What words, when mispronounced, set your teeth on edge?

In My Humble Opinion
161

Your first claim is, as I said before, not necessarily true. Your second is simply wrong. This can be easily demonstrated despite your cites.

The most preferred pronunciation of February is Feb-yoo-ary, and yet both the American Heritage and Random House list the Feb-roo-uary pronunciation first. They do so, of course, because that is the older pronunciation, which either directly or indirectly makes the lexicographers hesitant to change the order despite the fact that the majority of people no longer say it that way. In other words, they are setting aside the reality of English as it is used by most people and instead are relying on their own judgment. I don’t begrudge them that, but I’m also not going to pretend that their judgment is the final arbiter of truth with respect to preferred pronunciation, because in this sense, “preferred” means only “preferred by a minority of people”. In this situation, the term has lost any useful objective meaning.

The word “interest” provides another type of problem. The two dictionaries list different pronunciations in the first position. In this case, I don’t know which pronunciation is actually preferred in reality, which isn’t surprising given the fact that both pronunciations are fully standard. I do know, however, that the blatant wordbook disagreement is direct evidence against the notion that the first listed pronunciation is always preferred. If that were really true, then it would be one or the other. They couldn’t both be right.

Now, I am not denying that in cases where there is a clearly preferred pronunciation (e.g. nuclear, realtor, ask), it will be listed first when a dictionary entry is originally written. Even the Merriam-Webster folks doubtless try to follow that guideline, even if they don’t worry overmuch about it when they fail.

But those guidelines are just that: guidelines. After the book is printed, it starts to carry with it an aura of authority, which makes the lexicographers a bit reluctant to switch the listed order even after the facts of usage have changed. Most seem satisfied if they manage to keep up with all the common pronunciations, which is a hard enough job by itself.

And age will always be important. Merriam-Webster has been around longer than the others, so it has more institutional baggage to work with, which means it’s less surprising that they list “fort” as the first pronunciation of forte, a choice entirely contrary to modern usage. The American Heritage is younger (spawned in a fit of lingual pique as a response to perceived excesses in Webster’s Third), which might give it a bit of flexibility. It’s not going to have older pronunciations already enshrined onto the pages of previous versions, and the people on the usage panel change their opinions as well. Despite the silly circumstances of its birth, it’s normally quite a good dictionary, and it manages to list “for-tay” first.

Even so, it’s not smart to rely just on that listing and not on any other evidence. To add another example of obvious error to the two I listed above, it’s well worth pointing out that Random House takes the old fogey route and has “fort” first. Despite your cite of its explicit claim that it lists “preferred” usages first, it fails to do so even in a case when the overwhelming majority of speakers (including professional wordsmiths) agree on the new pronunciation. I’ve never been a huge fan of Random House, and it’s no surprise to me that they fail so utterly at their claimed objective of ranking order of preference. I didn’t even have to look hard for it. All the examples I’ve used in this thread came off the top of my head. I needed to double-check them to make sure, but I had no need to put in any actual effort to find discrepancies. And there are many many more out there to be found.

The conclusion from all this is plain: It is just not true that you can rely on the first pronunciation being generally preferred, even if the dictionary itself claims otherwise.

162

Americans can have personal opinions but there are very few Kiwis on this board so I have to be clear. I say both those words in the way I THINK you mean. I’m not bothered by you thinking I say them incorrectly, I speak with MY accent. Last time I said we say nu-kyuh-la I was just about disowned by fellow Kiwis so again I say …MY ACCENT says those words the way you have written them (they all speak like me though! We don’t have many regional accents and few “class” accents).

I have said nuclear aloud and in my head thousands of times since Bush said it wrong and while I don’t say it like him there is no arrangement of letters to make the diffence clear but it is definetly not new-clear.

That’s the thing with accents. I tried to phonetically spell the way I say some words but they are not right to YOUR ears.

Accents are evolving things, words are evolving things. Shakespeare’s English sounds like none of us. (Here is where I get in trouble) To my ears there is a only a TINY difference between the words “asked” and “arsed” in New Zealand English. If YOU phonetically spelled out each word they would be very different but to (THIS) Kiwi’s ears they sound almost the same (when spoken by a Kiwi).

The R sound has almost disappeared in our accent, we KNOW we are saying an R but you wouldn’t hear it.

Get violent if you want but you can’t stop accents and language evolving.

163

I don’t think anybody says that, but phonetics ain’t really my thang. My main interest lies in grammar.

Anyway, your analogy misses its mark. Nobody says musculus, either, and it’s not a problem because muscular doesn’t mean “of or pertaining to the musculus”. And nobody says moleculus. But molecular doesn’t mean “of or pertaining to the moleculus”.

This is not to defend the “nucular” pronunciation in all contexts. It is distracting to some listeners, whereas “new-clear” is almost entirely unobtrusive, and so if you’re under an obligation to speak Job Interview English, your choice is clear. The neutral accent is the way to go. But that has nothing to do with any inherent qualities of the two pronunciations. It is solely related to the effects the pronunciations might potentially have on people who will listen to you speak. For practically any formal situation I can think of, the advantage of “new-clear” is simply undeniable. But “nucular” does have a nice familiar feel to it, for the people who have the ear to hear it. It’s part of my native dialect, so it’s a much more comfortable word to me, like a good pair of sneakers compared to dress shoes a half-size too small. “Nucular” is quite literally a part of who I am, even if my colleagues never hear it.

There will always be value in people being themselves from time to time. That’s why we go home at the end of the work day.

164

Oh, I’m gonna get violent…here goes…

Okay, not really, I’m a lover. I get what you’re saying, totally. I, stubbornly maybe, have a tough time understanding pronunciation and habitually not reading a word correctly.

About you “r” thing…I see (hear) it around me in New England all the time. Like you assert, I get that Bostonians don’t look at the word “card” and just neglect to pronounce the “r.” I believe they feel that they are saying it…if they say “cahd” to another Bostonian, no issue, but an outsider might think they’re talking about the fish. I used to wonder if Cape Cod was really once Cape Card!

My issue, and I hate to say issue because it’s really not that serious, is not with the English speakers around the world. I don’t see how anyone with an American accent can read the word “nuclear,” sounding it out like we’re ALL taught in kindergarden “Noooo-cleeee(diphthong here)-errrr.” It’s obviously from mentally swapping the “U” and the “L.” Just like “foliage,” which others have mentioned. A person says “foilage” (ask/aks, dusk/duks) only because they are not reading correctly, taking their time to try to pronounce each letter, or, because like you said, you heard the word and couldn’t detect the nuances of the pronunciation. Then you get used to pronouncing it a certain way.

My niece, for example, who is my age (25), says “bought” instead of “brought” and it drives me crazy. For example, “I bought this pea coat at Nordstrom and bought it with me to Maine.” I remember being a little kid and having trouble distinguishing between “brought” and “bought.” But people worked with me to fix it. She’s 25 now, and there is no way she cares enough to work on it.

I guarantee if you put some Maori, for example, in front of me, I’d mispronounce a few words simply because I wasn’t paying attention to how they were written. And a good deal of the words I’m sure I would struggle to pronounce correctly because I can’t detect the nuances of the language. :slight_smile:

165

Really? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but this astonishes me. I knew Feb-yoo-ary was “acceptable,” but I’ve never heard it actually called “preferred.” I thought even the people who said it thought Feb-roo-ary was correct, but said Feb-yoo-ary because it was easier to say.

Wow.

166

Have you ever noticed an interesting fact about the dudes who call people 'slackers" about using an alternate pronuciation? They have a few words where they considered themselves RIGHT and others WRONG or “slackers”. In other words, for them, there is only ONE TRUE WAY of pronoucing those words. But on the words where* they *use the alternate pronuciation- then it’s OK.

167

My first claim is that “most” dictionaries consider the first entry as the preferred. I never said “all”. You’re free to provide more cites if you still disagree with that. You seem to think “preferred” refers to the general population’s usage. That is not the definition in this context. The use of “preferred” refers to people who are writing the reference books and are basing it on more than* just* common usage. I mean, that’s what reference books are for, right? So you can understand the correct way to do something? So…the “common” pronunciation is not necessarily the “preferred” pronunciation. For instance, we know that “nook-u-lar” is now considered “acceptable” in some dictionaries. However, I doubt you would say that people should perpetuate that pronunciation. You are free to do so, but it is not considered to be your best choice. Yet it will become more acceptable as time goes on. If you didn’t have a general rule to follow, how would you know that it is generally frowned upon to pronounce it “nook-u-lar?”

Again, I never said “always” with regard to first being preferred. Please stop saying I did. It is “generally” accepted as the rule and I provided multiple sites to back that up.

For starters, “nuclear” is not clearly defined if a dictionary allows it (and apparently, since Men In Important Places use it, it’s gaining acceptance). That’s why the GENERAL rule of “first is preferred” is useful. A young student who looks up “nuclear” in the dictionary that lists nook-u-lar as “acceptable” would find the “first is preferred” GENERAL rule to be helpful.

Agreed. That’s my point. I’ve repeatedly said that both are acceptable but one is preferred. That’s all. I’ve also provided an indication of general concensus that frowns on the use of “off-ten.” That’s all! Can you provide a cite that puts “off-ten” first? We know that many/most dictionaries follow the rule of “first is preferred”. Show me one that prefers that pronunciation.

That’s why it’s good to have multiple dictionaries. You can see what the general concensus is rather than relying on one that might go against the grain. I still have not found a single dictionary that lists off-ten first (first listed preferred being the GENERAL rule of thumb). This tells me that while off-ten is acceptable, it’s not the best choice.

But you are relying on one book that makes your case rather then the multiple sources I cited. Also, I think you’re defining “preferred” the way you want to rather than using the source’s definition, which is what you need to do if you’re using it as a reference.

Maybe it’s plain to you, but there is still a difference between “preferred” and “commonly used.” Until you know how your cite is using it, you cannot make this assumption. Again…a general concensus of multiple dictionaries is helpful here.

168

Really.

Going by the plain facts of usage, “Feb-yoo-ary” is now #1. You can check the American Heritage Book of English Usage for that (you might be able to get Google Books to bring up the right page). Most past usage writers preferred the “roo” form, but they’ve been outgunned for a while, though maybe some of them don’t want to admit it. But for that extra little oomph, I can also say that my copy of the New Oxford American already has the “yoo” listed first. And from my personal perspective, I didn’t know anybody actually said “roo” until my undergrad days, and I didn’t know anybody seriously thought it was better until after my grad school days. I still have a hard time believing that. I almost never hear it, and when I do it sounds (to my irrational ears) like a ridiculous affectation.

I never said “all” dictionaries, either. My examples were quite deliberately taken from dictionaries that you cited.

If you consider your comparison of dictionaries just a guideline, then that’s fine. But your actual cite was:

That is categorical language. For these particular dictionaries, you quite clearly stated that the first entry is preferred. Not sometimes. Not whenever they feel like it. If there are multiple pronunciations, the first is preferred. If you believe that the context of those statements was important, it might’ve been good to include more of it in your cite. As it was, though, I simply took your post at face value.

But if it’s just a guideline, I have to say that it’s a pretty good guideline for finding a nice, neutral pronunciation. Though it would take some personal judgment in places where your dictionaries disagree, it wouldn’t ever actively steer you wrong. However, it would not necessarily be good for finding out which pronunciations are frowned-upon. Frowned-upon pronunciations would be second, but not every second pronunciation would be frowned-upon.

169

My cites backed up my statement that NEARLY all dictionaries use the “first is preferred” rule. I never said anything was “categorically” anything.

You’re right. Not every second pronunciation is frowned upon…but off-ten is, and there are numerous cites that say so.

My point is, dictionaries and other language reference books are used to learn the correct way to spell, pronounce, and use words. You can look at it either as a “rule” or a “guideline”, but I think we can agree that without applying some logic to the order of the pronunciations, it only adds to the confusion. Obviously, not all the experts agree with that. That’s the advantage having more than one reference to turn to.

There are numerous opinions on the pronunciation of words, but there is a majority opinion on this particular word, and whether lots of people say “off-ten” or not, language experts generally frown on it. Maybe some people don’t mind that pronunciation, but the OP asked what pronunciations set my teeth on edge, and this is one of them.

170

Just to clarify my position: I’m not arguing with the fact that “off-ten” sets Kalhoun’s teeth on edge (how could I?). My positions were:
A) It’s not convincing to argue for the “offen” pronunciation merely on the grounds of analogy with other words (“listen”, “moisten”) because
A.1) analogy has no binding force so far as pronunciation can and does go
A.2) there are just as strong analogies going the other way (“after”, “softer”);
Furthermore,
B) Using the “off-ten” pronunciation is not a manifestation of illiteracy or slackerhood (heck, it (re-)arose specifically because of literacy (as a “spelling pronunciation”), and, having an extra consonant, it involves more enunciatory exertion than the alternative pronunciation. Though even if neither of these points were true, it would still not be a manifestation of illiteracy or slackerhood…)