G32 MR HENRY BELLYSE BAILDON ON 



wo know also that it will not usually deviate very far from what we may call the " lin 

 of least resistance " between the two positions, so that, if we suppose this to be repre- 

 sented by a straight line joining the two points, we may, to continue the metaphor, 

 draw our line tight, and have thus approximately fixed the path of the sound change. 

 Then it becomes the function of phonetics to show what this " line of least resistance " 

 really is. And the principle on which this is to be determined is obviously one of the 

 place and mouth-position in which the two sounds are formed and uttered, together 

 with the postulate that sounds not only do not suddenly travel from a certain mouth- 

 p]ace or mouth-position to another far removed or widely different, but must of neces- 

 sity, when these have become far separated, have passed through some, if not all, the 

 intermediate stages. Such changes, for example, as now distinguish the English pro- 

 nunciation of vowels from the Germanic, Italian, or Continental sounds for the same 

 vowels, cannot have taken place per saltum, but must have passed through intermediate 

 stages. Our use of the vowel i, for instance, as equivalent to Ger. ai, cannot have come 

 in suddenly, because it involves too great a change in the mouth-place in which the 

 sound is formed. And the same is true of the other principal changes in our vowei 

 and consonantal sounds. Still it is not to be assumed that because a sound does not 

 change suddenly it may not change quickly, for the intermediate position may be one 

 of, so to speak, unstable equilibrium ; it may be more difficult or less agreeable than 

 the two positions between which it mediates. 



These, of course, are the commonplaces of phonetics, of which, however, it is useful 

 to be reminded in connection with this investigation. 



The other element of which I have spoken, viz., the contemporary pronunciation 

 of the corresponding words in ME., does not unfortunately rest on so secure a basis, 

 there being still room, in spite of all the labours of the eminent scholars already 

 mentioned and of such recent investigators as Luick, for doubt, not so much perhaps 

 as to the path taken by sound-changes, as to the time they took place and especially 

 the moment of their complete transmutation to the present accepted pronunciation. 

 Hence arises the possibility that this inquiry, taken together with such an admirable 

 and thorough investigation as that of Dr F. J. Curtis " On the Eimes of the Middle- 

 Scotch Romance Clariodus " (Anglia, vols, xvi and xvii), to which I am infinitely 

 indebted for its excellent method, not to speak of its valuable results, may reflect some 

 light on the Middle English of Dunbar's time. All the more, naturally, is this the case, 

 in that Dunbar often writes what must be called ME. and not MSc, just as Burns 

 wrote in standard eighteenth century English, as well as in the Ayrshire dialect of 

 that time. 



As Dr Curtis's article " On the Rimes of the Middle Scottish Romance Clariodus " 

 treats that work exactly on the same lines as I propose to treat Dunbar, and treats 

 also of much the same period, it will not be necessary to handle the results with the 

 same elaboration as Dr Curtis has done. My results must of necessity either agree or 

 disagree with his, and in neither case is it likely that any elaborate argument will be 



