It is simply impossible to express sound by writing, and therefore all instruction in pronunciation should be given viv voce. A pronouncing Dictionary may sometimes afford assistance; but in many cases it must fail, as it is an attempt to explain varieties or shades of sound by varieties of shape, i.e. combinations of written letters—in fine, objects of one sense by those of another.

It is not easy to fix a standard of pronunciation. At one time the stage, then the bar, and, later still, the pulpit, have been considered as authorities in this matter. But all these are now rejected, and the conversation of the highest classes in London society is now looked upon as the standard of English pronunciation.

Pronunciation, like everything else connected with language, varies continually with the influence of time and fashion; and it is well known that, even fifty years ago, many English words were pronounced differently from the present practice. It was formerly the fashion to pronounce ‘leisure’ (which now rhymes with ‘pleasure’) as if written ‘leezure’ (to rhyme with ‘seizure’). This was never a vulgar pronunciation; it was done by the highest classes. It was also the fashion to pronounce ‘oblige’ more like the French verb ‘obliger’ as if written ‘obleege,’ and this also was the practice with the best educated. ‘Gold’ also was formerly pronounced by good speakers as if rhyming with ‘ruled;’ now it properly rhymes with ‘old’ or ‘cold.’

We may conclude, from some of Pope’s rhymes, that, in the early part of the eighteenth century, our language was not pronounced exactly as it is at present. He has ‘line’ and ‘join’ rhyming with each other; also ‘vice’ and ‘destroys,’ ‘power’ and ‘secure,’ ‘safe’ and ‘laugh,’ ‘obey’ and ‘tea,’ &c. Some of these may have been peculiar to the poet himself, and may be regarded as bad rhymes; still, as Pope was an authority for the language of his own time, most of them were, in all probability, recognised as correct.

Stories are told of the peculiar pronunciation of some of the leading literati of the last century which appear scarcely credible. Dr. Johnson is said to have pronounced the word ‘fair’ like ‘fear,’ and the adverb ‘once’ as if written ‘woonse.’ He also called ‘punch’ ‘poonsh.’ Garrick was often remarked for saying ‘shupreme’ and ‘shuperior’ for ‘supreme’ and ‘superior.’ He also pronounced ‘Israel’ as ‘Isrel,’ ‘villain’ as if ‘villin,’ and, still more strangely, ‘appeal’ as ‘appal.’

John Kemble had several peculiarities of pronunciation. He is known to have always said ‘bird’ for ‘beard,’ ‘ferse’ for ‘fierce,’ and my head ‘aitches’ (for ‘aches’). He persisted, too, in pronouncing ‘Cato’ with the a broad, as if written ‘Caato.’ Of this peculiarity an amusing anecdote is related. ‘One evening, at the Dublin Theatre, after the performance of Addison’s tragedy, the manager appeared on the stage, and made the following statement:—“Ladies and gentlemen, to-morrow evening, with your permission, the tragedy of Cato will be repeated, the part of ‘Caato’ by Mr. Kemble.”’

Another story is told of the same eminent actor, who, when George III. said to him: ‘Mr. Kemble, will you “obleege” me with a pinch of your snuff?’ replied: ‘With pleasure, your Majesty; but it would become your royal lips much better to say “oblige.”’

Some of the actor Quin’s pronunciations would be now considered very singular. He always pronounced the word ‘face’ as if written ‘faace,’ and said ‘tropically’ for ‘tropically.’ Also, in a certain classical drama, addressing the Roman guard, he desired them to lower their ‘faces’ (meaning their ‘fasces’).

But, whatever may be the recognised standard of pronunciation, there always will be a refined and a vulgar mode of speech—one adopted by the cultivated and well-informed, and the other used by the rude and illiterate. It must be understood that there are only two ways in which our pronunciation may be at fault. 1. The accent may be placed on the wrong syllable; or, 2. a wrong sound may be given to the vowels. Under the first head may be placed such faults as the following:—Some will say ‘fÁnatic’ instead of ‘fanÁtic,’ and perhaps as often ‘lunÁtic’ for ‘lÚnatic.’ Again, ‘mischÍevous’ is wrong, both in accent and tone; for the accent should here be on the first syllable, and the sound of the second should be close—mÍschievous. We also not unfrequently hear people call the word ‘extÁnt,’ instead of ‘Éxtant;’ but, as the accent is always on the first in words of a like formation—such as ‘cÓnstant,’ ‘dÍstant,’ ‘Ínstant,’ &c.—there is no good reason why ‘Éxtant’ should be made an exception. Another word in which the accent is often misplaced is ‘rÉspited.’ Many will say ‘respÍted,’ which is decidedly against good usage.

In some words the accent still seems to be unsettled. Perhaps we hear the word ‘Óbdurate’ as often with the accent on the second as on the first syllable. Many scholars pronounce the word ‘obdurate,’ probably because the u is long in the Latin ‘durus;’ but this must also follow the accent of similar forms. We always say ‘Áccurate,’ ‘Índurate,’ ‘Áugurate,’ ‘sÁturate,’ &c.; and therefore, by analogy, it should be Óbdurate.’

By many the accent is placed on the second syllable of the word ‘applicable;’ but the general custom is to lay it on the first, and the best practice is to say ‘Ápplicable,’ and not ‘applÍcable.’

Another case of wrong tone may be heard in the pronunciation of the word ‘Ínfinite.’ We still not unfrequently hear in the pulpit, ‘infinite goodness,’ &c. In dissyllables ‘ite’ final is sometimes pronounced long; as in ‘polite,’ ‘finite,’ ‘recite,’ &c.; but in words of more than two syllables the final ‘ite’ is, with few exceptions, pronounced short. We always (properly) say ‘definite,’ ‘exquisite,’ ‘opposite,’ ‘favourite,’ &c.

Many have special difficulties in the pronunciation of certain consonants. The correct sound of r is a medium between the strong rough R of the Irish, and the feeble indistinct tone given it by the London cockney. The Irishman will tell you that he is very ‘war(u)m’ after his ‘wor(u)k.’ But in London, one often hears, instead of ‘garden,’ ‘gauden,’ for ‘forth’ ‘fauth,’ and for ‘card’ ‘caud,’ &c.

Many Englishmen have a difficulty in pronouncing the rough r, substituting for it the sound of w. These say ‘woom’ for ‘room,’ ‘pwoduct’ for ‘product,’ ‘wagged’ for ‘ragged,’ &c. This habit, unless checked early, is likely to become incurable.

Others again contract a vicious habit of pronouncing the r far back in the throat, instead of forming it by vibrating the tip of the tongue. This is what the French call ‘parler gras.’

There is one very improper use of r which must be here mentioned; viz. the addition of this letter to certain words ending in a. Some pronounce ‘sofa’ as if written ‘sofar.’ Also they speak of their papar and mammar, &c. It is scarcely necessary to say that this is a positive vulgarism.

Nowhere, perhaps, is the perversity of our nature more evident than in the pronunciation of, (1), h silent and h aspirate; and, (2), v and w. These sounds are constantly confounded. Many pronounce h where it is not required, and leave it out where it should be sounded. They will say ‘abit’ for ‘habit,’ ‘erd’ for ‘herd,’ ‘ill’ for ‘hill,’ ‘old’ for ‘hold,’ &c.; and, on the other hand, ‘hall’ for ‘all,’ ‘hodd’ for ‘odd,’ ‘huncle’ for ‘uncle,’ &c.

The same vice exists in the pronunciation of v and w. It is clear that the speaker can pronounce both these letters, but he inveterately persists in misplacing them. He will say ‘weal’ and ‘winegar,’ and at the same time, ‘Vy do you veep?’ These faults are made almost exclusively by ignorant, uneducated people.

Under this head may be also mentioned the incorrect pronunciation of wh initial. By many the h is here left out altogether, and these pronounce the pronoun which exactly as if written ‘witch.’ In Anglo-Saxon, whence all this class of words comes, they were spelled, and probably pronounced, with the h first—‘hw;’ and even now, if we listen attentively to those who pronounce them correctly, we shall always hear the aspirate first. We should surely make a difference between ‘who’ and ‘woo,’ ‘when’ and ‘wen,’ ‘where’ and ‘wear,’ &c.; and, though it would be incorrect to mark the aspirate too roughly, the h in such words should be always fairly brought out.

We also perpetually hear (especially in London) words ending in ‘ing’ pronounced as if written ‘in;’ as, for example, ‘standin,’ ‘runnin,’ ‘goin,’ for ‘standing,’ ‘running,’ going,’ &c. In one case a k is put for the g. ‘Nothink’ is said for ‘nothing.’

There is a disposition in many readers and speakers to give a sort of veiled sound to unaccented monosyllables, so that the true pure tone of the vowel is not heard. This is a very common fault. By such readers ‘for’ is pronounced ‘fur,’ ‘of’ is called ‘uv,’ ‘not’ ‘nut,’ ‘from’ ‘frum,’ and ‘was’ ‘wuz,’ &c. &c. It should be remembered that, whether such words be, or be not, accented, the sound of the vowel should always be full and pure.

A point of great importance is to always carefully give the true sound to an unaccented vowel which begins a word. We should never let emotion degenerate into ‘immotion,’ ‘emergency’ into ‘immergency,’ ‘obedience’ into ‘ubbedience,’ &c. No accent, however, should be placed on these syllables, but the initial vowel should be always pronounced in its proper and pure sound.

It is right to be just as careful with vowels which are medial and unaccented. We should not allow ‘monument’ to sound as ‘moniment,’ nor must ‘calculate’ be pronounced with the u close. This fault often happens with words ending in ‘ety’ or ‘ity.’ We hear over and over again, in the pulpit, the words ‘trinity,’ ‘dignity,’ ‘society,’ &c. pronounced as if written ‘trinaty,’ ‘dignaty,’ ‘sociaty,’ &c.

The pronunciation of the word ‘knowledge,’ with the o long, is still occasionally heard; but it is now almost universally called ‘knowledge’ (to rhyme with ‘college’).

Some pronounce ‘haunt,’ ‘jaunt,’ ‘taunt,’ ‘jaundice,’ &c. with the diphthong broad, having the same sound as in ‘raw’ or ‘saw.’ But all these should rhyme with ‘aunt,’ which is never pronounced broad.

The ending ‘ile’ of certain adjectives sometimes offers a difficulty of pronunciation. Here, in the words ‘hostile,’ ‘missile,’ ‘servile,’ ‘reptile,’ ‘puerile,’ and ‘volatile’ the i has a long sound; but in ‘fertile,’ ‘fragile,’ ‘futile,’ and ‘imbecile’ the i must be short.

Some incorrectly give the long sound ‘ile’ to the broader diphthong ‘oil.’ They call ‘oil’ ‘ile,’ ‘boil’ and ‘broil’ ‘bile’ and ‘brile,’ &c. In the age of the poet Pope, these two sounds were probably closer to each other than they are now; for he makes ‘join’ rhyme with ‘line:‘—

A story is told of some one dining at a tavern who was asked by the waiter whether he wished to have his sole ‘briled?’ To which he replied that he did not care whether it was ‘briled’ or ‘biled,’ as long as it was not ‘spiled!!’

The words ‘fast,’ ‘past,’ ‘mast,’ and other similar combinations are often pronounced either too broad or too close. In the provinces we often hear ‘mauster,’ ‘faust,’ ‘paust,’ and ‘caunt,’ whilst the affected Londoner says ‘mester,’ ‘fest,’ ‘pest,’ &c.

Neither of the two is right, but the proper pronunciation lies between them. Again, ‘put’ (which rhymes with ‘foot’) must not be called ‘put’ (to rhyme with ‘but’), nor must pulpit be called pulpit. Some persist in pronouncing ‘covetous’ as if written ‘covetious,’ and ‘tremendous’ as ‘tremendious;’ and these are apparently equally attached to ‘pronounciation’ and ‘arethmetic.’ Lastly, the participle of the verb ‘to be’ must always sound exactly like the vegetable ‘bean,’ and not as a wine-‘bin.’

The letter u, in many words, is really a diphthong, and has the double sound of e + oo. This is heard in such words as ‘tÜne,’ ‘stÜpid,’ ‘tÜbe,’ ‘prodÜce,’ ‘solitÜde,’ ‘pictÜre,’ &c., which should be sounded as if written ‘te + une,’ ‘ste + upid,’ ‘te + ube,’ &c., the one part uttered rapidly after the other. But many pronounce such words, incorrectly, as if written ‘toone,’ ‘stoopid,’ ‘picter,’ &c. This is a vicious cockney pronunciation.

There is no termination we should be more careful to pronounce fairly out than ‘ow’ final, which, when unaccented, frequently degenerates into ‘er.’ The words are properly pronounced ‘widow,’ ‘window,’ and ‘fellow,’ &c., and not ‘widder,’ ‘winder,’ and ‘feller!!’

The word ‘tobacco’ also is often wrongly pronounced ‘tobaccer.’

Some, who would be over-refined in their pronunciation, make two syllables (instead of one) of the words ‘sky,’ ‘kind.’ They expand them into ‘ske-y,’ ‘key-ind,’ &c. This is an absurd affectation.

A clear distinct articulation is an essential principle of a correct pronunciation; for, unless every syllable be uttered clearly, the word cannot have its proper effect. How often do we hear careless readers and speakers push one monosyllable into another, so as to convey the impression that there is but one word, where, in fact, there are two. How often do we hear: ‘Frin this case,’ instead of ‘For in this case;’ ‘Fra time,’ for ‘For a time;’ ‘Nevery occasion,’ for ‘On every occasion;’ ‘Tinders,’ for ‘It hinders!’ &c.

Special care should be taken to utter unaccented syllables distinctly; as these are the most likely to be neglected. It is this neglect which produces such bad pronunciations as ‘reg’lar,’ ‘sing’lar,’ ‘sim’lar,’ and which makes ‘extraordinary,’ ‘extrordinary;’ ‘usual,’ ‘uzhal;’ and ‘violent,’ ‘vilent.’ It is from the same cause that the d in ‘and’ (a word which is seldom accented) is so frequently unheard, especially when the following word begins with a vowel, in such forms as ‘He an I,’ for ‘He and I;’ ‘My uncle an aunt,’ for ‘my uncle and aunt,’ &c.

The Irish have several peculiarities of pronunciation, which must be here noticed.

1. They sound ‘ea’ (the long e) as ‘ay;’ ‘please’ they pronounce exactly as ‘plays,’ and ‘tea’ as ‘tay.’

2. ‘Door’ and ‘floor’ properly rhyme with ‘more’ and ‘sore,’ but the Irish give to these words the sound of ‘oo’ in ‘poor.’

3. They also pronounce ‘catch’ (which exactly rhymes with ‘match’) as ‘ketch’ (to rhyme with ‘fetch’). This is also a vulgar pronunciation in England.

4. They give the short instead of the more open sound of u in the words ‘pudding,’ ‘cushion,’ and ‘foot.’ They make ‘pudding’ rhyme with ‘sudden;’ ‘cushion’ with ‘rush on;’ and ‘foot’ with ‘but.’ They also give the same sound to the vowels in ‘strove’ and ‘drove,’ making them rhyme with ‘love’ and ‘dove,’ and pronouncing them as if they were written ‘struv’ and ‘druv.’

5. Another of their peculiarities is to leave out the ‘g’ in ‘strength’ and ‘length,’ pronouncing these words as if they were written ‘strenth’ and ‘lenth.’ They also omit the ‘d,’ in pronouncing ‘breadth,’ and call it ‘breth.’

6. They give the long sound of ‘e’ to the close ‘i’ in such words as ‘delicious,’ ‘malicious,’ ‘vicious,’ &c., and call them ‘deleecious,’ ‘maleecious,’ ‘veecious.’

7. They pronounce ‘o’ before ‘ld’ like the ‘ow’ in ‘how,’ and they pronounce ‘cold’ and ‘bold’ as if these words rhymed with ‘howled’ or ‘growled.’