as neither of these manners offend the ear, they are at a loss to which they shall give the preference; but as one must necessarily be more agreeable to the analogy of the language than the other, a display of these analogies, in a Dictionary of this kind, will immediately remove this uncertainty; and in this view of the variety we shall discover a fitness in one mode of speaking, which will give a firmness and security to our pronunciation, from a confidence that it is founded on reason, and the general tendency of the language. See Principles, No 530, 547, 551, &c. But, alas! reasoning on language, however well founded, may be all overturned by a single quoation from Horace : 66 usus, "Quem penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi." . This, it must be owned, is a succinct way of ending the controversy; and, by virtue of this argu ment, we may become criticks in language, without the trouble of studying it not that I would be thought, in the most distant manner, to deny that Custom is the sovereign arbiter of language; far from it. I acknowledge its authority, and know there is no appeal from it. I wish only to dispute, where this arbiter has not decide; for, if once Custom speak out, however absurdly, I sincerely acquiesce in its sentence. But what is this custom to which we must so implicitly submit? Is it the usage of the multitude of speakers, whether good or bad? This has never been asserted by the most sanguine abettors of its anthority. Is it the usage of the studious in schools and colleges, with those of the learned professions, or that of those who, from their elevated birth or station, give laws to the refinements and elegancics of a court? To confine propriety to the latter, which is too often the case, seems an injury to the former; who, from their very profession, appear to have a natural right to a share, at least, in the legislation of language, if not to an absolute sovereignty. The polished attendants on a throne are as apt to depart from simplicity in language, as in dress and manners; and novelty, instead of custom, is too often the jus et norma loquendi of a court. Perhaps an attentive observation will lead us to conclude, that the usage which ought to direct us, is neither of these we have been enumerating, taken singly, but a sort of compound ratio of all three. Neither a finical pronunciation of the court, nor a pedantic Græcism of the schools, will be denomi nated respectable usage, till a certain number of the general mass of speakers have acknowledged them; nor will a multitude of common speakers authorize any pronunciation which is reprobated by the learned and polite. Lecent on the first syllable of Valerius, when a vocative case, according to the precept of Nigidius, would set every Ledy a laughing. Even that highly polished language the French, if we may believe a writer in the Encyclopédie, iš Sttle less irregular in this respect than our own. Il est arrivé," says he, " par les altérations qui se succedent rapidement dans la manière de prononcer, et les corrections qui s'introduisent lentement dans la manière d'écrite, que la prononcia;lon et l'écriture ne marchent ponit ensemble, et que quoiqu'il y ait chez les peuples les plus policés de l'Europe, des sociétés d'hommes de lettres chargés do les modérer, de les accorder, et de les rapprocher de la même ligne, elles se trouvent enfin à une distance inconcevable; ensorte que de deux choses dont l'une n'a été imaginée dans son origine, que pour réprésenter fidelement Fautre, celle-ci ne didere guère moins de celle-là, que la portrait de la même personne peinte dans deux ages très éloignės. Enfin l'inconvénient s'est accru à un tel excès qu'on n'ose plus y remédier. On prononce une langue, on écrit une autre; et l'on s'accoutume tellement pendant le reste de la vie à cette bizarrerie qui a fait verser taut de larmes dans alance, que si l'on renonçoit à sa mauvaise orthographie pour une plus voisine de la prononciation, on ne reconnol truit plus la langue parlée sous cette nouvelle combinaison de caractères. S'il y en a qui ne pourroient se succéder sans une grande fatigue pour l'organe, ou ils ne se rencontrent point, ou ils ne durent pas. Ils sont échappés de la langue far Feuphonie, cette loi puissante, qui agit continuellement et universellement sans égard pour l'étymologie et ses défenseurs, et qui tend sans intermission a amener des êtres qui ont les mêmes organes, le même idiome, les mêmes mouvemens prescrits, à-peu-près à la même prononciation. Les causes dont l'action n'est point interrompue, devica Dent toujours les plus fortes avec les tems, quelques foibles qu'elles soient en elles-mêmes, et il n'y a presque pas uno seule voyelle, une seule diphthongue, une seule consonne dont la valeur solt tellement constante, que l'euphonie n'en puisse disposer, soit en altérant le son, soit en le supprimant." I shall not decide upon the justness of these complaints, but must observe, that a worse picture could scarcely be drawn of the English, or the most barbarous language of Europe. Indeed a degree of versatility seems involved in dhe very nature of language, and is one of those evils left by Providence for man to correct: a love of order, and the stility of regularity, will always incline him to confine is versatility within as party bounds as possible. As those sounds, therefore, which are the most get.erally received among the learned and polite, as well as the bulk of speakers, are the most legitimate, we may conclude that a majority of two of these states ought always to concur, in order to constitute what is called good usage. But though custom, when general, is commonly well understood, there are several states and degrees of it which are exceedingly elscure and equivocal; and the only method of knowing the extent of custom in these cases, seems to be an inspection of those Dictionaries which professedly treat of pronunciation. We have now so many works of this kind, that the general current of custom, with respect to the sound of words, may be collected from them with almost as much certainty as the general sense of words from Johnson. An exhibition of the opinions of orthoepists about the sound of words always appeared to me a very rational method of determining what is called custom. This method I have adopted in the following work; and if I have sometimes dissented from the majority, it has been, either from a persuasion of being better informed of what was the actual custom of speaking, or from a partiality to the evident analogies of the language. And here I must entreat the candid reader to make every reasonable allowance for the freedom with which I have criticised other writers on this subject, and particularly Mr. Sheridan. As a man, a gentleman, and a scholar, I knew Mr. Sheridan, and respected him; and think every lover of elocution owes him a tribute of thanks for his unwearied addresses to the Publick, to rouse them to the study of the delivery of their native tongue. But this tribute, however just, does not exempt him from examination. His credit with the world necessarily subjects him to animadversion, because the errors of such a writer are dangerous in proportion to his reputation: this has made me zealous to remark his inaccuracies, but not without giving my reasons; nor have I ever taken advantage of such faults as may be called inadvertencies.* On the same principles I have ventured to criticise Dr. Johnson,t whose friendship and advice I was honoured with, whose memory I love, and whose intellectual powers impress me with something like religious veneration and awe. I do not pretend to be exempt from faults myself. In a work like the present, it would be a miracle to escape them; nor have I the least idea of deciding as judge, in a case of so much delicacy and importance as the pronunciation of a whole people; I have only assumed the part of an advocate to plead the cause of consistency and analogy; and, where custom is either silent or dubious, to tempt the lovers of their language to incline to the side of propriety: so that my design is principally to give a kind of history of pronunciation, and a register of its present state; and, where the authorities of Dictionaries or Speakers are found to differ, to give such a display of the analogies of the language as may enable every inspector to decide for himself. With respect to the explanation of words, except in very few instances, I have scrupulously followed Dr. Johnson. His Dictionary has been deemed lawful plun-ler by every subsequent Lexicographer; and so servilely has it been copied, that such words as he must have omitted merely by mistake, as Predilection, Respectable, Descriptive, Sulky, Inimical, Interference, and many others, are neither in Mr. Sheridan's, Dr. Kenrick's, for several other Dictionaries. ADVERTISEMENT TO THE THIRD ENGLISH EDITION. THE rapid sale of the Second Edition of this Dictionary called upon me for a Third, at a time of Life, and in a state of health,little compatible with the drudgery and attention necessary for the execution of it; but as I expected such a call, I was not unmindful of whatever might tend to render it still more worthy of the acceptance of the Publick; and therefore collected many words, which, though not found in Dictionaries, were constantly to be met with in polite and literary conversation, and which were well deserving of a place in the language, as soon as written authorities could be produced for them. Some of these authorities I have produced, and have left others to the attention of those who have more leisure and better health. In the midst of the impression of the present work, I met with Ma son's Supplement to Johnson, and found several words worthy of insertion, but have carefully acknowledged the obligation; and take this opportunity of thanking that gentleman for the benefit I have derived from his Supplement, which I think, if continued. admirably calculated for the im provement and stability of the language. But as the great object of the present Dictionary was pronunciation, I was very solicitous to be as accurate as possible on this point, and therefore neglected no opportunity of informing myself where I was in the least doubtful, and cf correcting myself where there was the least shadow of an error. These occasions, however, were not very numerous. To a man born, as I was, within a few miles of the Capital, living in the Capital almost my whole life, and exercising myself there in public speaking for many years; to such a person, if to any one, the true pronunciation of the language must be very familiar: and to this familiarity I am indebted for the security I have felt in deciding upon the sounds of several syllables, which nothing but an infantine pronunciation could determine. If I may borrow an allusion from musick, I might observe, that there is a certain tune in every language to which the ear of a native is set, and which often decides on the preferable pronunciation, though entirely ignorant of the reasons for it. But this vernacular instinct, as it may be called, has been seconded by a careful investigation of the analogies of the language. Accent and Quantity, the great efficients of pronunciation, are seldom mistaken by people of education in the Capital; but the great bulk of the Nation, and those The inspector will be pleased to take notice, that my observations on Mr. Sheridan's Dictionary relate to the first edition, published in his life-time, and the second, some time after his death: whatever alterations may have been made by his subsequent editors, I am totally unacquainted with. See Sceptick, Scirrhus, Codle, Further, &G who form the most important part of it, are without these advantages, and therefore want such a guide to direct them as is here offered. Even polite and literary people, who speak only from the ear, will find that this organ will, in a thousand instances, prove but a very uncertain guide, without a knowledge of those principles by which the ear itself is insensibly directed, and which, having their origin in the nature of language, operate with steadiness and regularity in the midst of the ficklest affectation and caprice. It can scarcely be supposed that the most experienced speaker has heard every word in the language, and the whole circle of sciences pronounced exactly as it ought to be: and if this be the case, he must sometimes have recourse to the principles of pronunciation when his ear is either uninformed or unfaithful. These principles are those general laws of articulation which determine the character, and fix the boundaries of every language; as in every system of speaking, however irregular, the organs must necessarily fall into some common mode of enunciation, or the purpose of Providence in the gift of speech would be absolutely defeated. These laws, like every other object of philosophical inquiry, are only to be traced by an attentive observation and enume ration of particulars; and when these particulars are sufficiently numerous to form a general rule, an axiom in pronunciation is acquired. By an accumulation of these axioms, and an analogical com parison of them with each other, we discover the deviations of language where custom has varied, and the only clew to guide us where custom is either indeterminate or obscure. Thus, by a view of the words ending in ity or ety, I find the accent invariably placed on the prece ding syllable, as in diversity, congruity, &c. On a closer inspection, I find every vowel in this antepenultimate syllable, when no consonant intervenes, pronounced long, as de'ity, pi'ety, &c.; a nearer observation shows me, that if a consonant intervene, every vowel in this syllable but u contracts itself, and is pronounced short, as sever'ity, curiosity, impunity, &c. and therefore that chastity and obscenity ought to be pronounced with the penultimate vowel short, and not as in chaste and obscene, as we frequently hear them. I find too, that even u contracts itself before two consonants, as cur'vity, taciturnity, &c. and that scarcity and rarity, (for whose irregularity good reasons may be given) are the only exceptions to this rule throughout the language. And thus we have a series of near seven hundred words, the accentuation of which, as well as the quantity of the accented vowel, are reduced to two or three simple rules. The same uniformity of accentuation and quantity may be observed in the first syllable of those words which have the accent on the third, as dem-on-stra'tion, dim-i-nu'tion, lu-cu-bration, &c. where we evidently perceive a stress on the first syllable shortening every vowel but u, and this in every word throughout the language, except where two consonants follow the u, as in cur-vi-lin'e-ar; or where two vowels follow the consonant that succeeds any other vowel in the first syllable, as de-vi-a' tion; or, lastly, where the word is not evidently of our own composition, as re-con-vey: but as u in the first syllable of a word, having the accent on the third, has the same tendency to length and openness as was observable when it preceded the termination ity, I find it necessary to separate it from the consonant in bu-ty-ra'ceous, which I have never heard pronounced, as well as in lu-cu-bration, which I have, and this from no pretended agreement with the quantity of the Latin words these are derived from; for, in the former word, the u is doubtful: but, from the general system of quantity I see adopted in English pronunciation, this only will direct an English ear with certainty; for, though we may sometimes place the accent on words we borrow from the Greek or Latin on the same syl lable as in those languages, as acumen, elegiac, &c.; nay, though we sometimes adopt the accent o the original with every word of the same termination we derive from it, as assiduity, vidu'ity, &c yet the quantity of the accented vowel is so often contrary to that of the Latin and Greek, that not a shadow of a rule can be drawn, in this point, from these languages to ours. Thus, in the letter in question, in the Latin accumulo, dubius, tumor, &c. the first u is every where short; but in the English words accumulate, dubious, tumour, every where long. Nuptialis, murmur, turbulentus, &c. where the u in the first syllable in Latin is long, we as constantly pronounce it short in nuptial, murmur, turbulent, &c. Nor indeed can we wonder that a different economy of quantity is observable in the ancient and modern languages, as in the former, two consonants almost always lengthen the preceding vowel, and in the latter as constantly shorten it. Thus, without arguing in a vicious circle, we find, that as a division of the generality of words, as they are actually pronounced, gives us the general laws of syllabication, so these laws, once understood, direct us in the division of such words as we have never heard actually pronounced, and consequently to the true pronunciation of them. For these operations, like cause and effect, reflect mutually a light on each other, and prove, that by nicely observ ing the path which custom in language has once taken, we can more than guess at the line she must keep in a similar case, where her footsteps are not quite so discernible. So true is the observation of Scaliger: Ita omnibus in rebus certissima ratione sibi ipsa respondet natura. De causis Ling. Lat, Rules to be observed by the Natives of IRELAND, in order to obtain a just Pronunciation of English. As Mr. Sheridan was a native of Ireland, and had the best opportunities of understanding those peculiarities of pronunciation which obtain there, I shall extract his observations on that subject as the best general direction, and add a few of my own, by way of supplement, which I hope will render this article of instruction still more complete. The reader will be pleased to take notice, that as I have made a different arrangement of the vow els, and have adopted a notation different from Mr. Sheridan, I am obliged to make use of different figures to mark the vowels, but still such as perfectly correspond to his. "The chief mistakes made by the Irish in pronouncing English, lie for the most part in the sounds of the two first vowels, a and e; the former being generally sounded å by the Irish, as in the word "bar, in most words where it is pronounced à, as in day, by the English. Thus the Irish say, påtron, matron, the vowel & having the same sound as in the word father; whilst the English pronounce them as if written paytron, maytron. The following rule, strictly attended to, will rectify this mistake through the whole language. on the vowel a; but in the English pronunciation the consonant t is taken into the first syllable, as thus, rath'er, which makes the difference. "Whenever a consonant follows the vowel a in the same syllable, and the accent is on the consonant, the vowel a has always its fourth sound, as hât, man; as also the same sound lengthened "when it precedes the letter r, as far, bar, though the accent be on the vowel; as likewise when it pre"cedes im, as bålm, psalin. The Irish, ignorant of this latter exception, pronounce all words of that "structure as if they were written hawm, psawm, quawm, cawm, &c. In the third sound of a, marked by "different combinations of vowels or consonants, such as au, in Paul; aw, in law; all, in call; ald, "in bald; alk, in talk, &c. the Irish make no mistake, except in that of lm, as before mentioned. "The second vowel, e, is for the most part sounded ee by the English, when the accent is upon it; "whilst the Irish in most words give it the sound of slender à, as in hate. This sound of è [ee] is marked by different combinations of vowels, such as ea, ei, e final mute, ee, and ie. In the two last "combinations of ee and ie, the Irish never mistake; such as in meet, seem, field, believe, &c.; but in all the others, they almost universally change the sound of è into à. Thus in the combination ㄨ ea, they pronounce the words tea, sea, please, as if they were spelt tay, say, plays; instead of tee, see, pleese. The English constantly give this sound to ea whenever the accent is on the vowel e, except in the following words, great, a pear, a bear, to bear, to forbear, to swear, to tear, to wear. In all "which the e has the sound of a in hate. For want of knowing these exceptions, the gentlemen of "Ireland, after some time of residence in London, are apt to fall into the general rule, and pro "nounce these words as if spelt greet, beer, sweer, &c. "Ei is also sounded ee by the English, and as & by the Irish; thus the word deceit, receive, are pro"nounced by them as if written desate, resave. Ei is always sounded ee, except when a g follows it as in the words reign, feign, deign, &c.; as also in the words rein (of a bridle,) rein-deer, vein, drein, "veil, heir, which are pronounced like rain, vain, drain, vail, air. "The final mute e, makes the preceding e in the same syllable, when accented, have the sound of ee, as in the words suprême, sincère, replète. This rule is almost universally broken through by "the Irish, who pronounce all such words as if written suprame, sinsåre, replåte, &c. There are "but two exceptions to this rule in the English pronunciation, which are the words there, where. "In the way of marking this sound, by a double e, as thus ee, as the Irish never make any mistakes, "the best method for all who want to acquire the right pronunciation of these several combinations "is, to suppose that ea, ei, and e, attended by a final mute e, are all spelt with a double e, or ee. "Ey is always sounded like & by the English when the accent is upon it; as in the words prey, convey, pronounced, pray, convay. To this there are but two exceptions, in the words key and ley, sounded kee, lee. The Irish, in attempting to pronounce like the English, often give the same sound "to ey as usually belongs to ei; thus for prey, convey, they say pree, convee. "A strict observation of these few rules, with a due attention to the very few exceptions enume"rated above, will enable the well-educated natives of Ireland to pronounce their words exactly in "the same way as the more polished part of the inhabitants of England do, so far as the vowels ar "concerned. The diphthongs they commit no fault in, except in the sound of i, which has been al"ready taken notice of in the Grammar: where, likewise, the only difference in pronouncing any "of the consonants has been pointed out; which is the thickening the sounds of d and t, in certain situations; and an easy method proposed of correcting this habit.f "In order to complete the whole, I shall now give a list of such detached words that do not come un"der any of the above rules, as are pronounced differently in Ireland from what they are in England. lenkth fearful strove door dore drav (drove) drove tè'nure tèn'able tè'nable geth'er (gather) gath'er beard berd wrath (wroth) wroth fårwel rod |