| Author |
Message |
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Why do they drop "g" ? |
|
|
"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00000c37.0032345b@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
| Quote: | In article <43445DC4.15E84BFB@verizon.net>, Robert Lieblich wrote:
Define "pronounce a word as written," with specific reference to
"colonel," "often," and "phthisis."
These words are not supposed to be pronounced as written.
Of course they are. Why else does almost every native speaker,
confronted with "colonel," say something that can also be written as
"kernel"? They know what that combination of letters is supposed to
sound like.
Of course they do. They know that some words are not supposed to be
pronounced as
written, while most are. What I mean by this is that although the letters
of the
alphabet have defined sounds, and words are built from these, sometimes we
don't
pronounce all the sounds. Perhaps I could have said "phonetically" instead
of "as
written". Would you have been happier with that choice of words?
I think you think you're saying something when you use the word
"correctly" when discussing the pronunciation of "ing." I think
you're wrong. Is someone who says "cole-oh-nell" when confronted with
"colonel" pronouncing the word correctly?
According to the OED, yes, which means that people who pronounce it
otherwise are
wrong.
|
Did you read what Robert Lieblich wrote? If you did, your comment seems very
strange.
| Quote: | I don't understand the difficulty you seem to be having with the concept
of
an accepted right way and a wrong way to do something.
If an entire population from one geographical region pronounce something
in the same
way as each other but differently from elsewhere, and have a historical
precedent
for doing so, then that's a dialect, but if these is a recognised correct
way of
pronouncing something and some do it differently, then they're wrong.
|
Recognised by whom? One of RL's examples was "often". Many British people
from various geographical regions say this as "off-t'n". Others say "off'n".
The difference here is a social one, not geographical. In British English,
"off'n" is traditional upper-middle class public school and Oxbridge
English: i.e. RP. There's another more extreme upper-class version "awf'n",
now rarely heard except from very elderly grandees. Which of these three is
the "accepted right way"?
How about "forehead"? - "Four-hed" or (more traditional) "forrid"? Or
"waistcoat" - "wastecote" or "wesk't"? Or foreign names: "Majorca" as
"mudge-orka" or "my-orka"; "Don Juan" as "jew-'n" or "hwahn"; Don Quixote as
"kee-hoh-tay" or "quick-s't"? In each case, within English speech I prefer
and use the anglicised version and find the pseudo-Spanish absurd - but
which is "correct" and why? I could go on and on with other examples.
Medical terms, for instance: "AB-d'min" or "ab-DOH-m'n"?
To be fair, "coll-oh-nell" for "colonel" is indeed wrong. Why? Because it's
said only by those to whom the printed word is unfamiliar.
To say what is "correct", you need at least to specify who is using the word
(native speaker? region or even village? age? social class? profession? ...)
and in what context (casual, professional, public oratory?...) Imagine an
actor preparing his or her role. Will Professor Higgins speak with much the
same pronunciation as Colonel Pickering? Probably. As Eliza's dustman father
Alfred Doolittle? Certainly not. As Freddy Eynsford Hill? Not quite - I
think the Eynsford Hills will be rather more refined in speech than Higgins
and Pickering; though they are impoverished, they are gentry. And all those
pronunciations will be "correct" for their characters on stage as they were
for those characters' real-life models.
Alan Jones
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Why do they drop "g" ? |
|
|
Roderick Stewart wrote:
| Quote: | In article <43445DC4.15E84BFB@verizon.net>, Robert Lieblich wrote:
[...]
Is someone who says "cole-oh-nell" when confronted
with "colonel" pronouncing the word correctly?
According to the OED, yes, which means that people who pronounce it
otherwise are wrong. [...]
|
¿Que? My OED must be one of those cheap Japanese imitations, then.
Duu yuu rek'n Ai stil hav u chaans iff Ai teik it bak tuu Blakwelz
aafter u laps of u jenereish'n?
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:56 am
Post subject: Re: Why do they drop "g" ? |
|
|
Alan Jones wrote:
| Quote: | "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00000c37.0032345b@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
In article <43445DC4.15E84BFB@verizon.net>, Robert Lieblich wrote:
Define "pronounce a word as written," with specific reference to
"colonel," "often," and "phthisis."
These words are not supposed to be pronounced as written.
Of course they are. Why else does almost every native speaker,
confronted with "colonel," say something that can also be written as
"kernel"? They know what that combination of letters is supposed to
sound like.
Of course they do. They know that some words are not supposed to be
pronounced as
written, while most are. What I mean by this is that although the letters
of the
alphabet have defined sounds, and words are built from these, sometimes we
don't
pronounce all the sounds. Perhaps I could have said "phonetically" instead
of "as
written". Would you have been happier with that choice of words?
I think you think you're saying something when you use the word
"correctly" when discussing the pronunciation of "ing." I think
you're wrong. Is someone who says "cole-oh-nell" when confronted with
"colonel" pronouncing the word correctly?
According to the OED, yes, which means that people who pronounce it
otherwise are
wrong.
Did you read what Robert Lieblich wrote? If you did, your comment seems very
strange.
I don't understand the difficulty you seem to be having with the concept
of
an accepted right way and a wrong way to do something.
If an entire population from one geographical region pronounce something
in the same
way as each other but differently from elsewhere, and have a historical
precedent
for doing so, then that's a dialect, but if these is a recognised correct
way of
pronouncing something and some do it differently, then they're wrong.
Recognised by whom? One of RL's examples was "often". Many British people
from various geographical regions say this as "off-t'n". Others say "off'n".
The difference here is a social one, not geographical. In British English,
"off'n" is traditional upper-middle class public school and Oxbridge
English: i.e. RP. There's another more extreme upper-class version "awf'n",
now rarely heard except from very elderly grandees. Which of these three is
the "accepted right way"?
|
Roderick seems to only accept the existence of regional dialects, not
dialects based on social class or ethnicity or whatever. It's a
curious misconception. I have no idea where he picked up such a
notion.
Richard R. Hershberger
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:00 am
Post subject: Re: Why do they drop "g" ? |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
| Quote: | Roderick seems to only accept the existence of regional dialects, not
dialects based on social class or ethnicity or whatever. It's a
curious misconception. I have no idea where he picked up such a
notion.
Richard R. Hershberger
|
No one has yet mentioned that some (most?) speakers of Standard
American English use "in" for "ing" under certain circumstances without
other standard speakers taking any notice of it--that is, sometimes
they say "ing" and sometimes "in." This is a separate phenomenon from
having a dialect in which "ing" is never pronounced in verbs such as
"singing" and "speaking," but in neither case is it reasonable to
speak of "slovenly pronunciation." This subject has been discussed
previously in this group: If there is such a thing as slovenliness in
pronunciation--which is another question in itself--there is no
justification for accusing someone of slovenliness when the
pronunciation he is using is that of his mother dialect. See my
discussion of the matter at
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/msg/964e348bebb496d2?hl=en&
or
http://tinyurl.com/9sku7
I limit my remarks to "Standard American English" because I'm certain
of the pronunciation of "ing" in that dialect. It may well be the case
in other standard dialects as well.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robbow123
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:38 pm
Post subject: Where Kernel came from |
|
|
I was googling for the differences between American and Canadian pronunciations and came acroos this discussion which has nothing to do with what I was looking for but it was very interesting.
I have a question.
How did Colonel become Kernel when pronouncing the word?
Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
