# Commonly mispronounced words...



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

Which commonly misprnounced word just drives you nuts when you hear it?

For me, it has to be "nuclear." It is not "nu-ku-lar," it's "nu-klee-ar."

ARGH!


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

I've heard a few people say "acrost" for across...kind of strange since it's not spelled that way.

Regarding "nuclear", I actually had a teacher in highschool who spelled it "nucular" on his overheads...and he is one of the most intelligent, articulate, well-read people I have ever known. Nobody had the heart to tell him, although I realize now that someone should have.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Iraq - = really annoying. EYEraq. 

Advertisement even tho both pronunciations are shown.



> often	ofen	We have mastered the spelling of this word so well, its spelling influences the pronunciation: DON'T pronounce the [t]! This is an exception to the rule that spelling helps pronunciation.


Didn't know that 

BTW http://www.m-w.com Mirriam Webster offers audio pronunciation to settle arguments.
Now I wonder how a Brit dictionary might differ. 

'nother one I'm guilty of



> persnickety	pernickety	You may think us too pernickety to even mention this one. It is a Scottish nonce word to which U.S. speakers have added a spurious




Lotsa fun here. http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/mispron.html


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

When ask become axe.


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

pronouncing vonage > vo-nahj
it's an american company is it not?
vah-nij


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Some words that bug me when mis-pronounced are:
Anti=ant-ee not ant-eye
Semi=sem-ee not sem-eye
Quasi=kwaz-ee not kwaz-eye or even worse kwayz-eye
Anyway not anyways. Any already pluralizes the optional way.
And the all time classic irregardless. Blah. Worst ever. Try regardless folks.

Then there are industry words. Install is often used in place of installation. "He's doing an IN-stall" ought to be "He's doing an installation."

Some people use interface to refer to human interaction when in fact interface is between humans and machines.


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

I was just out in Newfoundland. The locals are pretty specific that it's not "Newfunlund," but sort of rhymes with Understand. They often say, "It's Newfoundland, understand?"

Pronunciation is very regional, I just try to blend in and not worry too much about it. City names being different in different languages bothers me more. I was terminally confused about Munchen/Munich, Wien/Vienna, etc. The local spelling should be what's on maps, it would reduce confusion a fair amount. Same with country names as far as the alphabet will allow, I'm sick of having maps in different languages with different place names on 'em...


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Feb-yew-erry instead of February.

Newscasters (certainly over here) often say Pry-minister instead of Prime Minister.

Weather forecasters, who of all people should know better, often say tem-pitcher, instead of temperature.


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

This is a strange one, but Protractor.

ya don't say PROH tractor, its just one word, protractor.

YO - the worst word ever invented. It has no meaning and displays a lack of intelligence.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree with RISK, although I came to Newfoundland and Labrador back in July, 1977 and I am still here. I soon learned that it was "Newfoundland, rhymes with Understand". However, I feel that I correctly pronounce "Labrador", since I include the 'r' and not pronounce it as "Labadoor". 

Re words that are mispronounced, the word "pronunciation" is often pronounced as if it were spelled "minpronounciation".


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

"orientated" for oriented.
Qweebec for Quebec


----------



## i stole this name (May 9, 2005)

theres a lot of dispute over this but

I say Fill-eh for Fillet. Some people just say fillit.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i had a room mate in college i wanted to punch every time i heard him say 'supposably' instead of supposedly. no one should use the word supposedly in conversation so many times any way, so even had he pronounced it correctly every time, i still would have liked to punch him out.

(as it turns out, i didn't punch anyone in college)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

For filet. Mirriam Webstern indicates filet mignon is always with AYE 

BUT the noun alone is EITHER AYE or ET and I agree it should be AYE in my mind.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Aluminum.........cinnamon.............and artic for arctic.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

I've heard people say "fermiliar" for familiar.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mrs.F., now you are getting into accents. Every so often, I shall say "mothah" and "fathah" and "Tamper, Florider". Some New Yorker's pronounce the "er" in "mother" like an "ah", and the "a" in "Tampa" like an "er" sound. You should hear how I pronounce "Boston dog paw sauce", or "ball", "talk" and "saw".


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr G, is is peh-can or pee-can (for pecan)

In Quebec, I'm finally getting used to "vite-mans" (vitamins) and "devil-up" (develop)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, I say pee-can, the British say "peh-can" and when I was in Georgia, it was like a "pee-caaaaan" sound (it is hard to do a Southern accent in text).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, just think about how Montreal is pronounced. My mother, who was born in Montreal, used to say "Moreyall", with the n and the t burried deep in her throat.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beware of heard, a dreadful word
That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead; it’s said like bed, not bead
For goodness sake, don’t call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat
(They rhyme with suite and straight and debt). 
A moth is not a moth in Mother,
Nor both in bother, broth in brother.


And don't get me started on the complexities of cough, rough, through, bough, dough, thought...............


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G aluminium is correct for Brits.....was that what you were referring to???

What's the variation on cinnamon??  


Not a mispronunciation but in my mine an incorrect use is the overuse of "tragic" when it comes to a accidental death.

Tragic SHOULD in my view be used when someone is the author or contributor to their own fate by way of ambition or choices marked by inherent parts of their character.
Kurt Cobain, James Dean, Emilia Earhardt, Robert Scott ( Antartic explorer ), Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison could be tragic deaths driven by their own demons..

A car accident, a house fire is not a tragic event. It may be deplorable or horrific, or unfortunate, or devastating or any other number of appropriate modifiers for the purposes of heightening the event, but tragic it's not.  
Irks me everytime I hear it.

Any other misuses that irritate you???
- I agree on "irregardless" too. 
Then of course there is the pure confusion of flammable and inflammable meaning the same thing 

English must be horrible to learn as a second language.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, aluminum, as you say, is pronounced in a variety of ways. Re cinnamon, many pronounce it as if it was "synonym".

And I am also irritated by "irregardless" rather than "regardless".


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Neopreme instead of neoprene.

The filet and fillet one drives me nuts too. I was always of the understanding, perhaps erroneously, that a filet was a steak and fillets were pieces of fish. Apparently, fillets can apply to any cut of meat and a filet is just the french word for fillet.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

Some managers at my work use "irregardless" all the time. Every time my coworker and I use the word regardless, we "correct" each other with a knowing wink: "IR-regardless..."


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Right... "irregardless" being a bastardization of "regardless" and "irrespective".

I was also going to raise the "aluminium" pronounciation.

And .. apart from "orientated" ... there a re other instances where people stick in an extra "ate" to their words, and it drives me nuts! Odd thing is, I catch it when I hear it, but my well-trained grammatical brain can't pull up an instance of it on demand! 

M


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

In the west, scallops is pronouced like it looks. In the east it sounds more like scollops.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

While we're at it, the nature of my job subjects me to "your guys" and "youse guys" every day.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Autopilot, I was teaching a grad course with 10 grad students, all women. One of them said aloud, "Guy, let's give a cheer for Dr.G." After the muted applause and cheers, I mentioned that I was the only "guy" in the room.


----------



## gruegoo (Dec 28, 2004)

Its a name, but...

HYUNDAI

Its HYUN-DAY, not hun-day. I still don't understand how people just remove a letter like "y".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gruegoo, when I was looking at a Hyundai Accent, the dealer said that their cars were produced by Hun-die.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Schedule pronounced with "sh" as in shedule.

It's sKedule (with a hard "k" sound, just like school) when used properly.

When I hear people use that soft "sh" sound, I always as them what "shool" taught them that pronunciation.

And my all time favourite is didn't.

Far too many think the word is ditn't for whatever reason. That one really bugs me.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, as well, "alot" is used far too often for someone trying to express "a great many".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Here's a little linguistic quiz I give to my students. What is the most commonly used word in the English language? Remember, this is the word that is used more often in written and spoken English than any other word? As well, what is the meaning of this word?

Hint -- This word comprises 5% of our language in terms of its usage.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

How about the misuse of the word "then" and "than"? And don't leave out our friends the homographs, as in "read" and "bow". Yes, English as a first language is confusing.


----------



## gruegoo (Dec 28, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> gruegoo, when I was looking at a Hyundai Accent, the dealer said that their cars were produced by Hun-die.


I know what you mean... the commercials use it like that too sometimes. They really need to unify their message, as it seems like they're partially responsible for the mistakes. I've heard hyun-dye, hai-oon-dye, hai-oon-day, hun-day... Anyways in the original Korean it's hyun-day.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

gruegoo, I had to ask a Korean exchange student the correct pronunciation of this term. My next door neighbors are from China, and speak very little English. I think that they are thrown more by my New York City accent than the words I am using in English. When I tried to explain to them that they had just bought a house next to a home with five "dogs" (which I pronounce "dawgs"), they were not sure what I was trying to communicate. When all five came running out to greet them, they knew. Luckily, they like dogs. I have also learned to greet them "Ne (as in knee) how ma".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G/CubaMark - the Brit version is actually spelled "aluminium" not just the pronunciation.

•••

Carex - ugh - not only two pronunciations but two spellings as well - talk about a word with a "vague" identity.

I used to get bothered by the "guys" thing when there were both sexes present but I realize it's become a generic non-gender word to include all present. Probably a good thing.

Dr. G I'm guessing it's the word "the" and I have no idea of what it means, but then it might be the word "a" as well after scanning a few lines here. 'Fess up.

Anyone got annoying elisions??? ie He "din't" get home and of course the teachers curse "ain't".


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

"P'tic-yoolee" for particularly.

But I might be quoting Brit-isms here of course.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, yes, "the" is the most commonly used word in English, but what is its meaning? After all, 5% of one of our two official Canadian languages (in terms of frequency) must mean something!!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I bow to your knowledge on it's meaning - for my part it seems a modifier like one as opposed to many. ie There is "one" tree or There is "the" tree....or perhaps a specifier "That is the tree I am refering to". So "a" tree can be any tree but "the" tree is a specific tree.

I recall code breakers looking for "the" as a start point due to it's frequency.

•••

BTW how about intriguing or neat sounding words. *codswallop* is one of my favs. :clap:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

You were correct with your comment " There is "one" tree or There is "the" tree." The means one. "The tree" means one tree when the word "the" rhymes with "duh", and "the tree" refers to a specific tree when "the" rhymes with "knee". I had a linguist prof who would send us on scavenger hunts though the English language to hunt for all sorts of word variations in terms of spelling/pronunciations/meanings.

Now, for you next quiz. What word in the English language has more meanings than any other word? Many words in the English language have multiple meanings, such as "top" being a spinning toy or at the highest point of some object. However, this mystery word has 17 variations in terms of its meaning.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

I seem to recall reading somewhere that "jack" has the most meanings, Dr. G.

Is that so?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SQ, good guess, but not correct. Keep guessing.


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

OH OH OH OH OH!!! I KNOW ONE!!

How about how Steve Jobs pronounces automatically!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Every single Keynote my wife and I cringe.

Also, add to that, that I hate when anyone lingo-izes applications into "apps"! Steve is guilty of this too. I can figure whether he is talking about programs or pre-meal appetizers...


----------



## teeterboy3 (May 22, 2005)

autopilot said:


> Some managers at my work use "irregardless" all the time. Every time my coworker and I use the word regardless, we "correct" each other with a knowing wink: "IR-regardless..."


I use iRregahdless (in a Basstoniahn accent) cause that is some funny stuff.
Wicked Pissah.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Jag-wire?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Now, for you next quiz. What word in the English language has more meanings than any other word?


I'll have to look it up... 

"set" would be my guess.


----------



## dido56 (May 18, 2005)

I HATE it when people pronounce "Chicago" with an added 'r' - Chi-CAR-go. It might be a Newfoundland thing, but it's the worst. Also, "cousint" - yes, I have heard this many times, and New-FOUND-lund instead of NEW-fin-land (as has already been mentioned). It definitely bugs me, too, when I hear "prolly" instead of "probably".


----------



## mazirion (May 22, 2005)

Words that tick me off are

their / there

you're / your


Probably many others - just can't think of them now.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

mazirion said:


> Words that tick me off are
> 
> their / there
> 
> ...


...not only their and there but also they're!
...and how about it's/its and who's/whose? Those are the most painful for me.


----------



## mazirion (May 22, 2005)

See - many more I couldn't think of of the top of my head.

How about - "I could of..." of in place of have!

The list goes on and on!


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

mazirion said:


> See - many more I couldn't think of of the top of my head.
> 
> How about - "I could of..." of in place of have!
> 
> The list goes on and on!


Even worse is something like "I could of went".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, good guess, but no cigar.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

dido56, I still say the "Newfoundland rhymes with understand" is the easiest way to help the CFA's from New York City learn the correct pronunciation of the island part of our province. I still can't figure out where the first "r" goes in Labrador when it's pronounced "Labadoor".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey Dr. G how about a hint....... number of letters perhaps.

Something like "round" comes to mind but not for 17 variations.......


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

One that is used incorrectly all the time in print is "looser" instead of "loser". I guess some folks wander around with things falling off from being too loose. After that they probably lose them. 

My daughter, who is exploring vocabulary at the age of 5 came up with a new word the other day: oftenly.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

How about read/red/redd for Dr. G's question?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Maybe ho and all the arising variations or perhaps in.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Carex, get back to bed or you shall be dead, Dead, DEAD!!!!!!!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, it is a three letter word and the most commonly used meaning of this word is something you most likely have done sometime in your life.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Carex, your daughter is actually experimenting with the syntactic and semantic structure of our language, which is quite normal and actually vital for her to become literate.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Lie or lay?

Yes, unfortunately for me she is becoming literate in the 2 official languages. Her mother is from Quebec you see, and, at 5 she is functionally bilingual.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Carex, no, but you have the correct part of speech.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Carex, re you comment that "...at 5 she is functionally bilingual", she might have a bit of difficulty with spelling in her first few years of school if she learns to read both official languages. However, this is not a worrisome problem, just somewhat common because of the grapho-phonic differences between the two languages.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Fly ??


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Laid?

Yes, we will track the spelling and see how it goes. We are already seeing differences with the phonic spelling in one language, that does not translate well to the other.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sorry, no one has gotten this little three-letter word yet.

Carex, as I said, this is to be expected. The key is getting her to read as much in both languages and she will eventually recognize the differences in spelling words in English and French.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So it's a 3 letter verb??

I'm mightly resisting looking this up


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, this three-letter word is most commonly used in its verb form. Think!!! What have you done sometime in your life (you may still do this today) that might help you stay physically fit?


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

The word that I hear alot and absolutely detested is the word

"ain't" To make it worse - (cringe) "ain't got no"

AAAAGH - I could just scream.
Someone said it was in the dictionary - I have been afraid to find out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Run ???


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Are?


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Ran?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc by two minutes over Cameo. Still, in the judgement of the judges, it is ruled not a tie, but a shared victory. My next clue was going to divulge the notion that this words multiple meanings come with the direct derivations of this word (e.g., run to ran to running to runny).

So, you are going to have to share the prize evenly. Agreed?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That was a pretty strong clue.

so run definitions. Yikes

run - as in a stocking
run - as in a run of luck
run - as in a rope guide
run - as in a horse running
run - as in a dog run, rabbit run
run - as in run for parliament
run - as in run on the bank

That's about it for me.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Sure - I have always liked to share.

My cat just turned off my desktop - now she is trying to figure out just what happened!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Cameo said:


> The word that I hear alot and absolutely detested is the word
> 
> "ain't" To make it worse - (cringe) "ain't got no"
> 
> ...


I think that the use of "ain't" has been rather contentious over the years.
Like Cameo, I gringe everytime I hear it. Yes, it is in the Merriam-Webster (Although widely disapproved as nonstandard and more common in the habitual speech of the less educated, ain't in senses 1 and 2 is flourishing in American English.)(Webster online).

I remember reading an essay by George Orwell about the word "ain't" and that Queen Victoria used that word all the time when she spoke. Orwell was fine with that word and if it's fine by him, then I'm okay with it (althought I would never utter it).


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

No disrespect - but I do not care who uses it or who says it is alright. I have always been proud of the fact that I do not particularly "judge" people. But, I also feel that the use of the word "ain't" defines someone as being "uneducated"
I guess that I can be a snob about some things.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Run a flag up the flag pole.
Remember, it can be words directly derived from the root word run. Think nose.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Cameo said:


> No disrespect - but I do not care who uses it or who says it is alright. I have always been proud of the fact that I do not particularly "judge" people. But, I also feel that the use of the word "ain't" defines someone as being "uneducated"
> I guess that I can be a snob about some things.


I am no expert in the use of the language, but I do think that the word "ain't" has earned a place in the history of our language and deserves to be in the dictionary as such.

The old standby song, "Ain't She Sweet" was sung by many for years and the phrase, "it ain't necessarily so" was widely used as well in music.

While I was taught by purists who admonished anyone who used the word, history will show it will carve its own niche in the vocabulary of the land.

I ain't sure about that, but that's what I think.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Cameo, no offense taken.
Words and their meaning tend to evolve. Here we have a word that once was high class that is now associated to being uneducated.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, yes, ain't has become part of our venacular. I myself, at times, use the phrase "ain't it the truth", to paraphrase my father. Still, I find that I don't use it in any other context.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Sinc, yes, ain't has become part of our venacular. I myself, at times, use the phrase "ain't it the truth", to paraphrase my father. Still, I find that I don't use it in any other context.


Which further disproves the theory that only the uneducated use the word.

Perhaps one has to be "more educated" to understand the way to use "ain't" properly?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> I find that I don't use it in any other context.


Ain't that a shame!




Ain't has a long history of controversy. It first appeared in 1778, evolving from an earlier an't, which arose almost a century earlier as a contraction of are not and am not. In fact, ain't arose at the tail end of an era that saw the introduction of a number of our most common contractions, including don't and won't. But while don't and won't eventually became accepted at all levels of speech and writing, ain't was to receive a barrage of criticism in the 19th century for having no set sequence of words from which it can be contracted and for being a “vulgarism,” that is, a term used by the lower classes, although an't at least had been originally used by the upper classes as well. At the same time ain't's uses were multiplying to include has not, have not, and is not, by influence of forms like ha'n't and i'n't. It may be that these extended uses helped fuel the negative reaction. Whatever the case, criticism of ain't by usage commentators and teachers has not subsided, and the use of ain't is often regarded as a sign of ignorance.•But despite all the attempts to ban it, ain't continues to enjoy extensive use in speech. Even educated and upper-class speakers see no substitute in folksy expressions such as Say it ain't so and You ain't seen nothin' yet.•The stigmatization of ain't leaves us with no happy alternative for use in first-person questions. The widely used aren't I? though illogical, was found acceptable for use in speech by a majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey, but in writing there is no acceptable substitute for the stilted am I not?
http://www.answers.com/ain't&r=67


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, I have also been known to hum "It ain't necessarily so", but that is a song and I am just humming.

Ain't also shows the evolutionary nature of language. I am a sociolinguist, and deal in how language is learned and taught in social settings such as the home and school. Language can never remain static, or else it can never reflect the true nature of our current reality. Still, words cannot describe fully certain feelings (e.g., love) or sensations (e.g., describe the color red) or perceptions (e.g., Sinc is a fine person). Still, we make do with what we have. So long as we are communicating our thoughts, feelings, ideas and emotions so that others are able to share in this interrelationship of expressive and receptive language, then we are doing well. As the Sage from Salt Spring might say just now -- Trust me on this (which is actually a poor phrase, syntactically speaking, but it makes its point well).


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

I guess it was just my upbringing - the word, I always understood, was not grammatically correct. I can see where I use other shortforms for words - such as "don't" or "won't" for "do not" and "would not". Somehow, I just cannot get over the word "ain't" - sounds like gutter language to me, no matter how acceptable it has become. I know lots of people - including my partner - who use it and I think the world of them - but still cringe when that word is used. I know I am not always grammatically correct either.
Just my thoughts.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Isn't the derivative "h'aint" which is scottish????

Got a link here



> Notice that we have an imperfect paradigm: the negative contraction for "am not" seems to be missing. All the pronoun forms correlate to a positive form and a negative (contracted) form of the verb "to be"—all except one; there is no contractable form for "am not". Why not? The contraction of are+not is "aren't". The contraction of is+not is "isn't". Why isn't the contraction of am+not "amn't?"
> *In fact, in a wide swath of English dialects, it is. This word is common in Scotland and Ireland:* "I amn't sure what he said" and "I am going, amn't I" are common in those variants of English. English doesn't like two nasal consonants like "m" and "n" together, however, and in most dialects they merged into "an't", the spelling of which eventually evolved into "ain't". "Ain't" then acquired the reputation of a "four-letter" word it has had to endure over the course of the last century. (Hmm. Actually, it has something in common with four-letter words, doesn't it?)
> 
> These rather pertinent facts of the English language were overlooked by the prescriptive grammarians who have all these years attempted to totally obliterate ("amn't" and) "ain’t" from the English vocabulary. "Never, never, never under any circumstances say 'ain’t'" has been drummed in our heads since kindergarten. Sorry, teachers and diligent mommies, but this very simple rule is linguistically wrong. The rule that should have been drilled into the heads of English-speakers all these years is this:
> ...


I mean how different is it than shant which is archaic but I use it from time to time. I like many of these words - what's wrong with swum...........I see swimmed all the time which is just plain wrong.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Just like all novels used to describe the subject as having "lit" a smoke.

Then some idiot decided he should have "lighted" a smoke. Pet peeve of mine.

Just like, "they hung the rustler".

Now the dorks "hanged" the rustler. What's with that?

"D


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

How darest y'all have this thread without me? 

As a professional stickler, I always find this kind of discussion fascinating.

Sinc, "hanged" is the correct form when speaking of hanging a person to death. By tradition, if for no other reason. It's now becoming a quaint usage, and most people just use "hung."

I could go on forever about the written word, but I'l spare you the rant. Suffice to say that life's too short to worry about the mistakes people commonly make in discussion forums, and that most newspapers in this country could use an extra stickler or two on staff. 

When it comes to pronunciation, I must say I don't worry too much about how people pronounce, and that many of the "mispronunciations" cited in this thread are usually nothing more than the result of lazy enunciation. As long as they succeed in clearly saying what they mean, I don't mind if they use idiosyncratic pronunciations, regional variations that sound "wrong" when asked to travel, or blatantly ungrammatical constructions. 

"Nucular" remains forever cringeworthy, though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

But not "hanged a picture".

Too many words are going out thanks to idiotic word processing.

Rooves, hooves, instead we get roofs and hoofs. What next - leafs instead of leaves.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iMatt said:


> How darest y'all have this thread without me?
> 
> As a professional stickler, I always find this kind of discussion fascinating.
> 
> ...


Your rant DITN'T change my mind! Guess I am still hung up on it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc if you think of the sentencing phrase you'll see he's right.

"You shalled be hanged by the neck until dead.".....goes the judges line.

But for sure on things like lit and swimmed.

Louis L'Amour



> Chapter One
> (may be abridged)
> 
> He was asleep and then he was awake. His eyes flared wide and he held himself still, staring into the darkness, his ears reaching for sound.
> ...


Hanged not hung.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Carex, re you comment that "...at 5 she is functionally bilingual", she might have a bit of difficulty with spelling in her first few years of school if she learns to read both official languages. However, this is not a worrisome problem, just somewhat common because of the grapho-phonic differences between the two languages.


Personally I found that early and intense exposure to both French and English helped enhance my understanding of both languages. A dollop of Latin a little later in life didn't hurt either. 

I've always been an excellent speller in my dominant language, English, and a pretty decent one in French. (Which is much more difficult, if you take <i>orthographe</i> to include the various gendered forms of nouns, participles and adjectives, the endless verb tenses, etc.) 

I have no data to back my supposition, but I'd guess that developing a sound grasp of grammar and syntax in two languages is a tougher challenge than mastering spelling in two languages. It can be done, though.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> Your rant DITN'T change my mind! Guess I am still hung up on it.


Doan make me go digging in da OED. A fin sez "hanged" is English legalese going back not less than 400 years.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So the expression "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb", is now hanged for a sheep as a lamb? 

Ridiculous I say!


Perhaps "hanged" (as in to be) is future and hung is past tense (as in stretched)?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Noooo......... meat is indeed hung.

Just as you are hung out to dry on this one. 

"Hanged" is for human death sentence, legalese that L'Amour was clearly aware of and I and you were not.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have always "hung"ered to learn more.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> So the expression "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb", is now hanged for a sheep as a lamb?
> 
> Ridiculous I say!


Dear Sinc,

You've awoken my inner pedant. Repent! (Well, it was just lightly snoozing anyway.)

Quoth the OED:



> Hanged: past participle.
> 
> 1. Suspended, etc.; see the verb. (Now Obs. in the general sense; the form in use being HUNG.)
> 
> ...


In other words, it applies to killing people, not stringing up beasties. Your expression is safe.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc I think your hunger shall be hangared.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah, and so it is.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Looked up "hang" in Tiger dictionary and this was at the bottom of the page:



> USAGE In modern English, hang has two past tense and past participle forms: hanged and hung. Hung is the normal form in most general uses  they hung out the wash; | she hung around for a few minutes; | he had hung the picture over the fireplace), but hanged is the form normally used in reference to execution by hanging ( | the outlaw was hanged ).



There you have it.

Margaret


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Speaking of words:

http://www.wordcount.org/main.php

Margaret


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

That's a fun site, Margaret. Thanks for the link!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

The hanged, hang, hung debate is similar to the usage of the word dive by scuba divers. I was told that the correct past tense reference to a dive that was already completed is "dived" as opposed to "dove". If you "dove" it means you jumped off a cliff or diving board.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Carex, add to this the "lie/lay/laid/lain/etc" debate.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

My granddaughter added a new and very useful word to the English language. She was about 3 and when she got in the car to come to my place for a visit she told me "I brang my GameBoy"

Makes more sense and easier to remember than "brought"

Margaret


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Margaret, this is a common situation with pre-schoolers, and is actually part of the developmental process of learning the grammar of our language. Amazingly, children enter school have mastered 75% of the syntactic structure of our language, in that they use it effectively. The other 25% may pose problems for even the most educated of persons. I am an example of this group who have education but still make grammatical miscues in my oral and written communications.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I wonder how "brought" became the correct word?

"Ring - rang", "bring - brought" - doesn't make sense. "Bring -brang" - now that makes sense.

I have adopted the word brang and so far nobody has suggested (at least openly) that I'm misusing the language  

Take care, Margaret


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Course then how did buy and bought arise


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Cameo said:


> No disrespect - but I do not care who uses it or who says it is alright. I have always been proud of the fact that I do not particularly "judge" people. But, I also feel that the use of the word "ain't" defines someone as being "uneducated"
> I guess that I can be a snob about some things.


Cameo, you just hit upon one of my pet peeves. 

Despite how often you might see it in print, "alright" is not a word. Correct usage is as two words: "all right". I assume this spelling started this way because of "already", which is a word. 

English is a weird and funny language.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

As I stated before - I am not always grammatically correct!
Funny - some shortened words bother us where others do not.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Cameo, you just hit upon one of my pet peeves.
> 
> Despite how often you might see it in print, "alright" is not a word. Correct usage is as two words: "all right". I assume this spelling started this way because of "already", which is a word.
> 
> English is a weird and funny language.



Don't tell me you're going to make me quote the OED too!

This time it's a short quote:

"<i>alright</i>

"A frequent spelling of <i>all right</i>."

First cite dates from 1893.

Reminds me of "orientate," which used to be a pet peeve of mine. Abominable though it may be, it's been in (often quite respectable) use for well over 100 years. Like trying to keep "stop" out of the French language (now in use since 1880-something), getting rid of words like "alright," "ain't" and "orientate" just can't be done. For the same reason, I now embrace "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun. (Thank you, eighteenth century.)


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

iMatt said:


> Don't tell me you're going to make me quote the OED too!
> 
> This time it's a short quote:
> 
> ...


Frequent, yes.

Understood, yes.

Correct, no. 

I usually accept the spelling in a casual context (such as this one) but not in more formally written documents.

EDIT: I stand corrected on whether or not "alright" is a word, however.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Like, how about the like, misuse of the like, word like?

Like, drives me nuts.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

winwintoo said:


> I wonder how "brought" became the correct word?


Irregular forms (child/children comes to mind as well) are often vestiges of old grammatical forms (since English once had different forms for a wide range of noun cases and verb tenses) and foreign influences. Don't know about this specific example, but I think this is a reasonable guess...


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Frequent, yes.
> 
> Understood, yes.
> 
> ...


OK, and I'll accept that it's nonstandard...for the time being. This usage note from dictionary.com is interesting:



> Despite the appearance of the form <i>alright</i> in works of such well-known writers as Langston Hughes and James Joyce, the single word spelling has never been accepted as standard. This is peculiar, since similar fusions such as <i>already</i> and <i>altogether</i> have never raised any objections. The difference may lie in the fact that <i>already</i> and <i>altogether</i> became single words back in the Middle Ages, whereas <i>alright</i> has only been around for a little more than a century...


Morphologically speaking, <i>alright</i> makes perfect sense to me. I'll continue to use it insofar as I can, thereby doing my small part to ensure that it becomes standard usage. With a good hundred years behind it already, it should defeat its rearguard opponents in another century or two.  Nevertheless, I cannot support its pronunciation as "a'ight" or "awright," whatever the circumstance. However you look at it, that's just wrong.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

As I've said, English is weird.

I think one of the reasons that "alright" has not become standard is that so far, there's no differentiation between when to use "alright" and to you use "all right", whereas there is a usage difference between "already" and "all ready", and between "altogether" and "all together".

From dictionary.com


> Usage Note: Altogether and all together do not mean the same thing. We use all together to indicate that the members of a group perform or undergo an action collectively: The nations stood all together. The prisoners were herded all together. All together is used only in sentences that can be rephrased so that all and together may be separated by other words: The books lay all together in a heap. All the books lay together in a heap.


A similar rule applies for already/all ready. e.g., correct uses include:
-We finished already
-The kids were all ready to go. / All the kids were ready to go.

We cool, a'ight?


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Anyways (instead of anyway) is one of my pet peeves. Also the use of "alright" instead of all right (how the heck did that start?). The whole lay/lie/laid/lied thing. (You can lay eggs, lay bricks but you lie down). Pronouncing valet as val-ay. The word comes from the Italian, not the French so it's pronounced val-ett. Somebody said something about orientated. I think you'll find that oriented is the American bastardisation of orientated.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Lest we forget, the classic tale from my youth. I am in kindergarten..........I raise my hand to go to the bathroom and ask "Can I go to the bathroom?". My K teacher replies, "Yes you can, but no you may not." I repeat my question and receive the same reply from my teacher (I have sublimated her name deep in the inner recesses of my memory). I raise my hand one more time, however this time I have a statement not a question to convey. "I wet my pants.". Oh, the humiliation.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Sonal said:


> As I've said, English is weird.


Oh, I'm sure I've said so more than once myself. At least once a day, in fact. 



Sonal said:


> I think one of the reasons that "alright" has not become standard is that so far, there's no differentiation between when to use "alright" and to you use "all right", whereas there is a usage difference between "already" and "all ready", and between "altogether" and "all together".


Sorry, I'm not buying this at all. "The movie was alright. Not great, but alright." "The answers on your exam were all right./All the answers on your exam were right." Clearly different meanings, and I definitely wouldn't use "alright" in the second example (unless I wanted to break the news that you'd passed with a merely middling grade). Although "alright" can be very positive and have exactly the same meaning as "all right," it frequently has connotations of lukewarm approval that I wouldn't be inclined to see in "all right."



Wolfshead said:


> Pronouncing valet as val-ay. The word comes from the Italian, not the French so it's pronounced val-ett.


No, it's an old import from French: "Middle English valette, from Old French vaslet, valet, servant, squire, from Vulgar Latin *vassellitus, diminutive of *vassus, vassal. See vassal." (dictionary.com).



Wolfshead said:


> Somebody said something about orientated. I think you'll find that oriented is the American bastardisation of orientated.


I'm surprised to find, on looking it up, that "orientated" is indeed older than "oriented." But both forms' first known printed occurrence is American, so calling the one preferred in the U.S. and (usually) Canada a "bastardization" of the other version is going a little far, IMO. I'd say each is perfectly appropriate within its own geographical domain, and each is a bastardization outside it. Because Canada is caught between U.K. and U.S. usage, maybe it's both and neither here.  (The cat won't let me go check the Canadian dictionary right now.)


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

iMatt said:


> Sorry, I'm not buying this at all. "The movie was alright. Not great, but alright." "The answers on your exam were all right./All the answers on your exam were right." Clearly different meanings, and I definitely wouldn't use "alright" in the second example (unless I wanted to break the news that you'd passed with a merely middling grade). Although "alright" can be very positive and have exactly the same meaning as "all right," it frequently has connotations of lukewarm approval that I wouldn't be inclined to see in "all right."


Well it was a theory. But we may both be right according to this site:
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19990604

Quoting:


> While in general, alright can be found in all the senses of all right, in practice there can be a real semantic distinction between the two, because the two word form all right can mean 'all correct' or something like that, while alright can only mean 'good; safe; healthy', etc. when used as an adjective. (Similar distinctions are found with already and all ready, though these forms have diverged to the point where they are not interchangable at all.)


So while in practice usage follows the same distinctions as with all ready/already and all together/altogether, both all right and alright are still considered interchangeable. (Which I suppose is why alright is still technically considered a variant spelling in the OED, and not a word with a distinct meaning.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oriented is the older form according to this



> These two verbs, drawn from the same base (French orienter 'to place facing the east', originally used of the placement of churches) have developed the same extended sense 'to familiarize with or adjust to new surroundings or circumstances'. *The shorter form arose in the eighteenth century, the longer in the nineteenth.* Orientate is sometimes criticized, but it is fully standard and has been used by a variety of major authors, including W.H. Auden, Margret Mead, Tennessee Williams, and Aldous Huxley. It is probably more common in England, while orient seems to be the preferred form in the United States


Orientate sounds like an Americanization and an ugly one at that but hey maybe the Brits got tangletongued on this one. 

Me I'll stick to "oriented" and snicker at the other . 

•••

Already to me is an entirely different word and not interchangeable with the phrase all ready.

Something that is already here, is not all ready here - the latter is not a proper use.

The private said "all ready here Sarge" he would not say "already here Sarge" interchangeably with the first phrase.

••

The distinction is less so in the alright pairing but I suspect there are similar alternative shades of use.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Already to me is an entirely different word and not interchangeable with the phrase all ready.
> 
> Something that is already here, is not all ready here - the latter is not a proper use.
> 
> ...


You nailed it MacDoc. End of argument in my mind. Two distinct uses and one distinct word, no question.

Well done.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I'm not sure how much disagreement is left on the "alright" question. In essence, my point is simply that it seems that there are now accepted meanings of "alright" that can't be replaced with "all right" (and vice versa). So the business about their being "considered interchangeable" is, I think, now out of date (if only by a short time).

MacDoc -- "orientate" is quite an interesting case. I didn't look deeply into the etymology, and in some way I'm glad you found evidence for "orient" being the older form: I much prefer it. Still, I was very surprised when I first learned that "orientate"/"orientated" were not crass Americanisms from the 1950s (which is what they sound like to my tender ears). It's always tough to be forced to abandon a cherished pet peeve.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well let's settle on orientate being a "crass Americanism" - sounds like something Twain would transmogrify just to be persnickety.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Dr G.--clearly, you proved to the teacher that you could go, whether you had permission to go or not. 

wrt the alright/all right debate: I still maintain that "alright" in a more formal context should be avoided. I think the question here becomes, which version of language is more correct: the authority, or the commonly understood use? The former leaves no distinction in meaning between alright and all right, and the latter opens the door for a'ight. 

Then you get into a whole bunch of stuff about the need for standards and the need for flexibility, regional differences, language as etiquette, personal preferences.... Either way, it's a fun debate.

As a side note, I've been seriously considering going back to school for my masters in this stuff. I'm starting to remember why I find it so much fun.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh great - let's complicate by colloquial use versus formal. 

Who is the best author with language in your mind.....and perhaps a sample.
I'd vote Lawrence Durell - Alexandria Quartet as my top pick.

Could not find an exerpt but this poem maybe gives you an idea



> Acropolis
> by Lawrence Durrell
> Author Category: English. Show lines.
> 
> ...


4 interwoven novels with language so rich as to bedazzle.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

A word brought to you by the American military press briefing folks: efforting. 

We are efforting to find that file.


----------



## The Great Waka (Nov 26, 2002)

Film is NOT FILL-um. Arg I hate that.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Pome instead of po-em.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Pome instead of po-em.


Or like to many American broadcasters pronounce it - poy-em.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Ah yes, American broadcasters and their pronunciations. They once set the standards, at times, for certain people. Now, it is all a "brave new world".


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I think the question here becomes, which version of language is more correct: the authority, or the commonly understood use?


Ah, there's the rub. English, unlike French, has no definitive authority, just "power users" who publish their opinions on what's acceptable usage and what isn't, and dictionaries that are almost entirely descriptive, not prescriptive. For that reason, the only rules I follow are these:
<ol>
<li> Be consistent.
<li> Be clear and logical.
<li> When in doubt, follow tradition and convention.
<li> When doubt persists, go to the experts for advice. (Usually this just means the Canadian Oxford Dictionary.)
<li> When there's no consensus among the experts, agree with the one who makes the tightest, most logical case -- not necessarily the one backed by the weight of tradition. 
<li> When the experts are clearly out of step with usage, take sides: either agree with the experts' conservatism (I shall never accept "alot" as one word), or flout it (it's only a matter of time before they recognize that "alright" is no longer just another spelling of "all right"; I do not agree that "flaunt" has become an acceptable synonym for "flout," etc.).
</ol>
IMO the absence of definitive authority is both a blessing and a curse for English. It spares us the confusion and controversy of trying to get everyone to change their ways all at once. (An approach that has failed spectacularly in some cases.) But it also leaves us with "rules" that are simply rules "because that's what Fowler [or whoever] says," and these rules often vary from expert to expert. (I'll bet I can find at least one respected authority who says that "alright" is perfectly alright.)

It also means that freelance editors may have to know almost as many variants of English as they have clients, since they all have their own house rules and conventions. The lucky ones are those who get to set the house rules. 

So, to answer the question: I consider the "authorities" to be advisors, not judges. If they don't make sense anymore, they shouldn't be followed.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

You have a good set of principles to follow. 

For most of my clients, I am the authority.  My rules, my way, and alright is not all right with me. I generally default to expert conservatism, since there's always a pedant out there waiting to point out errors. (I know because normally, I'm that pedant.) No one disputes using "all right", but people (clearly) still dispute "alright". Most style guides I've seen advise using "all right" instead of "alright".

Mind you, I like to use alternative phrasing where possible to avoid the whole debate. "All right" in the sense of lukewarm approval works well in speech--it has shades of meaning depending on intonation--but is a weak way of putting it in writing. 

It'll be a long time before I abandon this pet peeve. 

Oh, here's my all-time favourite pet peeve: utilize. Except for some specific technical contexts, I have never seen a situation where you couldn't substitute "use" instead. There's no reason to use "utilize" except as a very poor attempt to sound impressive. Drives me batty.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Sinc, that's an interesting point about the pronunciation of 'poem'.

Here, in Scotland, you'll here it pronounced 'po-yem' quite often. Other words which, to my ears, have a similar style of pronunciation, are 'fillum' for film, and 'bo-att' for boat ('att' as in hat).

But, I digress …

Edit: Top marks to Autopilot - interesting idea for a thread.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Oh, here's my all-time favourite pet peeve: use. Except for some specific technical contexts, I have never seen a situation where you couldn't substitute "utilize" instead. There's no reason to utilize "use" except as a very poor attempt to sound impressive. Drives me batty.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

That's really evil, Carex. 

Read that over, and realized that I was suddenly clutching my red editing pen rather tightly.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ab...use....ive.


----------



## CarbonJohn (Mar 26, 2005)

When people pronounce sweater as swea*th*er. 

I hate it almost as much as when people wear a sweater on their back with the sleeves around their neck.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I really hate it when a cutesy blond airhead actress gets on a talk show and calls herself an "actor" and talks about her latest "fil-em"

Come to think of it, I don't like much about cutesy actresses, maybe because they're blond? Or is it because they're young?

Where is Dr. Phil when you need him?

Margaret


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Sonal said:


> For most of my clients, I am the authority.  My rules, my way, and alright is not all right with me.


I'm usually the pedant-of-record for my clients, too. Makes life a lot easier, not having to put up with some other pedant's rules.  



> Mind you, I like to use alternative phrasing where possible to avoid the whole debate. "All right" in the sense of lukewarm approval works well in speech--it has shades of meaning depending on intonation--but is a weak way of putting it in writing.


A reasonable approach. I honestly can't remember ever dealing with this question in a real-world situation, but maybe that's just because "alright/all right" isn't one of my peeves. I'll be sure to notice it from now on, though.

Now, off to tackle that big document I've been neglecting...


----------



## mazirion (May 22, 2005)

SINC said:


> Like, how about the like, misuse of the like, word like?
> 
> Like, drives me nuts.


But like, you know... what really gets to me, you know... is how like these top athletes keep peppering their comments you know... with useless fillers like you know?

Sheesh - like that just you know - drives me up the you know... wall!

Cripes - learn how to spit out what you want to say without wasting so much time saying like and you know... all the frikking time!



pete
-----
I get so angry with some pedants. They are so mellifluent and sesquipedalian, I could just expectorate!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Although they have media training, I'd say that the athletes (more and more every year), for the most part, are not the most eloquent of individuals. They are thinking and talking at the same time which is not easy to do for some young person that is just used to kicking balls or stopping pucks. I have taken formal media training and unless you are a natural public speaker (e.g. politician/salesman) it is a difficult habit to break. 

Take 20 people from your office, put them all on camera and see what happens. The results will not be pretty.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Add to that the fact that athletes are often "interviewed" right after having completed a gruelling game of hockey or football or whatever - how articulate are you after you've run three blocks to catch a bus?

I can think of three words that I'd still be able to say clearly - and all you'd hear on your tv would be "beep" "beep" "beep"

 

margaret


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

That would probably be only 2 beeps since the second word, if I'm interpreting correctly, would be "off", which is perfectly acceptable.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Carex, you have a low opinion of my vocabulary   

Margaret


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

This should keep you all amused over the weekend   

Common Errors in English 

You will notice that my earlier contribution of "brang" is listed. I thought my Granddaughter made it up - guess not.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here's a ugly one cropped up on Versiontracker.



> check XML documents for *well-formedness*


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

I also dislike the use of "makes no sense" - I think it should be "it does not make any sense" - or "got no" instead "do not have any".
Maybe I am just being too picky. Annoys me anyhow.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Bad prose. Love it, especially if the culprit is a bampot trying to sound clever. Generally the crime is committed when the perpetrator is trying to avoid saying anything he/she can be held accountable for.

With your indulgence, one and all, I will quote a small verse I read some years ago in the subversive end of the Scottish Times Educational Supplement:

Would thi prisoner
In the bar
Please stand

Fur the aforesaid crime
Uv writn anuthir poem
Awarded thi Certificate of Safety
By thi Scottish Education Department

_Fit tay be used in schools
Havn no bad language
Sex subversion or antireligion_

I hereby sentence you
Tay six munths hard labour
Doon nthi poetry section
Uv yir local library
Coontn thi f*ckin metaphors

The sentiment is applicable now more than ever, in particular to prose.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

* bampot*......


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

In all seriousness (this is NOT meant to sidetrack this thread), I have heard the word "Dachshund" pronounced four different ways by people who know the breed. I pronounce it as someone from southern Germany might pronounce it (dox-hund, with a gutteral x-h transition) , but I have heard northern German pronunciations (dash-hund), dush-hunt and even dish-hound.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Ah, MacDoc. Sorry. 

Y' no' ken whit 'bampot' means?

http://stooryduster.co.uk/Pages/bampot.htm


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Great word :clap: - 
I can just see the looks on my future victims faces ........"What the ...???? he just called me a bampot and I have NO friggin idea....."


----------



## NewBill (May 29, 2005)

Fustrating isn't it!


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I think you mean barmpot (as in barmy)


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

OK, not technically a mispronunciation, but, to my ear, the incorrect use of a word. It is getting more and more common to hear sentences like this: "drinking too much milk can result in overweight in teens...". Is this poor use of language, or evolution of language? You wouldn't say, "can result in obese in teens" would you? It would be "obesity" would it not. I think drinking too much of whatever could result in you "becoming overweight". 

This use of the word "overweight" in that context has become very common in the media.


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

Carex said:


> I think drinking too much of whatever could result in you "becoming overweight".


Water? 

I do know what you mean though. My feeling is everything in moderation. Including moderation.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The one that really gets me is when people...especially intelligent and well-educated public figures..say "ECK-Cetera" instead of "ET-Cetera".

This just drives me batty. I have no idea why. It's right up there with "axe" instead of "ask" and the overuse of "like" by many of the youngest (mostly) female adults of our society. Makes me want to walk up and give them all a good hard smack. Just to knock some sense into them.

Instead, I take a deep breath and then smile and walk away. ( I can always shreik out my frustration at a tree later on. While safely back in the confines of my own well forested acreage. I do this fairly often, BTW.).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Makes me want to walk up and give them all a good hard smack. Just to knock some sense into them.


Funny that, I'm sure many have said that of... ohh never mind...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Let em try.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

HEY...got something for all of you to think about here....

When I lived overseas, and had to deal with people who used english as a second language (if they knew it at all), and I used to think that we Canadians had a pretty neutral accent. Especially when compared to the Brits, or the Americans from the deep south (Many of my fellow oilfield personnell are from Texas or Oklahoma. Accents you could cut with a knife).

Got a test for you. It was first pointed out to me by a very well educated chemical engineer from Suriname who spoke english like a pro. (But it was about his fourth language).

Ready? Okay, here goes:

Say this phrase out loud to yourself. "I'll see you later. I'll be back at nine".

The very first word in each of those short sentences should be pronounced "EYE-EL"...but I bet you pronounced it as "ALL", when you said it out loud.

Ineresting, eh?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt said:


> but I bet you pronounced it as "ALL", when you said it out loud.


Nope, wrong. EYE-EL it is.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> shreik


"i" before "e" except after "c"

Margaret


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So, science has been misspelled all these years has it?


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Hey, give me credit for *trying* to adhere to some of the *rules*.

I can still remember the school principal backing me into a corner when I was about 7 or 8 and barking at me about some indescretion or another and reminding me that "you should know the rules by now".

Heck, I didn't even know there were *rules* let alone what they were   

I still don't if you want to know the truth.

Margaret


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

I think that rule trips people up. Prime example: "wierd." Not quite right, is it?


----------



## autopilot (Dec 2, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> The one that really gets me is when people...especially intelligent and well-educated public figures..say "ECK-Cetera" instead of "ET-Cetera".)


I've worked at Starbucks, and Second Cup, and what drives ME batty is when people say "ex-presso" instead of _espresso_.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

autopilot said:


> I think that rule trips people up. Prime example: "wierd." Not quite right, is it?


Well I can't win, the only rule I can remember and it's no good anyway 
   

Margaret


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I was in Safeway the other day buying stuff for a birthday party and I told my 8 year old grandson to look for the ice cream.

He said, "GB, why do you always say ICE CREAM like it's two words?"

I said well it is two words isn't it?

No, he explained in that patient way only 8 year olds can, it's one word *ISCREAM*

Now I know

Margaret


----------



## Ena (Feb 7, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> The very first word in each of those short sentences should be pronounced "EYE-EL"...but I bet you pronounced it as "ALL", when you said it out loud.)


'Aisle' is what I say


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

The eye-el's have it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macnutt, I can't see how "all" could come from "Say this phrase out loud to yourself. 'I'll see you later. I'll be back at nine'."


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

You would have to have a southern style accent for it to come out as "all"
I have been trying - but my "canadian" accent still comes out similar to 
"aisle" or "eye-el"

Sorry Macnutt - you're in the wrong country. That's more american then anything else I think.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

here's a few: 

libary (where did the 'r' go?)
pacific and pacifically (dropped the 's')
"i seen" (don't you mean "i saw"?)
seerday (do you mean the day after friday?)
youse guys (grew up in an italian/greek neighbourhood)
duck tape (is that what use to catch ducks?)
"happy valentime's day!" (who is st valentime?)

and a question: i've often heard the word "patent" pronounced two ways. i always thought is it pronounced "pat"-ent, but i've also heard "pate"-ent. which is the correct pronunciation?

thanks for reading,

miguel


----------



## nussajane (May 27, 2005)

miguelsanchez said:


> here's a few:
> 
> libary (where did the 'r' go?)
> pacific and pacifically (dropped the 's')
> ...



Youse is heard all over Canada no matter what the background
Duck tape was called that originally as it could stick to anything including (wet) ducks. It later was used for ducts.
Susan


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

miguelsanchez said:


> here's a few:
> 
> duck tape (is that what use to catch ducks?)


Actually that would be Duck Tape® read more about it here 

They call it Duck brand duct tape and I wonder if they came up with the name "Duck" for their version of the product after so many people mispronounced generic name of the item.

Margaret


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

from what i have heard "duck tape", as great as it is, should not be used for sealing ducts.

so which came first, duct tape or duck tape?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Not exactly a mispronunciation, but since it's an ongoing thread about language...

When did "ghetto" become an adjective? Meaning seedy or bohemian, and not necessarily in a negative way: the speaker, in my experience so far, is usually of the attitude that the characteristic is a good or neutral one, but maybe not to everyone's liking. (I'm down with it, but you might not be.) 

"I'd bring Aunt Mary there for dinner, but it's a little too ghetto for her."

Not that I really mind...I'm just curious because it suddenly seems as though we've always been using "ghetto" that way, but I can't remember seeing or hearing it before this year.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

The beginning of the "ghetto-ization" or "adjective-ization" of the word likely had its beginnings with the "ghetto blaster". 



> Youse is heard all over Canada no matter what the background


I don't have experience hanging around Greek/Italian districts of large cities so I have not heard this at all in Canada. The only place I have heard it is in the movies or on television.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

iMatt said:


> "I'd bring Aunt Mary there for dinner, but it's a little too ghetto for her."


Now THAT'S a sentence construction that bothers me.

It should read: "I'd TAKE Aunt Mary there for dinner,..etc."

"Bring" is not followed by "there" in a sentence.

If you and Aunt Mary are already "there" you could say, "I BROUGHT Aunt Mary HERE, ... etc." But you would never say, "I brought Aunt Mary THERE, ..etc."

That a nasty amereeekanism that's crept into our language from wretched talk shows on tv.

Some things just sound wrong to my ears even though there is probably no proof that I'm right   

Margaret


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Yo, Margaret -- chill! I was just tryin' to keep my 'zample real, y'know? Conversational-like. And I didn't really pause to reflect on usage in that first part of the sentence...

Still, I'm not sure where you get the idea that you can't "bring" someone "there." Must it really be "take"? Seems equivalent to me. Still, I know that in Montreal we speak slightly oddball English sometimes, and we rarely even realize that we do it. Maybe my conversational example, which seemed perfectly normal to me, is a case in point?

Carex: I don't think "ghetto blaster" has anything to do with it. I've always thought of that phrase as being functionally equivalent to "device for blasting ye olde ghetto with big sound." Only much more concise.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

iMatt: Margaret is quite right. You can't bring someone there. You can take them there or you can bring them here. This, of course, reminds me of one of my other pet peeves - "brang".


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I think I blathered on about "brang" earlier in this thread - the kids started using it when they were really little and it sounded "cute"

We all have our pet peeves don't we. I once got in the way of an argument between a fellow (who turned out to be quite dangerous) and his girlfriend because she wasn't cutting the strawberries the "right" way.

Now I only use words to fight with and about and always from a distance and while shielded (or is that sheilded (sp?)) under a cloak of annonymity.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I agree with you both that there's no case to be made for "brang." (Nevertheless it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it's common in a regional dialect.)

However, when it comes to my colloquial spoken example of "bring her there," I stand by my usage:

<blockquote>1. <b>To cause to come along with oneself</b>; to fetch. It includes ‘lead’ or ‘conduct’ (F. <i>amener</i>) as well as ‘carry’ (F. <i>apporter</i>); it implies motion towards the place where the speaker or auditor is, or is supposed to be, being in sense the causal of <i>come</i>; motion in the opposite direction is expressed by <i>take</i> (Fr. <i>emmener, emporter</i>).</blockquote> (From the OED.)

More generally, you seem to be missing possible shades of intended meaning. When I "take" someone to dinner, I'm not only leading someone to a particular place, but paying for the meal. As it happens, moneybags Aunt Mary has asked me to select a place -- her treat. I'm not "taking" her anywhere. 

(I'm interested in your replies, but a rush job just came in so that's probably all for me today.)


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

This is interesting. I have always used the word 'bring' for something that is moving towards me. You can see the difference if you switch languages to French (iMatt, you may be more of an expert here) where words like amener, apporter, emporter are used in different contexts (like bring, take, bring back etc.).

As for the ghetto issue, if someone can describe, with an adjective, a blaster using ghetto, does it not give license to move on to other works that can be described with it?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Carex said:


> This is interesting. I have always used the word 'bring' for something that is moving towards me. You can see the difference if you switch languages to French (iMatt, you may be more of an expert here) where words like amener, apporter, emporter are used in different contexts (like bring, take, bring back etc.).


Although it's clear that "bring" is mainly about movement towards the speaker, the dictionary does recognize "to cause to come along with oneself," which is the sense I intended (actually, used instinctively without a second thought) in the example that started this tangent. Obviously it's not the sense immediately understood by everyone, and even looks like a mistake in some eyes.

If I'd paused to think about it and relied on French for guidance (not something I normally do in English), I'd have used "take," because in French it's a clear case of <i>"emmener ma tante."</i> (<i>Inviter</i> if I were planning to buy.)

But...I'm definitely no expert on this particular finer point, particularly in French. For the most part I rely on context and deeply ingrained understanding to make my way, without pausing to sort things out in such detail.



> As for the ghetto issue, if someone can describe, with an adjective, a blaster using ghetto, does it not give license to move on to other works that can be described with it?


I just don't see it as being parallel. The blaster isn't "ghetto" (adjective), it's a device for blasting the ghetto. What's more, "ghetto" as an adjective has a connotation of seediness, even if used positively, but the newer, bigger, louder, more capable the ghetto-blaster, the better (and less "ghetto" [adj.]) it is. 

Unless I've been misunderstanding the use of "ghetto" as an adjective?


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I'll try again, although it's hard to communicate with both feet in my mouth like this, I'm beginning to feel faint......

I didn't mean to take exception to your use of the vernacular in your earlier post iMatt - I assumed you were using it in context - 

It's not the "bring" that I disagree with, it's the use of "bring and there" in the same phrase. Bring implies your present situation which implies "here" not "there".

Maybe if you started hearing "take Aunt Mary here" the argument would make more sense - "take Aunt Mary here" is clearly wrong. "Bring Aunt Mary there" is wrong for the same reason.

Margaret


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

"Hi, would you like to come over for dinner tonight?"

"I'd love to! Do you mind if I _____ Ted?"

In the blank: <i>bring</i>, <i>take</i> or neither?

Note: in this example, as in my first example, movement is neither towards nor away from the speaker, but parallel to the speaker. So what's the rule that applies?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I'd say bring. Or, to avoid the whole subject one could just ask:
"Do you mind if Ted comes along?"

I think (without looking for proof) that ghetto blaster likely arose as slang for 'portable music player' around the time that break dancing became popular. It was a portable music player carried around in the ghetto by black urban youths. Alternativley I suppose, the term could have been coined by marketing companies.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think the bring thing is getting tangled as it needs a modifier bring to, bring from, bring about.

If used in the same manner and usage as *carry* the confusion goes away I would think.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

iMatt said:


> "Hi, would you like to come over for dinner tonight?"
> 
> "I'd love to! Do you mind if I _____ Ted?"
> 
> ...


Well, in that case it would be neither - what am I chopped liver?? Why don't you ever offer to take me out to dinner? It's always Aunt Mary and now Ted? Who is Ted anyway?

Seriously, it would be "bring" - "Do you mind if I bring Ted?" - you are doing the moving and the person you are talking to is (or will be) located at your destination. 

You would tell Joe that you were going to "take" Ted to the airport and drop him off at the Air Canada counter so he could fly to Vancouver and visit Aunt Mary. because after the act, neither you or Joe would be there any more.

Unless you stopped for a few in the departure lounge and then I guess it really doesn't matter how you abuse the language.

What were you saying??

Margaret


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think the the modifier is inferred there - bring Ted along....or bring Ted with me.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

I momentarily got the Red Haze this morning when I heard a radio reporter say "particuly" instead of "particularly". This one really grates for me.

Apologies if it's already been listed.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

As part of our Centennial Celebrations, Saskatchewan radio and television stations are honoring various citizens of our great province. One notable who was recently honored was a former Lieutenant (either "loo" or "lef" - she answered graciously to both) Governor of our Province.

While reciting Sylvia Fedoruk's long list of accomplishments, the announcer said, "and she was also a psychic."

She was in fact a physicist among a great many other accomplishments. She was also insightful, so perhaps psychic was not that far off.

Margaret


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

Tag-er instead of Tye-ger (Tiger)
Who came up with this one NEway?


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

all this arguing about bring/brang/brought suddenly reminds me of something i read a while back:

pedants anonymous 

perhaps a few of us could join.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Reminds me of Jobs and his Jaguire.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Just heard one on the radio this morning that I'd forgotten about. "Sarurdy" instead of "Saturday". Annoys me no end. Most annoying accent, though, has to be "Estuary English" as spoken by (god help me) the "Supernanny". (I saw it by accident - honest). With her "wiff" instead of "with", "troof" instead of "truth" and "asseptable" instead of "acceptable". I found myself watching the whole show. One of those things like watching a snake eat a rat. You're disgusted but you can't look away.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Ah, Wolfshead, the Estuary English thing is an abomination made … popular(?) … by such downmarket crap as the "East Enders" TV soap. I do hope you've never been exposed to it.

I fink it's bleedin' awful. Know wot I mean?


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Snapply Quaffer: Funnily enough, I was exposed to an episode of Eastenders just today. I've managed to avoid it for many months, but sometimes excrement occurs. I didn't even see the whole episode but was ready to slit my wrists by the time the horrid closing theme tune came on. Oh, the angst!!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> Reminds me of Jobs and his Jaguire.


To me it sounds like "Jag-Wire". He also has trouble with automatically. He pronounces the 'auto' part as if he were french. It comes out "Oh-tomatically". There was another word I picked up in the latest keynote, but without watching it again, I can't remember what it was.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Wolfshead. East Enders! This is bad news indeed. You have my deepest sympathy, and I hope you make a swift recovery.

The fact that it is popular viewing here in the UK shows just how easy it is to foist crap on the viewing public, and also how abysmal their tastes are.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

Has anyone ever heard someone say "acrost" for "across"? I've heard this before but was surprised to hear someone on CBC radio say it today. I think it's rather strange!


(I don't have the time to check through this thread and see if this has already been mentioned...sorry if it has!)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Long Island (at least the way Miss Gulch and I pronounce this word, as in Lawnguyland).


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I don't know if this is an isolated thing, but I noticed people in eastern New Bruswick area (Moncton, Dieppe, etc. where my family hails from) pronounce theater/theatre as thee-ay-ter, rather than thee-ah-ter, and eclair as eee-clair.

Ah well... enough procrastinating... I need to get back to work.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I don't know if this is an isolated thing, but I noticed people in eastern New Bruswick area (Moncton, Dieppe, etc. where my family hails from) pronounce theater/theatre as thee-ay-ter, rather than thee-ah-ter, and eclair as eee-clair.


I believe that's how Kramer pronounced it too...thee-ay-ter.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Chi-car-go


----------



## Mike Y (Nov 9, 2003)

Have you ever heard people from upper state New York try to pernounce "tomorrow"... they pernounce it "to-MAR-ow".

Or how about people from Chicago who pernounce "roof", "roo-oof". They pernounce it like they are a dog.

I guess we could go on forever about American pernounciations from state-state!


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

One I've been hearing a lot lately is "defferly" instead of definately. I thought it was just a slip of the tongue on one person's part but now it seems to be commonly used.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Oh, and I'm not going to be the one to correct Mike Y.


----------

