[Footnote 27:  I do not deny that he allows some exceptions:  and these, few as they are, concede the principle for which I contend.]

[Footnote 28:  His own words are, ’Thus Margate trippers now generally speak of Ma:geit instead of Ma:git:  teachers in London elementary schools now often say eksept for iksept ‘except’, ekstr[e][o]:din[er]ri for ikstr[o]dnri ‘extraordinary’, often for [o]:fn ‘often’.  We feel that such artificialities cannot but impair the beauty of the language.’  Dictionary, 1st edition, Preface, p.v.]

[Footnote 29:  In the first edition of the Dictionary [1913] [e] has only one interpretation, the illustration being the a of about.  In the Phonetic Transcriptions [1907] it was the er of over, but in the new Dictionary [1917] [e] has three interpretations with the following explanation:  ’[e] varies noticeably according to its position in the word and in the sentence.  In final positions it is often replaced (sic) by “[Greek:  L]” [=_u_ of up], in other positions its quality varies considerably according to the nature of the surrounding sounds; the variations extend from almost “[Greek:  L]” to the half-close mixed position.  Three different values may be heard in the words china, cathedral:  in the latter word the second “[e]” has a lower and more retracted tongue-position than the first [e].’

The value of [e] when Mr. Jones first substituted it for a disguised unaccented vowel, was that the speaker might know what sound he had to produce.  It was wrong, but it was definite.  Mr. Jones would now make it less wrong by making it less definite.  That is, in the place of something distinctly wrong we are offered something which has an offchance of being nearly right:  but as it has entirely ousted and supplanted the original vowel I do not see how there is any means of interpreting it correctly.  The er of over is a definite sound, and to print it where it was out of place was a definite error—­to give it three interpretations makes it cover more ground:  but its usurpations are still indefensible.]

7. ON THE CLAIM THAT SOUTHERN ENGLISH HAS TO REPRESENT ALL BRITISH SPEECH.

On this head certainly I can write nothing worth reading.  Whether there is any one with so wide a knowledge of all the main different forms of English now spoken, their historic development and chief characteristics, as to be able to summarize the situation convincingly, I do not know.  I can only put a few of the most evident phenomena in the relation in which they happen to affect my judgement.

And first of all I put the small local holding which the Southern English dialect can claim on the map of the British Empire.  It is plain that with such a narrow habitat it must show proof that it possesses very great relative superiorities before it can expect to be allowed even a hearing:  and such a claim must lie in its superiority in some practical or ideal quality:  further than that it might allege that it was the legitimate heir of our great literature, and in possession of the citadel, and in command of an extensive machinery for its propaganda.