« PreviousContinue »
“Well, the difference is, poison is taken with intent to kill, and a little, even, may harm; but liquor is no poison in the common sense of of the word, no more than cucumbers are; yet the one may kill a man with delirium tremens, and the other with cholera. And as long as appetite for either exists in mankind, so long they will be used.”
“ That is the only bit of logic you can offer on your side, Calker. As long as the majority love to imbibe, so long will liquor be sold and drank to excess, for a majority will resist all attempts by law or pursuasion tu abolish the use of intoxicating beverages. But it is the duty of the morally more advanced minority to aim at the lawful abolition of the immoderate use of liquor. Most of our laws on the subject have been and are unphilosophical and constructed on a wrong basis, thus proving abortive in the end. Our legislators are too much given to the cutting off of the branches of our social and moral upastrees, but unless the ax be applied to the very roots of the evil it will continue to flourish. So long as the manufacturer of liquor is licensed by law, so long will it be offered to the public, and an appetite for it be kept up in the old and created in the young. Here, if anywhere, we find the truth of the words, "Remove temptation, and you weaken sin.' And if men argue that the suppression of a certain traffic is an undemocratic encroachment on the rights of a free people, let me say that it is an encroachment on the rights of a number of individuals whose actions are injurious to a whole nation, and it simply illusirates the old axiom, “ True freedom consists in wise constraint,' and of the other, 'He only is free who is the slave neither of vice nor of passion.' Let no man fear that an increase of temperance will endanger our republican institutions, for history proves that no large community can preserve liberty if it makes its laws subservient to those who would demand "liberty' in its mis-applied sense, instead of exercising that 'wise constraint' which aims at higher ends than a mere business transaction where dollars and cents overshadow the moral responsibility of the law-makers. Just so long as a majority of the people call license and lawlessness by the desecrated name of liberty,' so long will temperance and that hope of our hearts and pledge of true freedom, compulsory education, be impossible.”
“You just publish a tract on the subject, Parson,” said Calker, in his usual joking way, "and then get the Y. M. C. A. to distribute it in the saloons, will you?”
“So I would if I could write my thoughts as readily as I can utter them. But there are others who will do it for me. If you, friend Pen, ever feel tempted to write a temperance story founded on fact, then just remember the story of · Poor Joe.""
THE ELEMENTARY SOUNDS.
BY C. A. THOMPSON, KILBOURN CITY.
In the May number of the JOURNAL I gave a chart of the Elementary Sounds, in which there were advanced some points entirely different from anything I had ever seen in print, but without giving my reasons for the changes. Now, with your permission, I will do so. It is a well established fact that the less intricate a machire is, if it accomplishes the work as well, the more it is to be preferred. This is equally applicable to any system of Elementary Sounds, and is one reason why anything not necessary to it should be excluded. The giving of from 40 to 46 elementary sounds when, in my opinion, there are only 38, does not carry out this principle. I think that some of the sounds given as regular should be called occasional sounds, and should not be called Elements. In studying my plan I considered that if the part or whole of any word could be given with its proper sound without any change in the position of the Organs of Speech, it should be called an element in the language. This is a fact in the case of ar in art, and of er in her, therefore I have given them as elements. In regard to expressing these sounds there should be a character for each element, in which case they would be appropriately represented.
I could not determine any difference between the sound of o in not and a in ah, consequently rejected the former. The sounds usually given to a in fair and a in past coincide with those heard in at and ah, hence I have omitted them. I think that the difference in sound claimed arises only from their connection with different elements and should not be regarded as distinct. The reason for the omission of w is that it has the sound of o in do; this can be heard by pronouncing the word way=öā. Some claim that the sounds of q and k are identical; pronounce the words kit and quit, and it will be readily seen that it cannot be done without a change in the position of the organs
of speech, and, also, that the sounds are dissimilar, that of k being the sharper sound. In classifying the elements and their combinations, and in the use of terms to name them, that method which is the most simple, yet comprehensive, is the best, for it can be more readily comprehended by the younger members of our classes.
The terms tense and“ lax,” in place of “long” and “ short other terms, are used because the organs are tensely or loosely held in position, according to my classification. This subject is one of great interest to me (and I doubt not to many others), and I should like to hear from older heads than mine something more on this topic, either through the JOURNAL or otherwise.
The subject of Latin pronunciation is now engaging much attention among classical scholars both in this country and in England. As a report on tòis subject will be submitted to the next National Teachers' Association, a little judicious discussion beforehand might well prepare
for it. There seems to be a growing disposition upon the part of our best colleges and universities, to abandon the English system of Latin pronunciation. Some have adopted that miserable hybrid, sometimes called the Continental method, but which is only a cross between ihe continental vowel sounds and English consonants. But this has neither national pride nor prejudice for its support, and it is only a concession to the demand for the true pronunciation. It is quite a step, however, toward the Roman pronunciation, and as such, is to be highly valued.
The Roman system was revised in this courtry about twenty years ago, at the University of Rochester, by Prof. J. F. Richardson, and since that time has been introduced with some urimportant changes, into many colleges and universities, among which are Harvard, Cornell, Michigan, and Washington and Lee Universities. The vowel sounds of this system are identical, or nearly so, with the German vowel sounds. Dipthongs are sounded according to the union of the sounds of the vowels of which they are composed. The consonants which differ most in sound from the same in the English method, are c, 9, j, s, and t. C and g are always given the hard sound, j is sounded like y in yonder, s as in sin, and t as in till.
Those who use the system commend it on the ground of simplicity, utility and euphony. It is easily acquired even by those who have been accustomed to the other methods, and the structure of the language demonstrates its truthfulness.
There are some things in it which excite the ridicule of those who do not reason. The hard sound of c and g before de, ce, e, i and y is a target for their unreason. It is in their opinion the vulnerable point, the tendon of Achilles, and by piercing it with the arrow of ridicule, tipped with sarcasm, they hope to slay the imaginary monster. But while the unthinking ridicule, the system itself is steadily gaining in favor.
No one pretends that the exact pronunciation of the Romans can now be obtained, yet the nearest approximation to the ancient method is valuable not only in itself, but also as a basis of uniformity for all nations. Both these arguments have been urged with zeal by the advocates of the system. The various methods in use by the different countries of Europe are uniform only so far as the vowels are concerned. The adoption of the Roman method by the English-speaking people will be a strong inducement to the continental nations to dispense with their conflicting consonant sounds and to adopt the Roman sounds.
But dispensing with the argument for uniformity, the reasons drawn from the structure of the language itself are sufficient to warrant the adoption of the correct system. Decline musca, amicus and rogus, giving c and g their changing, and then their uniform sounds, and then make a decision as to the better way. Conjugate lego, legere and dico, dicere, and make the same comparison. Compare the present indicative of scio and the present subjunctive of sum.
Words are distinguished by the ear, which in other methods are distinguished by the eye only, Instances of this kind are very numerous, and will at once occur to every Latin student. The euphony of the simple sound of t will be made clear by the declension of tristis, e, in both the positive and comparative degree.
The fact that the best universities are adopting the new system is one of the strongest arguments in its favor, and this has been done in answer to a reasonable demand cn the part of students for something approximating, at least, tne true pronunciation. The hold which it is getting in England, may be considered strong from the fact that such such an eminent scholar as Max Müller is enthusiastic in its favor. The strange pronunciation of Cicero and Cæsar revealed by the Roman method gives conservatives almost a spasm, and were it not for these old Roman heroes, the new system would meet with but little opposition. Is it not just as ridiculous to pronounce Latin as English, as it would be to pronounce French or German according to our tongue.National Teacher.
The correct pronunciation of the Ancient Greek and Latin is, we believe, generally confessed to be unknown, or, at least, very uncertain. And therefore different nations pronounce these languages according to the principles which govern them in the pronunciation of their own. And it is a question, vigorously agitated in this country from year to year, whether we should continue to follow the “ English" method or should embrace the “Continental.” There is a single point in favor of the latter method which we do not remember or have seen brought forward. In pronouncing the Greek or the Latin, we do not expect to get therefrom any benefit to our pronunciation of English. Our English phonetics are not aided, or, at least, this is not the aim in view. On the other hand, rather our knowledge of how to pronounce English, which knowledge we have before acquired, is simply brought into use, and from this fact indeed may be derived an argument in favor of this
method, it being evident that young learners will meet less difficulty in beginning a strange language if they apply to it a pronnnciation with which they are already familiar, than if they attempt to learn an entire new one. But just here the question arises, whether by following the “ Continental” method we cannot turn our pronunciation to somo practical use? Can we not in this way acquire the correct pronunciation of the vowels and many of the consonants of the modern European languages, so that our knowledge of Greek and Latin will, in more than one respect, be of use to us when we come to learn French and German? The point just cited in reference to its being easier to acquire a foreign language by applying our own pronunciation is not a conclusive argument; for the same difficulty of learning a strange pronuciation appears when we come to learn any modern language, and the difficulty of learning the sounds of the vowels and many of the consonants is no greater, if as great, in the case of the ancient as in the modern languages. It seems to us, that until we are sure, as to what is the correct pronunciation of Greek and Latin, it would be well to utilize the method we do make use of in this way.—College Courant.
RESULTS OF AN INSTITUTE.
The results of an institute may be summed up very briefly. Here have been for ten days the teachers of a county with their commissioners consulting about schools, under the instruction of persons appointed by the State Superintendent. Every hour of the session has been given to some solid lesson, and every evening to some sensible discussion of a school subject of a more general character. Ever teacher should, if he has at all done his duty, carry away more knowledge of subjects, clearer perception of relations of subjects and their place in the work of education, and the definite results which are to be sought for in each. He should carry away, beside some explanation of special difficulties, some good illustrations to aid his own explanations, somie suggestions of methods of teaching, and some worked out in full. He has heard ways and means suggested of organizing and carrying on school from day to day, and of managing the little details of school routine. Beside, he has been urged to seek a larger fund of knowledge and a richer culture for his owe sake, to make the most of his opportunities for improvement in every direction. He carries away, further, something of an esprit de corps; he has seen and measured himself with others, and is not ashamed to think and to know that he is one of a great company doing the State good service. He goes from the institute to his district, perhaps a secluded, perhaps uninviting one, to be