The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (free ebook reader .txt) 📕

[491] I do not say the mere absence of stress is never called accent; for it is, plainly, the doctrine of some authors that the English accent differs not at all in its nature from the accent of the ancient Greeks or Romans, which was distinguished as being of three sorts, acute, grave, inflex; that "the stronger breathing, or higher sound," which distinguishes one syllable of a word from or above the rest, is the acute accent only; that "the softer breathing, or lower sound," which belongs to an unacuted (or unaccented) syllable, is the grave accent; and that a combination of these two sounds, or "breathings," upon one syllable, constitutes the inflex or circumflex accent. Such, I think, is the teaching of Rev. William Barnes; who further says, "English verse is constructed upon sundry orders of acute and grave accents and matchings of rhymes, while the poetic language of the Romans and Greeks is formed upon rules of the sundry clusterings of long and short syllables."—Philological Grammar, p. 263. This scheme is not wholly consistent, because the author explains accent or accents as being applicable only to "words of two or more syllables;" and it is plain, that the accent which includes the three sorts above, must needs be "some other thing than what we call accent," if this includes only the acute.

[492] Sheridan used the same comparison, "To illustrate the difference between the accent of the ancients and that of ours" [our tongue]. Our accent he supposed, with Nares and others, to have "no reference to inflections of the voice."—See Art of Reading, p. 75; Lectures on Elocution, p. 56; Walker's Key, p. 313.

[493] (1.) It may in some measure account for these remarkable omissions, to observe that Walker, in his lexicography, followed Johnson in almost every thing but pronunciation. On this latter subject, his own authority is perhaps as great as that of any single author. And here I am led to introduce a remark or two touching the accent and quantity with which he was chiefly concerned; though the suggestions may have no immediate connexion with the error of confounding these properties.

(2.) Walker, in his theory, regarded the inflections of the voice as pertaining to accent, and as affording a satisfactory solution of the difficulties in which this subject has been involved; but, as an English orthoëpist, he treats of accent in no other sense, than as stress laid on a particular syllable of a word—a sense implying contrast, and necessarily dividing all syllables into accented and unaccented, except monosyllables. Having acknowledged our "total ignorance of the nature of the Latin and Greek accent," he adds: "The accent of the English language, which is constantly sounding in our ears, and every moment open to investigation, seems as much a mystery as that accent which is removed almost two thousand years from our view. Obscurity, perplexity, and confusion, run through every treatise on the subject, and nothing could be so hopeless as an attempt to explain it, did not a circumstance present itself, which at once accounts for the confusion, and affords a clew to lead us out of it. Not one writer on accent has given such a definition of the voice as acquaints us with its essential properties. * * * But let us once divide the voice into its rising and falling inflections, the obscurity vanishes, and accent becomes as intelligible as any other part of language. * * * On the present occasion it will be sufficient to observe, that the stress we call accent is as well understood as is necessary for the pronunciation of single words, which is the object of this treatise."—Walker's Dict., p. 53, Princip. 486, 487, 488.

(3.) Afterwards, on introducing quantity, as an orthoëpical topic, he has the following remark: "In treating this part of pronunciation, it will not be necessary to enter into the nature of that quantity which constitutes poetry; the quantity here considered will be that which relates to words taken singly; and this is nothing more than the length or shortness of the vowels, either as they stand alone, or as they are differently combined with the vowels or consonants." Ib., p. 62, Princip. 529. Here is suggested a distinction which has not been so well observed by grammarians and prosodists, or even by Walker himself, as it ought to have been. So long as the practice continues of denominating certain mere vowel sounds the long and the short, it will be very necessary to notice that these are not the same as the syllabic quantities, long and short, which constitute English verse.

[494] (1.) In the Latin and Greek languages, this is not commonly supposed to be the case; but, on the contrary, the quantity of syllables is professedly adjusted by its own rules independently of what we call accent; and, in our English pronunciation of these languages, the accentuation of all long words is regulated by the quantity of the last syllable but one. Walker, in the introduction to his Key, speaks of "The English pronunciation of Greek and Latin [as] injurious to quantity." And no one can deny, that we often accent what are called short syllables, and perhaps oftener leave unaccented such as are called long; but, after all, were the quantity of Latin and Greek syllables always judged of by their actual time, and not with reference to the vowel sounds called long and short, these our violations of the old quantities would be found much fewer than some suppose they are.

(2.) Dr. Adam's view of the accents, acute and grave, appears to be peculiar; and of a nature which may perhaps come nearer to an actual identity with the quantities, long and short, than any other. He says,

"1. The acute or sharp accent raises the voice in pronunciation, and is thus marked [´]; prófero, prófer. [The English word is written, not thus, but with two Effs, proffer.—G. B.]

"2. The grave or base accent depresses the voice, or keeps it in its natural tone; and is thus marked [`]; as, doctè. [Fist] This accent properly belongs to all syllables which have no other.

"The accents are hardly ever marked in English books, except in dictionaries, grammars, spelling-books, or the like, where the acute accent only is used. The accents are likewise seldom marked in Latin books, unless for the sake of distinction; as in these adverbs, aliquò, continuò, doctè, unà, &c."—Adam's Latin and English Grammar, p. 266.

(3.) As stress naturally lengthens the syllables on which it falls, if we suppose the grave accent to be the opposite of this, and to belong to all syllables which have no peculiar stress,—are not enforced, not acuted, not circumflected, not emphasized; then shall we truly have an accent with which our short quantity may fairly coincide. But I have said, "the mere absence of stress, which produces short quantity, we do not call accent;" and it may be observed, that the learned improver of Dr. Adam's Grammar, B. A. Gould, has totally rejected all that his predecessor taught concerning accent, and has given an entirely different definition of the thing. See marginal notes on page 771, above. Dr. Johnson also cites from Holder a very different explanation of it, as follows: "Accent, as in the Greek names and usage, seems to have regarded the tune of the voice; the acute accent, raising the voice in some certain syllables, to a higher, (i.e. more acute) pitch or tone; and the grave, depressing it lower; [Fist] and both having some emphasis, i.e. more vigorous pronunciation. HOLDER."—Johnson's Quarto Dict., w. Accent.

[495] (1.) "Amongst them [the ancients,] we know that accents were marked by certain inflexions [inflections] of the voice like musical notes; and the grammarians to this day, with great formality inform their pupils, that the acute accent, is the raising [of] the voice on a certain syllable; the grave, a depression of it; and the circumflex, a raising and depression both, in one and the same syllable. This jargon they constantly preserve, though they have no sort of ideas annexed to these words; for if they are asked to shew how this is to be done, they cannot tell, and their practice always belies their precept."—Sheridan's Lectures on Eloc., p. 54.

(2.) "It is by the accent chiefly that the quantity of our syllables is regulated; but not according to the mistaken rule laid down by all who have written on the subject, that the accent always makes the syllable long; than which there cannot be any thing more false."—Ib., p. 57.

(3.) "And here I cannot help taking notice of a circumstance, which shews in the strongest light, the amazing deficiency of those, who have hitherto employed their labours on that subject, [accent, or pronunciation,] in point of knowledge of the true genius and constitution of our tongue. Several of the compilers of dictionaries, vocabularies, and spelling books, have undertaken to mark the accents of our words; but so little acquainted were they with the nature of our accent, that they thought it necessary only to mark the syllable on which the stress is to be laid, without marking the particular letter of the syllable to which the accent belongs."—Ib., p. 59.

(4.) "The mind thus taking a bias under the prejudice of false rules, never arrives at a knowledge of the true nature of quantity; and accordingly we find that all attempts hitherto to settle the prosody of our language, have been vain and fruitless."—Sheridan's Rhetorical Gram., p. 52.

[496] In the following extract, this matter is stated somewhat differently: "The quantity depends upon the seat of the accent, whether it be on the vowel or [on the] consonant; if on the vowel, the syllable is necessarily long: as it makes the vowel long; if on the consonant, it may be either long or short, according to the nature of the consonant, or the time taken up in dwelling upon it."—Sheridan's Lectures on Eloc., p. 57. This last clause shows the "distinction" to be a very weak one.—G. BROWN.

[497] "If the consonant be in its nature a short one, the syllable is necessarily short. If it be a long one, that is, one whose sound is capable of being lengthened, it may be long or short at the will of the speaker. By a short consonant I mean one whose sound cannot be continued after a vowel, such as c or k p t, as ac, ap, at—whilst that of long consonants can, as, el em en er ev, &c."—Sheridan's Lectures on Elocution, p. 58. Sheridan here forgets that "bor'row" is one of his examples of short quantity.

Murray admits that "accent on a semi-vowel" may make the syllable long; and his semivowels are these: "f, l, m, n, r, v, s, z, x, and c and g soft." See his Octavo Gram., p. 240 and p. 8.

[498] On account of the different uses made of the breve, the macron, and the accents, one grammarian has proposed a new mode of marking poetic quantities. Something of the kind might be useful; but there seems to be a reversal of order in this scheme, the macrotone being here made light, and the stenotone dark and heavy. "Long and short syllables have sometimes been designated by the same marks which are used for accent, tones, and the quality of the vowels; but it will be better[,] to prevent confusion[,] to use different marks. This mark º may represent a long syllable, and this · a short syllable; as,

    · · ° · · ° · · ° · °
   'At the close of the day when the hamlet is still.'"
        —Perley's Gram., p. 73.
    [no · over 'let', sic—KTH]

[499] Dr. Adam's Gram., p. 267; B. A. Gould's, 257. The Latin word cæsura signifies "a cutting, or division." This name is sometimes Anglicized, and written "Cesure." See Brightland's Gram., p. 161; or Worcester's Dict., w. Cesure.

[500] "As to the long quantity arising from the succession of two consonants, which the ancients are uniform in asserting, if it did not mean that the preceding vowel was to lengthen its sound, as we should do by pronouncing the a in scatter as we do in skater, (one who skates,) I have no conception of what it meant; for if it meant that only the time of the