On the PROPER MODE of PRONOUNCING the GREEK VOWELS. [From an Analytical Eflay on the Greek Alphabet, by Richard Payne Knight.] TH HE proper mode of pronouncing the Greek vowels has been a fubject of much controverly ever fince the revival of learning in the weft; it having been foon difcovered that the Byzantine Greeks, the only teachers of the language, had long loft the art of fpeaking it, though they continued to write it with purity, and even elegance. Erafmus firft compofed a whimsical dialogue upon the fub ject; and foon after Cheke, profeffor of Greek in the University of Cambridge, undertook to examine it; but his work was anticipated by an edit, published in the year 1542 by Stephen Gardener, bishop of Winchester, and chancellor of the University, ftrictly commanding that the mode of pronunciation eftab lifhed by the modern Greeks fhould be continued: by which the vowels H, I, and T, were confidered merëly as different figns for one found, the dipthongs OI and EI for another, and AI and E for another. Cheke and his friends found no diffi. culty in coufuting these abfurdities; but neither he, nor those who have followed him in the enquiry, have afforded us much real information, except that which was before given by Dionyfius of Halicarnaffus. "The A," fays that critic, "when extended, is the most fonorous of the long vowels. It is pronounced by the mouth being very much opened, and the breath forced upwards. Next is the long E; to pronounce which the mouth is moderately opened, and the found, fol lowing the breath, preffed down about the root of the tongue. Then comes the long O, which requires the mouth to be circular, and the lips contracted round, against the outward edges of which the breath must be ftrongly impelled. The r is lefs fonorous; for, the breath being conftrained by a confiderable contraction of the lips, the found produced is flender. In ferlor to all is the I; for, the mouth being but little opened, there is a collifion of the breath with the teeth and the lips are not employed in elevating the found." This paffage intirely fubverts the authority of the Byzantine Greeks, as well as that of our own fchools, none of which teach the true pronounciation of the vowels, except perhaps the Scotch. The critic has confidered the long ones rather than the short ones not because there was any difference in the mode of pronouncing them, but because tone can be better illuftrated and afcertained in a long found than a fhort one. It appears, from what he fays, that the A was pronounced as the talians now pronounce it, or as we pronounce it in the words waft, paft, c. The was alto as the Italians now pronounce it or as we pronounce the A when followed by a confonant and mute vowel, as in the words mate, plate, c. The Italians have also the true pronounciation of the, which we have miferably corrupted, except when followed by a confonant and mute vowels, as in the words mode, (ode, &c. As for the r, I am in doubt whether any modern nation pronounces it exaftly as the Greeks uid: the Italians follow the Latins, G 2 whofe whofe U correfponded to the or dipthong of the Greeks, the true pro'nounciation of which is retained by the French in their own ou. We pronounce it as the dipthong Er in fome inftances (as in ranp), and in others, as the French pronounce the fame dipthong (as in r), a barbarous found unknown to antiquity. Perhaps the nearest letter to it in modern alphabets is the French accented U; the found of which is, indeed, poor and flender; but fuch Dionyfius informs us that of the Greek Y was. "The vowels have varied but little in their forms, except that the Upfilon was antiently written like the Latin V, and the Iota by an indented line, thus, to diftinguish it from the Gamma, which was reprefented by the ftraight perpendicular line. The confufion between these two forms probably produced the I confonant; which feems, in the Roman alphabet, to have had that affinity with the G which it ftill retains in most modern languages." OBSERVATIONS on the LANGUAGE of BOTANY, by the Reverend THOMAS MARTYN, B. D. F. R. S. Profeffor of Botany in the University of Cambridge, and Fellow of the Linnean Society. In a Letter to the Prefident. [From the firft Volume of the Tranfactions of the Linnean Society.] I "SIR, HAVE little doubt of your agreeing with me in opinion, that nothing has contributed more to the rapid progrefs which the science of botany has made within the last thirty or forty years, than the excellent language which Linneus in vented, and which has been by common confent adopted, not only by those who follow the fyftematic arrangement of the illuftrious Swede, but by all who study botany as a fcience. Without pretending to any peculiar forefight, we may ven ture to affirm, that the Linnean language will continue to be in ufe, even though his fyftem fhould in after ages be neglected; and that it will be received into every country where the science of botany is ftudied, with certain modifications adapting it respectively to each vernacular tongue. "So long as botany was confined to the learned few, there was no difficulty in ufing the terms of the Linnean language, exactly as the author had delivered it: but now that it is become a general pursuit, not only of the scholar, but of fuch as have not had what is called a learned education; and fince the fair fex have adopted it as a favourite amufement; it is become neceffary to have a language that fhall be fuitable to every rank and condition, a language that may be incorporated into the general fund, and carry with it the proper marks of the mother tongue, into which it is to be received. "In order to attain this desirable end, I beg leave, fir, to fubmit to your confideration, and to that of the fociety over which you prefide, these two fundamental principles: First, that we should adhere as clofely ៩ C clofely as poffible to the Linnean language itself; and fecondly, that we should adapt the terminations, plurals, compounds and derivatives, to the ftructure and genius of our fterling English. "That we ought to adopt the Linnean terms themselves, is fufficiently apparent from the great advantage refulting from the ufe of one universal language. If we change or tranflate thefe terms, we lofe all this advantage, and become, unintelligible to botanists of every other nation, without any benefit gained on the other hand: for thefe new terms will be equally difficult even to the English student; and will require as much explanation as the Latin or Greek, many of which have prescription and poffeffion to To load plead in their defence the fcience and our English tongue with a useless addition of new words, is certainly an evil to be avoided. "Thus, for instance, in the parts of fructification, if we adopt the terms empalement, bloffem, chive, thread, tip, pointal, feed-bud, shaft, fummit, they require explanation, in their appropriate fenfe, as much as calyx, corolla, ftamen, flament, anthera, piftillum or piftil, germen or germ, ftyle, and figma, which are already familiar to the ears of all who have studied the science of botany, even though they have little or no acquaintance with the learned languages. For the fame reafons legume is to be preferred to hell or cod, filiqua or filique to pod, filicle to pouch, glume to husk or chaff, culm to straw, digitate to fingered, ovate to egged, pinnatifid to feather-cleft. "Some few English terms, it must be owned, were ufed by the Learned Grew; fuch as empalement, chive, femet for anther, pointell, ovary for germ, and knob or button for ftigma: but these never made their way into the world, or became of general use. It is not neceffary therefore to difcufs the comparative merits of these terms with the Linnean; fince, after all, we must submit to the fupreme law in these matters, general confent*: and when a Greek or Latin term has been once fanctioned by ufe, there can be no doubt but that it ought to be preferred even to a te m originally English, which is either little known, or is applied to another fignification. "It feems therefore upon the whole to be a defirable object, that all who talk or write of botany in English, fhould keep as close as por." fible to the Linnean language: hor does it feem liable to any material. objection, if we proceed with difcretion and propriety, without vio-. lating the rules of common fenfe or of grammar. "For inftance, when there is a fignificant English term, which has been in long and general ufe, it ought to be preferred. Thus it would be abfurd to put femen for feed, or folium for lea: cell is preferable to loculament, partition to diffepiment, and perhaps jeed-vej el to differ pericarp. Opinions will upon the extent to which this exception to the general principle fhould be carried: but the original terms of the fcience in our language are fo few, that it may very well be confined within a small compafs. "There are however cafes, in which it seems adviseable rather to invent a new English term, than to Thus in the adopt the Linnean. cafe of very long words, fuch as -"Si volet ufus, campa nel campaniform, infundibuliform, hypocrateriform, and other fefquipedalian terms, which give too great an air of pedantry to the language, it will perhaps be thought better by most persons to use bell-jhaped, funjou,ed, and jalver-shaped; or bell-form, funnel- orm, and falverfarm; our English rongue admitting compounds with great fuccefs and facility; efpecially fince thefe terms convey immediately to the English botanift a familiar idea of the feveral forms of the corolla, which they are intended to exprefs. edge of a leaf refembling the teeth of a faw. "There are likewife fome Latin words which do not perfectly affimilate to our language, and therefore are better tranflated. Such are teres and amplexicauns. Now we cannot wellfay in English tere or amplexicaul; but the firft may frequently be tranflated round: this however will fometimes create a confufion, and columna, gives the idea of teres most precifely; for when applied to a ftem, or any of its fubdivifions, it fignifies, not a cylindric, but a tapering form, like the fhaft of a column. The fecond of these terms may be rendered, fignificantly enough, embracing or ftem clapping. "When words alf have already an appropriate fenfe in Eng'ith, it feems better to tranflate them than to use the originals themselves. Thefe and other exceptions, Thus, although in Latin we fay which will readily prefent themfeves caulis ftrictus or exajperatus, and to any one who confiders the subfolium exasperatum; yet it has an ject, being admitted; the advantage abfurd found in English to talk of a of the fcience will be most effectualfrist or exasperated stalk, and of ly confulted by retaining the Linleaves being exasperated. On the nean terms, whenever there is no contrary, it is still worfe, although it cogent reafon to the contrary. It is has not fo ridiculous a found, to drop frequently even dangerous to fubftithe original Latin term, in order to tute equivalent terms; or at least it adopt an English one before appro- requires the utmost caution, if we priated to another fenfe, and there would avoid confusion. Thus, if fore only tending to create confu- we tranflate the two Linnean terms fion. What I mean may be exem- deciduus and caducus by the fame plified in the terms lanceolate and English word falling, two diftin& Jerrate, applied to leaves: these are ideas are confounded: would it become fufficiently familiar by ufe; not therefore be better to use the but if not, the explanation must be two Latin terms, with an English referred to; whereas, if we ufe the termination, deciduous and caducous? words lanced and arved, a novice Plumofus is rendered feathery; and might easily be mifled; for having pinnatus, feathered: but is not this been accustomed to the ideas of a confounding ideas totally distinct ? lanced gum and fawed wood, he will and are not therefore the terms not readily apply the former to the plumous or rather plumose, and pinfhape of a lance's head; or the lat-nated or rather pinnate, to be preter to the sharp notching round the ferred? Dichotomus may be tranflated : "⚫ Caduens fignifies a more quick or fudden falling off than deciduus. The calyx of the poppy dropping before the corolla is unfo'ded, is faid to be caducus. In Berberis, and many plants of the clafs Tetradynamia, it falls off; but not till after the coralla is căpanded; the calyx in this cafe is faid to be decjiluus?". forked: forked: but this English term implying no more than one divifion into two parts, does by no means fully exprefs the idea of a ftem continually and regularly dividing in pairs from the bottom to the top. Surely then dichotomous is prefer able to forked. "But where fhall we find English words to exprefs all the variations of pubefcence, which Linnæus has defcriminated with fo much nicety? Some of them indeed may very well admit of translation * ; but many will not. For instance, if we render fcaber by the English word rough, how fhall we diftinguish it from afper, which has the fame fignification? We are therefore reduced to the neceffity of rendering affe, rough; and of retaining moft of the other Latin terms with English terminations, as fcabrous, birjate, hifpid, &c. unless we would wantonly load the science of botany, and our English tongue, with terms newly invented or applied, which are not either more fignificant, or more easy to be understood, than thofe which we are already in poffeffion of. "As to the fecond general principle, namely, that the terminations and plurals of our words, together with their compounds and derivatives, fhould be adapted to the ftructure and genius of the English language; it will not perhaps by ma ny be thought of equal importance with the first. There is perhaps no language that is more irregular than ours, or that admits of more licence in many respects. "This however is no reason why, in the formation of new terms, we should not follow fuch fundamental rules as we have, avoid irregularities as much as poffible, and add no fresh barbarifms to those which already difgrace us. The well known Horatian rule | must be our contftant guide in the formation of our terminations and plurals; and analogy must be attended to in the structure of our compounds and derivatives. Thus nectary may be used for nectarium, pistil for piftillum, ftyle for ftylus,pericarp for pericarpium,recepta cle for rece, taculum,capfule for capfula, glume for gluma, culm for culmus, &ċ. Some of these words as nectarium, and pericarpium, are become fo familiar to learned botanifts, that they will perhaps hardly be perfuaded to give up the Latin termination. The final in a may be admitted more readily; and corella having ufe on its fide, will doubtlefs be preferred by many to coro!, which has not fo melodious a found. Naruralifts talk familiarly of a butterfly's antenną ; and cupola, which in the last century was confidered as a ftranger, is in this admitted to be a denizen. I muft obferve, however that by changing the final a into fome "If the jus et norma loquendi would permit, I fhould be for rendering all Latin adjectives ending in us, by the English termination ous and all such as end in gas, by the termination ofe.” "As fcabrities, lana, lanugo, villus, tomentum, pili, fetæ, firigæ, bami, flimuli, aculei, furta, Spina, &c. and the adjectives derived from thefe and others; as lanatus, lanuginofus, villofus, tomentofus, pilofus, fetaceus, firigofus, bamatus, aculeatus furcatus, spinofus, fcaber, birtus, birf tus, hifpidus, xalperatus, &c * As lana wool, piti hairs, feta bristles, bami hooks, flimuli stings, aculei prickles (pinæ thorns: lanatus may be rendered wooly, pilofus hairy, fetaceus brilly, bamatus hooked, aculeatus prickly, ipinofus thorny." "If fo, in order to preferve the analogy, exafperatus may be tranflated roughend." "Et nova factaque nuper habebunt verba fidem, fi Græco fonte cadant, parcè detorta." |