Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
background [19 May 2010 19:35 BST]
pftaylor
background [23 June 2018 11:29 BST] (current)
pftaylor
Line 19: Line 19:
 === 2. The Various Editions: === === 2. The Various Editions: ===
  
-== 2.1 Walker (1735-1807) published 4 editions in his lifetime ==+== 2.1 Walker (1732-1807) published 4 editions in his lifetime ==
  
 **1791** ​  1st Edition, republished in Dublin 1794 (and Philadelphia 1803?)\\ **1791** ​  1st Edition, republished in Dublin 1794 (and Philadelphia 1803?)\\
Line 47: Line 47:
 == 2.2   The Stereotype Edition == == 2.2   The Stereotype Edition ==
  
-John Murdoch (1747-1824) in his preface dated 1st May 1809, claims to have received the mantle directly from Walker: ‘Mr Walker did me the honour, a considerable time before his decease, of recommending me as a fit person to edit this Stereotype edition.’ ​ Certainly he was known to Walker, who was a subscriber, albeit posthumously,​ to Murdoch’s ‘Dictionary of Distinctions’,​ published in London in 1811 by Longman, Law et al.  Other subscribers were Gilbert and Robert Burns, respectively the brother and son of the poet, himself a close friend of Murdoch, who had taught him Latin, French and Mathematics. ​  This edition was the first in octavo, apparently much cheaper than the previous editions, a saving of 25% to 40% being claimed for the stereotyping process. ​ Purchasers are, however, assured that it is not abridged, but contains ‘every word that is to be found in Mr Walker’s last improved quarto edition.’ ​ It may therefore be a reprint of the 4th Edition, but this has yet to be investigated. ​ Under ‘DENIGRATE’ it states: ‘In a former edition…’,​ and it is certainly a direct descendant of the 4th Edition.\\+John Murdoch (1747-1824) in his preface dated 1st May 1809, claims to have received the mantle directly from Walker: ‘Mr Walker did me the honour, a considerable time before his decease, of recommending me as a fit person to edit this Stereotype edition.’ ​ Certainly he was known to Walker, who was a subscriber, albeit posthumously,​ to Murdoch’s ‘Dictionary of Distinctions’,​ published in London in 1811 by Longman, Law et al.  Other subscribers were Gilbert and Robert Burns, respectively the brother and son of the poet, himself a close friend of Murdoch, who had taught him Latin, French and Mathematics. ​  This edition was the first in octavo, apparently much cheaper than the previous editions, a saving of 25% to 40% being claimed for the stereotyping process. ​ Purchasers are, however, assured that it is not abridged, but contains ‘every word that is to be found in Mr Walker’s last improved quarto edition.’ ​ It also contains the Advertisement to the Fourth Edition after Walker'​s Preface. ​ It may therefore be a reprint of the 4th Edition, but this has yet to be investigated. ​ Under ‘DENIGRATE’ it states: ‘In a former edition…’,​ and it is certainly a direct descendant of the 4th Edition.\\
  
 The following is a list of the Stereotype Editions, including a few not unreasonable assumptions. ​ There is nothing at present to suggest any revisions over the course of its existence, and after 1830 it appears to have been superseded almost entirely by new editions.\\ The following is a list of the Stereotype Editions, including a few not unreasonable assumptions. ​ There is nothing at present to suggest any revisions over the course of its existence, and after 1830 it appears to have been superseded almost entirely by new editions.\\
Line 54: Line 54:
 1810 7th(assumed) and 8th Editions\\ 1810 7th(assumed) and 8th Editions\\
 1811 9th and 10th Editions\\ 1811 9th and 10th Editions\\
-1812 11th(assumed) ​Edition\\+1812    11th Edition\\
 1813 12th and 13th Editions\\ 1813 12th and 13th Editions\\
 1814 14th Edition\\ 1814 14th Edition\\
Line 70: Line 70:
 1827 29th Edition\\ 1827 29th Edition\\
 1830 30th Edition\\ 1830 30th Edition\\
 +1836    32nd Edition\\
 1847    34th Edition\\ 1847    34th Edition\\
  
Line 83: Line 84:
 The title pages of these copies bear no additional claims to being a new addition, and in fact seem to be more or less reprints of the 3rd Edition. ​ Under ‘DENIGRATE’ they contain the words: ‘In the last edition of this Dictionary’,​ and they have the Appendix as per the 3rd Edition, though with no Advertisement and no conclusion. ​ There are some differences between the copies, and between the 3rd Edition, but so far these are minor changes to the vowel numbers or to the parts of speech indicators, some of which may well be misprints or typesetting errors.\\ The title pages of these copies bear no additional claims to being a new addition, and in fact seem to be more or less reprints of the 3rd Edition. ​ Under ‘DENIGRATE’ they contain the words: ‘In the last edition of this Dictionary’,​ and they have the Appendix as per the 3rd Edition, though with no Advertisement and no conclusion. ​ There are some differences between the copies, and between the 3rd Edition, but so far these are minor changes to the vowel numbers or to the parts of speech indicators, some of which may well be misprints or typesetting errors.\\
  
-Initially published by a consortium, including Thomas Tegg, it was published from 1826 onwards by Tegg and his subsidiaries alone. In 1825 there was the consortium printing, including Tegg, and Cordell for this same year lists a printing by Tegg, Griffin, Cumming and Baudry, which may have been Tegg’s first independent venture. ​ The British Library has the 1822 copy, suggesting that this is probably the first in this series, whilst in 1830 Tegg published the first ‘New Edition, carefully revised and corrected’.\\+Initially published by a consortium, including Thomas Tegg, it was published from 1826 onwards by Tegg and his subsidiaries alone. In 1825 there was the consortium printing, including Tegg, and Cordell for this same year lists a printing by Tegg, Griffin, Cumming and Baudry, which may have been Tegg’s first independent venture, though I have also seen an 1823 edition offered for sale on the internet, with the publisher given as Tegg alone.  The British Library has the 1822 copy, suggesting that this is probably the first in this series, whilst in 1830 Tegg published the first ‘New Edition, carefully revised and corrected’.\\
  
 The American 3rd Edition of 1807, ‘from the last London edition’, is the English 3rd Edition, despite the appearance of the 4th Edition the previous year, though with the Appendix incorporated into the whole. ​ It also has, as do all my other American editions, the words ‘In the last edition…..’ under DENIGRATE.\\ The American 3rd Edition of 1807, ‘from the last London edition’, is the English 3rd Edition, despite the appearance of the 4th Edition the previous year, though with the Appendix incorporated into the whole. ​ It also has, as do all my other American editions, the words ‘In the last edition…..’ under DENIGRATE.\\
  
-I have copies for the years 1822 and 1824 to 1829.  It is not unreasonable to assume a printing for 1823, especially as Cordell lists an edition for 1823 by J. Richardson and Co., G. Offer, J. Sharpe [etc], the same consortium as that res-ponsible ​for the 1822 and 1824 printings. ​ I have also seen offered an 1823 printing by T. Kelly, London, given as ‘A New Edition’, which seems unlikely as this wording does not otherwise appear until the 1830 Tegg, the Caxton Edition having ‘An Entirely New Edition’. ​ This may be a simple error or it may be an incorrect date.  Cordell lists printings by Kelly for 1832, 1835, 1840 and 1844, while I have the printings for 1829, 1832, 1840 and 1854.  They were all printed for Thomas Kelly, London, R.Griffin and Co., Glasgow, J.Cumming, Dublin, and M.Baudry, Paris, the same combination as for Tegg.  Additionally,​ my printings are all 3rd Edition reprints, suggesting that the earlier ones also were, and making it less likely, though not impossible, that Kelly would have produced a new edition in 1823.  What I also have, however, is an 1826 Tegg with an additional engraved title page, dated 1823 and printed for Thomas Tegg, T.Kelly, G.Virtue, J.Greaves, Manchester also E.Allen, Leicester. ​ This identical title page is in the 1832 Kelly, while the 1829 Kelly has the title page undated, published by Thomas Kelly alone. ​ The University of Exeter library catalogue has a London ‘new edition’ by J.Robins for 1823, but as the words are in brackets it may only mean ‘another printing’.\\+I have copies for the years 1822 and 1824 to 1829.  It is not unreasonable to assume a printing for 1823, especially as Cordell lists an edition for 1823 by J. Richardson and Co., G. Offer, J. Sharpe [etc], the same consortium as that responsible ​for the 1822 and 1824 printings. ​ I have also seen offered an 1823 printing by T. Kelly, London, given as ‘A New Edition’, which seems unlikely as this wording does not otherwise appear until the 1830 Tegg, the Caxton Edition having ‘An Entirely New Edition’. ​ This may be a simple error or it may be an incorrect date.  Cordell lists printings by Kelly for 1832, 1835, 1840 and 1844, while I have the printings for 1829, 1832, 1840 and 1854.  They were all printed for Thomas Kelly, London, R.Griffin and Co., Glasgow, J.Cumming, Dublin, and M.Baudry, Paris, the same combination as for Tegg.  Additionally,​ my printings are all 3rd Edition reprints, suggesting that the earlier ones also were, and making it less likely, though not impossible, that Kelly would have produced a new edition in 1823.  What I also have, however, is an 1826 Tegg with an additional engraved title page, dated 1823 and printed for Thomas Tegg, T.Kelly, G.Virtue, J.Greaves, Manchester also E.Allen, Leicester. ​ This identical title page is in the 1832 Kelly, while the 1829 Kelly has the title page undated, published by Thomas Kelly alone. ​ The University of Exeter library catalogue has a London ‘new edition’ by J.Robins for 1823, but as the words are in brackets it may only mean ‘another printing’.\\
  
  
Line 168: Line 169:
 == 2.9   The Glasgow printing == == 2.9   The Glasgow printing ==
  
-In 1831 a pocket size edition appeared, published in Glasgow by Blackie, Fullerton, and Co., and A. Fullerton and Co., Edinburgh. ​ In 1834 the same printing appeared in London under the name of Alan Bell and Co., and Simpkin and Marshall. ​ Copac lists a printing in Glasgow for 1835 but with no other details, and as there was, according to Cordell, an octavo edition by Francis Orr and Sons in Glasgow in 1834, the 1835 could be by Blackie, Orr, or someone else entirely, but it turns out to have been Blackie and Son.  Glasgow appears again in 1846 and 1847, and a final appearance ​in 1854, all with Blackie and Son.\\+In 1831 a pocket size edition appeared, published in Glasgow by Blackie, Fullerton, and Co., and A. Fullerton and Co., Edinburgh. ​ In 1834 the same printing appeared in London under the name of Alan Bell and Co., and Simpkin and Marshall. ​ Copac lists a printing in Glasgow for 1835 but with no other details, and as there was, according to Cordell, an octavo edition by Francis Orr and Sons in Glasgow in 1834, the 1835 could be by Blackie, Orr, or someone else entirely, but it turns out to have been Blackie and Son.  Glasgow appears again in 18461847, and then in 1854, with a possibly final, undated, printing between then and 1865, all with Blackie and Son.\\
  
-The title page is, compared with octavo copies but in keeping with pocket editions, fairly minimal in terms of wording, but most noticeably there is no reference to a new edition. ​ On the reverse are the printers, Hutchison and Brookman, Villafield, Glasgow. ​ Then follows the Preface and the Advertisement to the Fourth Edition. ​ Unusually for a pocket edition the Rules to be Observed and the Principles of Pronunciation are given in full.  The dictionary itself has I and J, U and V combined, ‘ANTIQUE’ with the short ‘e’, and it ends with an appendix of words ending in ‘ose’.\\+The title page is, compared with octavo copies but in keeping with pocket editions, fairly minimal in terms of wording, but most noticeably there is no reference to a new edition. ​ On the reverse, apart from the undated copy, are the printers, Hutchison and Brookman, Villafield, Glasgow. ​ Then follows the Preface and the Advertisement to the Fourth Edition. ​ Unusually for a pocket edition the Rules to be Observed and the Principles of Pronunciation are given in full.  The dictionary itself has I and J, U and V combined, ‘ANTIQUE’ with the short ‘e’, and it ends with an appendix of words ending in ‘ose’.\\
  
 In 1830 Tegg published his ‘New Edition’, {[[background#​A new edition, carefully revised and corrected: ​ Tegg’s Editions|See 2.6 above]]}. ​ Apart from the comments regarding the title page everything-else is the same as for Blackie’s,​ most notably the same printers. ​ Only the portrait is different {[[background#​portraits_of_john_walker|See 3.10]]}.\\ In 1830 Tegg published his ‘New Edition’, {[[background#​A new edition, carefully revised and corrected: ​ Tegg’s Editions|See 2.6 above]]}. ​ Apart from the comments regarding the title page everything-else is the same as for Blackie’s,​ most notably the same printers. ​ Only the portrait is different {[[background#​portraits_of_john_walker|See 3.10]]}.\\
Line 178: Line 179:
  
  
-== 2.10 B.H.Smart’s Edition ==+== 2.10 Benjamin Humphrey ​Smart’s Edition ==
  
 For 1836 Cordell lists a Walker published in London by T.Cadell et al, ‘adapted to the present state of Literature and Science’. ​ This is the wording used on the title page of Smart’s Edition of Walker, which reads in full:\\ For 1836 Cordell lists a Walker published in London by T.Cadell et al, ‘adapted to the present state of Literature and Science’. ​ This is the wording used on the title page of Smart’s Edition of Walker, which reads in full:\\
Line 225: Line 226:
 == 2.13 A New Edition, critically revised, enlarged and amended. ​ Nuttall’s Edition == == 2.13 A New Edition, critically revised, enlarged and amended. ​ Nuttall’s Edition ==
  
-In 1855 G. Routledge and Co. published the 1st Edition of Nuttall’s Walker. ​ Nuttall omitted the introduction,​ principles and notes and, like Smart, but using a simpler system, introduced diacritic marks. ​ The dictionary begins with a preface which turns out to be a complete reprint of the preface from Enfield’s Walker, with an addition by Nuttall to account for his edition. ​ Like Enfield’s the dictionary proper is headed ‘General Pronouncing Dictionary’ and the Key to the Diacritics is identical with his.  On so far only a superficial inspection the Routledge Edition of Nuttall appears to be a revision of the Enfield. ​ The vocabulary is larger, and I and J, U and V, are completely separated alphabetically,​ but the definitions are either identical or very close. ​ Further printings followed in 1856, 57, 58, 59 and 60, then in 1862 a copy by Routledge,​Warne and Routledge. ​ There was another in 1864, and in 1866 both Routledge and Warne published separate editions, Warne’s being titled the Pearl Edition, ‘With Webster'​s definitions and Worcester'​s improvements,​ thoroughly remodelled, enlarged and adapted to the present state of English Literature.’ ​ Unlike Routledge it appears to be much less reliant on Enfield. ​ They continued to go their separate ways and the following year Routledge produced a new printing, with a preface and this codicil: The Stereo-plates of this work, owing to the numerous impressions which had been called for, having been completely worn out, and the great demand still increasing, the Publishers, without regard to expense, have had this edition printed from a fresh set of electrotype plates, taken from a new and beautiful type, cast expressly for the present edition.\\+George Routledge founded his publishing firm with WH Warne in 1836.  ​In 1851 George Routledge and Cowas started with Frederick Warne. ​ This became Routledge, Warne and Routledge in 1858, and when Warne left to start his own company in 1865 it became George Routledge and Sons.\\ 
 + 
 +In 1855 George ​Routledge and Co. published the 1st Edition of Nuttall’s Walker. ​ Nuttall omitted the introduction,​ principles and notes and, like Smart, but using a simpler system, introduced diacritic marks. ​ The dictionary begins with a preface which turns out to be a complete reprint of the preface from Enfield’s Walker, with an addition by Nuttall to account for his edition. ​ Like Enfield’s the dictionary proper is headed ‘General Pronouncing Dictionary’ and the Key to the Diacritics is identical with his.  On so far only a superficial inspection the Routledge Edition of Nuttall appears to be a revision of the Enfield. ​ The vocabulary is larger, and I and J, U and V, are completely separated alphabetically,​ but the definitions are either identical or very close. ​ Further printings followed in 1856, 57, 58, 59 and 60, then in 1862 a copy by Routledge,​Warne and Routledge. ​ There was another in 1864, and in 1866 both Routledge and Warne published separate editions, Warne’s being titled the Pearl Edition, ‘With Webster'​s definitions and Worcester'​s improvements,​ thoroughly remodelled, enlarged and adapted to the present state of English Literature.’ ​ Unlike Routledge it appears to be much less reliant on Enfield. ​ They continued to go their separate ways and the following year Routledge produced a new printing, with a preface and this codicil: The Stereo-plates of this work, owing to the numerous impressions which had been called for, having been completely worn out, and the great demand still increasing, the Publishers, without regard to expense, have had this edition printed from a fresh set of electrotype plates, taken from a new and beautiful type, cast expressly for the present edition.\\
 London 1867\\ London 1867\\
 This edition, complete with its dated preface, was still being printed at least up until 1901, sometimes with, sometimes without, a date on the title-page.\\ This edition, complete with its dated preface, was still being printed at least up until 1901, sometimes with, sometimes without, a date on the title-page.\\
Line 243: Line 246:
 == 2.14 The Mozley Edition ==  == 2.14 The Mozley Edition == 
  
-I have recently acquired an edition published by John and Charles Mozley of Derby. ​ It is undated, but the earliest dated work of theirs I have so far found is 1849, before which the firm appears to have been Henry Mozley & Sons, with at least one other copy of Walker dated 1842, while a work dated 1863 has the addition of Joseph Masters & Son.  A further complication,​ however, is that the 1842 edition has ‘A New Edition’ on the title page, suggesting that it may be the Nelson edition, while this printing has nothing. ​ The only other edition with nothing specific is the 3rd Edition reprint {[[background#​the_editions_from_1822_to_1829|See 2.4]]}, and this is not another of those, having the Advertisement to the Fourth Edition, as in the Tegg New Edition {[[background#​a_new_edition,​_carefully_revised_and_corrected:​_tegg_s_editions|See 2.6]]} and the Glasgow Edition {[[background#​the_glasgow_printing|See 2.9]]}, as well as the later reference under ‘Denigrate’ {[[background#​the_stereotype_edition|See 2.2]][[background#​the_editions_from_1822_to_1829| & 2.4]]}, but there is no obvious link in layout with any of the other editions of Tegg, Davis or Young. ​ Perhaps most significantly,​ it has the letters I/J and U/V separated completely, something otherwise found only in Young (1849) at this assumed period {[[background#​the_separation_of_i_and_j,​_u_and_v_in_alphabetical_ordering|See 3.3]]}. ​ It has a portrait, found, so far, in no other copy, ([[portraits#​fig.28]]). ​ Facially it seems to be somewhere between the Heath engraving and the later Tegg but not identical with either, while the coat is unbuttoned as in Tegg, but with five buttons visible on the waistcoat. ​ Below it is a facsimile signature, which looks as if it has been copied, by hand, from the one in the Caxton Edition. ​ ​Further investigation is needed.  ​{[[background#​Portraits of John Walker|See also 3.10 below]]}\\+I have recently acquired an edition published by John and Charles Mozley of Derby. ​ It is undated, but the earliest dated work of theirs I have so far found is 1849, before which the firm appears to have been Henry Mozley & Sons, with at least one other copy of Walker dated 1842, while a work dated 1863 has the addition of Joseph Masters & Son.  A further complication,​ however, is that the 1842 edition has ‘A New Edition’ on the title page, suggesting that it may be the Nelson edition, while this printing has nothing. ​ The only other edition with nothing specific is the 3rd Edition reprint {[[background#​the_editions_from_1822_to_1829|See 2.4]]}, and this is not another of those, having the Advertisement to the Fourth Edition, as in the Tegg New Edition {[[background#​a_new_edition,​_carefully_revised_and_corrected:​_tegg_s_editions|See 2.6]]} and the Glasgow Edition {[[background#​the_glasgow_printing|See 2.9]]}, as well as the later reference under ‘Denigrate’ {[[background#​the_stereotype_edition|See 2.2]][[background#​the_editions_from_1822_to_1829| & 2.4]]}, but there is no obvious link in layout with any of the other editions of Tegg, Davis or Young. ​ Perhaps most significantly,​ it has the letters I/J and U/V separated completely, something otherwise found only in Young (1849) at this assumed period {[[background#​the_separation_of_i_and_j,​_u_and_v_in_alphabetical_ordering|See 3.3]]}. ​ It has a portrait, found, so far, in no other copy, ([[portraits#​fig.28]]). ​ Facially it seems to be somewhere between the Heath engraving and the later Tegg but not identical with either, while the coat is unbuttoned as in Tegg, but with five buttons visible on the waistcoat. ​ Below it is a facsimile signature, which looks as if it has been copied, by hand, from the one in the Caxton Edition. ​  ​{[[background#​Portraits of John Walker|See also 3.10 below]]}\\ 
 +I have located what appears to be the family on various censuses. ​ That of 1841 shows the parents, Henry and Jane Mozley, living at Friar Gate, St Werburgh, Derby, with their children John, born 1806, Charles, born 1811, Anne, also 1811, Maria, born 1816, and Fanny, born 1821, together with a number of servants. ​ There may also have been another son, Thomas, who became a clergyman. ​ In 1851 John was probably the person listed as a visitor to William and Mary Greaves, who appear to have run a hotel in Matlock Bath.  John is given as '​annuitant'​. ​ By 1861 he is married, to Jemima, and has five sons and a daughter. ​ They live at 101 Friar Gate, St Werburgh, Derby, and John's occupation is publisher. ​ In 1871 he is living with just his wife and servants, a printer and publisher, still at Friar Gate.  It seems possible that he died in 1872, and Jemima the same year.
  
  
Line 806: Line 810:
 Another interesting anomaly involving ‘o’ occurs in the word ‘form’, given as ‘fo3rm’ or ‘fo1rm’. ​ A note explains that ‘when this word signifies a long seat, or a class of students,​(as opposed to the external appearance of anything), it is universally pronounced with the long ‘o’, as in ‘four’, ‘more’, etc.’ ​ These are given as ‘fo1re’ and ‘mo1re’ respectively,​ and he wished to make a deliberate distinction with this homonym. ​ But as with a number of his hopes it came to naught, perhaps through inconsistency. ​ The word ‘perform’ is given with o4 or o1, while all other words containing this syllable have o3. ‘Sort’, a similar sounding word, is given as ‘so3rt’,​ and Walker considers it an affectation to rhyme it with ‘port’.\\ Another interesting anomaly involving ‘o’ occurs in the word ‘form’, given as ‘fo3rm’ or ‘fo1rm’. ​ A note explains that ‘when this word signifies a long seat, or a class of students,​(as opposed to the external appearance of anything), it is universally pronounced with the long ‘o’, as in ‘four’, ‘more’, etc.’ ​ These are given as ‘fo1re’ and ‘mo1re’ respectively,​ and he wished to make a deliberate distinction with this homonym. ​ But as with a number of his hopes it came to naught, perhaps through inconsistency. ​ The word ‘perform’ is given with o4 or o1, while all other words containing this syllable have o3. ‘Sort’, a similar sounding word, is given as ‘so3rt’,​ and Walker considers it an affectation to rhyme it with ‘port’.\\
  
-Another perhaps even more intractable problem, which Walker recognised ​butt which his system was barely able to deal with, was that of diphthongs and digraphs. ​ Almost a third of his Principles, from 190 to 346, deal with this subject, under the heading ‘Diphthongs’,​ and while he does not seem to have been aware of ‘digraph’ as a term he was aware of it as a concept, in that it impinged on his concept of the diphthong: ‘di2ptho4ng’, A coalition of two vowels to form one sound.’ ​ In Principle 190 he wrote ‘to make one syllable’,​ and went on to point out that if it were truly two vowels it could not be one syllable, and if truly one syllable it could not be a diphthong. ​ There being no easy way out of this, he accepted a compromise, in Principle 193, and then went on to distinguish between thirteen ‘proper diphthongs’,​ having ‘two distinct vocal sounds’, to which he added six triphthongs,​ and fifteen ‘improper diphthongs’,​ which had ‘but one’. ​ He also defined two single vowels, the long ‘i’ and long ‘u’, as diphthongal. ​ This contrasts with the current situation in the Everyman English Pronouncing Dictionary, which lists only eight, with only four of Walker’s original list, /eɪ/, /ɔɪ/, /əʊ/ and /aʊ/ still included. ​ Walker’s problem lay partly in recognising diphthongs, in as much as he differed considerably from modern authorities,​ but also, and perhaps more so, in uncertainty as to how to indicate their pronunciation.\\+Another perhaps even more intractable problem, which Walker recognised ​but which his system was barely able to deal with, was that of diphthongs and digraphs. ​ Almost a third of his Principles, from 190 to 346, deal with this subject, under the heading ‘Diphthongs’,​ and while he does not seem to have been aware of ‘digraph’ as a term he was aware of it as a concept, in that it impinged on his concept of the diphthong: ‘di2p'-tho4ng’, A coalition of two vowels to form one sound.’ ​ In Principle 190 he wrote ‘to make one syllable’,​ and went on to point out that if it were truly two vowels it could not be one syllable, and if truly one syllable it could not be a diphthong. ​ There being no easy way out of this, he accepted a compromise, in Principle 193, and then went on to distinguish between thirteen ‘proper diphthongs’,​ having ‘two distinct vocal sounds’, to which he added six triphthongs,​ and fifteen ‘improper diphthongs’,​ which had ‘but one’. ​ He also defined two single vowels, the long ‘i’ and long ‘u’, as diphthongal. ​ This contrasts with the current situation in the Everyman English Pronouncing Dictionary, which lists only eight, with only four of Walker’s original list, /eɪ/, /ɔɪ/, /əʊ/ and /aʊ/ still included. ​ Walker’s problem lay partly in recognising diphthongs, in as much as he differed considerably from modern authorities,​ but also, and perhaps more so, in uncertainty as to how to indicate their pronunciation.\\
  
 /eɪ/, /aɪ/ and /əʊ/ are simply dealt with as a1, i1 and o1.  /ʊə/, as in ‘poor’, is given as o2o2, which would seem to be really /u:/, an even more narrow sound, while its alternative /ɔə/ varies between o1 in ‘four’ and o3 in ‘for’. ​ If o1 is taken to equate with /əʊ/ then this makes for what to me is a rather strange sound when followed by ‘r’. ​ In ‘hole’ and ‘bowl’ it is acceptable, but in ‘bourn’ and ‘mourn’,​ ‘bo1rne’ and ‘mo1rne’,​ it seems somewhat affected, and Walker is frequently critical of affectations. ​ If, however, it is, or is nearer to, the older sound of /o:/, which I personally tend to use anyway, then it seems to fall more gently on the ear.  /ɪə/ itself is almost catered for by e1 or e1e1, as in ‘cheer’,​ ‘tshe1e1r’,​ ‘fierce’,​ ‘fe1e1rse’ or ‘shire’,​ ‘she1re’,​ while /eə/ is given as e2, apparently, in ‘mercy’,​ ‘me2rse1’,​ (not ‘marcy’ or ‘murcy’),​ ‘earth’,​ ‘e2rth’,​ (and only vulgarly ‘urth’),​ and ‘mermaid’,​ ‘me2rma1de’,​ (which should not rhyme with ‘mare’, ‘ma1re’). ​ But ‘pair’, ‘pare’, ‘pear’, ‘chair’,​ ‘fair’, ‘fare’, ‘hair’ and ‘hare’ are all given as ‘a1re’. ​ Obviously there was some distinction in Walker’s mind, but how much was distinguishable in common usage is much more difficult to say.\\ /eɪ/, /aɪ/ and /əʊ/ are simply dealt with as a1, i1 and o1.  /ʊə/, as in ‘poor’, is given as o2o2, which would seem to be really /u:/, an even more narrow sound, while its alternative /ɔə/ varies between o1 in ‘four’ and o3 in ‘for’. ​ If o1 is taken to equate with /əʊ/ then this makes for what to me is a rather strange sound when followed by ‘r’. ​ In ‘hole’ and ‘bowl’ it is acceptable, but in ‘bourn’ and ‘mourn’,​ ‘bo1rne’ and ‘mo1rne’,​ it seems somewhat affected, and Walker is frequently critical of affectations. ​ If, however, it is, or is nearer to, the older sound of /o:/, which I personally tend to use anyway, then it seems to fall more gently on the ear.  /ɪə/ itself is almost catered for by e1 or e1e1, as in ‘cheer’,​ ‘tshe1e1r’,​ ‘fierce’,​ ‘fe1e1rse’ or ‘shire’,​ ‘she1re’,​ while /eə/ is given as e2, apparently, in ‘mercy’,​ ‘me2rse1’,​ (not ‘marcy’ or ‘murcy’),​ ‘earth’,​ ‘e2rth’,​ (and only vulgarly ‘urth’),​ and ‘mermaid’,​ ‘me2rma1de’,​ (which should not rhyme with ‘mare’, ‘ma1re’). ​ But ‘pair’, ‘pare’, ‘pear’, ‘chair’,​ ‘fair’, ‘fare’, ‘hair’ and ‘hare’ are all given as ‘a1re’. ​ Obviously there was some distinction in Walker’s mind, but how much was distinguishable in common usage is much more difficult to say.\\
Line 856: Line 860:
 Wife of Mr. John Walker,\\ Wife of Mr. John Walker,\\
 Who departed this life                 1802 Who departed this life                 1802
 +
 +**April 2014**: I revisited Old St Pancras Churchyard and looked again at Walker'​s tombstone. ​ It is now so badly worn that the inscription is virtually indecipherable.
 ;#; ;#;
background.1274294123.txt.gz · Last modified: 19 May 2010 19:35 BST by pftaylor
[unknown link type]Back to top
www.chimeric.de Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki do yourself a favour and use a real browser - get firefox!! Recent changes RSS feed Valid XHTML 1.0