benson@dcdwest.UUCP (Peter Benson) (10/31/85)
With me it's people who pronounce or spell 'pronunciation' as
'pronounciation', especially when they are whining about someone
else's pronunciation.
--
_
Peter Benson | ITT Defense Communications Division
(619)578-3080 | 10060 Carroll Canyon Road
decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!benson | San Diego, CA 92131
ucbvax!sdcsvax!dcdwest!benson | david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) (11/07/85)
How about "nuclear" pronounced "noo-que-lur", as if spelled "noocuulur"?
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (11/08/85)
>How about "nuclear" pronounced "noo-que-lur", as if spelled "noocuulur"? > - David Schachter Phonetically, this is a simple swapping of two adjacent consonants: nuclear /nuwkl0y0r/ vs nucular? /nuwky0l0r/ ..which puts it in the same category as errors like relevant /rel0v0nt/ vs revelant? /rev0l0nt/ I believe this phonetic error is called `metathesis'. Other errors mentioned seem to be due to English's natural process of weakening unaccented vowels and elision of unpronounceable clusters of glides [rlwy]: library /laybrer1/ => /laybr0r1/ => /laybrr1 = laybr1/ libry? february /febr0wer1/ => /febr0w0r1/ => /febrwr1,febr1/ febry? BTW, the pronunciation `febuary' is not really the dropping of an `r'; rather, it is the substition of /y/ for /r/: february /febr0wer1/ vs febuary? /feby0wer1/ There are many historical instances of repeated glides within a word dissimilating in this way, even when separated by intervening consonants. Purple (Lat. purpur-) and marble (Lat. marmor-), for example. -michael
rob@ptsfb.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (11/10/85)
In article <644@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: >>How about "nuclear" pronounced "noo-que-lur", as if spelled "noocuulur"? >> - David Schachter > > Phonetically, this is a simple swapping of two adjacent consonants: > > nuclear /nuwkl0y0r/ vs nucular? /nuwky0l0r/ > > ..which puts it in the same category as errors like > > relevant /rel0v0nt/ vs revelant? /rev0l0nt/ > > I believe this phonetic error is called `metathesis'. Yes, it is called metathesis. But in the case of 'nucular', there is another explanation, that is, a mistaken reanalysis with the suffix '-ular', cf. 'ocular'. The same appears in a slightly different form with 'esculator'. Another example of metathesis that I believe is particular to certain socio-economic strata (and perhaps geographic area) in New York City is 'jewlery' for 'jewelry'. An example of metathesis that occured that is considered acceptable but is still not reflected in the spelling is the word 'comfortable' pronounced as 'comfterble'.
dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (11/11/85)
In article <644@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > > Phonetically, this is a simple swapping of two adjacent consonants: > ..which puts it in the same category as errors like > > relevant /rel0v0nt/ vs revelant? /rev0l0nt/ > > I believe this phonetic error is called `metathesis'. ...And others call it 'methatesis'. Sorry, couldn't resist. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave)
chai@utflis.UUCP (Henry Chai) (11/12/85)
In article <644@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > Other errors mentioned seem to be due to English's natural process > of weakening unaccented vowels and elision of unpronounceable > clusters of glides [rlwy]: > > library /laybrer1/ => /laybr0r1/ => /laybrr1 = laybr1/ libry? > february /febr0wer1/ => /febr0w0r1/ => /febrwr1,febr1/ febry? It is my understanding that while Americans tend to pronounce each syllable of a word distinctly, British practice is to drop or glide over some syllables. Other examples I can think of are particularly -> particuly awfully -> awfly Also the British practice of adding an 'r' to the end of a word when the word ends in a vowel and the next starts with a vowel, what's it called in linguistics? Examples are law and order -> lawrand order idea of -> idearof (similarly Nyssarof Traken !) -- Henry Chai, just a humble student at the Faculty of Library and Information Science, U of Toronto {watmath,ihnp4,allegra}!utzoo!utflis!chai
rjw@ptsfc.UUCP (Rod Williams) (11/12/85)
Pet peeves, huh? How about 'supposibly' for 'supposedly', 'so-call' for
'so-called', 'first come first serve' for 'first come first served',
pronouncing 'lingerie' as 'lonzheray' instead of 'lanzheree'....
--
rod williams | {ihnp4,dual}!ptsfa!ptsfc!rjw
-------------------------------------------
pacific bell | san ramon | californiaradzy@calma.UUCP (Tim Radzykewycz) (11/13/85)
In article <644@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: >>How about "nuclear" pronounced "noo-que-lur", as if spelled "noocuulur"? >> - David Schachter > Phonetically, this is a simple swapping of two adjacent consonants: > nuclear /nuwkl0y0r/ vs nucular? /nuwky0l0r/ This isn't the case. The "correct" pronunciation of "nuclear" not /nuwklOyOr/, which has the only accent on the first syllable, but instead it is /nuwkliyOr/, with the accent on the second syllable (the one in question) and the [liy] sounds clearly enunciated. The switch from /nuwkliyOr/ to /nuwkyOlOr/ is several-fold: 1. change major accent from second to first syllable 2. change 'iy' sound to 'O' (schwa -- "stongly" unaccented vowel) 3. metathesis in [lOyO] to [yOlO] I think that the reasons this particular example bothers people are: 1. It is (supposedly) only pronounced /nuwkyOlOr/ by uneducated people, and these are a large group of the people who form the "anti-nukes" groups. (Before sending flames, please read on. I'll get back to this.) 2. The accent change is "radical". The more dramatic *linguistic* change is the second, however the more dramatic *cultural* objection is the first. It seems to me that the major objection to mis-pronounced words won't be uncovered by any amount of linguistic study, but rather by cultural study of language (e.g. sociolinguistics). Item 1 seems to mean that the people who don't know anything about nuclear engineering and nuclear technology are trying to make the decisions about policy -- a no-good way of doing business. It may or may not be the case that the decision-makers are influenced more by the anti-nuke protests than by engineering types. It also may be that the people who pronounce nuclear as /nuwkyOlOr/ are not un-educated, but these facts do not have anything to do with the argument I'm trying to make about linguistics. DISCLAIMER: I know... this doesn't have anything to do with the original article *or* with any of the articles preceeding it. It also doesn't have anything to do with my employer, my employer's maiden name or the girth of the tallest tree standing on Mt. St. Helen. -- Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage calma!radzy@ucbvax.ARPA {ucbvax,sun,csd-gould}!calma!radzy
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (11/17/85)
Wasn't it LBJ who taught us to say nue-que-ler?
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (11/18/85)
> In article <644@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > >>How about "nuclear" pronounced "noo-que-lur", as if spelled "noocuulur"? > >> - David Schachter > > > Phonetically, this is a simple swapping of two adjacent consonants: > > nuclear /nuwkl0y0r/ vs nucular? /nuwky0l0r/ > > This isn't the case. The "correct" pronunciation of "nuclear" not > /nuwklOyOr/, which has the only accent on the first syllable, but > instead it is /nuwkliyOr/, with the accent on the second syllable > (the one in question) and the [liy] sounds clearly enunciated. I have never heard "nuclear" pronounced with the accent on the second syllable, and none of the dictionaries I just looked in (including Webster's 2nd and Chamber's Etymological English Dictionary) list it even as an alternate pronunciation. > > I think that the reasons this particular example bothers people are: > 1. It is (supposedly) only pronounced /nuwkyOlOr/ by uneducated > people, and these are a large group of the people who form > the "anti-nukes" groups. (Before sending flames, please read on. > I'll get back to this.) > > Item 1 seems to mean that the people who don't know anything > about nuclear engineering and nuclear technology are trying > to make the decisions about policy -- a no-good way of doing > business. > Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz, The Incredible Radical Cabbage Jimmy Carter pronounces the word incorrectly. Before he was governor of Georgia he was a nuclear engineer. You'd think he would know better, but all this proves is that he knows more about building nuclear power plants than he does about pronouncing English. I had not noticed that more anti-nuke people than pro-nuke people mispronounce the word "nuclear", nor had I ever heard or read anyone complain that anti- nuke people show their ignorance of the issues by not bothering to learn how to pronounce the word. Tim, can you substantiate your claim? Or is it just a prejudice of yours? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
gdmr@cstvax.UUCP (George D M Ross) (11/18/85)
In article <558@utflis.UUCP> chai@utflis.UUCP (Henry Chai) writes: >It is my understanding that while Americans tend to pronounce each >syllable of a word distinctly, British practice is to drop or glide >over some syllables. Other examples I can think of are > > particularly -> particuly > awfully -> awfly > >Also the British practice of adding an 'r' to the end of a word when >the word ends in a vowel and the next starts with a vowel, what's it >called in linguistics? Examples are > > law and order -> lawrand order > idea of -> idearof (similarly Nyssarof Traken !) You mean ENGLISH, as in that country south of the border with SCOTLAND. Even within ENGLAND there are so many variations that sweeping generalisations aren't particularly useful. Scottish pronunciation, typically, doesn't mangle the words nearly as much. Incidentally, the practice of calling the inhabitants of a country by the name of one of its constituent units definitely qualifies as a pet peeve. For example: "Holland", "Russia", "England". And in the case of "Britain", do you mean the "British Isles" (inclusing Ireland) or the "United Kingdom" (not including most of Ireland)? [Just as an aside: although the Britons lost out to the Scots and Picts in the North and the Angles in the South they managed to give their name to the whole group of islands -- rather a nice trick...] -- George D M Ross, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Edinburgh Phone: +44 31-667 1081 x2730 UUCP: <UK>!ukc!cstvax!gdmr JANET: gdmr@UK.AC.ed.cstvax
ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn) (11/19/85)
In article <558@utflis.UUCP> chai@utflis.UUCP (Henry Chai) writes: > >It is my understanding that while Americans tend to pronounce each >syllable of a word distinctly, British practice is to drop or glide >over some syllables. Other examples I can think of are > > particularly -> particuly (*1) > awfully -> awfly (*2) > >Also the British practice of adding an 'r' to the end of a word when >the word ends in a vowel and the next starts with a vowel > > law and order -> lawrand order (*3) > Lets be *VERY* careful when refering to spoken "British English"! Of course, no such thing exists per se! There are probably more variations of pronunciation and dialect within the British Isles than in the rest of the English speaking world in total, from pure almost accentless (Inverness?), to completely unintelligible (Somerset?/Birmingham? etc - add your own biases). Accent and dialect change considerably over very short distances within the UK. Specifically, in the above, (*3) is pure London, (*2) is "Home Counties" or "posh", and (*1) appears to just be sloppiness, rather than an accent!. Ray Dunn. ...philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray