Voir means “see” and dire means “say” and literally means to see you say it.
My wife’s comment (she’s a lawyer here in texas) says that “voyer dyer” is pretty common here, but that you hear “vwarh deer” fairly commonly too.
A reasonable conclusion, but not exactly correct. “Voir” is “to see” in modern French, but the phrase “voir dire” comes from Old French by way of Law French. The “voir” in voir dire is the Old French word for “true,” (from the Latin “verum”), making the translation “speak the truth.”
In Texas? There is, or at least used to be, a tradition around the state legislature of mispronouncing some legal phrases, and I assume that the tradition has spread in political and legal circles around the state.
It’s not that the legislators and lawyers are dumb (Well, it’s not necessarily that they’re dumb.) It’s that a lot of the state’s power was traditionally held by legislators from rural areas, and no one wants to upstage the senator from Muleshoe or wherever who always pronounced it as “Vor dah’r.” They will probably need that senator’s vote at some point. My guess is that it serves as a sort of bonding thing as well.
I seem to recall that Molly Ivins specifically mentioned the “Vor Dah’r” pronounciation in her first book. I think that she also said that legislators get a “purr dime” to cover personal expenses. I’m not sure what other phrases get this treatment.
Let me preface by saying I am not a lawyer, I don’t speak French but I’ve heard and used the term voir dire before. However, if I heard “voyer dyer”, I would immediately put the speaker in the “ain’t-too-bright” category. It sounds like an uneducated bastardization of “vwahr deer” to me.
One pronunciation may sound more authentic and correct than another to a listener, but there’s no one “correct” pronunciation to the exclusion of all others. Like I said earlier, Black’s Law Dictionary lists at least three acceptable pronunciations in common use, all completely different (“motion in limine” is all over the place as well). It’s sort of like people who say “aunt” as though it rhymes whith “haunt” rather than rhyming with “rant.” It sounds strange to me, but you really can’t call one pronunciation right and the other wrong.
OK, that one has me curious. “Limine” is pronounced more or less as “eliminate”, except without the e- and the -te. Shouldn’t be too hard to master, should it ? What other ways to pronounce it could there be, laye-maye-nee ? Luh-muh-nuh ?
“Ah’m jest plain folks. Yessir, Ah know all them fancy lee-gull terms, but you kin bet yer bottom dollar thet it’s never torn me away from ma roots right hyar in the good red soil of this our grreeat state!” Exaggerated, yeah, but isn’t that how you read it?
Enclosing text in slashes usually denotes that the pronunciation is given in the international phonetic alphabet. While what you’ve written is a very good approximation of how voir dire would be pronounced if read out using normal English spelling rules, pronouncing it according to IPA rules results in something that sounds quite strange.
I’m pretty sure that slashes simply denotes that the letters are to be pronounced phonemically (not the orthographic way); it isn’t an endorsement towards the IPA or any other standard.
This is close to how I pronounce it, but still a bit too frenchified. The terminal “r” is hard in both words for me - not a French rolled “r”.
In Canada, “voir dire” is used to mean a “trial within a trial”. It can be used part way through a trial to determine the qualifications of an expert, whether a confession was properly obtained, whether a piece of evidence was obtained in breach of the Charter, and so on. The court, in the absence of the jury, hears the issue, usually with evidence being called, and then rules on the point in dispute. The voir dire then ends, and the trial resumes. The same process is used in a bench trial, to determine the point in issue, after which the trial proper resumes. In the case of a bench trial, counsel can agree that the evidence called on the voir dire will be applied to the trial proper.
I’ve not heard voir dire used for the selection of jurors, because the trial has not yet started.
Nitpick: It indicates the intended representation of a phoneme or rendering of a word in phonemes, which may or may not be represented in IPA. I’ve seen “… the English J sound (/dzh/)” where it should in IPA properly be “d” followed by a flat-topped 3 written in the same space as a lowercase g or j, i.e., the lower half of the text kine plus a descender. I suspect this is a concession to available typography, but it does commonly happen.
Except that, strictly speaking, French "r"s are gutteral, never rolled. Spanish "r"s are rolled;
Strictly speaking, “French”, like most other languages, is a family of dialects. While the prestige dialect, Parisian French, uses the uvular /ʁ/, many others, such as Quebecois, do indeed use the trilled /r/.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: we Parisians, contrarily to other French regions, have lost our distinctive accent. The French spoken in Paris is not *Parisian French *it is standard French. And, it is no dialect.
That’s all correct, but it’s still extremely common to refer to that particular dialect as “Parisian French”; Standard French, if you prefer to call it that, is based on the way the language was spoken by a certain segment of the Parisian population. Whether or not the people in Paris still talk that way is neither here nor there.
That’s false. Any variety of a language characteristic of a particular group of speakers is a dialect, whether or not that group is defined regionally. “Parisian French” is therefore a dialect, even though it may not be representative of how French is spoken in Paris.
Standard French is a dialect. You can’t speak any language without speaking a dialect of that language.
Dialect usually means regional offshoot of the main language. Standard French is the main language.
But don’t forget that there’s no reason the word “voir” in "voir dire should be pronouced the same way as the French word “voir”. In “voir dire” the word “voir” does not come from the modern French word “voir”, as has been mentioned on this thread.
That definition – while still current in some circles colloquially – is obsolete and represents a misunderstanding of how human language works.
All “standard” languages are dialects. In fact, a more accurate term is “standardized dialect.”