One simply must defer to the British. I wish I spoke like they do on the BBC, and/or spoke Received Pronunciation.
Also, as somebody else noted, some illogical changes need not open the door to a great many.
Just heard one right now. Co-worker said “real a tor” for realtor.
There’s nothing illogical about it. I say and write sherbert. You think the second R doesn’t need to be there, so feel free to say and write sherbet. I won’t care, I promise. But I’ll still be eating sherbert.
Same here. I was pretty shocked when I saw sherbet, looked it up and saw I was wrong. Lot of years wrong but since then, I always say it correctly. I just now did a test on my 5 year old granddaughter to check her pronunciation. I asked her the name of the frozen peach dessert she helped Grandma make the other day and she nailed it.
A few years ago, I would have been very confident betting on sherbert.
I’m British; am aware of the British / American pronunciation difference re “lieutenant”, but did not know that we differed about “colonel”. In the UK, we pronounce the military rank, the same as the word for the edible part of a nut; how do you in America, pronounce it?
(There was a comic song all the rage in Britain a hundred years ago – when “nut” or “knut” was current slang for a young dandy and stylish / idle / fashionable man-about-town. Song’s lyrics are the supposed pronouncements of one “Gilbert the Filbert, the Colonel of the Knuts”.)
I think you’re confusing “regional differences of pronunciation and style” with "bad grammar. Prescriptivist!
As far as I know, we pronounce it similarly. I believe the british/american split referred only to lieutenant, not colonel as well.
Got a cite for that?
I don’t have my texts at hand, but here are the first 6 google hits, all of which agree with me (but use the technical terms “restrictive” and “unrestrictive” rather than “definitive” and “descriptive”.)
http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/That_vs_Which_Easy_tips_for_determining_when_to_us_8522.aspx
http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/01/that-versus-which.html
Can you tell the difference between
and
I can, and I find the distinction useful. Would you write “the balls which are red” or “the balls, that are red”?
Note that while the comma is often used with “which”, it isn’t always.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find that there are cases where the two terms are interchangeable, but the most common cases where the two are often confused are covered by the links above.
oops
I don’t deny that some people argue that they are needed for separate functions. What you have not demonstrated is that the need is real.
That’s a perfectly cromulent pronunciation.
OK, breath saved.
I disagree. A lot of new usages arise that obscure meaning. This happens for both vocabulary and grammar. Ignorance is generally not a good architect.
I’ll take your word for it. I thought that publishers like newspapers tended to heed the rules, and their rules were what is taught in school, and preferred for formal writing. All bets are off in a novel, of course.
Such as?
The first that occurs to me is the usage of literally to mean “figuratively.”
We pronounce it the same. My point was words where letters that don’t exist in the word are pronounced. For example, there is no “r” in “colonel” (and where did the second “o” go), just like there is no “f” in “lieutenant” (although British English pronounces one.)
I just won 10 bucks off myself.
Can you point to an instance where the use of literally in its traditional sense caused confusion with the use of literally as a general intensifier? Because I can tell you, knowing and using both meanings has never caused me confusion.
Great idea for a new thread! Maybe tomorrow.
So why do you accept “colonel” and “lieutenant” as “some illogical changes,” but “sherbet” is part of the “great many” as opposed to just one of those words that are said differently than they are spelled? People around me say “sherbert.” That’s just the way the word is said, and even sometimes spelled. “Sherbit” sounds stupid to me. If I find myself in another dialect region where “sherbit” is the common pronunciation, then I might start using it. Until then, “sherbert” better communicates the concept I am trying to get across with the people I am trying to talk to.
First, you said that good writers no longer follow the rule. Do you have a citation for that? I found plenty of citations for the rule, each of which explains the difference in meaning.
Second, the two words imply a difference in meaning. If that’s not useful, then what is? All I can say is that I’ve read text where I wasn’t sure which the author meant, resulting in ambiguity. Per the argument above, I wasn’t sure whether all balls in question were red, or whether the sentence was referring only to those balls which were red. It’s a useful distinction, and it’s poor writing when authors don’t make use of the distinction.
I make no statement one way or the other as to what good writers do. Some may follow the rule, some may not. It’s not been one of the things I look for in determining good writing.
I would never presume to make assumptions or statements about your ability to comprehend a piece of writing.