Important notice from the GRAMMAR POLICE. Plz read. This means you.
CheritaChen:
Quote from: Jelenedra on 2009 July 13, 18:46:09
didn't we purposely change up a bunch of pronounciations and spellings of schtick to distance ourselves from the British? It would make sense that we would change the way to say a word without taking into consideration that "OR" in the middle of labortory. Or was that just us being lazy Americans and just like how we just dropped the extra "u" out of words so that we wouldn't have to remember to write them?
I have heard this before, and never actually researched it directly myself, but it does sound credible, considering other aspects of our history. Stupid and contrary and myopic, but credible. I think the dropping of the U was probably a bit of both (contrariness and laziness).
Quote from: rufio on 2009 July 13, 18:50:09
I've only ever heard Dubya say "nukyuler", but it's standard (more or less) metathesis = /nu.kli.er/ -> /nu.ki.ler/ with the onset cluster simplifying from /kl/, and the /i/ getting palatalized to be /kji/.
But that doesn't make it correct.
Quote
/in.ti.gral/ -> /in.tri.gal/ doesn't really simplify anything, but it might just be more natural to have to more complex syllables closer to the front of the word. Then again, I've never actually heard anyone use that before.
I guarantee that you have, but didn't notice it. Lucky you. Of course, now that I've pointed it out here, you won't be so lucky.
Quote
It's interesting which changes people see as "regional evolutions in pronunciation" and which they see as laziness.
Well, I don't discount that the origin of the change was due to laziness. But those who never heard it correctly pronounced, and were taught their local pronunciation, can hardly be blamed for the laziness of their ancestors, can they?
Quote from: Audrey on 2009 July 13, 18:36:52
I'm glad you had the sense to know better, but yes, it is worth a good weep. :'( 'Would of' and 'could of' are also becoming world standards because they are so widely used colloquially. It is so sad the language is being bastardised.
Quote from: rufio on 2009 July 13, 18:50:09
If you're talking about speech (and not writing) I don't think it's laziness - it's just another timing/stress-related effect. It'd be more correct to spell it "would've" and "could've" though they're pronounced the same way. In writing, though, most of that looks bad, even to me. :P
No, it's fucking laziness. How many other things in (American) English are spelled in a completely counterintuitive way, like phlegm or through? That doesn't make it okay to just spell them the way you'd prefer. Likewise, just because "would've" sounds more like "would of" instead of the full "would have" does NOT make it okay to use the former instead. It doesn't mean the same fucking thing, at all. It's no wonder people can't learn our goddamn stupid language, when this kind of "shortcut" excuse is being accepted even by otherwise intelligent communicators.
Roflganger:
Quote from: rufio on 2009 July 13, 19:08:03
Interesting - in-IV-a-TIV is also iambic, contrasted to trochaic IN-a-VAY-tiv.
I'm debating with myself as to whether the 4th syllable is stressed; my guess is that it is not, unless "initiative" is also iambic, as they have the same pattern of emphasis.
Quote from: CheritaChen on 2009 July 13, 19:11:40
Quote from: rufio on 2009 July 13, 18:50:09
If you're talking about speech (and not writing) I don't think it's laziness - it's just another timing/stress-related effect. It'd be more correct to spell it "would've" and "could've" though they're pronounced the same way. In writing, though, most of that looks bad, even to me. :P
No, it's fucking laziness. How many other things in (American) English are spelled in a completely counterintuitive way, like phlegm or through? That doesn't make it okay to just spell them the way you'd prefer. Likewise, just because "would've" sounds more like "would of" instead of the full "would have" does NOT make it okay to use the former instead. It doesn't mean the same fucking thing, at all. It's no wonder people can't learn our goddamn stupid language, when this kind of "shortcut" excuse is being accepted even by otherwise intelligent communicators.
Most people I've seen (and corrected) using "would of" simply didn't know it was incorrect, which makes it ignorance, not laziness. Like I said before, I attribute this to a lack of awareness to what words mean - people making this mistake aren't paying enough attention to realize that what they are actually saying is "would have". I have a suspicion that this is also the reason some idiots can't keep they're/their/there straight.
rufio:
Quote from: CheritaChen on 2009 July 13, 19:11:40
Quote
/in.ti.gral/ -> /in.tri.gal/ doesn't really simplify anything, but it might just be more natural to have to more complex syllables closer to the front of the word. Then again, I've never actually heard anyone use that before.
I guarantee that you have, but didn't notice it. Lucky you. Of course, now that I've pointed it out here, you won't be so lucky.
Well, if you say so. I do tend to notice things like that because I am interested in it, so I really doubt anything will change.
Quote
Well, I don't discount that the origin of the change was due to laziness. But those who never heard it correctly pronounced, and were taught their local pronunciation, can hardly be blamed for the laziness of their ancestors, can they?
Every instance of language change is due to "laziness" i.e. what it is easier for human speech organs to pronounce. If we weren't "lazy" we'd probably all be speaking PIE or something, and language would be very boring.
Quote
No, it's fucking laziness. How many other things in (American) English are spelled in a completely counterintuitive way, like phlegm or through? That doesn't make it okay to just spell them the way you'd prefer. Likewise, just because "would've" sounds more like "would of" instead of the full "would have" does NOT make it okay to use the former instead. It doesn't mean the same fucking thing, at all. It's no wonder people can't learn our goddamn stupid language, when this kind of "shortcut" excuse is being accepted even by otherwise intelligent communicators.
Well, like I said, if you are talking about writing, I have nothing to add here.
DrNerd:
I wouldn't say that "labratory" is a mispronounciation. It's just the AMERICAN pronounciation. In Texas, "Houston" is pronounced "HYEW-st'n." In New York City, "Houston" is pronounced "HOWS-tun." One of those pronounciations isn't "right" and the other "wrong." They're both "right." It's just context-dependent.
CheritaChen:
Quote from: Roflganger on 2009 July 13, 19:15:09
Most people I've seen (and corrected) using "would of" simply didn't know it was incorrect, which makes it ignorance, not laziness. Like I said before, I attribute this to a lack of awareness to what words mean - people making this mistake aren't paying enough attention to realize that what they are actually saying is "would have". I have a suspicion that this is also the reason some idiots can't keep they're/their/there straight.
I consider "not paying enough attention to realize what one is actually saying" to be a pretty fair example of laziness, though. Mental laziness, which is what we're really talking about, I think.
Quote from: DrNerd on 2009 July 13, 19:48:00
In Texas, "Houston" is pronounced "HYEW-st'n." In New York City, "Houston" is pronounced "HOWS-tun." One of those pronounciations isn't "right" and the other "wrong." They're both "right." It's just context-dependent.
If I really gave a shit, I could probably look this up and find out, but it's possible that the Houston after whom the Texan city was named pronounced his surname differently than the Houston after whom the New York street was named. Also, it doesn't rule out the possibility that one of them was a dumb fuck who was doing it wrong the whole time. But yes, to locals, saying "Hyew-st'n" for the street name is "wrong." I learned this remotely from my seat at a previous job, in a call center in a state nowhere near New York.
However....
I don't care how many New Englanders want to debate it: saying "sehl-tik" for Celtic is just moronical. Where did the name come from, if not the historic early European tribes? If whoever it was that named that dumbass basketball team thought it was such a cool name, they could have taken the effort to learn how it was most commonly pronounced. And if that pronunciation was deemed just too confusing for the rabble, then maybe they should have chosen another name.
Come to think of it, perhaps there was some dude/ette named "sehl-tik" involved, considering that the proper usage in this case (if it were supposed to be the tribal people) would have been Celts.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page