Cardamī´nĕs.—All that the first ( ¯ ) does here is to prevent us saying cardami´nnes. The real false quantity would be carda´mmines. The accent, however, guards against this.
The second ( ¯ ) is useful. It is certainly better to say cardamín-ees than cardamín-ess, because the e is from the Greek [a]η]. And this gives us a rule. Let the ( ¯ ) be used to distinguish [a]η] from [a]ε], and [a]ω] from [a]ο], and in no other case. I would not say that it is necessary to use it even here. It is better, however, to say Macháōn than Macháōn. By a parity of reasoning, the ( ˘ ), rejected in the work before us, is sometimes useful. Let it be used in those derivatives where [a]ε] replaces [a]η], and [a]ο] replaces [a]ω]; e. g. having written Machaōn, write, as its derivative, Machaōnidæ—i. e. if the word be wanted.
This is the utmost for which the signs of quantity are wanted for English Latin. I do not say that they are wanted even for this.
One of the mechanical inconveniences arising from the use of the signs of quantity is this—when a long syllable is accented, two signs fall upon it. To remedy this, the work before us considers that the stress is to be laid on the syllable preceding the accent. Yet, if an accent mean anything, it means that the stress fall on the syllable which it stands over.
A few remarks upon words like Pīeridæ, where the accent was omitted.—Here two short syllables come between two long ones. No accent, however, is placed over either. Evidently, quantity and accent are so far supposed to coincide, that the accentuation of a short vowel is supposed to make it look like a long one. It is a matter of fact, that if, on a word like Cassiōpe, we lay an accent on the last syllable but one, we shock the ears of scholars, especially metrical ones. Does it, however, lengthen the vowel? The editors of the work in question seem to think that it does, and, much more consistent than scholars in general, hesitate to throw it back upon the preceding syllable, which is short also. Metrists have no such objection; their practice being to say Cassíope without detriment to the vowel. The entomologists, then, are the more consistent.
They are, however, more consistent than they need be. If an accent is wanted, it may fall on the shortest of all possible syllables. Granting, however, that Cassiópe (whether the o be sounded as in nōte or nōt) is repugnant to metre, and Cassíope to theory, what is their remedy? It is certainly true that Cássiope is pronounceable. Pope writes—
"Like twinkling stars the miscellanies o'er."
No man reads this miscéllanies; few read it míscellánies. The mass say mis´cellanies. Doing this, they make the word a quadrisyllable; for less than this would fall short of the demands of the metre. They also utter a word which makes Cas´siope possible. Is Cássiope, however, the sound? Probably not. And here authors must speak for themselves:—
"Take, e. g., Cassiope and Corticea: in words like the former of these, in which the last syllable is long, there is no greater difficulty of pronunciation in laying the stress upon the first syllable than upon the second."
True! but this implies that we say Cássiopé. Is -e, however, one bit the longer for being accented, or can it bear one iota more of accent for being long? No. Take -at from peat, and -t from pet, and the result is pe—just as long or just as short in one case as the other.