Important notice from the GRAMMAR POLICE. Plz read. This means you.
CheritaChen:
Quote from: DrNerd on 2009 July 13, 23:36:52
I would correct the pronounciation of "Worcester" as "WOO-ster," though. It's generally either "WIS-tah" or "WUSS-tah" in Massachusetts
You're right. I didn't spell it in the correct local accent.
Quote
Saying "HYEW-st'n" Street in NYC is just as wrong as going to "HOWS-tun" Texas, but the pronounciations are not wrong in and of themselves.
I was agreeing with you, but saying it probably was due to the "Houston" in NYC having been named after someone else, someone whose name had the "HOWS-tun" pronunciation, and not just a...random choice on the part of New Yorkers to say the word "Houston" differently. Though that is also entirely possible, too.
Audrey:
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.
I could not agree with you more CC. However, I do think ignorance does play a part in it. If you are a child and your first and subsequent hearing of laboratory is labratory then you will continue to say it like that ad infinitum and noone will be able to tell you anything different.
BTW, it is 'spelt' not 'spelled', and you appear to be qualifying moronic with the extra 'al'. It should simply be moronic like ironic which frequently gets another 'al' added incorrectly to it.
Jelendra, I was not digging at the Americans per se. I just hear more American-speak on TV than any other, so they are the easiest to pick on for the aberrations I hear.
As far as name places are concerned, I really can understand mispronunciations of these. I mean really Cholmondeley pronounced Chumley - three syllables have been left out in expressing it. That is just madness.
What concerns me more is
rufio:
Quote from: Audrey on 2009 July 14, 07:29:57
BTW, it is 'spelt' not 'spelled'.
I believe both are considered correct.
Quote
Jelendra, I was not digging at the Americans per se. I just hear more American-speak on TV than any other, so they are the easiest to pick on for the aberrations I hear.
Ah, so you are just "digging" at anyone who pronounces things differently from you. I see.
Audrey:
Hi Rufio
No, I grew up learning what I believe was a high standard of English. I say that because good novels are usually written in the 'Queen's English' and having read copious amounts of those, I have reason to believe that I speak, write and spell according to those norms.
Pronunciation is not my bugbear, it is incorrect forms of grammar and spelling.
BTW, where did you Americans learn to spell? When you read an 'English' novel, you must wonder about why Shakespeare added a 'u' to Love's Labours Lost. What happened to all the 'u's in the words ending in 'our'?
'Considered correct' - now there's the rub. For me it has always been 'spelt'.
chaos:
AFAIK, "spelt" is correct as a past participle, but only non-Americans seem to use it. Americans always use "spelled" whether it's past tense, or past participle.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page