| Author |
Message |
Bloke
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 10:08 am
Post subject: Covert |
|
|
It is common to hear people say "coe - vert" instead of the correct
"cuvv-ert" (excuse my attempts at phonetics). I wonder why this should
be?
Bloke
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robin Bignall
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Covert |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:08:06 +0000 (UTC), Bloke <mc_wanker@excite.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | It is common to hear people say "coe - vert" instead of the correct
"cuvv-ert" (excuse my attempts at phonetics). I wonder why this should
be?
Probably because its opposite - overt - is pronounced with the long |
'o' as in 'toe'.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:35 pm
Post subject: Re: Covert |
|
|
"Bloke" <mc_wanker@excite.com> wrote...
| Quote: | It is common to hear people say "coe - vert" instead of the correct
"cuvv-ert" (excuse my attempts at phonetics). I wonder why this should
be?
|
And how do you pronounce the related word "overt"?
Matti
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bloke
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Covert |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:36:52 -0500, "Raymond S. Wise"
<mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Bloke" <mc_wanker@excite.com> wrote in message
news:vv3ql0p82355npu2vk2jkddaafqpp3m6v8@4ax.com...
It is common to hear people say "coe - vert" instead of the correct
"cuvv-ert" (excuse my attempts at phonetics). I wonder why this should
be?
"COE-vert" (/'koUv@rt/) is given as a standard pronunciation of "covert" in
the *Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary*; the *Compact Oxford English
Dictionary*; The *Encarta World English Dictionary,* North American ed.; the
*Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary* (as a US pronunciation); and the
*Cambridge Dictionary of American English* (which does not give the
"CUVV-ert" pronunciation); the AHD4; and the dictionary at
www.infoplease.com .
Most of the above dictionaries also have the pronunciation "coe-VERT"
/koU'v@rt/.
That these pronunciations are found in so many dictionaries means (1) that
there is no justification for implying that they are not correct
pronunciations and (2), the answer to your question, people use these
pronunciations because they have heard other people use them. Otherwise,
there is no way that they would have appeared in so many dictionaries. At
this point, any influence of the word "overt" is mainly a question of
historical interest.
|
My Concise Oxford only gives cuvv-ert (I substitute my phonetics
because I can't type the ones in the book) and my Chambers gives
cuvv-ert first with coe-vert as an alternative. It seems, to me, far
more relevant to draw parallels with "cover" than "overt". I have
never heard anyone rhyme cover with clover (nor glove with clove,
interestingly).
Bloke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 4:36 pm
Post subject: Re: Covert |
|
|
"Bloke" <mc_wanker@excite.com> wrote in message
news:vv3ql0p82355npu2vk2jkddaafqpp3m6v8@4ax.com...
| Quote: | It is common to hear people say "coe - vert" instead of the correct
"cuvv-ert" (excuse my attempts at phonetics). I wonder why this should
be?
|
"COE-vert" (/'koUv@rt/) is given as a standard pronunciation of "covert" in
the *Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary*; the *Compact Oxford English
Dictionary*; The *Encarta World English Dictionary,* North American ed.; the
*Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary* (as a US pronunciation); and the
*Cambridge Dictionary of American English* (which does not give the
"CUVV-ert" pronunciation); the AHD4; and the dictionary at
www.infoplease.com .
Most of the above dictionaries also have the pronunciation "coe-VERT"
/koU'v@rt/.
That these pronunciations are found in so many dictionaries means (1) that
there is no justification for implying that they are not correct
pronunciations and (2), the answer to your question, people use these
pronunciations because they have heard other people use them. Otherwise,
there is no way that they would have appeared in so many dictionaries. At
this point, any influence of the word "overt" is mainly a question of
historical interest.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Covert |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:08:06 +0000 (UTC), Bloke <mc_wanker@excite.com> wrote:
| Quote: | It is common to hear people say "coe - vert" instead of the correct
"cuvv-ert" (excuse my attempts at phonetics). I wonder why this should
be?
In BrE there are two pronunciations of "covert". |
The noun meaning "a thicket in which game can hide" is pronounced
"cuvv-ert".
The adjective meaning the opposite of "overt" used to be pronounced
"cuvv-ert", but "coe-vert" (matching the sound of "overt") has almost
completely taken over.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin Ambuhl
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Covert |
|
|
Bloke wrote:
| Quote: | It is common to hear people say "coe - vert" instead of the correct
"cuvv-ert" (excuse my attempts at phonetics). I wonder why this should
be?
|
You should be clear what you mean, both by 'covert' and by 'correct.'
The adjective 'covert' has long had /'k@UvV"t/ (UK) and /'koUvRt/ (US)
as a mjor pronunciation, and perhaps as the dominant one. The noun
'covert' is overwhelmingly /'kVvet/ (UK) and /'kVvRt/ (US). The
pronunciation /'koUvRt/ for the noun has begun to be heard from some US
speakers. So tell us, is it the noun or adjective to which you are
referring? If the noun, why do you incorrectly write the "coe - vert"
is common? If the adjective, why have do you incorrectly assert that
"cuvv-ert" is the "correct" pronunciation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 1:01 am
Post subject: Re: Covert |
|
|
"Bloke" <mc_wanker@excite.com> wrote in message
news:kpnql0h84fm6ntnueebkij70a2nogf81fi@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:36:52 -0500, "Raymond S. Wise"
mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote:
"Bloke" <mc_wanker@excite.com> wrote in message
news:vv3ql0p82355npu2vk2jkddaafqpp3m6v8@4ax.com...
It is common to hear people say "coe - vert" instead of the correct
"cuvv-ert" (excuse my attempts at phonetics). I wonder why this should
be?
"COE-vert" (/'koUv@rt/) is given as a standard pronunciation of "covert"
in
the *Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary*; the *Compact Oxford English
Dictionary*; The *Encarta World English Dictionary,* North American ed.;
the
*Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary* (as a US pronunciation); and
the
*Cambridge Dictionary of American English* (which does not give the
"CUVV-ert" pronunciation); the AHD4; and the dictionary at
www.infoplease.com .
Most of the above dictionaries also have the pronunciation "coe-VERT"
/koU'v@rt/.
That these pronunciations are found in so many dictionaries means (1)
that
there is no justification for implying that they are not correct
pronunciations and (2), the answer to your question, people use these
pronunciations because they have heard other people use them. Otherwise,
there is no way that they would have appeared in so many dictionaries. At
this point, any influence of the word "overt" is mainly a question of
historical interest.
My Concise Oxford only gives cuvv-ert (I substitute my phonetics
because I can't type the ones in the book) and my Chambers gives
cuvv-ert first with coe-vert as an alternative. It seems, to me, far
more relevant to draw parallels with "cover" than "overt". I have
never heard anyone rhyme cover with clover (nor glove with clove,
interestingly).
|
So you are making an etymological argument for one pronunciation over
another. There is no value in such arguments. If a pronunciation based upon
the etymology of the word happens to correspond with one of the variant
pronunciations which is actually in use, fine, that makes such a choice a
matter of personal preference. But no pronunciation based upon an etymology
has the slightest claim to being better than another--and certainly no claim
to be "correct" while another variant now recognized as standard is
"incorrect." And an etymologically based pronunciation which is not now
standard could of course make no claim to being correct.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Odysseus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 10:16 am
Post subject: Re: Covert |
|
|
Bloke wrote:
[snip]
| Quote: |
My Concise Oxford only gives cuvv-ert (I substitute my phonetics
because I can't type the ones in the book) and my Chambers gives
cuvv-ert first with coe-vert as an alternative. It seems, to me, far
more relevant to draw parallels with "cover" than "overt". I have
never heard anyone rhyme cover with clover (nor glove with clove,
interestingly).
"Hurl the reeling horsemen over, |
Let the earth dead foemen cover;
Fate of friend, of wife, of lover,
Trembles on a blow!"
--from _Men of Harlech_
Maybe a Welsh accent helps.
--
Odysseus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arfur Million
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 2:45 am
Post subject: Re: Covert |
|
|
"Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:-56dnbiixo0FNMDcRVn-iQ@gbronline.com...
<snip>
| Quote: |
So you are making an etymological argument for one pronunciation over
another. There is no value in such arguments.
|
On the contrary, if the purpose of language is to convey meaning, there may
be value in choosing the etymologically justified pronunciation. This would
make sense in cases where more than one pronunciation, including the
etymologically consistent one, is in circulation and where choosing an
alternative could lead to a loss in meaning. I suggest the
kIlometre/kilOmetre split as a current example.
| Quote: | If a pronunciation based upon
the etymology of the word happens to correspond with one of the
variant
pronunciations which is actually in use, fine, that makes such a choice a
matter of personal preference. But no pronunciation based upon an
etymology
has the slightest claim to being better than another--and certainly no
claim
|
In some cases, a certain pronunciation could convey the intended meaning in
a better way than another (I am not saying that the etymologically based
pronunciation always does this).
| Quote: | to be "correct" while another variant now recognized as standard is
"incorrect." And an etymologically based pronunciation which is not now
standard could of course make no claim to being correct.
--
|
Regards,
Arfur |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: Covert |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:48:57 +0000 (UTC) Bloke
<mc_wanker@excite.com> posted:
| Quote: | On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 05:36:52 -0500, "Raymond S. Wise"
mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote:
"Bloke" <mc_wanker@excite.com> wrote in message
news:vv3ql0p82355npu2vk2jkddaafqpp3m6v8@4ax.com...
It is common to hear people say "coe - vert" instead of the correct
"cuvv-ert" (excuse my attempts at phonetics). I wonder why this should
be?
"COE-vert" (/'koUv@rt/) is given as a standard pronunciation of "covert" in
the *Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary*; the *Compact Oxford English
Dictionary*; The *Encarta World English Dictionary,* North American ed.; the
*Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary* (as a US pronunciation); and the
*Cambridge Dictionary of American English* (which does not give the
"CUVV-ert" pronunciation); the AHD4; and the dictionary at
www.infoplease.com .
Most of the above dictionaries also have the pronunciation "coe-VERT"
/koU'v@rt/.
That these pronunciations are found in so many dictionaries means (1) that
there is no justification for implying that they are not correct
pronunciations and (2), the answer to your question, people use these
pronunciations because they have heard other people use them. Otherwise,
there is no way that they would have appeared in so many dictionaries. At
this point, any influence of the word "overt" is mainly a question of
historical interest.
My Concise Oxford only gives cuvv-ert (I substitute my phonetics
because I can't type the ones in the book) and my Chambers gives
cuvv-ert first with coe-vert as an alternative. It seems, to me, far
more relevant to draw parallels with "cover" than "overt". I have
|
This argument seems to apply to Robin or Matti but not to Raymond's
post.
| Quote: | never heard anyone rhyme cover with clover (nor glove with clove,
|
Why not draw a parallel from covert to cove?
| Quote: | interestingly).
Bloke
|
For those who say coe-vert for the adjective, I think either COEvert
or coeVERT can be used.
(I didn't know it was a noun.)
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 9:19 am
Post subject: Re: Covert |
|
|
"Arfur Million" <arfur_million@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rrE7d.673$d_.630@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
| Quote: | "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:-56dnbiixo0FNMDcRVn-iQ@gbronline.com...
snip
So you are making an etymological argument for one pronunciation over
another. There is no value in such arguments.
On the contrary, if the purpose of language is to convey meaning, there
may
be value in choosing the etymologically justified pronunciation. This
would
make sense in cases where more than one pronunciation, including the
etymologically consistent one, is in circulation and where choosing an
alternative could lead to a loss in meaning. I suggest the
kIlometre/kilOmetre split as a current example.
|
I just took the trouble to look up "kilometer" via www.onelook.com . I was
looking to see if their was any meaning such as "a device which measures
'kilos' (that is, 'kilograms')." None of the Web pages mentioned turned up
such a meaning. There is, therefore, no need to disambiguate "kilometer"
from any other word. Thus the etymological argument in favor of (presumably)
"KILL-uh-meter" is pointless.
| Quote: |
If a pronunciation based upon
the etymology of the word happens to correspond with one of the
variant
pronunciations which is actually in use, fine, that makes such a choice
a
matter of personal preference. But no pronunciation based upon an
etymology
has the slightest claim to being better than another--and certainly no
claim
In some cases, a certain pronunciation could convey the intended meaning
in
a better way than another (I am not saying that the etymologically based
pronunciation always does this).
|
If there is indeed a need to disambiguate one word from another, it should
be done by any means possible, whether or not it has anything to do with
etymology. "Niner," for example, as used in radio communications by the
military, does not follow the etymology of the word. And it has been
suggested that "flammable" is a non-etymological alteration on the word
"inflammable," the story that it comes from a very rare English word
"flammable" being a sort of cover story to make the change more palatable.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arfur Million
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 2:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Covert |
|
|
"Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:MPqdnVWe4K9w8sLcRVn-iA@gbronline.com...
| Quote: | "Arfur Million" <arfur_million@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rrE7d.673$d_.630@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
"Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:-56dnbiixo0FNMDcRVn-iQ@gbronline.com...
snip
So you are making an etymological argument for one pronunciation over
another. There is no value in such arguments.
On the contrary, if the purpose of language is to convey meaning, there
may
be value in choosing the etymologically justified pronunciation. This
would
make sense in cases where more than one pronunciation, including the
etymologically consistent one, is in circulation and where choosing an
alternative could lead to a loss in meaning. I suggest the
kIlometre/kilOmetre split as a current example.
I just took the trouble to look up "kilometer" via www.onelook.com . I was
looking to see if their was any meaning such as "a device which measures
'kilos' (that is, 'kilograms')."
|
I expect that you were influenced by the alternative meaning of "meter" (I
used the "metre" spelling, BTW) when you did this, but it really wasn't
necessary to do this in any case.
| Quote: | None of the Web pages mentioned turned up
such a meaning. There is, therefore, no need to disambiguate "kilometer"
from any other word. Thus the etymological argument in favor of
(presumably)
"KILL-uh-meter" is pointless.
|
Rather a non-sequitur, unless you believe that the only reason to prefer a
certain pronunciation is to disambiguate the intended meaning.
The dictionary I used (New SOED) gives the etymology of kilomotre/kilometer
as coming from the prefix kilo- and from the unit of length. Often when
kilometre is used it is not necessary to remember that the length is made
from 1000 metres, but sometimes it is. Therefore, it makes sense for the
pronunciation to reflect this and for speakers to be consistent in their
pronunciation of the "kilo" part of the word. For most speakers, this is an
argument in favour of "KILL-uh-metre".
| Quote: |
If a pronunciation based upon
the etymology of the word happens to correspond with one of the
variant
pronunciations which is actually in use, fine, that makes such a
choice
a
matter of personal preference. But no pronunciation based upon an
etymology
has the slightest claim to being better than another--and certainly no
claim
In some cases, a certain pronunciation could convey the intended meaning
in
a better way than another (I am not saying that the etymologically based
pronunciation always does this).
If there is indeed a need to disambiguate one word from another, it should
be done by any means possible, whether or not it has anything to do with
etymology. "Niner," for example, as used in radio communications by the
military, does not follow the etymology of the word. And it has been
suggested that "flammable" is a non-etymological alteration on the word
"inflammable," the story that it comes from a very rare English word
"flammable" being a sort of cover story to make the change more palatable.
|
Rather an interesting case, and I hope that one form or the other "wins"
the argument and becomes the only word used in the near future.
Regards,
Arfur |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in