PREFATORY REMARKS.

It may be proper to inform the reader that the following Vocabulary is, with some slight ex ceptions, extracted from BALDWIN'S UNIVERSAL PRONOUNCING GAZETTEER; the system of pronunciation, both as regards the general principles and the particular mode of marking the sounds, being essentially the same as that in the work referred to. In accordance with our proposed plan and narrow limits, this Vocabulary is necessarily less full than the original work in several respects; among which we may particularly mention the explanation and defense of our system of geographical orthoepy, and the insertion and pronunciation of adjectives derived from the names of places. While referring to the original work those who are desirous of obtaining full information on the points alluded to, we may be permitted to observe that the utmost pains have been taken to render this Vocabulary as perfect as possible of its kind; and notwithstanding its limited size, we hope and believe that it will be found not only more accurate, but in several respects more complete and satisfactory, than any other work of the sort that has yet appeared.

It is not compatible with our plan, as has been already intimated, to enter here into a particular explanation and defense of our system of geographical pronunciation. Indeed, such a course is perhaps rendered unnecessary by the flattering marks of favor with which the Pronouncing Gazetteer has been universally received. It is, however, deemed proper, for the sake of those who may not be familiar with the subject-first, to show as succinctly as possible why a standard of geographical orthoepy is needed; secondly, to explain briefly the system which we have adopted, setting forth at the same time a few of the principal reasons which led to its adoption; thirdly, to show how far this work may claim to be a standard on the subject of which it treats; and, lastly, to point out some of the more important features in which ours differs from other systems of geographical pronunciation.

I. The pronunciation of geographical names has ever been a source of perplexity to all those who are desirous of speaking correctly. But to none, probably, has it occasioned so much embarrassment as to the conscientious teacher. Anxious not to teach error not to lead his pupils into faulty habits of pronunciation, which it might afterward be difficult or impossible entirely to overcome, he looks around for some rule or guide competent to direct him aright, but finds himself involved in a labyrinth of perplexity from which he can discover no egress. It is in vain that he turns to the practice of the intelligent portion of society, for among them he finds an almost infinite discrepancy to prevail. If he attempts to form a system for himself, and, in accordance with what may appear to be the clear dictates of sound common sense, aims to pronounce all geographical names as they are written, giving to every letter its proper English sound, he will meet with insuperable difficulties. For it is next to impossible to pronounce many foreign names according to the English sound of the letters, e. g., Czernigow, Ljusne, Szegedin, &c. In many instances he will be unable to determine what is the proper English sound of the letters. What, for example, is the proper English sound of the diphthong ei? Should it be pronounced like ee, as in the words seize, ceiling, receive, or like ai, as in vein, weight, inveigh, or like i long, as in height, sleight, &c.? Shall SEINE be pronounced seen, sane, or sine? or shall we sound the final e, and make it see-nee, sai-nee, or si-nee? Such a system, if system it can be called, would evidently lead to the greatest confusion, and increase the discrepancy in the pronunciation of geographical names, which is already so prevalent.

II. If, on the other hand, he aims to conform his practice to that of our most intelligent travelers, and pronounce foreign names as they are pronounced by the well-educated people of the respective countries to which they belong, he will have to encounter the most serious obstacles. For, even if he has it in his power (which can rarely fall to the lot of any one) to learn from competent instructors, the elements of pronunciation of all the principal European and Asiatic tongues, how shall he be certain that the names which he seeks to pronounce, in any particular language, may not be exceptions to the general rules of pronunciation in that language? We shall often find persons who speak French, in general, exceedingly well, and who yet pronounce Arx, ai, and BLAS (in Gil-Blas), blå, not knowing that these names are among the many exceptions to the general rule of the French language, which requires that the final consonant of a word (not immediately followed by another word beginning with a vowel) should be mute. Many persons perfectly familiar with the elements of Spanish pronunciation, will yet be unable to pronounce correctly such names as Queretaro, Panama, Cordova, Merida, and Cardenas, because they are not aware that these names form exceptions to the general rule of Spanish accentuation, which requires that the accent should be placed on the last syllable of a word ending with a consonant, and on the next to the last of a word ending with a vowel. From the preceding observations, it will be sufficiently evident to every intelligent mind, that if letters, or should adopt the foreign sounds without any other guide than the general princeples of pronunciation in each language, they would be involved in the greatest embarrassment, not to say, inextricable confusion; and that, in order to insure uniformity in this department of orthoepy, a generally recognized system or standard is absolutely requisite.

III. The system of pronouncing, as a general rule, all geographical names as they are pronounced by the well-educated people of the respective countries to which they belong, though attended with some disadvantages, is, on the whole, undoubtedly the best that can be adopted. It is not only followed by the best speakers and poets of Great Britain and the United States, but appears to be also fully recognized by the Germans, as will be seen by consulting some of their most popular works on Geography, e. g., CANNABICH'S Lehrbuch der Geographie, and VOLGER'S Handbuch der Geographie. Even the French, though perhaps less inclined to adopt the practices of other nations than any other people in Christendom, show a decided tendency in the same direction. The recently increased facilities of intercourse between different parts of the world, by making us familiar with the native pronunciation of names in other countries, have doubtless exerted a powerful influence toward the introduction of such a system of geographical pronunciation.

IV. A strong argument against pronouncing the names of foreign places according to the English sound of the letters, and in favor of calling them as they are called by the inhabitants tnemselves, is derived from the fact that in a multitude of instances the same name is written variously. Thus, in Spanish, z and j (and g before e and i), having precisely the same sound, are sometimes used indifferently in spelling words or names. Hence we often see JALISCO and XALISCO, both pronounced by the inhabitants нå-lis'ko or Hå-lees'ko; JALAPA and XALAPA, both pronounced Hå-lå på. XIXONA is spelled in three different ways, Xixona, Jijona, and Gijona, all pronounced не-но'nå. How perplexing and absurd would it be, sometimes to call JALISCO, ja-lis'ko, and sometimes zå-lis'ko, or to pronounce ΧΙΧΟΝΑ sometimes zix-o'nå, sometimes je-jo'nå or ji-jo'nå, and sometimes ghe-jo'nå or ghi-jo'nå. Many Asiatic and African names are written variously, according as the writer attributes to the letters he employs a French, German, or English sound. Thus, if a Frenchman should visit the capital of Fezzan in Africa, and wish to indicate the sound of the name as pronounced by the natives, he would write Mourzouk, a German would write Mursuk, and an Englishman would, or at least should, write Moorzook; all these spellings being intended to represent exactly the same sound. In the same manner, the capital of Afghanistan is written Caboul, Cabul, and Cabool; the name of another town is written Sourmoul, Surmul, and Soormool. What confusion, what barbarous jargon would result from attempting to pronounce such names as these according to the ordinary English sounds of the letters. We should then have sometimes Mowr-zouk, Ca-bowl (rhyming with howl), and Sowr-mowl, for the ordinary English sound of ou is like otw in cow; sometimes Mür-sük or Mür-zück, Ca-bul', Cā'bul, or Cab'ul, and Sür-mül; and sometimes Moor-zook, Cab-ool, and Soor-mool, which last is the true pronunciation. Hundreds of similar examples might be adduced.

We have been the more explicit on this head because, previously to the preparation of the Pronouncing Gazetteer, no attempt that we are aware of was ever made toward explaining and reconciling this diversity in the mode of writing geographical names, though it has long been a source of great perplexity even to the most intelligent geographers. Particular pains have been taken with this class of names in the following Vocabulary. All the different modes of writing them have been sought out with great care, and are given under their alphabetical heads with a reference to what is considered to be the true spelling. Hence the Vocabulary will not only be found useful as a system of pronunciation, but by means of it, the inquirer will be able to identify every important geographical name in spite of its various disguises. Only a few days previous to our writing these remarks, a friend was reading an article in a newspaper, in which the Nabajoe Indians were spoken of. He was quite at a loss, for though he had often heard of the Navahoes, he had no knowledge whatever of the Nabajoes. He immediately called our attention to the subject, and the difficulty was readily explained. The Indians alluded to, reside in the southeast part of California. The Mexicans spell the name Nabajo or Nabajoa (pronounced nå-va-no' or nå-và-Hoả), while our traders, aiming to express the same sound with English letters, write it Navahoe.

V. Two important limitations are to be made to the general rule, that foreign names should be pronounced after the manner of the well-educated people of the respective countries to which such names belong.

* For the usage of the poets, with regard to the pronunciation of geographical names, see pages 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Universal Pronouncing Gazetteer.

↑ It is much to be regretted that many English writers spell such names after the French or German mode, without affording us any clew to the true pronunciation. Even in the same work we shall frequently find one name written in the German, another in the French, and another in the English manner. By some writers the same name is often written differently in different parts of the same work. It is unnecessary to say how utterly perplexing such a practice must prove to all those who are not thoroughly conversant with the subject in question. (Those who wish to pursue this subject further, are referred to pages 28 and 29 of the Universal Pronouncing Gazetteer; also to the "Table of Different Spellings," at the end of the Introduction in the third First, the names of well-known foreign places, as Paris, Lyons, Hanover, Berlin, and Mexico, having become fully Anglicized (like the French words introduced into the English language soon after the Norman Conquest), are for the most part to be pronounced, by Englishmen and Americans, according to the sounds and accent of the English language. Thus we should say Pår'is, and not pår-ree'; Lyons, not le`-on'; Han'o-ver, not Hån-no'ver; Berlin, not berleen'; and Mex'i-co, not Meh'he-ko. In like manner, names of foreign origin, occurring in our own country, as Detroit, Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Texas, should be, and generally are, Anglicized to a greater or less extent. What, indeed, can be more absurd than for the mere English scholar to be striving to give such names as Detroit and Wisconsin (or Ouisconsin) a French pronunciation, viz., dá`-trwa', wis`-kon`-san' (almost wis-kong-sang), when, perhaps, in many instances the very people with whom those names originated have ceased to speak the language of their ancestors. For reasons similar to the above, we are in favor of pronouncing RIO DEL NORTE ri'o del nort, and not ree'o del nor'tà, since a large majority of those who have most occasion to pronounce this name, speak the English language. (See Rio del Norte in the Vocabulary.)

The other limitation to the rule above mentioned, refers to those foreign names (not French) which contain sounds difficult for a mere English scholar to utter, like the German ch and w, and the Spanish d, in the middle or at the end of a word. In these cases we follow the established mode of Anglicizing such sounds. Accordingly, we would have the English scholar pronounce the German ch like our k, and wand d as they are pronounced in English. We do not place the difficult French sounds in the same list, because, in consequence of this being more studied than any other foreign language, it is more usual for English speakers to adopt all the peculiar sounds of the letters in pronouncing French names.

VI. In carrying out the system of geographical pronunciation recommended in the foregoing remarks, the great point at which we have most studiously aimed has been ACCURACY. Destitute of this, such a work must necessarily be useless, or worse than useless, since it must either fail to inspire that confidence, without which few would be at the trouble of referring to its pages, or else it will teach what were far better untaught-error. That no one may be deterred from studying this important branch of education, by the notion that there is nothing settled or certain in the pronunciation of geographical names, or by the fear that he may frequently have to unlearn what he has bestowed much time and labor to acquire, it may be proper-indeed, it is due, as we conceive, to the public as well as to ourselves to explain briefly the course we have pursued in order to insure perfect accuracy, and to state as succinctly as possible the claims of our work to be regarded as a standard of geographical orthoepy, to which all may with confidence appeal.

To insure perfect accuracy in the pronunciation of foreign names, we have not only been anxious to avail ourselves of the assistance of the very best scholars our country affords in each of the different European languages, but have omitted no opportunity of seeking information from travelers, and gentlemen who, by long residence in South America, Asia, or Africa, have become more or less familiar with the language and practices of those remote regions. This is not all. With regard to all points of doubt and difficulty, and especially with regard to the names of places in those countries which are very rarely visited by Europeans, we have carefully consulted the best geographical works in the French and German languages. In this manner we have been enabled not only to detect several important errors in respect to foreign countries (errors which have in some instances been extended almost beyond the possibility of eradication, in consequence of one English or American writer copying another, without referring to the original authorities), but also to determine the true pronunciation of a number of names, about which information could be obtained from no other source. To illustrate by example: we find the name of a large river in Chin-India written on our maps Meinam. From this spelling alone it would be impossible to say whether the name should be pronounced mee-nam, mai-nam, or mi-nam. Some of our best authorities (among others Mr. Worcester) adopt the last pronunciation. We find, however, that Malte-Brun and Balbi, the two best as well as most celebrated geographers of modern times, write it in French Meinam, to be pronounced ma-nam or ma-e-năm; for it is an established rule in French pronunciation to sound ei like a in fate, or ay in day, and in no instance do we find them to pronounce this diphthong either like the ee or the long i of our language. Again, Cannabich, the celebrated German geographer, writes the above name Menam, which the Germans would pronounce ma-năm; for the first syllable can not, compatibly with the fixed principles of the German tongue, be pronounced either mee or mi. We have accordingly given ma-nam' as the true pronunciation. We will cite another example. Houssa is the name of a country in the interior of North Africa, of which little is known to Europeans. Judging from the spelling, we might suppose that it should be pronounced hoos-så, since it is so very common for English travelers to use ou in its French sound, when writing the words or names of Asiatic and African countries. Mr. Worcester pronounces the name in this manner in his new octavo Dictionary. We find, however, on referring to Malte-Brun and Balbi, that the same name is written in French Haoussa; Cannabich writes it in German Haussa, both pronounced how-så. Hence we infer with conlike our word house. Many similar instances might be cited, wherein we have been able to ascertain the pronunciation of names merely by observing the manner in which they are written in different languages, but these two examples will perhaps suffice to illustrate the principle. As an evidence that so much care has not been bestowed in vain, we can affirm, that although, since the first publication of the Pronouncing Gazetteer, our attention, as well as that of several of our literary friends, has been constantly directed toward the detection of any errors which may have escaped us in that work, we have not yet been able to discover more than two of any importance, in the pronunciation of foreign names. We have given Angely (in JEAN D'ANGELY, SAINT), pronounced in two syllables, when we should have given Angély, to be pronounced in three syllables. Balbi (whose work is adopted by the University of France) uniformly writes it Angely, and hence we were led into the error. The other mistake occurs in the name Velez Malaga. We had at first placed the accent on the last syllable of Velez, according to the general rule of the Spanish language, but this name happens to be one of the exceptions alluded to in Section II.

With regard to the names of our own country, we have not, perhaps, been less successful, though the difficulties here have been somewhat greater, owing to the changes that are constantly taking place among our enterprising and restless population. We at first accentuated Michigan on the last syllable, according to the old French pronunciation, but we find that the people of that state, almost without exception, now place the accent on the first syllable. We have given it accordingly in this Vocabulary. Two or three other changes of minor importance have been made. We must, however, acknowledge that frequently we have omitted in the Gazetteer the pronunciation altogether, and in this Vocabulary the name also, from the impossibility of ascertaining satisfactorily the true pronunciation. (See Advertisement to the Third Edition of the Pronouncing Gazetteer, pages v. and vi.) For, however desirable it may be that a work of this kind should contain every geographical name, we have deemed it of far more consequence to ascertain and fix the pronunciation even of a few of those which are in common use, than to give at random that of an immense multitude, many of which, perhaps, would be rarely, if ever, met with. In short, we have ever sought to be guided by the maxim, "BETTER TEACH NOTHING THAN TEACH ERROR."

VII. The system adopted by us differs materially in two points from the other systems of geographical pronunciation which have hitherto been given to the public. First, in giving in a parenthesis the native spelling and pronunciation of those European names which have become thoroughly Anglicized; for exampale, Dant'zic (Ger. Danzig, dånt'sie); Leg-horn' (It. Livorno, le-vor'no); Sev'ille (Sp. Sevilla, så-veelyå); Co-run'na (Sp. Coruña, ko-roon'yȧ); Lisbon (Port. Lisboa, lis-bo'a), &c. This is not a matter calculated merely to gratify the curiosity of literary dilettanti, but one which will be found, we believe, of great practical utility; since it is usual not only for the poets to employ the more euphonious names of Sevilla, Lisboa, Livorno, &c., instead of their ordinary Anglicized forms, but several of our most popular prose writers, as well as some of our best maps (those, for example, published by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge), sometimes give the literal foreign name without explaining it by its English synonym.

The other point of difference, is the insertion in their alphabetical place, of all the various spellings and synonyms of important geographical names, with a reference to what we consider the preferable spelling or more usual name. (For an explanation of the various modes of writing Asiatic and African names, the reader is referred to Section IV.) Thus we not only give Mourzouk and Mursuk, Ourfa and Urfa, in their respective alphabetical places, referring to Moorzook and Oorfa; but when a place has two or three entirely different names, we have made it a point to give them all, referring the others to the more usual appellation, as in the case of Sweera and Mogadore, and of Amazon, Marañon, and Orellana. Mogadore is called Sweera (usually written Suira) by the inhabitants, and is not unfrequently so named by European writers. We give both, but under Suira and Sweera refer to Mogadore, as this is the more usual name. So, under Marañon and Orellana, the inquirer is referred to Amazon.

From not carefully attending to this subject, a number of important errors have been committed by some of our best and most popular writers on geography. One Gazetteer describes Schirvan and Shirvan as two different provinces of Persia. In another work, which justly ranks among our very best, Ciara, Seara, and Siara (a small town of Brazil, near 4o S. lat. and 39° W. lon.) are represented as three entirely distinct places; though one who should carefully observe their latitudes and longitudes, which differ but slightly, would naturally wonder how three such towns, so similar in the sound of their names, and each on a river of its own name, could be situated so near to each other.

In conclusion, we commit the result of our labors to an enlightened public, not with any confidence or hope that it will be found to be without defects, but encouraged by the persuasion that those whose criticism is most to be valued or feared, will be most capable of appreciating the great and numerous difficulties to be encountered in executing such a task as we have undertaken, and will best know how to make allowance for those imperfections, which, notwithELEMENTS

OF THE

PRONUNCIATION OF THE PRINCIPAL CONTINENTAL EUROPEAN

LANGUAGES.

1. In the continental languages of Europe, a never has a sound like that in the English words fate, name, but is usually like the a in far or father, sometimes approximating that in fat.

2. E generally has a sound similar to a in fate, or else to e in met. In French it is often silent.

3. I usually sounds as in our word marine, i. e, like our longe; but it is not unfrequently short, as in pin.

4. O has nearly the same sound as in English, in no, not, and nor, except in Swedish and Norwegian, when it is pronounced like our oo.

5. U is pronounced in most languages like our 00; but in

French and Dutch it has a sound intermediate between 00

and long e, which can be learned from an oral instructor only.