“That speaker is an arrant jerk, up with whom I will not put.”
Slight though the difference might be, it’ll probably still be there. It’s somewhat similar to the word “mirror”. It’s true that those who pronounce it as two syllables don’t clearly enunciate it as “mir-ror”, but their pronunciation is still audibly distinct from those who say it as “meer”.
mewontJesusASAP. there is absolutely nothing wrong with that sentence. clear, concise, easily understood; it’s got everything. I’m feeling extremely liberated with this newfound knowledge about how riting/talking at ppl really develops. now I just gotta somhow tri to rid myself of all this fuccing brainwashn Iv bin xposed 2 that makes I thnk me hafta follow some languag tyrants dictats.
So you’ve never been any place where people spoke a regional dialect? Never been to Boston? New York? The South? Pittsburgh?
:dubious:
Legitimate or not, I’ll keep on talking about how my dishes need washed, the time the crick flooded, how slippy the road is, and yinz can complain all you want an’at.
Sorry, don’t mean to “Pittsburgh-jack” the thread, I’m just giving an example and it’s the one I’m most familiar with. It’s not always about being “incorrect” or “ignorant”. I for one didn’t even realize I had an accent until I got older.
I hear this a lot on NPR of all places. One particular form that people seem to be afraid of using is “between you and me,” instead preferring “between you and I.”
Well, that would kind of be the definition of ignorance, not knowing it.
But there’s nothing wrong with having differences in speech, or a different accent. So it’s “ignorance” but of a benign sort.
I find myself using the “needs washed” construction every once in awhile, somewhat tongue-in-cheekly, though it has nothing to do with my own dialect. I just like regionalisms. My father-in-law, who is from my dialect area, also says “creek” as “crick.” I wonder if this is a generational thing or if he picked up from elsewhere. My mother-in-law has similar dialectal quirks, the one I notice the most is the use of “yet” where I normally would use “still.” (Like, “the beef is on sale yet” instead of “the beef is still on sale.”) This appears to be a Wisconsonian quirk (or perhaps broader Midwestern, but I only know it from Wisconsin. I noticed one poster here in the last few days use it in that manner. I looked in the location field. Sure enough, Wisconsin.)
Did you read the part about how standardized spelling improves readability, even though there are lots of words that are not pronounced how they’re spelled?
Take a look at what you wrote here. You didn’t actually try to spell words as they are pronounced, you just spelled things willy-nilly. It’s a mistake to spell “brainwashing” as “brainwashn” even if in your idiolect the “g” isn’t actually pronounced. It’s a mistake to leave off silent e’s, even though we don’t pronounce them.
I guarantee that when you speak you sometimes use “gotta” and “hafta”. That doesn’t mean that when you write you should render “gotta” as G-O-T-T-A, you should write it as “got to” even though most people don’t pronounce it that way. Same thing with “enough”, you’re not expected to pronounce the yogh even though it’s spelled with an ough and the yogh hasn’t been pronounced in most english dialects for centuries.
If you want to argue for spelling reform go right ahead. I’d be with you, except for the fact that it’s never going to happen, so it would be a waste of time to advocate for it. But this thread isn’t about how we write, it’s about how we speak. And it might grate your ears to hear people say “I’m gonna go to the store” instead of “I’m going to go to the store”, but you better get used to it because that’s how people speak almost all the time. That doesn’t mean we should change the spelling of “going to” to “gonna”, just because that’s what people actually say, any more than we should change the spelling of “enough” to “enuf” just because people have been pronouncing it that way for centuries.
Yeah - that is pretty weird to pronounce the middle C.
A quick search on-line reveals that it was “originally the name of the river, said to be from Mohican (Algonquian) quinnitukqut”.
So I wonder then how we ended up with that silent C in the middle that doesn’t seem to be there in its origin?
Anyhow, I’ve got a friend who very clearly pronounces the L in salmon.
I’ve heard him say it several times over the years. Last time was at a restaurant and we were talking about what we might order. I mentioned in a friendly way that the L is silent.
Thirty seconds later he told the server that he’d like the saLmon.
Whatever. Sound ignorant if you want to, I suppose.
Except that if the grammar nazis would pull that stick out of their asses we could have some reform, as long as we went about it slowly. For example- “enuf” - it’s easily understood by all, and a number of people use it. I mean- let’s not go crazy, but a few minor reforms every decade would help. And,* it used to be that way* before the grammar nazis came into power.
I am always afraid that when I use it the correct way, people will think I’m stupid. There are a lot of people who think it should always be “and I”.
Or bruˈske’ta for that matter. And why does Starbuck’s sell biscottti in individual packaging when they should be labeled biscotto?
Also, Ralph Ma’ki’o mispronounces his own last name.
In an early Mad article by Dave Berg, with a generations - role - reversal theme, a Nat King Cole song is retitled: “They Tried to Tell Us, We’re To [sic] Old”
If the speaker pronounces these phrases as “gonna” or “haffta”, and they are transcribed that way for only that particular speaker, that strikes me as an expression of contempt or disparagement on the part of the transcriber.
It’s interesting that the “gonna” and “haffta” pronunciations are never used to denote the physical act of movement or the state of possession. Arguably they might be considered distinct words from “going to” and “have to”, even if standardized spelling requires them to be written down the same way.
Yes, they’re often referred to as pariphrastic modals. (going to being similar to will; have to being similar to must.) [CF non-defective forms of modals.) They are indeed lexically distinct from the content verbs from which they derive. They serve as functional forms, rather than semantic terms.
So it makes perfect sense that they have this distinct pronunciation, too.
And I’ll just add that this is a profound observation, Spectre – even the act of transcription can carry ideological undertones.
Touche. I mean, I know what’s correct English, but it doesn’t make someone stupid, nor is considering something a dialect being “politically correct”. I guess it’s when you’ve been around people your whole life who have the same accent, you don’t really pick up on the fact that you sound “different”, in the way that you pronounce things, rather than which phrases you use. I’m not talking about things like yinz, or y’all. Think of pecans. Do you call them PEE-cons, PEE-cans, or peh-CONS? Caramel: is it CAR-MUL or CARRA-MELL? What about soda vs. pop? Trousers or pants? Things like that. I never even thought about it until I got older.
Thanks for the feedback ref Connecticut.
FYI, we’ve had a few threads about pronouncing almond and about salmon. Some regions commonly fully pronounce the L in each of those words. Those aren’t regions I’m from, but the locals from there insist pronouncing the L is correct, or at least authentic.
There’s a particular example that I’ve wanted to mention here since the thread began, but I couldn’t think of it until this morning. So here goes:
What do the Teeming Millions think? Will “would of”, “could of” and “should of” be considered acceptable in a few decades?
It won’t even be a few decades. I say maybe one decade. It’s SO ubiquitous now that I don’t even think most people even know how to write it properly. Progress, my friend.