For similar reasons, the labials, _m_ and _p_, are followed by _e_: In New England, we hear it in _meow_, _peower_, and in Great Britain, in _meute_, _peure_. With this difference however, that in New England, this pronunciation is generally confined to the more illiterate part of the people, and in Great Britain it prevails among those of the first rank. But after _r_ we never hear the sound of _e_: It has been before observed, that the most awkward countryman in New England pronounces _round_, _ground_, _brown_, as correctly as men of the first education; and our fashionable speakers pronounce _u_ after _r_ like _oo_. The reason is the same in both cases: In pronouncing _r_ the mouth is necessarily opened (or rather the glottis) to a position for articulating a broad full sound. So that the vulgar singularities in this respect, and the polite refinements of speaking, both proceed from the same cause; both proceed from an accidental or careless narrow way of articulating certain combinations of letters; both are corruptions of pure English; equally disagreeable and indefensible. Both may be easily corrected by taking more pains to open the teeth, and form full bold sounds. 2. But another inconsistency in the modern practice, is the introducing an _e_[72] before the second sound of _u_ as in _tun_; or rather changing the preceding consonant; for in _nature_, _rapture_, and hundreds of other words, _t_ is changed into _tsh_; and yet no person pretends that _u_, in these words, has a dipthongal sound. On the other hand, Sheridan and his copier, Scott, have in these and similar words marked _u_ for its short sound, which is universally acknowleged to be simple. I believe no person ever pretended, that this sound of _u_ contains the sound of _e_ or _y_; why then should we be directed to pronounce _nature_, _natyur_? Or what is equally absurd, _natshur_? On what principle is the _t_ changed into a compound consonant? If there is any thing in this sound of _u_ to warrant this change, does it not extend to all words where this sound occurs? Why do not our standard writers direct us to say _tshun_ for _tun_, and _tshumble_ for _tumble_? I can conceive no reason which will warrant the pronunciation in one case, that will not apply with equal force in the other. And I challenge the advocates of the practice, to produce a reason for pronouncing _natshur_, _raptshur_, _captshur_, which will not extend to authorize, not only _tshun_, _tshurn_, for _tun_, _turn_, but also _fatshal_ for _fatal_, and _immortshal_ for _immortal_.[73] Nay, the latter pronunciation is actually heard among some very respectable imitators of fashion; and is frequent among the illiterate, in those states where the _tshu's_ are most fashionable. How can it be otherwise? People are led by imitation; and when those in high life embrace a singularity, the multitude, who are unacquainted with its principles or extent, will attempt to imitate the novelty, and probably