The true sound of the English _u_, is neither _ew_, with the distinct sounds of _e_ and _oo_; nor is it _oo_; but it is that sound which every unlettered person utters in pronouncing _solitude_, _rude_, _threw_, and which cannot easily be mistaken. So difficult is it to avoid the true sound of _u_, that I have never found a man, even among the ardent admirers of the stage pronunciation, who does not retain the vulgar sound, in more than half the words of this class which he uses. There is such a propensity in men to be regular in the construction and use of language, that they are often obliged, by the customs of the age, to struggle against their inclination, in order to be wrong, and still find it impossible to be uniform in their errors. The other reason given to vindicate the polite pronunciation, is _euphony_. But I must say with Kenrick,[75] I cannot discover the euphony; on the contrary, the pronunciation is to me both disagreeable and difficult. It is certainly more difficult to pronounce two consonants than one. _Ch_, or, which is the same thing, _tsh_, is a more difficult sound than _t_; and _dzh_, or _j_, more difficult than _d_. Any accurate ear may perceive the difference in a single word, as in _natur_, _nachur_. But when two or three words meet, in which we have either of these compound sounds, the difficulty becomes very obvious; as the _nachural feachurs of indivijuals_. The difficulty is increased, when two of these _churs_ and _jurs_ occur in the same word. Who can pronounce these words, "at this _junctshur_ it was _conjectshured_"--or "the act passed in a _tshumultshuous legislatshur_," without a pause, or an extreme exertion of the lungs? If this is euphony to an English ear, I know not what sounds in language can be disagreeable. To me it is barbarously harsh and unharmonious. But supposing the pronunciation to be relished by ears accustomed to it (for custom will familiarize any thing) will the pleasure which individuals experience, balance the ill effects of creating a multitude of irregularities? Is not the number of anomalies in our language already sufficient, without an arbitrary addition of many hundreds? Is not the difference between our written and spoken language already sufficiently wide, without changing the sounds of a number of consonants?