The English authorities most frequently cited in this volume, are Sheridan, Walker, Perry, Jones, Enfield, Fulton and Knight, and Jameson, all of whom are authors of Pronouncing Dictionaries. In addition to these, various other English lexicographers and orthoepists are occasionally brought forward, as Bailey, Johnson, Kenrick, Ash, Dyche, Barclay, Entick, Scott, Nares, Rees, Maunder, Crabb, and several others; besides our own countryman Dr. Webster.

There is much difference in the degree of respect which is due to the different English orthoepists. But no one among them seems to have bestowed so long and patient attention, either in studying the analogy of the language or ascertaining the best usage, as Walker; and though the last edition of his work that was superintended by himself, was printed in 1804, yet his Dictionary has not been superseded by any that has followed it. It has undergone numerous.impressions both in England and America; it is still in extensive use; and various testimonies might be quoted to show the high estimation in which it is held. In an edition of an abridgment of "Johnson's Dictionary with Walker's Pronunciation," published in London in 1827, it is stated that "the two standard dictionaries of the English language are those of Johnson and Walker; the former in all that regards the authority and spelling of words; the latter as to their pronunciation."

But though Walker may be justly entitled to the first rank among the English orthoepists, yet the pronunciation of some of the others, with respect to many words, is to be preferred to his. Those who have succeeded him, have corrected more or less of his mistakes, and made some improvements on his plan; and as some change has taken place since his time, they doubtless give, in a variety of cases, a more correct expression of the present usage.

The pronunciation of the English language, like that of all living languages, is in a great measure arbitrary. It is exposed to the caprices of fashion and taste; it varies more or less in the different countries and districts in which the language is spoken; and it is also liable to change from one age to another. No two speakers or orthoepists would agree in the pronunciation of all its words. The ultimate standard is not the authority of any dictionary or any orthoepist; but it is the present usage of literary and wellbred society. It is therefore the duty of an orthoepist to show what the pronunciation actually is in such society, rather than what it should be.

The English orthoepists appeal to the usage of the best society in London as their principal standard; but the usage of good society in that metropolis is not uniform, and no two orthoepists would perfectly agree with each other in attempting to exhibit it: and, although it is not to be questioned, that, with regard to the many millions who speak the English language, the

B

usage of London is entitled to far more weight than that of any other city, yet it is not the only circumstance that is to be observed. The usage of the best society of the particular country or district where one resides, is not to be disregarded. If our pronunciation is agreeable to the analogy of the language, and conformed to the practice of the best society with which we have intercourse, we may have no sufficient reason to change it, though it should deviate from the usage of London. A proper pronunciation is indeed a desirable accomplishment, and is indicative of a correct taste and a good education; still it ought to be remembered, that in speech, as in manners, he that is the most precise is often the least pleasing, and that affectation is less pardonable than rusticity.

Two modes of pronouncing a word are, in many instances, given in this work, independent of the forms included within the brackets; and alternatives of this sort would have been presented in other cases, if different modes had not been cited from respectable authorities. The reader will feel perfectly authorized to adopt such a form as he may choose, whether it is exhibited within the brackets or out of them; and every one will probably, in some cases, prefer a mode found only within the brackets. The Compiler has not intended, in any case, to give his own sanction to a form which is not supported either by usage, authority, or analogy; he has, however, in some instances, in deference to the weight of authorities, given the preference to a mode which his own judgment, independent of the authorities, would not have preferred; for it would be unreasonable for him to make a conformity to his own taste, or to the result of his own limited observation, a law to those who may differ from him, and yet agree with a common, and perhaps the prevailing usage. But, though it has not been his design to make innovations, or to encourage provincial or American peculiarities, yet he has not always given the preference to the mode of pronunciation which is supported by the greatest weight of authority; and where orthoepists are divided, he has generally inclined to countenance that mode which is most conformable to analogy or to orthography.

There are many words of which the pronunciation, in England, is at present better conformed to the spelling, than it was formerly; and the principle of conformity between the manner of writing and that of speaking the language, has been carried still further in this country than in England—a principle which seems worthy of being encouraged, rather than of being checked. In a few cases, in which a mode of pronunciation indicated by the orthography, and one or more modes deviating from it, were about equally worthy of approbation, the Compiler has presented, on his own authority, the former only, allowing the reader to accept that or one included within the brackets, at his pleasure. The word lieutenant may be mentioned as a case

thority, and is deserving of countenance, as it is best conformed to the spelling of the word; yet, where it would appear stiff or affected, one of the other forms, lif-tèn'ant, liv-těn'ant, or lev-těn'ant, is to be preferred.

In giving the authorities for pronunciation, neither the spelling nor the notation of the orthoepists cited, has been generally exhibited, as it was necessary to reduce them all to one system. Their precise difference is not always presented with exactness; yet the cases of failure are not important. The different editions of the authors used as authorities, differ in various instances; and it is sometimes impossible to ascertain whether the intention of the writer has not been perverted by an error of the press.

When the authority of Perry is introduced in this Dictionary, reference is always had to his "Synonymous, Etymological, and Pronouncing Dictionary,” in royal 8vo, which was first published in London in 1805, and which differs in the pronunciation of many words from "Perry's Royal Standard English Dictionary," published many years before. It is the last mentioned work, however, which is made use of in the pronunciation of Scripture Proper Names.

Much care has been taken with regard to ORTHOGRAPHY, a subject which presents considerable difficulty; and, in order to adjust the spelling of many words which are written differently, an examination has been made of several of the best English dictionaries, and regard has also been had to usage and to analogy. With respect to several classes of words hereafter noticed, the orthography of this book has been nearly conformed to that of Dr. Webster's Dictionary; but there are various words to which Dr. Webster has given a new orthography, that will be found here in their usual form.

"Dr. Johnson's Dictionary," says Mr. Nares, "has nearly fixed the external form of our language." Before the publication of that Dictionary, the orthography of the English language was very unsettled; and notwithstanding the influence which that great work had in producing uniformity, the diversities, even now, are numerous; more so, doubtless, than is supposed by those who have not turned their attention particularly to the subject. Two of the most noted diversities are found in the two classes of words which end in the syllables ic or ick, and or or our; as in the words musick, publick, favour, honour. Dr. Johnson, in accordance with the general usage of his predecessors, spelled these classes of words with the k and u.

With respect to the k, though it is still retained, in the class of words referred to, in the recent editions of Johnson's Dictionary, and also in those of Sheridan, Walker, Jones, and Jameson, yet in most of the other English dictionaries which have been published since that of Johnson, it is omitted;

Johnson. Walker, although he retains it in his Dictionary, yet, in his remarks upon it, decides against it, and observes, that "the omission of it is too general to be counteracted, even by the authority of Johnson." The general usage, both in England and America, is now so strongly in favor of its omission, that it is high time it was excluded from the dictionaries. It is, however, retained in monosyllables; as, stick, brick; and in words ending in ock; as, hemlock, hillock. The verbs frolic, mimic, and traffic, which Dr. Webster excepts from his general rule, and writes with the k, stand, in this Dictionary, without it, as they do in those of Dyche (17th edition, 1794), Perry, Rees, Maunder, &c.; but in forming the past tenses and participles, the k must be used; as, trafficked, trafficking.

The question respecting the letter u, in words ending in or or our, is attended with more difficulty. Though the tendency to its exclusion has long been gaining strength, yet its omission is far from having become so general as that of the k. Dr. Johnson himself does not retain it in all the words in which consistency with his rule would require it; for, though he writes anterior and interior with the u, he writes posterior and exterior without it. Some of the English dictionaries, which have been published since that of Johnson, scrupulously follow him in generally retaining the u, yet they omit it in the words in which he omitted it; but the greater part of the more recent English dictionaries carry the omission much further than Johnson did, and restrict the use of it to a small number of words, chiefly of two syllables. Entick excludes it from all words of the class in question which are derived directly from the Latin, but retains it in the following words, which have a different origin, namely, behaviour, demeanour, enamour, endeavour, harbour, neighbour, parlour, saviour, succour, tabour; also, arbour (which is derived remotely from the Latin); and armor and savor he gives in both forms. Dr. Ash gives many of the words derived from the Latin both ways, but seems to prefer the omission of the u, according to the system of Entick. Dyche, Barclay, Fulton and Knight, Enfield, and Maunder, also Rees and Fulton in their respective abridgments of Johnson, retain the u in the words above enumerated, and also in the following twenty words of two syllables (except that Dyche and Barclay omit it in ardour, and Barclay, and Fulton and Knight, in tremour), which are of Latin origin, namely, ardour, candour, clamour, clangour, dolour, favour, fervour, flavour, fulgour, honour, humour, labour, odour, rigour, rumour, splendour, tremour, valour, vapour, and vigour; also in words derived from these, as disfavour, dishonour, favourable, honourable: but the dissyllables error, horror, and terror, as well as all the original and uncompounded words of more than two syllables, they write without the u; as, inferior, emperor, &c. Dr. Webster extends the omission not only to those words which are of Latin origin,

aries, in order to inquire what is the general usage of those who write the language, we shall find it in a very unsettled state. Many exclude the u altogether from the final syllable of the whole class of words in question; yet a greater number, doubtless, retain it in a part of them; but few of these, however, have probably settled very definitely, in their own minds, to what words they would limit it.

Such diversities being found in the dictionaries and in usage, it becomes a question of some difficulty to be determined, what course it is most advisable to adopt; for there is no one against which respectable authorities may not be cited. But as the omission of the u, in many words in which it was retained by Johnson, has now become the established usage; as a tendency to a further omission has long been gaining strength; as an entire exclusion is now supported by some good authorities; and as a partial omission is attended with inconvenience, on account of the difficulty of fixing the limit, the Compiler of this Dictionary has, after considerable hesitation, decided on an entire exclusion of the u from the whole class of words in question. If any, however, are dissatisfied with this course, they can supply the deficiency with respect to the words which are not of Latin origin, according to the system of Entick; or, together with these, they can include also the words of two syllables above enumerated, which are derived from the Latin, according to the manner of Dyche, Barclay and others.

There are several other classes of words, more or less numerous, with respect to which there is a want of uniformity in the dictionaries and in usage, and of which it is proper here to take notice.

1. Verbs derived from Greek verbs ending in w, and others formed on the same analogy, are written with the termination ize, and not ise; as, characterize, patronize.

2. Derivative adjectives ending in able are written without the e before a; as, blamable, movable; not blameable, moveable; except those of which the primitive word ends in ce or ge; in such the e being retained to soften the preceding consonant; as, peaceable, chargeable.

3. Words ending in the syllable al or all, with the full sound of broad a, have the 7 double; as, befall, downfall, miscall.

4. A class of compound words retain the final double l, which is found in the simple words; as, foretell, downhill.

5. A class of words, the most of which are derived from verbs ending with the letter 1, with the last syllable unaccented, and which are more commonly written with the final consonant of the primitive word doubled, though analogy would require it to be single, are inserted in both forms; as, traveller, traveler.-A few other words are inserted in two forms; as, dulness, dullness; fulness, fullness; skilful, skillful; wilful, willful; but chillness and