speaks of “The English pronunciation of Greek and Latin [as] injurious to quantity.”  And no one can deny, that we often accent what are called short syllables, and perhaps oftener leave unaccented such as are called long; but, after all, were the quantity of Latin and Greek syllables always judged of by their actual time, and not with reference to the vowel sounds called long and short, these our violations of the old quantities would be found much fewer than some suppose they are.

(2.) Dr. Adam’s view of the accents, acute and grave, appears to be peculiar; and of a nature which may perhaps come nearer to an actual identity with the quantities, long and short, than any other.  He says,

“1.  The acute or sharp accent raises the voice in pronunciation, and is thus marked []; profero, profer. [The English word is written, not thus, but with two Effs, proffer.—­G.  B.]

“2.  The grave or base accent depresses the voice, or keeps it in its natural tone; and is thus marked [`]; as, docte. [Fist] This accent properly belongs to all syllables which have no other.

“The accents are hardly ever marked in English books, except in dictionaries, grammars, spelling-books, or the like, where the acute accent only is used.  The accents are likewise seldom marked in Latin books, unless for the sake of distinction; as in these adverbs, aliquo, continuo, docte, una, &c.”—­Adam’s Latin and English Grammar, p. 266.

(3.) As stress naturally lengthens the syllables on which it falls, if we suppose the grave accent to be the opposite of this, and to belong to all syllables which have no peculiar stress,—­are not enforced, not acuted, not circumflected, not emphasized; then shall we truly have an accent with which our short quantity may fairly coincide.  But I have said, “the mere absence of stress, which produces short quantity, we do not call accent;” and it may be observed, that the learned improver of Dr. Adam’s Grammar, B. A. Gould, has totally rejected all that his predecessor taught concerning accent, and has given an entirely different definition of the thing.  See marginal notes on page 771, above.  Dr. Johnson also cites from Holder a very different explanation of it, as follows:  “Accent, as in the Greek names and usage, seems to have regarded the tune of the voice; the acute accent, raising the voice in some certain syllables, to a higher, (i.e. more acute) pitch or tone; and the grave, depressing it lower; [Fist] and both having some emphasis, i.e. more vigorous pronunciation.  HOLDER.”—­Johnson’s Quarto Dict., w.  Accent.

[495] (1.) “Amongst them [the ancients,] we know that accents were marked by certain inflexions [inflections] of the voice like musical notes; and the grammarians to this day, with great formality inform their pupils, that the acute accent, is the raising [of] the voice on a certain syllable; the grave, a depression of it; and the circumflex, a raising and depression both, in one and the same syllable. This jargon they constantly preserve, though they have no sort of ideas annexed to these words; for if they are asked to shew how this is to be done, they cannot tell, and their practice always belies their precept.”—­Sheridan’s Lectures on Eloc., p. 54.