The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-06-2011, 11:59 AM
WarmNPrickly WarmNPrickly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Is heighth a word? If not, why do people say it?

Occasionally, in conversation, someone will substitute heighth for height. Is there some linguistic reason people do this, or are they just being strange? Why is this such a common affectation? Maybe it's not very common, but I've certainly heard it more than one place.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 07-06-2011, 12:03 PM
CC CC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: not elsewhere
Posts: 4,014
The linguistic reason is that heighth is a formation that parallels the words width and depth. The sociological reason is that we learn to speak from what we hear and when people hear a word pronounced a certain way, well, then, that's the way that word's pronounced. Linguists would say that just because most folks don't say it that way doesn't mean it's wrong. You and I might cringe when we hear it, and it may not be considered to be standard English, but it's a word, and it's in use, and people know what it means when they say it and hear it, so who are we to quibble?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-06-2011, 12:03 PM
Giles Giles is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 12,148
It's by analogy with words like "breadth", "depth" and "width". In addition, back 1,000 years or so ago the word did end with "th", not "t".
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-06-2011, 12:12 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 25,187
And sometimes it's just a joke.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-06-2011, 12:16 PM
Earl Snake-Hips Tucker Earl Snake-Hips Tucker is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 12,957
It appears the older pronunciations had no penultimate "t" sound before the "theta" as you would probably hear in conversation. There's some good information on this variant in the OED, but it's too long to reproduce.

Last edited by Earl Snake-Hips Tucker; 07-06-2011 at 12:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-06-2011, 12:23 PM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Makes me think of acrosst and nucular.

The interesting thing about nucular, though, is that the word "nuclear" (the adjective form of nucleus) is descended from the latin "nucula," meaning nut or kernel.

So people who pronounce "nuclear" as "nucular" are actually being more faithful to its origin (though I doubt that's why any of them pronounce it that way).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-06-2011, 02:36 PM
Telemark Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Still, Titletown
Posts: 16,708
When trekking in Nepal we frequently saw signs offering "Best Fooding and Lodging".
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-06-2011, 03:08 PM
Laggard Laggard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
I say it sometimes without thinking. I also grew up saying "acrosst." As in, she ran acrosst the road." It may be a mid-western or Wisconsin thing.

Last edited by Laggard; 07-06-2011 at 03:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-06-2011, 03:21 PM
Rachellelogram Rachellelogram is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
When trekking in Nepal we frequently saw signs offering "Best Fooding and Lodging".
Wow, this is too adorable. I'd love to be fooded by a nice lodge.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-06-2011, 08:19 PM
Prelude to Fascination Prelude to Fascination is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
"Never say 'heighth'. Say 'length' and 'width,' but never 'heighth'. It just isn't righth."
-Leo Rosten.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-06-2011, 09:05 PM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 12,502
Let's get a point of terminology straight here. Of course, "heighth" is a word. It's used in conversation by many English-speaking people (and it's used to mean what the standard English word "height" means). If you use it in a high school English report, the teacher will mark it as being wrong, and if you use it in a manuscript submitted to a book or magazine publisher, the copy editor will change it to "height." That just says that it's not considered standard English. A lot of people spell it that way, and even more pronounce it that way. In fact, many people who insist that it's obviously wrong don't realize that when they're not thinking about it, they pronounce it that way too.

Language doesn't cease to be language because it's not used in the standard way, where "standard" is the way defined by high school language teachers and book and magazine copy editors. Language is anything used for ordinary communication between human beings. It may or may not be good for teachers and copy editors to enforce standards on how a language is used in certain written and spoken contexts, but they don't get to define what language is (or what a word is or what a grammatical structure is or what the pronunciation of a word is).

Last edited by Wendell Wagner; 07-06-2011 at 09:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-06-2011, 09:15 PM
rowrrbazzle rowrrbazzle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
A recent thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=609471

A previous thread, in which you'll find (among other things) Milton used "highth" in Paradise Lost. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/....php?p=7941933
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-06-2011, 09:43 PM
Tom Tildrum Tom Tildrum is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Falls Church, Va.
Posts: 10,705
It's parallel to "warmth" and "coldth."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-06-2011, 09:59 PM
JBDivmstr JBDivmstr is offline
Member
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner View Post
It may or may not be good for teachers and copy editors to enforce standards on how a language is used in certain written and spoken contexts, but they don't get to define what language is (or what a word is or what a grammatical structure is or what the pronunciation of a word is).
I beg to differ! IMHO, teachers and copy editors (well, maybe not "copy editors", so much. ) absolutely DO, "define what language is (or what a word is or what a grammatical structure is or what the pronunciation of a word is)". We learn to speak the language by first, hearing our parents and other people speak. Teachers (especially) then try to teach us the proper (generally accepted) way to use the words, that we've learned. How could you think otherwise?
__________________
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway (1899 - 1961)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-06-2011, 10:29 PM
J Cubed J Cubed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBDivmstr View Post
I beg to differ! IMHO, teachers and copy editors (well, maybe not "copy editors", so much. ) absolutely DO, "define what language is (or what a word is or what a grammatical structure is or what the pronunciation of a word is)". We learn to speak the language by first, hearing our parents and other people speak. Teachers (especially) then try to teach us the proper (generally accepted) way to use the words, that we've learned. How could you think otherwise?
Teachers then try to teach us the proper way to use the words and grammar of Standard written English. This is the English that one expects to see in professionally published works, almost never sees in handwritten signs, and is harangued about by doddering old fools with newspaper columns on language. However, nobody ever speaks it conversationally, which is where most language happens. If you say it and the other guy understands it, it's a word, irregardless of what your teacher says.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-06-2011, 10:32 PM
Larry Mudd Larry Mudd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
When trekking in Nepal we frequently saw signs offering "Best Fooding and Lodging".
"Food to take out or sit in."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-06-2011, 10:53 PM
Princhester Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 11,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBDivmstr View Post
Teachers (especially) then try to teach us the proper (generally accepted) way to use the words, that we've learned. How could you think otherwise?
By knowing something (very little, frankly) about etymology. The illusion of language stability is like the illusion that glaciers don't flow, and the idea that teachers and editors control language is like the idea that a few loose boulders decide the glacier's path.

If you observe language over time, grammar and word usage that is absolutely correct today may well be wrong yesterday and wrong tomorrow and vice versa. Language only appears stable because it changes too subtlely and too slowly for people who live for usualy less than a century to notice.

Teachers and stiff necked grammarians might hold things back a little, and might be able to tell you what other people currently think to be correct, but most of what they say will be swept away by the gigantic unstoppable glacier that is everyday human usage.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-06-2011, 11:07 PM
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
For example, many people, including the poor, deluded Messrs. Strunk and White would tell you that it is A Very Bad Thing, Indeed to end a sentence with a preposition. Now, you go explain to Lady Bracknell that she should have said, "A very good age at which to be married," to Jack and tell me how far you get. The world is filled with loads of books purporting to tell you the proper way to write and speak with lots of cute stories about how Shakespeare and Milton and Dryden got it wrong. I submit to you, if a rule is so tricky that it trips up Billy himself, is it the writer or the rule that should be tossed?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-07-2011, 03:24 AM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 12,502
JBDivmstr, I can only repeat what I said. Copy editors and high school English teachers do not get to define what language is. They perhaps get to define what the current version of standard written (and perhaps spoken) English is. Saying that "heighth is not a word" or that nonstandard English is not a language is just confusing the ordinary definitions of these terms. Language is anything used by human beings in ordinary communication. Nonstandard versions of languages are not merely babbling or whatever language purists think it is. (Actually, it's not clear to me what language purists think. Sometimes they act like anyone using nonstandard English (or whatever language they are trying to defend) is obviously stupid. Sometimes they act like anyone using nonstandard English is deliberately evil.)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-07-2011, 03:31 AM
JBDivmstr JBDivmstr is offline
Member
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Quote:
Teachers then try to teach us the proper way to use the words and grammar of Standard written English.
By your statement then... Teachers DO, "define what language is (or what a word is or what a grammatical structure is or what the pronunciation of a word is)".

Quote:
However, nobody ever speaks it conversationally, which is where most language happens.
IMHO the majority of people that learned "Standard written English" as their primary language, (the language that they first learned to speak) and that are fairly "literate" (ie: high school graduate level) DO "speak it conversationally" more often than not.
I will concede that there is a tremendous influence on our every day vocabulary due to numerous reasons, such as location, and the intellect and literacy of those that we interact with, most frequently.
By the way... Great cite on "Standard written English"!

Quote:
By knowing something (very little, frankly) about etymology. The illusion of language stability is like the illusion that glaciers don't flow, and the idea that teachers and editors control language is like the idea that a few loose boulders decide the glacier's path.

If you observe language over time, grammar and word usage that is absolutely correct today may well be wrong yesterday and wrong tomorrow and vice versa. Language only appears stable because it changes too subtlely and too slowly for people who live for usualy less than a century to notice.

Teachers and stiff necked grammarians might hold things back a little, and might be able to tell you what other people currently think to be correct, but most of what they say will be swept away by the gigantic unstoppable glacier that is everyday human usage.
You seem to contradict yourself, sir. In the beginning of your post you imply with your "glacier analogy", that teachers have no control over how we speak.

And yet, you go on to state that teachers do indeed, "tell you what other people currently think to be correct".

I do not argue the fact that language does, (and will undoubtedly continue to) evolve and change over time. Consequently, the "correct" way to speak and write being currently taught in schools, will inevitably change with it. Just sayin'...
__________________
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway (1899 - 1961)
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-07-2011, 03:40 AM
JBDivmstr JBDivmstr is offline
Member
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Cubed View Post
Teachers then try to teach us the proper way to use the words and grammar of Standard written English. This is the English that one expects to see in professionally published works, almost never sees in handwritten signs, and is harangued about by doddering old fools with newspaper columns on language. However, nobody ever speaks it conversationally, which is where most language happens. If you say it and the other guy understands it, it's a word, irregardless of what your teacher says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner View Post
JBDivmstr, I can only repeat what I said. Copy editors and high school English teachers do not get to define what language is. They perhaps get to define what the current version of standard written (and perhaps spoken) English is. Saying that "heighth is not a word" or that nonstandard English is not a language is just confusing the ordinary definitions of these terms. Language is anything used by human beings in ordinary communication. Nonstandard versions of languages are not merely babbling or whatever language purists think it is. (Actually, it's not clear to me what language purists think. Sometimes they act like anyone using nonstandard English (or whatever language they are trying to defend) is obviously stupid. Sometimes they act like anyone using nonstandard English is deliberately evil.)
My apologies, sir. I think I may have been a little "nit picky".
I never meant to imply that "heighth" wasn't a valid word, and I assure you, in everyday conversation, I mangle the hell out of the english language. (My high school english teachers are probably "rolling in their graves", everytime I open my mouth! )

Quote:
Sometimes they act like anyone using nonstandard English (or whatever language they are trying to defend) is obviously stupid. Sometimes they act like anyone using nonstandard English is deliberately evil.)
On this, I concur with you, 100%!
__________________
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway (1899 - 1961)
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-07-2011, 03:52 AM
Princhester Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 11,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBDivmstr;13995501You seem to contradict yourself, sir. In the beginning of your post you imply with your "glacier analogy", that teachers have [B
no control [/B]over how we speak.

And yet, you go on to state that teachers do indeed, "tell you what other people currently think to be correct".
There is no contradiction.

You choose to think I implied something I didn't. A boulder has an effect on a glacier, however small. Teachers have little control, not none. They tell you what other people currently think to be correct, but that doesn't mean they have much effective control.

People learn their language from listening and most of their listening is to parents, friends, television etc. They also learn it from what they read. Teacher contact hours and school imposed reading are but a drop in the bucket of total immersion by which people learn language.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-07-2011, 04:05 AM
JBDivmstr JBDivmstr is offline
Member
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
There is no contradiction.

You choose to think I implied something I didn't. A boulder has an effect on a glacier, however small. Teachers have little control, not none. They tell you what other people currently think to be correct, but that doesn't mean they have much effective control.

People learn their language from listening and most of their listening is to parents, friends, television etc. They also learn it from what they read. Teacher contact hours and school imposed reading are but a drop in the bucket of total immersion by which people learn language.
My apologies, sir. I forgot my manners and broke the "assume" rule.
One shouldn't assume. By "assuming", I made an "ass u me"!
__________________
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway (1899 - 1961)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-07-2011, 11:55 PM
J Cubed J Cubed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBDivmstr View Post
IMHO the majority of people that learned "Standard written English" as their primary language, (the language that they first learned to speak) and that are fairly "literate" (ie: high school graduate level) DO "speak it conversationally" more often than not.
I will concede that there is a tremendous influence on our every day vocabulary due to numerous reasons, such as location, and the intellect and literacy of those that we interact with, most frequently.
By the way... Great cite on "Standard written English"!
The point is that nobody except actors, news anchors, and politicians ever speak Standard written English. And they only do when someone has written a script for them, in that form of English. The rest of us speak American English or British English, or other regional dialects that are spoken languages. You learn spoken English from your parents and peers. You learn written English from books and grammar teachers. But the rules and expectations are different between them.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-08-2011, 12:04 AM
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum View Post
It's parallel to "warmth" and "coldth."
Coldth? I've never heard that one before.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-08-2011, 12:08 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 25,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiemcgarry View Post
Coldth? I've never heard that one before.
I think he meant "coolth" which is becoming accepted.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-08-2011, 12:19 AM
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Cubed View Post
The point is that nobody except actors, news anchors, and politicians ever speak Standard written English. And they only do when someone has written a script for them, in that form of English. The rest of us speak American English or British English, or other regional dialects that are spoken languages. You learn spoken English from your parents and peers. You learn written English from books and grammar teachers. But the rules and expectations are different between them.
I highly disagree with this narrow-minded assessment of language. Someone who has been highly-even moderately-educated throughout their life will develop language skills as a symbiotic combination of written language AND spoken language. They do not exist seperately, a lifelong book-reader is going to have a much more expansive vocabulary in their spoken language; as a result of high levels of written language learning. And all those "grammar teachers" will teach a person how to form this spoken language in their heads before it's spoken. Consider it the "mental written English" . To truly be able to use the language to the best of IT"S capabilities, even as it evolves as a spoken language, one must learn and know the written history of the language.

(and no, people shouldn't use that word. It's akin to say "supposably". Yeah, people say it, but so what?)

Last edited by Ambivalid; 07-08-2011 at 12:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-08-2011, 01:48 AM
JBDivmstr JBDivmstr is offline
Member
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiemcgarry View Post
I highly disagree with this narrow-minded assessment of language. Someone who has been highly-even moderately-educated throughout their life will develop language skills as a symbiotic combination of written language AND spoken language. They do not exist seperately, a lifelong book-reader is going to have a much more expansive vocabulary in their spoken language; as a result of high levels of written language learning. And all those "grammar teachers" will teach a person how to form this spoken language in their heads before it's spoken. Consider it the "mental written English".
You've "beaten me to the punch", sir!

And IMHO, quite eloquently, at that!


(And way more succintly, than I could, or would, have been!)
__________________
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway (1899 - 1961)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-08-2011, 07:39 AM
flight flight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Cubed View Post
If you say it and the other guy understands it, it's a word, irregardless of what your teacher says.
The point is well taken, but that was a low blow.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-08-2011, 08:21 AM
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiemcgarry View Post
I highly disagree with this narrow-minded assessment of language. Someone who has been highly-even moderately-educated throughout their life will develop language skills as a symbiotic combination of written language AND spoken language. They do not exist seperately, a lifelong book-reader is going to have a much more expansive vocabulary in their spoken language; as a result of high levels of written language learning. And all those "grammar teachers" will teach a person how to form this spoken language in their heads before it's spoken. Consider it the "mental written English" . To truly be able to use the language to the best of IT"S capabilities, even as it evolves as a spoken language, one must learn and know the written history of the language.
Its capabilities, not it's. And I don't know that anyone would disagree with you. Of course, you don't need to be educated really at all to develop a language. Creoles are created by children who don't know the difference between an aspect and a tense yet they manage to create them just fine. You have to remember that a language need not also have a writing system to be considered a language. There are plenty of minority languages that have no standardized way of writing them down and they still function as a language. It's always a good thing to learn about things, not just your language, but remember that just because coolth isn't a word today and wasn't a word 200 years ago, doesn't mean it can't be a word next week. (And every word you use now was a nouveau addition to the language at some time.)
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-08-2011, 11:05 AM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 12,502
jamiemcgarry writes:

> To truly be able to use the language to the best of IT"S capabilities, even as it
> evolves as a spoken language, one must learn and know the written history of
> the language.

I don't know of any evidence that this is remotely true. In societies where most people were nonliterate (and sometimes where there was no written language at all), there were brilliant orators who never learned to read. They listened to other orators and learned their techniques. They didn't learn anything about the history of the language, and they didn't even read anything at all. There are lots of brilliant writers today who know almost nothing about the history of their languages, and they often have read very little older writings in their language. They simply read a lot of current writing in their language and imitated good models. Knowing the history of the language may be a good thing in itself, but it's not in general the way to learn how to write well.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-08-2011, 11:14 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 63,431
I think there is a difference. An airplane can fly at a height of ten thousand feet but it doesn't have a heighth of ten thousand feet. But a building has a heighth - it spans the distance between the ground and its highest point. To me, heighth describes an object's size - the equivalent of width and length. Whereas height describes an object's location.

Last edited by Little Nemo; 07-08-2011 at 11:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-08-2011, 11:45 AM
Chessic Sense Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think there is a difference. An airplane can fly at a height of ten thousand feet but it doesn't have a heighth of ten thousand feet. But a building has a heighth - it spans the distance between the ground and its highest point. To me, heighth describes an object's size - the equivalent of width and length. Whereas height describes an object's location.
The object's location is called altitude or elevation, not height.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-08-2011, 01:09 PM
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Cubed View Post
Teachers then try to teach us the proper way to use the words and grammar of Standard written English. This is the English that one expects to see in professionally published works, almost never sees in handwritten signs, and is harangued about by doddering old fools with newspaper columns on language. However, nobody ever speaks it conversationally, which is where most language happens. If you say it and the other guy understands it, it's a word, irregardless of what your teacher says.
I wonder what that teacher would have to say about "irregardless" there...
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-08-2011, 01:10 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 63,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
The object's location is called altitude or elevation, not height.
It can be but height's a much more common term.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-08-2011, 02:49 PM
Rob Van Rob Van is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
I got into an arguement with a high school senior english teacher that I was dating. I told her there was no such word! She also didnt know what an IUD was, and that was scary because she was also a counselor for senior girls.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-08-2011, 02:51 PM
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelellogram View Post
Wow, this is too adorable. I'd love to be fooded by a nice lodge.
Now that just sounds down right freaky...
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-29-2015, 12:19 AM
9watts 9watts is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
The pronunciation of heighth isn't really in question here, but all those other words, which lend some modicum of plausibility to the word heighth because they end in th: depth, width, length, have an audible consonant sound before the 'th'. Therefore I would think this word-that-is-in-dispute should be spelled with two 't's: heightth. Otherwise wouldn't the word be pronounced hi-th?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-29-2015, 07:20 AM
bob++ bob++ is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
I like the Urban Dictionary's entry:
Quote:
Heighth
This is not a word, even though everyone in southern California uses it. The correct word is "Height." Don't combine width and height into heighth. That's just wrong. I will stab you in the eye.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Heighth
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-29-2015, 08:46 AM
boffking boffking is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Coldth? I've never heard that one before.
It was the rejected name for Hoth.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-30-2015, 01:52 AM
Nom_de_Plume Nom_de_Plume is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
(and no, people shouldn't use that word. It's akin to say "supposably". Yeah, people say it, but so what?)

Actually, supposably is a word. It's the adverb form of the word supposable, meaning capable of being supposed or imagined.

I don't understand why people get so upset about these things. Every word we use was not a word before somebody started using it. That's how language works (at least the English language, that is.) Dictionaries are rewritten every year to catch up with the way people talk. It's not like lexicographers write dictionaries first and then mandate how every one else should speak and write.
__________________
Nom de Plume
______________________________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-30-2015, 02:41 AM
cochrane cochrane is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Is heighth a word? If not, why do people say it?

The same reason people say "ax" for ask.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-30-2015, 06:20 AM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 12,502
The pronunciation of "ask" has been going back and forth between something which sounds like the current standard pronunciation of "ask" and the dialectal pronunciation which sounds something like the current standard pronunciation of "ax" since at least the time of Old English, more than a thousand years ago:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ask

The pronunciation of "height" with a "th" sound at the end also goes back a long way:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=height

People have this bizarre notion that the vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar used in nonstandard dialects are strictly modern things. They have the bizarre notion that such vocabulary items, pronunciations, and grammatical uses must have evolved just recently from the standard language. This isn't remotely true. All languages have had a variety of dialects throughout their histories. There have been influences going back and forth between standard and nonstandard dialects throughout their histories.

To go back to the point I was trying to make three and a half years ago, a nonstandard dialect counts as a "language" and the words in it count as "words." A language (and any dialect of it) is anything used by humans for ordinary communication. The units of any such language or dialect are words. If you want to ask if a particular word, pronunciation, or grammatical item is a part of standard English, then say so. This is important for determining if you're going to get marked down on a paper by your high school English teacher or corrected by a copy editor for an article or book or told to change your pronunciation by the producer of a national news show (if you're the anchor of the show).

It is not important though for ordinary conversation between people in most circumstances. If you go around correcting other people's vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar in ordinary conversations, eventually someone is going to punch your lights out. There are occasions where two people in a conversation speak such different dialects that they may have trouble understanding each other. In that case they will have to work something out. In most cases you should never try to imply that the other speaker in a conversation is stupid and/or ignorant for using their own dialect.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-30-2015, 06:32 AM
Your Great Darsh Face Your Great Darsh Face is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by boffking View Post
It was the rejected name for Hoth.
And a much more suitable name, too.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-30-2015, 06:46 AM
Chief Pedant Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Of course it's a word. I hear it all the time.

It is currently considered non-standard by most entities which try to create standards for usage.

The purpose of standardization is to slow down the evolution of language enough so that on average clear communication is retained. A secondary effect of this is that standard usage tends to be a shorthand way of separating the educated from the uneducated.

When you say "heighth" you are communicating the concept accurately, but you also communicate that you are either unaware it is non-standard, or do not care. Both convey something beyond the word itself.

Since the evolution of language is driven by the masses, it can be argued that any non-standard use is simply usage ahead of its time.

But mostly non-standard usage conveys ignorance until such time as the non-standard usage gets driven so broadly that "correction" against standard usage slips over from being useful into pedantry.

It's best to just check with me about where that line is, but I am usually too busy to address specific concerns.

Last edited by Chief Pedant; 01-30-2015 at 06:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-30-2015, 08:02 AM
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nom_de_Plume View Post
Actually, supposably is a word. It's the adverb form of the word supposable, meaning capable of being supposed or imagined.

I don't understand why people get so upset about these things. Every word we use was not a word before somebody started using it. That's how language works (at least the English language, that is.) Dictionaries are rewritten every year to catch up with the way people talk. It's not like lexicographers write dictionaries first and then mandate how every one else should speak and write.
So I suppose "supposively" is an equally valid word then. Got it.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-30-2015, 08:27 AM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 12,502
It appears in some dictionaries:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suppositively
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-30-2015, 09:29 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Of course it's a word. Here it is used in a sentence:

The man was of such great heighth that the zombies could not eat....", well, you get the picture.

Last edited by John Mace; 01-30-2015 at 09:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-31-2015, 08:20 AM
Enola Straight Enola Straight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
"I wuz gonna sez depth...but I'm goin' UP, not Down!"
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-31-2015, 09:33 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Miami, Florida USA
Posts: 9,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nom_de_Plume View Post
Actually, supposably is a word. It's the adverb form of the word supposable, meaning capable of being supposed or imagined. ...
That's plausible enough.

However, your assertion does not make "supposably" a synonym or alternate pronunciation for "supposedly." Which seems to me to be the predominant use of "supposably."

Like "pskeddy" as an alternate pronunciation for "spaghetti", IMO it's simply lisping child-speak carried over into adulthood. IMO it is almost never someone intending to communicate "capable of being supposed or imagined."

And FWIW, the spell check in my browser doesn't like "supposably" either.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.