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

[Dana Fillhart]

Actually, in order for it to work (like as an anti-gravity device?), shouldn't the non-buttered side of bread be attached to the cat's feet? It'd never hit the ground that way -- the buttered side (facing outward) would try to twist away, bringing the cat's back toward the ground, but the back would try to arch away, bringing the buttered side facing downward, and ...

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Woah! My little off-hand comment was not an attempt to hijack the thread, I promise!
What burns me is when Las Vegas entertainers pronounce tomato as "to-MAH-to" or potato as "po-TAH-to".

 

[Tony Whalen]

To answer the question posed in your sig, I think you may have developed the first perpetual-motion machine!

 

[Bill Williams]

I gotta go with one that, while it was mentioned a few pages back, it really ticks me off when some people, instead of asking a question, they aks a question.
Bottom line: IT'S ASK, NOT AKS! (Sorry for the caps and the repeat, I just had to get it out of my system.)
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Dana Fillhart wrote (post #119):

ask[/I]]Quote:

Good point.
I'll get back to this and more---much more---later.

 

[Yee-Ming]

It occurs to me that one possible reason why spoken language has changed so much from the past was because of the lack of a recording medium to reproduce people's speech patterns from back then for posterity. Since the early 20th century, this is no longer the case. Would changes in speech now slow down, or at least change less radically, since we now have something to compare it to? Or would it change even faster since any "hip" changes would proliferate even faster and wider? And would this also mean ultimately everyone speaking a particular language reasonably homogenously, rather than the wide differences in dialect today?

 

[Matt Butler]

When referring to numbers; people who say "oh" instead of "zero".
ITS A NUMBER!! NOT A LETTER DAMNIT!
Im ok now. Thanks.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Yee-Ming wrote (post #166):



Quote:



It occurs to me that one possible reason why spoken language has changed so much from the past was because of the lack of a recording medium to reproduce people's speech patterns from back then for posterity. Since the early 20th century, this is no longer the case. Would changes in speech now slow down, or at least change less radically, since we now have something to compare it to? Or would it change even faster since any "hip" changes would proliferate even faster and wider? And would this also mean ultimately everyone speaking a particular language reasonably homogenously, rather than the wide differences in dialect today?





It's an interesting question, one to which nobody has an answer. In theory, the existence of electronic mass media may influence the language by spreading the standard to broader audiences which might not have access to it otherwise. Reportedly, many urbanized U.S. Southerners under a certain age have lost their native "accents"---they no longer pronounce English the way their parents and/or grandparents used to. This has been attributed to the homogenizing influence of television. ("See, it's okay, honey. He saw it on the television." Jack Torrance, The Shining (1980)). On the other hand, television, as far as I can tell, is one of the main factors in disseminating new memes (cultural beliefs, behaviors, or practices) throughout the society.

It should be made crystal clear that, because we can better document language behavior and language change now due to the existence of various electronic media, it doesn't necessarily get any easier. The sociolinguist William Labov spent a career documenting the speech patterns of one (or some) of Philadelphia's black neighborhoods. So, over several decades he gathered massive amounts of evidence of the changes in those speech patterns.

Know what? It ultimately wasn't, and isn't, that useful, in my opinion. Why? Because changes in the language happen all the time. It's theorized that every speaker learns an imperfect copy or version of the grammar of his own native tongue. No two are exacly alike. Hence, everyone is prone to the "errors", and language to change. (In a fashion sort of parallel to that of gene mutation.)

Therefore, the only scientifically interesting changes---that is, ones that can be systematically observed and documented---are the ones that stick or take hold in a given speech community. And no one can yet safely and surely predict which those will be.

Whether the new media will "standardize" all of English or speed the dissemination of changes remains to be seen. Nevertheless, as English gains more "converts" in the world, it at the same time gains more diversity (and still more chances of "error"). The larger a given speech community, the more likely the linguistic diversity in that community. That's just a fact of life that no amount of outrage---or ignorance---is ever going to change.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Yee-Ming wrote (post #166):



Quote:



It occurs to me that one possible reason why spoken language has changed so much from the past was because of the lack of a recording medium to reproduce people's speech patterns from back then for posterity. Since the early 20th century, this is no longer the case. Would changes in speech now slow down, or at least change less radically, since we now have something to compare it to? Or would it change even faster since any "hip" changes would proliferate even faster and wider? And would this also mean ultimately everyone speaking a particular language reasonably homogenously, rather than the wide differences in dialect today?





It's an interesting question, one to which nobody has an answer. In theory, the existence of electronic mass media may influence the language by spreading the standard to broader audiences which might not have access to it otherwise. Reportedly, many urbanized U.S. Southerners under a certain age have lost their native "accents"---they no longer pronounce English the way their parents and/or grandparents used to. This has been attributed to the homogenizing influence of television. ("See, it's okay, honey. He saw it on the television." Jack Torrance, The Shining (1980)). On the other hand, television, as far as I can tell, is one of the main factors in disseminating new memes (cultural beliefs, behaviors, or practices) throughout the society.

It should be made crystal clear that, because we can better document language behavior and language change now due to the existence of various electronic media, it doesn't necessarily get any easier. The sociolinguist William Labov spent a career documenting the speech patterns of one (or some) of Philadelphia's black neighborhoods. So, over several decades he gathered massive amounts of evidence of the changes in those speech patterns.

Know what? It ultimately wasn't, and isn't, that useful, in my opinion. Why? Because changes in the language happen all the time. It's theorized that every speaker learns an imperfect copy or version of the grammar of his own native tongue. No two are exacly alike. Hence, everyone is prone to the "errors", and language to change. (In a fashion sort of parallel to that of gene mutation.)

Therefore, the only scientifically interesting changes---that is, ones that can be systematically observed and documented---are the ones that stick or take hold in a given speech community. And no one can yet safely and surely predict which those will be.

Whether the new media will "standardize" all of English or speed the dissemination of changes remains to be seen. Nevertheless, as English gains more "converts" in the world, it at the same time gains more diversity (and still more chances of "error"). The larger a given speech community, the more likely the linguistic diversity in that community. That's just a fact of life that no amount of outrage---or ignorance---is ever going to change.

 

[Dave Gorman]

A friend of mine pronounces "cache" as "cash-AY"

When I was working on the tech support line for an internet service provider, one of my coworkers always pronounced cache "catch". And in his logs of phone calls, website was always spelled "web sight".

 

[Dave Gorman]

A friend of mine pronounces "cache" as "cash-AY"

When I was working on the tech support line for an internet service provider, one of my coworkers always pronounced cache "catch". And in his logs of phone calls, website was always spelled "web sight".

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Charles J P wrote (post #111):


Quote:



I love reading threads like this. Not for the words, but to see people who are so sure their way is right. . . . . Also, foriegn words in English are fair game in my opinion.






Most of your points on the arbitrary attitudes and lack of understanding exhibited in this thread, and in general, are indeed quite well taken. Just a little tweaking for clarity and accuracy's sake:


Quote:



English is a flexible language. . . . . Any English linquist would tell you that the English language is not static.





In fact, English, like all living languages, is flexible and dynamic. Any language that isn't is diminishing in speakers, moribund and headed toward death ( = no native speakers).


Quote:



Words are added to the dictionary all the time.





Uh, true, but the important point is that "words are added to the lexicon (vocabulary) all the time", which means real people are using (usually speaking) these words on a regular basis. English today has the status of what sociolinguists call a prestige language, which means that vocabulary (whatever its historic source) is being borrowed from English into other languages by quite a lot. "Anglicisms" are multiplying in German, for example, a language that itself used to be a high-prestige language. On the other hand, what have we borrowed lately from German? Ah, yes, Fahrvergnügen! And remember when the French tried to outlaw public use of l'hamburger?



(post #111):


Quote:



Also, there are lots of silent letters in English, which is relatively uncommon. I dont know a lot of languages, but I did take four years of Spanish, and in many languages, there are hard and fast pronunciation rules. In English there are not.





Au contraire, m'sieur, English as a language system does indeed have "hard and fast" rules of pronunciation. What I assume you are trying to say is that the modern English spelling system (otherwise known as orthography) is inconsistent and "flexible". Spanish orthography is phonetic, meaning that there are rules that restrict how one can spell any given string uttered in the language, as opposed to, say, English where, for example, , , are all spellings for the same phonetic string. (They're homophones.)

Although you're definitely on the right track pointing out the arbitrariness of the condemnations here, you, like many of the other posters here seem to believe that writing takes precedent over speaking, as if languages emanated from physical dictionaries or other written sources. This is, in fact, incorrect and the opposite of linguistic reality. People first learn to speak their own language. Then, later, if at all, they (may) learn how to read and write all those things they've been pronouncing since they began to babble as children imitating those whom they have grown up around.


Quote:



There are definately words that people truly pronounce wrong, but there are many words with multiple accepted pronunciations as well. I know some people who say warsh, and kwier-practer as well. These are not accepted pronunciations, so dont get me wrong... I dont think you can pronounce words however you want, . . . .





Yes, but as always, the question needs to be asked, "accepted by who(m)"? Who gets to decide and on what basis, when there are whole dialects of people "mispronouncing" a given lexical item or using it in sentences in nonstandard usages?


Quote:



. . . with the English language, today's slang is tomorrows accepted lexicon.





You're headed in the right direction, but aren't quite there yet. First of all, this statement should be modified to say "may become tomorrow's accepted lexicon". There's no guarantee that today's "slang" or "hip" language will last into future time. That, in fact, has always been one of the purist standard-bearers' argument against so-called slang: that it fails the test of "eternal" or "periennal" validity. ("Grody to the max", anyone?) Of course, many of the same people fail to realize that that also goes every bit as much for elevated standard speech, as well. ("I shan't be dining with m'Lady tonight.")

The second bone of contention about your statement is best posed as a series of questions? Do you really think English is in any way special in this regard? Do the Russians or the Chinese or Arabs not have "slang" expressions? And, if they do, don't those slang expressions have as good a chance of replacing present-day Russian, Chinese, or Arabic expressions as English slang may one day replace today's standard English? Why is it that so many of you feel English is somehow fundamentally different from all other human languages?

English is subject to pretty much the same types of environmental factors and linguistic processes as other languages simply because human beings across cultures (and across time and space, as well) are basically the same genetically (by which I mean their brains, where language ability resides, are basically "hard-wired" the same) and they exhibit the same basic social needs and tendencies (even if those needs are expressed differently according to differing local conditions).



(post #129):


Quote:



There are certainly some objective standards for pronunciation, . . . .





Maybe. So, what are they?



Quote:



I also think words like warsh instead of wash are objectively wrong where as other words at least have a precidence for alternate pronunciations based on other words that are spelled similarly, etc.





So, you're saying some alternate pronunciations are okay, but not others? If so, what distinguishes the alternations that are "okay" from those that are "not okay"?


Quote:



. . . . but it kills me that people get upset about roof (roof like spoof vs. roof like good) and route (route like ouch and route like a tree root).





Again, how is this kind of thing different from the pronunciation alternations you find "unacceptable", and why?
Since, in these discussions, we all start with the underlying assumption that these two entities, string (i.e., pronunciation) A and string B to mean 'X' started out the same, the question is who---which group of speakers of an earlier state of the language diverged ("erred") first from the original string (pronunciation) and how? English head (OE heafod) is related to Latin caput. At some time, thousands of years in the past, the two were one "word" spoken by a unitary speech community. For some reason, a break-up of the unitary community into smaller communities occurred. Not only were the new communities separated from one another, they eventually became isolated from (i.e., out of contact with and without access to) each other. They became separate communities and their languages became different languages (no longer mutually comprehensible to one another). The first step in these processes is for "error" ("memic mutation") to occur in their various lexical items.

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. . . ."

 

[ace peterson]

Don't know if this word has been brought up yet or not.

I know quite a few people who pronounce wrestling as "wrastling." I saw him wrastle. Drives me nuts.

 

[ace peterson]

Don't know if this word has been brought up yet or not.

I know quite a few people who pronounce wrestling as "wrastling." I saw him wrastle. Drives me nuts.

 

[MarkHastings]

I hear Wrastle from older people. I wonder if it's a real word?

Surprise, Surprise!

from Dictionary.com:

wrastle

Wras"tle, v. i. [OE. wrastlen. See Wrestle.] To wrestle. [Obs. or Prov. Eng. & Colloq. U. S.]

Who wrastleth best naked, with oil enoint. --Chaucer.

? wrastlen - sounds like German. Perhaps that's where it came from?

 

[MarkHastings]

I hear Wrastle from older people. I wonder if it's a real word?

Surprise, Surprise!

from Dictionary.com:

wrastle

Wras"tle, v. i. [OE. wrastlen. See Wrestle.] To wrestle. [Obs. or Prov. Eng. & Colloq. U. S.]

Who wrastleth best naked, with oil enoint. --Chaucer.

? wrastlen - sounds like German. Perhaps that's where it came from?

 

[Rex Bachmann]

MarkHastings wrote (post #172):



Quote:



? wrastlen - sounds like German. Perhaps that's where it came from?







If anything, it was borrowed from Old Norse (Viking speech). The infinitive (the "to + verb" form) in proto-Germanic (the hypothetical parent of Gothic, Anglo-Frisian (incl. English, Saxon, Dutch, Flemish, etc.), High German and its variants, and Scandinavian (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic) ended in *-Vn (V = any of various vowels). Old English, as a Germanic language, also had this suffix. Modern English has lost it. (It is not to be confused with an etymologically distinct factitive suffix -(e)n used to derive verbs from adjectives (e.g., deaden, gladden, sadden, liken, cheapen, madden, etc.))

wrestle and its dialect variant wrastle go with the verb wrest 'to violently seize and twist (something)' (like whittle (with whet), dribble (with drip), settle (with sit), etc.) It's related also to the noun wrist.

And, again, there's certainly nothing wrong with looking up a word in the dictionary to confirm its existence, so long as one bear in mind that its absence from the dictionary does not necessarily mean that said "word" does not exist . Only people's use of a given "word" makes it a real word, and every native speaker. by definition, has a "vote".

 

[Rex Bachmann]

MarkHastings wrote (post #172):



Quote:



? wrastlen - sounds like German. Perhaps that's where it came from?







If anything, it was borrowed from Old Norse (Viking speech). The infinitive (the "to + verb" form) in proto-Germanic (the hypothetical parent of Gothic, Anglo-Frisian (incl. English, Saxon, Dutch, Flemish, etc.), High German and its variants, and Scandinavian (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic) ended in *-Vn (V = any of various vowels). Old English, as a Germanic language, also had this suffix. Modern English has lost it. (It is not to be confused with an etymologically distinct factitive suffix -(e)n used to derive verbs from adjectives (e.g., deaden, gladden, sadden, liken, cheapen, madden, etc.))

wrestle and its dialect variant wrastle go with the verb wrest 'to violently seize and twist (something)' (like whittle (with whet), dribble (with drip), settle (with sit), etc.) It's related also to the noun wrist.

And, again, there's certainly nothing wrong with looking up a word in the dictionary to confirm its existence, so long as one bear in mind that its absence from the dictionary does not necessarily mean that said "word" does not exist . Only people's use of a given "word" makes it a real word, and every native speaker. by definition, has a "vote".

 

[Mark Oates]

Back on post #26 (I came to this thread late, so sue me) Zen Butler said

Please, what's with you and your fear of the letters t and d?

It's pronounced LITTLE...not Li' ole

You can't just leave out letters because you're British.

That drives most of the rest of us Brits nuts as well. The people who are incapable of pronouncing their Ts, Ds, THs etc. are a small percentage of the population, but because of their abnormally high representation in popular television programmes, their sloppy pronunciation is starting to affect the way many youngsters who don't come from North London and Essex speak.

English never used to have glottal stops in it - but it does now. And the piteous thing is the people who talk that are the same people Dick Van Dyke was impersonating in "Murry Poppins".

Wossa'spozedameen? - What is that supposed to mean?

Naffin' - Nothing

Gimme a bo'oo a meuk - Give me a bottle of milk

Aaargh!

Oh, and Richard Kim, that was one thing that stuck out in Austin Powers 2 when he called his car a "Shag-whar". It should have been a "Shag-you-are".

 

[Mark Oates]

Back on post #26 (I came to this thread late, so sue me) Zen Butler said

Please, what's with you and your fear of the letters t and d?

It's pronounced LITTLE...not Li' ole

You can't just leave out letters because you're British.

That drives most of the rest of us Brits nuts as well. The people who are incapable of pronouncing their Ts, Ds, THs etc. are a small percentage of the population, but because of their abnormally high representation in popular television programmes, their sloppy pronunciation is starting to affect the way many youngsters who don't come from North London and Essex speak.

English never used to have glottal stops in it - but it does now. And the piteous thing is the people who talk that are the same people Dick Van Dyke was impersonating in "Murry Poppins".

Wossa'spozedameen? - What is that supposed to mean?

Naffin' - Nothing

Gimme a bo'oo a meuk - Give me a bottle of milk

Aaargh!

Oh, and Richard Kim, that was one thing that stuck out in Austin Powers 2 when he called his car a "Shag-whar". It should have been a "Shag-you-are".