p. 56; _Walker's Key_, p. 313.

[493] (1.) It may in some measure account for these remarkable omissions,
to observe that Walker, in his lexicography, followed Johnson in almost
every thing but pronunciation. On this latter subject, his own authority is
perhaps as great as that of any single author. And here I am led to
introduce a remark or two touching _the accent and quantity_ with which he
was chiefly concerned; though the suggestions may have no immediate
connexion with the error of confounding these properties.

(2.) Walker, in his theory, regarded the _inflections_ of the voice as
pertaining to _accent_, and as affording a satisfactory solution of the
difficulties in which this subject has been involved; but, as an English
orthoepist, he treats of accent in no other sense, than as _stress laid on
a particular syllable of a word_--a sense implying contrast, and
necessarily dividing all syllables into accented and unaccented, except
monosyllables. Having acknowledged our "_total ignorance_ of the nature of
the Latin and Greek accent," he adds: "The accent of the English language,
which is constantly sounding in our ears, and every moment open to
investigation, seems _as much a mystery_ as that accent which is removed
almost two thousand years from our view. Obscurity, perplexity, and
confusion, run through every treatise on the subject, and nothing could be
so hopeless as an attempt to explain it, did not a circumstance present
itself, which at once accounts for the confusion, and affords a clew to
lead us out of it. Not one writer on accent has given such a definition of
the voice as acquaints us with its essential properties. * * * But let us
once divide the voice into its rising and falling inflections, the
obscurity vanishes, and accent becomes as intelligible as any other part of
language. * * * On the present occasion it will be sufficient to observe,
that _the stress we call accent_ is as well understood as is necessary for
the pronunciation of single words, which is the object of this
treatise."--_Walker's Dict._, p. 53, _Princip._ 486, 487, 488.

(3.) Afterwards, on introducing _quantity_, as an orthoepical topic, he has
the following remark: "In treating this part of pronunciation, it will not
be necessary to enter into the nature of _that quantity which constitutes
poetry_; the quantity here considered will be that which relates to words
taken singly; and this is _nothing more than the length or shortne