CDS 



Mr. Lofft'i Reply to the Inquirer. 



[Nov. 1, 



very improperly applied this rule to all 

 L^iin (liiryilablfs, becaule tliey are ac 

 ce'.ied on the fir!t fyllable. Hence wc fay 

 rqucs. Comes., m'lfer^ hcmus, 'v':qor, r'tcor, 

 liquor, Umor, ic making the fiilt /yljahles 

 long, or at iealt nearly fo. Why do we 

 not pronounce the firft fylhblts of eques, 

 comes, nvjer, nemus, as we do the fit ft lyl- 

 lables of iltci genitives, iquilis, c'Jm/is, 

 nufen, ncmoris ? And why do we not 

 pjonounce liicli witJs as 'v'igcr, rif^or fi- 

 q/icr, as -^e do the Eiglidi wjrds -vigour, 

 rt^our, liquor? AnJ the firll- lyllable in 

 iimoras we cio the firit Cyllabie of the ge- 

 nitive tImZri.', and of the Englifh word 

 timirous ? If we pionnunced the firft fyl- 

 lable (.t ;he a-'jefl ve jna'iii as we do tlie 

 firft :ylhble of the E-!glilli word malice, 

 Wc flviuid properly diftiiguilh ii frnn ««- 

 lus, an apple-iree. By an attention to 

 thi-- iiilewe ftioiill eaii'y diftingii'fti be- 

 tween the piefentand preterperffft tenfes 

 of many verbs, as i-^iiit an t '-j'inil, fUgit 

 and iu<iit, legit and I'cgit, &c. Again, 

 many Englifli vvor('s of three fyliables ac- 

 cented on the firft havf that fyllable flioit j 

 we have tlu er r- hiftily concluded that 

 all La in irifTyllabL's accerted on the firft 

 mul have I hit iv liable fltort, inlefs it be 

 ]on^ ny pofition, and therefore we very 

 impro, triy fay, s'idera, limir.a, timile, 

 femine, vlribui, dicere, fcrtbere. Sec. — 

 Why do we not pronounce the fiift fyl- 

 iables of thefe wr..'ds with a long vowel 

 found, in the fame manner in which we 

 pronounce the firft fyliables of sldus, h 

 men, timis, s'e-nen, nfires, dico, fcribo, 

 Sec. ; for all vov ds long in themfclvcs, 

 aitd no! bv poi.tion, fhould certainly be 

 iitteied with a long v 'wel found. An 

 attenti n to this rem->'k w© ild fhe>v the 

 dlfftrnce between populuj, pe. pie, and 

 flpulus, a pr>i iar-tree. In polyl'yllables ac- 

 cetiied on the antepenult we fometimes 

 err in a ma-.nei liitiilar to he hft cafe, by 

 giving a (hort fouini t-i a vowel long by 

 nature, as \r\ ju-vonlibus, and at cher 

 times by giving a Ipng found to a, vowel 

 na u'ally ftiort, as in inttrea. But in 

 wotiis of this kir.d we do nut iiniverfally 

 err ; for I do not remember that I ever 

 I'.eaid a Icl'.olar pronounce fuch words as 

 inc^l'itttis, Uepofilujn, cansiUujn, exilium, 

 c.rctdiiitn, &c. impr.per.y. Laif ly, words 

 ending in a )oi g vowel, as domi/ii. 

 Of in a long vowcl followed by a 

 fugle confon^nt, fuch as datives and abla. 

 lives of the firif and fecond declenfion, and 

 genitives fnigular, ncminiiives, accufa- 

 tives, and vocatives, plural of ihe fourih 

 • declenfion, as dsmnnstgradus, Sec. fhsuld 

 always b^ uttered with a loDg vowel 



found, though the accent or ftrefs can ne. 

 verfill on fuch (vllables, except by a very 

 fingular poeiic licence. I therefore think 

 Dr. Warner h<is mtde a iniftiki in his re. 

 mark on A':/ confctre fihi, nulla pallefcere 

 culpa ; for he futipoles the hul fyllable in 

 fibi to be not only the longelt, but the 

 ftrongeft fyliable in i he line. I admit that 

 it is the lonpe^t fyllable, becauie it is fol- 

 lowed by the casl'ural pa'ife ; but as that 

 is only a panfe of Uifpenllon, not neceff.irily 

 atten.led by either cIcv.itKn or <!eprefrion 

 of voice, I cTnn it think wi; are warranted 

 in giving ftreiif^th, i. e. hying a firefsor 

 accent on tlist fyllable. Upon the whole, 

 I conclude, that neither accent nor quan- 

 tity are to be neglecled ; and that fo long 

 as we attenrt to th^ ju;1 rules of accent, 

 and carefully retain the true natural found 

 of the vo\«els, never mr.king a fiiort one 

 long (ir a long one .'hcrt, wc cannot much 

 eir in our pronunciation. 



I think your Correfiiondent miftakes' in 

 fiippofing thiit Di . C-irev approves of 

 Dr. Warner's plan of piying liitleorno 

 at'ention to accent in rtading Latin. I 

 have lead his "Latin Proiaiy inade E.il'y," 

 with i.i.^h approbation, but can fee no 

 fyniptnois of li.s having embraced fuch an 

 opinion. I am, Sir, &c. 



J. PlCKBOURN. 



Hackney, Sept. 17, 1805. 

 To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 



SIR, 



I PASS my time, thank Heaven, with 

 m-iny fatisfac^tions which tend to nou- 

 riO) the benevolent principle. I do not 

 wifh !o be (lra*n into captious and angry 

 di:"p:it ition, a thing very ill accordant to 

 the ipirit of philofophy. The Inquirer, 

 however, has chofen toaddrefsa Paptrto 

 me of fuch a kind, that, notwiihftnnding 

 little appears nccefCiry to be faid in rrply 

 to if, fomething, I appreheiKi, ought to be 

 laid i and that foniething miift carry me 

 into more length thsn fuch a po/itive and 

 defuhory tsttack, from the very nature ot 

 it, woulil carry him. 



That the term Ji'nple may be ufed with 

 degrees cf crmp3;ifn when it is applied 

 in an indtfiiiite popular fenfe, is very rea- 

 dily admitted. In the ancient and mo- 

 dein languaj^es it is fo ufed. But when it 

 is made ti.e hafis of a metaphyf'ical propo- 

 ■fition, it ought to be ufed in its ftricl ai;d 

 proLcr fenfe. And in that fenfe iimplicity 

 is abfoliite and indiviiible : it admits ot 

 no degree of complexity whatever. 

 - If therefore there be limple ideas of ftn- 

 ■fation and fimple ideas of abftraflion, one 

 canaoi be more fiinple or Jefs fimple than 



the 



