vowels; words like _twrdy_, _wjtr_, which judging from their
appearance a foreigner would despair of ever being able to pronounce,
are always in metre used as words of two syllables. Thus _Wlk_, _Srp_,
are not harsher than _Wolk_ and _Serp_. We feel however that these
examples cannot serve to refute the existing prejudices against the
euphony of the Slavic languages. Instead of ourselves, let one of
their most eloquent and warmest advocates defend them against the
reproach of roughness and harshness.[24] "Euphony and feminine
softness of a language are two very different things. It is true that
in most of the Slavic dialects, with the exception of the Servian, the
consonants are predominant; but if we consider a language in a
philosophical point of view, the consonants, as being the signs of
ideas, and the vowels, as being mere bearers in the service of the
consonants, appear in a quite different light. The more consonants,
the richer is a language in ideas. _Exempla sunt in promtu_. The
euphony of single syllables is only partial and relative; but the
harmony of a whole language depends on the euphonic sound of periods,
words, syllables, and single letters. What language possesses these
four elements of harmony in equal measure? Too many vowels sound just
as unpleasantly as too many consonants; a suitable number and
interchange of both is requisite to produce true harmony. Even harsh
syllables belong to the necessary qualities of a language; for nature
herself has harsh sounds, which the poet would be unable to paint
without harsh sounding tones. The roughness of the Slavic idioms, of
which foreigners have complained so frequently, is therefore
exclusively to be ascribed to the awkwardness of inexperienced or
tasteless writers; or they are ridiculous mistakes of the reader, who,
unacquainted with the language, receives the sounds with his eyes
instead of his ears."--"The pure and distinct vocalization, which does
not leave it to the arbitrary choice of the speaker to pronounce