I. _The abstract or theoretical propriety of a certain pronunciation._--To determine this he must have a sufficient knowledge of foreign tongues and a sufficient knowledge of English analogies. He must also have some test by which he can determine to what language an equivocal word belongs. Of tests for this purpose, one, amongst others, is the following:--Let it be asked whether the word _lens_ (in Optics) is English or Latin; whether it is to be considered as a naturalised word or a strange one. The following fact will give an answer. There is of the word _lens_ a plural number, and this plural number is the English form _lenses_, and not the Latin form _lentes_. The existence of an English inflection proves that the word to which it belongs is English, although its absence does not prove the contrary. That the word _anemone_ is English (and consequently pronounced _anem[)o]ne_) we know from the plural form, which is not _anemonae_, but _anemones_. II. _The preference of one pronunciation over another on the score of utility._--The word _ascetic_, for certain orthographical reasons, notwithstanding its origin from the Greek word _aske['o]_, is called _assetic_. From similar reasons there is a tendency to call the word _sceptic_, _septic_. Theoretical propriety (and, be it observed, the analogy of _ascetic_ has not been overlooked) is in {177} favour of the word being sounded _skeptic_. The tendency of language, however, is the other way. Now, the tendency of language and the theoretical propriety being equal, there is an advantage (a point of utility) in saying _skeptic_, which turns the scale. By sounding the _k_ we distinguish the word _skeptic_ from _septic_. By this the language gains a point in perspicuity, so that we can talk of the _anti-skeptic_ writings of Bishop Warburton and of the _anti-septic_ properties of charcoal. III. _The tendencies of language_.--From p. 153, we see that the combination _ew_ is an unstable combination, that it has a tendency to become _yoo_, and that the _y_ in _yoo_ has a tendency to change a _d_ preceding into _j_; in other words, we see the reason why, by many persons, _dew_ is pronounced _jew_. It is generally an easier matter to say how a word will be sounded a hundred years hence, than to determine its present pronunciation. Theoretical propriety is in favour of _dew_, so also is the view in the way of utility. Notwithstanding this, posterity will say _jew_, for the tendencies of language are paramount to all other influences. We may now judge of the relative value of the three lines of criticism exhibited above. Other things being equal, the language should have the advantage of the doubt, and the utility of a given pronunciation should prevail over its theoretical propriety. Where, however, the tendencies are overwhelming, we can only choose whether, in doubtful words, we shall speak like our ancestors, or like our posterity.[35] * * * * * {178} CHAPTER IX.