What words that people mis-pronounce that drive you nuts? (1 Viewer)

[Jason_Els]

When referring to numbers; people who say "oh" instead of "zero".

Oh dear gods on Olympus, yes! Pisses me off no end.
Speaking of that.....
"Calvary" for "Cavalry"
and
"Nucular" for "Nuclear"
But what really pisses me off is affectation. People who try to pronounce foreign words as if they spoke the language or pronounce English words as if they were British when they aren't: "Paree" instead of "Paris", "wescut" instead of "waistcoat" or, more appropriate, "vest". It's bad manners AND annoying.

 

[Jason_Els]

When referring to numbers; people who say "oh" instead of "zero".

Oh dear gods on Olympus, yes! Pisses me off no end.
Speaking of that.....
"Calvary" for "Cavalry"
and
"Nucular" for "Nuclear"
But what really pisses me off is affectation. People who try to pronounce foreign words as if they spoke the language or pronounce English words as if they were British when they aren't: "Paree" instead of "Paris", "wescut" instead of "waistcoat" or, more appropriate, "vest". It's bad manners AND annoying.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Mark Oates wrote (post #174):

Quote:

Did "Mary" have a cousin?

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Mark Oates wrote (post #174):

Quote:

Did "Mary" have a cousin?

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Johnny_M wrote (post #120):

I[/I]]Quote:

If "cavepeople" already had human language, you can bet they developped ways to express any thought they had. *If they still only had nonphonic means of expression, such as sound effects (grunting, and so forth), then , for the kinds of lives they probably led (struggling to find food and shelter, reproducing), these were adequate for their interaction and survival. * In short, they didn't need to "write Shakespeare". It's all a moot---not mute (!)---point, since they didn't have the time.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Johnny_M wrote (post #120):

I[/I]]Quote:

If "cavepeople" already had human language, you can bet they developped ways to express any thought they had. *If they still only had nonphonic means of expression, such as sound effects (grunting, and so forth), then , for the kinds of lives they probably led (struggling to find food and shelter, reproducing), these were adequate for their interaction and survival. * In short, they didn't need to "write Shakespeare". It's all a moot---not mute (!)---point, since they didn't have the time.

 

[Kevin Farley]

Porsche has 2, count them, 2 syllables. (Poor-Scha) not Porshe!

 

[Kevin Farley]

Porsche has 2, count them, 2 syllables. (Poor-Scha) not Porshe!

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Rex, you took my silly reply to a silly excuse for bad language skills way too seriously! Besides, even if Grog had the leisure time of your average trust fund kid, I still doubt he'd have come up with Hamlet.
Oh, and mutations are complexities, at least the one's that don't inhibit an organism's ability to thrive and reproduce (a small fraction, but very important for evolution).

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Rex, you took my silly reply to a silly excuse for bad language skills way too seriously! Besides, even if Grog had the leisure time of your average trust fund kid, I still doubt he'd have come up with Hamlet.
Oh, and mutations are complexities, at least the one's that don't inhibit an organism's ability to thrive and reproduce (a small fraction, but very important for evolution).

 

[Jason Bovberg]

Didn't see this one in here: pronouncing "wolf" as "woof."

 

[Jason Bovberg]

Didn't see this one in here: pronouncing "wolf" as "woof."

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Jeff Gatie wrote (post #179):

Quote:

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Jeff Gatie wrote (post #179):

Quote:

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Speaking of "woof"---that's a nice litte folk etymology: "They call it 'wolf', 'cause it goes 'woof! woof!'"--

Dave Poehlman wrote (post #39):


Quote:



My in-laws are notorious for mispronouncing things. . . or just using the wrong word entirely.

. . . . .

You don't drink a glass of milk, you drink a glass of miwk.





"Using the wrong word entirely" falls under the heading of malapropism, which is more than just "mispronunciation". (More to come.)

[r], [l] together form a class of sounds called liquids

As there is r-dropping in some English dialects, so there is more limited l-dropping in some dialects under similar, but not all the same conditions (which is to say, after a vowel and before certain consonants).

Note the "silent [l]" (i.e., conservative spellings) in salmon, stalk, talk, walk, calf, half, and the like.

In addition, in some southern (& other) U.S. dialects help is pronounced more like "hep", "siwk" is used for [silk] (just like miwk for [milk]), "sawt" for [salt], and the like.

In this position [l] becomes very "dark" in many English dialects. Listen to "refined" British dialects sometimes where the [l] sounds almost like a [w] after vowels. Note that, if we spelled certain of the above more phonetically, instead by convention, some would come out , , or , respectively; in other words, rhyming with hawk. It shouldn't surprise anyone, then, that, if you have standard ("correct") English [l]-less calf, half, somewhere, some English dialect will end up with [woof] for [wolf].

We have no problem with it where we learn it as such, even if the spelling says differently, it seems.

Now note also the past tense of can, could, which is spelled with an < l>. Spelling and grammar "purists" should be howling with indignation at the "bastardization" of the English language with that one, since there is, to my knowledge---I would have to check the historical record to be absolutely certain---, there is no historical justification for an in this word. Yet, no "hew and cry"? Why?

Simple enough. The answer is "convention". By convention we accept this as correct spelling and so we do not ask---or is it "aks"?---why this should be correct. So, if there was never any evidence for an in the paradigm of this verb (that is, the entire set of forms that are taken by native speakers to belong to a given verb), why the ????
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

What? No show of hands?!?

Well, simple. The past tenses of several other modal verbs (namely, will : would, shall : should) all once contained real l's before a sound law arose that eliminated that consonant from the phonological string (the "pronunciation"). So, since the past tenses of all three (apparently) ended up rhyming ([wood], [shood], and [kood]), and the verbs were often used together (listlike) in discourse, after a time, someone started to spell "" in a fashion parallel to the other two rhyming modals by analogy.

The fact that we don't protest this spelling "anomaly" as a lowering of language standards is proof positive of the power of social convention and "respect for authority" when it comes to the language we use and the assessment of "proper education". (And don't get me started on women!)

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Speaking of "woof"---that's a nice litte folk etymology: "They call it 'wolf', 'cause it goes 'woof! woof!'"--

Dave Poehlman wrote (post #39):


Quote:



My in-laws are notorious for mispronouncing things. . . or just using the wrong word entirely.

. . . . .

You don't drink a glass of milk, you drink a glass of miwk.





"Using the wrong word entirely" falls under the heading of malapropism, which is more than just "mispronunciation". (More to come.)

[r], [l] together form a class of sounds called liquids

As there is r-dropping in some English dialects, so there is more limited l-dropping in some dialects under similar, but not all the same conditions (which is to say, after a vowel and before certain consonants).

Note the "silent [l]" (i.e., conservative spellings) in salmon, stalk, talk, walk, calf, half, and the like.

In addition, in some southern (& other) U.S. dialects help is pronounced more like "hep", "siwk" is used for [silk] (just like miwk for [milk]), "sawt" for [salt], and the like.

In this position [l] becomes very "dark" in many English dialects. Listen to "refined" British dialects sometimes where the [l] sounds almost like a [w] after vowels. Note that, if we spelled certain of the above more phonetically, instead by convention, some would come out , , or , respectively; in other words, rhyming with hawk. It shouldn't surprise anyone, then, that, if you have standard ("correct") English [l]-less calf, half, somewhere, some English dialect will end up with [woof] for [wolf].

We have no problem with it where we learn it as such, even if the spelling says differently, it seems.

Now note also the past tense of can, could, which is spelled with an < l>. Spelling and grammar "purists" should be howling with indignation at the "bastardization" of the English language with that one, since there is, to my knowledge---I would have to check the historical record to be absolutely certain---, there is no historical justification for an in this word. Yet, no "hew and cry"? Why?

Simple enough. The answer is "convention". By convention we accept this as correct spelling and so we do not ask---or is it "aks"?---why this should be correct. So, if there was never any evidence for an in the paradigm of this verb (that is, the entire set of forms that are taken by native speakers to belong to a given verb), why the ????
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

What? No show of hands?!?

Well, simple. The past tenses of several other modal verbs (namely, will : would, shall : should) all once contained real l's before a sound law arose that eliminated that consonant from the phonological string (the "pronunciation"). So, since the past tenses of all three (apparently) ended up rhyming ([wood], [shood], and [kood]), and the verbs were often used together (listlike) in discourse, after a time, someone started to spell "" in a fashion parallel to the other two rhyming modals by analogy.

The fact that we don't protest this spelling "anomaly" as a lowering of language standards is proof positive of the power of social convention and "respect for authority" when it comes to the language we use and the assessment of "proper education". (And don't get me started on women!)

 

[Mark Oates]

Can I go now, teacher?

 

[Mark Oates]

Can I go now, teacher?

 

[Rob Gardiner]

So, since the past tenses of all three (apparently) ended up rhyming ([wood], [shood], and [kood]), and the verbs were often used together (listlike) in discourse...

Shoulda, coulda, woulda

 

[Rob Gardiner]

So, since the past tenses of all three (apparently) ended up rhyming ([wood], [shood], and [kood]), and the verbs were often used together (listlike) in discourse...

Shoulda, coulda, woulda