KEY TO REFERENCES.
Wk.— Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. By John Walker. Glasgow: Blackie & Son. 1847. J.— Dictionary of the English Language. By Samuel Johnson. 4th Edition. 1786. O.— Comprehensive English Dictionary. By John Ogilvie, LL.D. London: Blackie & Son. 1874. N.— Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language. By P. Austin Nuttall, LL.D. London: Geo. Routledge & Sons. 1873. Wor.— Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. By Joseph E. Worcester. London: Geo. Routledge & Sons. 1875. S.— Etymological and Pronouncing Dictionary. By Rev. Jas. Stormonth. London: Wm. Blackwood & Sons. 1879. R.— Webster’s Improved Pronouncing Dictionary. By Chas. Robson. London: Ward, Lock & Tyler. No date—recent. C.— Dictionary of the English Language. By Arnold J. Cooley. London and Edbro’: W. & R. Chambers. No date—recent edition. D.— Chambers’ Etymological Dictionary. By Jas. Donald, F.R.G.S. 1878. B.— Bell’s Standard Elocutionist. London: Wm. Mullan & Son. 1879.
If it be granted that of yore, orthoepists based their decisions with regard to the silent H on no other authority than that of their own assertions, or on dogmatic, or even spurious etymology, it flows as a corollary that these ancient law-givers can claim no allegiance from modern speakers. And again, if modern compilers of “pronouncing dictionaries,” being the direct descendants of the ancient orthoepists, assume the right of hereditary legislation, and persist in their attempts to govern our modern pronunciation by the worthless traditions of their predecessors, the yoke of their archaical jurisdiction must be thrown off altogether. We may therefore approach the question of “What words now have silent H’s?” entirely free from the bias of traditionary lore, and from the pressure of antiquarian and etymological considerations.
When preparing to obtain a firm basis upon which to found and sustain a plea for the recognition of a standard pronunciation founded on contemporary usage, the writer solicited the advice of Professor Bain, whose friendly assistance was partly conveyed in the following:—
“Where usage conflicts, we must first decide who are to be received as authorities. It seems to me that the stage is better than any other, and the habits of great actors might be referred to. The cultivated society of the metropolis ought to furnish a guide, but we can hardly fix upon a person representing them.”
Acting according to the spirit of this advice, the writer has consulted the USAGE OF CULTIVATED SOCIETY as represented by a number of gentlemen whose various qualifications eminently fit them to fulfil the conditions laid down by Dr Bain.[[9]] The result of the inquiry, and of personal and attentive observation, furnishes the following rules:—
Rule I. H is silent in Heir, Honest, Honor, Hour, and in their formatives, inclusive of honorarium (15) and honorary (18).
The figures represent the number of persons (among those consulted) who adhere to the particulars of these rules.
Rule II. In Humour and its formatives (be they verbs, substantives, or adjectives) the H may be either silent (10), or not (9).
In Humor (meaning fluid, moisture, &c.) and its formatives, the H is sounded.
Rule III. H is Aspirated in all other words in which it occurs. These include the following and all their formatives—Herb (17); Hotel (16); Hospital (17); Humble (18); Humility (19), &c., &c.
Notes. It is difficult to find a reason why an exception should be made in favour of honorarium and honorary; and, unless the H of these words can offer a better plea for entering into the pronunciation than can the H’s of the other formatives of Honor, we may—after the style of Lucian in his trial of the letter T—move for its expulsion. The rejection of an anomaly is a valuable improvement of which judgment approves, and which a love of regularity will vindicate and maintain. Uniformity presents so many advantages, that small concessions of opinion will be willingly made in order to secure it.
With regard to Hostler, there is a balance of opinion—(8) being in favour of the Aspirate, and (11) against it. The pronunciation of the word should be made depend on the spelling.
In 1775, Perry waged war with Kendrick concerning the H of Humour, and threw down the gauntlet in favour of a y-sound. Subsequently, Enfield entered the lists on the side of Kendrick; while Walker, Sheridan, and a host of others, ranged themselves on the side of Perry; and Smart at length proposed that the respective claims of H and Y should become matters for the optional decision of a perplexed public. Hence the phonetic rendering of the word in most modern dictionaries is indifferently “yū’mur” or “hū’mur.” Webster’s verdict was curt and concise: “The pronunciation “yumur” is odiously vulgar!” His words lose their edge in our day, for the “odious” practice prevails with a great number of good speakers. The present writer, if permitted to advance an opinion, would say that to his mind to drop the H “is a custom more honour’d in the breach than the observance;” and that they secede in very good company who aspirate.
The H of Humble has of recent years been reinstated in public favour by the late Mr Charles Dickens, whose “Uriah Heep” remains a warning to evil-doers and h-droppers. It would be a boon to all speakers of English if a series of “Uriahs” could contrive to eliminate every otiose H from the language.
H’s that occur in the body of words, as in forehead, exhibit, &c., are weaker than initial H’s; but a regard for them marks a refined speaker. The h of “exhibition” may be considered lost, so also the h in the “ham” of names—e.g., Bucking(h)am, Bal(h)am, &c. Long words, especially of a classic origin, often pay dearly for suddenly acquired popularity; and when any extraordinary event with which they are nominally connected puts them accidentally into the mouths of the people, they generally, in becoming household words, are clipped of much of their early dignity.
In parenthesis, a word about the indefinite article. One very excellent grammar says:—
Many of the best writers, as Macaulay, use an before H (not silent) when the accent is on the second syllable: “an historical parallel.”
Some words beginning with a vowel are pronounced as if they began with a consonantal y: ewe, eunuch, eulogy, European, useful, &c. Before such words some writers use an.[[10]]
A journalistic acquaintance lately informed the writer that the use of an before u (when = y) is a feature of English journalism, the Scotch being more addicted to a. The former method is more correct to the eye; the latter to the ear: uniformity favours the former. The employment of an before H-out-of-accent (e.g., hypothesis, harmonium, hiatus, horizon) is a nicety, and arises from a fastidious application of the law of Euphonic Adaptation.
Reverting for the last time to the history of the silent H, it is almost necessary to mention that an ingenious American writer (to whom we have already referred) was recently engaged disseminating opinions at variance with those adduced in this work. In a cleverly-written article, he says:—
I venture the conjecture, which, however, is somewhat more than a conjecture, that the suppression of H was once very widely diffused throughout England among all speakers, including the best, during which time—a very long one—the function of H was to throw a stress on the syllable which it ushered in, as it is in the Spanish word hijos.
He further suggests that vulgar h-dropping of to-day may be a survival of a former accepted method of pronunciation. Se non è vero, è ben trovato, and this recognition of the emphasizing power of H is highly commendable. But it cannot be conceded that the old English H was normally passive, and only roused into phonic activity on occasions of emphatic emergency; nor can it be allowed that the Spanish comparison is a felicitous one, it being rather that which an opponent might have adduced could he have deemed it to have had any bearing whatever on the point in question. This writer ought to have borne in mind that the h of hijos happens to be mute, whereas the j is an Aspirate. There is nevertheless much valuable matter in his article. It is moreover of service as an example of error; its author having fallen into a conclusion that lies open to those who allow their attention and judgment to become absorbed in the frolics of H’s in some of the old MSS. He points out, for instance, that in the “Lay of Havelok the Dane” (1280), the words eye, earl, ever, &c., have H’s; and he assumes the spelling to have represented an allowable pronunciation, neglecting, however, to take into consideration that this Lay is among the worst of examples, from the fact of its being essentially a provincial production (Sir F. Madden believes it to have hailed from Lincolnshire), and one in which meaningless H’s are uncommonly prevalent and letters are curiously placed. Although ancient writers habitually endeavoured to write a word as they spoke it, they did not resist the temptation of occasionally adding an idle letter, or of employing one as an orthographical expedient. In modern German, H is made to serve in the latter capacity; its duty being to lengthen the vowel that precedes it; e.g., in the word Bohn, “give it an understanding but no tongue.” The H prefixed to “eye” in Havelok, if not simply a scrivener’s blunder, may be a result of metathesis or of commutation, or of the two acting simultaneously—Ormin (circa 1210) wrote the word “eȝhe.” But, to refrain from speculative meanderings, one may refer to Mr Ellis, who mentions that in Havelok H is unnecessarily prefixed in holde (line 30), hete (146), het (653), hof (1976), &c., &c., and with no sort of uniformity; and, in giving the intended pronunciation, he affirms these H’s to be meaningless as signs of aspiration.
The most that, with a due regard for fact and authority, can be conceded to the writer of the magazine article above referred to, is that H, being formerly a harsh sound, was not unfrequently omitted for the sake of fluency in the same manner as whole syllables are occasionally lopped off by careless speakers. This concession, by-the-bye, is not specified in his treatise.