pronounce; and they are in general, according to the refined standard of
our pronunciation, so far softened as only to lengthen the preceding
vowel. In provincial pronunciation, however, the force of the former
letter is often preserved, and the pronunciation is facilitated by the
insertion of a vowel before the final _m_. The Irish, in particular,
adopt this mode of pronouncing; even in public speaking they say
_callum_, _firrum_, _farrum_, for _calm_, _firm_, _farm_. The old word
_chrisom_ for _chrism_, is an analogous change: the Italians have in
like manner lengthened _chrisma_ into _cresima_; the French have
softened it into _chrême_.

L.


_Alarm._--It is in favour of the derivation _à l'arme_ that the Italian
is _allarme_; some dictionaries even have _dare all'arme_, with the
apostrophe, for to give alarm. It is against it that the German word
_Lärm_ is used precisely as the English _alarm_. Your correspondent CH.
thinks the French derivation suspiciously ingenious: here I must differ;
I think it suspiciously obvious. I will give him a suggestion which I
think really suspiciously ingenious: in fact, had not the opportunity
occurred for illustrating ingenuity, I should not have ventured it. May
it not be that _alarme_ and _allarme_ is formed in the obvious way, as
_to arms_; while _alarum_ and _Lärm_ wholly unconnected with them? May
it not sometimes happen that, by coincidence, the same sounds and
meanings go together in different languages without community of origin?
Is it not possible that _larum_ and _Lärm_ are imitations of the stroke
and subsequent resonance of a large bell? Denoting the continued sound
of _m_ by _m-m-m_, I think that _lrm-m-m-lrm-m-m-lrm-m-m_ &c., is as
good an imitation of a large bell at some distance as letters can make.