188 réponses à ce sujet

[The Makinak]

AlanC9 wrote...


I'm also not sure "axe" is really going to become the standard pronunciation of "ask" in the USA. White folks may play around with African-American vernacular, but at the end of the day people are scared of sounding lower-class.

I agree. I was using that sentence as an example of the laziness more so than the future change. Though I can't think of any off the top of my head, there are slang words that have crept into the Websters as a legitimate words.

As proof of the laziness, I'm sure some of my words are misspelled.

Hypocrite that I am.

[The Makinak]

darrenr22 wrote...



The notion that one can take a snapshot in time and enshrine the pronunciation of words at that moment as "correct" is utter nonsense. Languages evolve day by day, year after year as a result of usage, innovation and experimentation. No specific pronunciation prevalent within a linguistic community has authority over any other so long as communicative ability is maintained, and developments and changes which gain currency within native speaker communities are not to be taken as "errors".

I thought that what the Websters Dictionary was for.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Fumbleumble wrote...

Wotannanow wrote...

Golem is from Hebrew. I don't speak it, so I can't be sure, but I believe the pronounciation in-game is correct.

No.

http://www.etymonlin....php?term=golem

http://dictionary.re...om/browse/golem

Gollum was a 'name' created by Tolkien (an english professor), to reflect the word 'golem' and to also reflect it's relationship to it, the extra 'l' was added to change the pronunciation.

Oh, so now Tolkien also set the standard for how we should pronounce the word ''golem''? This is getting rich.

Idiot.

[Delthayre]

So many people tend to be so ridiculously authoritarian about language. Language changes, ceaselessly and eternally. Anyone complaining about modern speakers not speaking Middle English should be contemptuous of speakers of that tongue for not speaking Old English and so on and so on until he castigates us all for corrupting Proto-Indo-European, or some hypothetical Proto-World language, out of existence. One may cite all of the dictionaries, grammars and textbooks that one wants, but whence draw any of them authority?



English used to be pronounced a particular way a millennium ago, but now it isn't. This change does not somehow mystically confer authority upon the older phonetic (and morphological and syntactic) conventions. If language is comprehensible within its speaker community then it is 'right', although I don't think that that word should be seen anywhere outside of the tyrannically prescriptivist dominions of English teachers.

[darrenr22]

Bercilak de Hautdesert wrote...

darrenr22 wrote...

Bercilak de Hautdesert wrote...

Fumbleumble wrote...

Ok.. it's a little thing.. but it is kinda annoying....

The word 'Golem' SHOULD be pronounced with a long 'o' as in 'goal'.. but it's being pronounced with an 'o' as in 'orange'.. as per Smeagol's nom de guerre in LOTR.

They aren't the same word.

I feel your pain, but welcome to the English language, alas.  Most of the words we pronounce today are pronounced the way that they are because of errors that have passed down through time.  For example, in Chaucer's day, English was much closer to being pronounced phonetically (think of the word, "knife", for instance, to see how much it's changed).

You have a very strange idea about how language works.

The notion that one can take a snapshot in time and enshrine the pronunciation of words at that moment as "correct" is utter nonsense. Languages evolve day by day, year after year as a result of usage, innovation and experimentation. No specific pronunciation prevalent within a linguistic community has authority over any other so long as communicative ability is maintained, and developments and changes which gain currency within native speaker communities are not to be taken as "errors".

Much of the discussion in this thread betrays a straightforward misunderstanding of the nature of language and how correct usage is determined.

I think you misunderstand me: I did not state that there was an absolute in terms of correctness of pronunciation.  In any particular period, there does exist a standardized pronunciation, or pronunciations, of a particular word.  Relative to that standardized pronunciation, variations can be correctly called "errors", meaning a nonstandard pronunciation relative to the standard one.  Consider, "schism".  Although most people pronounce the "sch" as in, "school", the (previously) standardized pronunciation was with a silent "ch".  Relative to the previously standard pronunciation of "sizm", "skizm" is in error.  Over time, though, I'm sure that it will flip flop with "skizm" being the standardized pronunciation and "sizm" being in error.

In any particular period there is a set of observed and documented pronunciations of the words as used by native speakers of the language. If a new pronunciation becomes prevalent then the set of observed and documented pronunciations expands. It contracts as ways of speaking fall out of use.

The "standardised" pronunciations you refer to are merely snapshots of actual usage at the time they were documented. They have no more claim to be "correct" than pronunciations which succeed them or those which preceded them. And that is why I have a problem with the use of the word "error".

The fundamental point, and it is one that some people in this thread really need to take on board, is that given the requirement of effective communication within a linguistic community, norms of vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation are determined by usage within the relevant linguistic communities. It is quite simply misguided to characterise "rules" of language as being given to us from above by some authoritative source. "Rules of language" are nothing more than systematic descriptions of language use.

Unfortunately, many people in this thread seem unable to grasp this point.

[darrenr22]

The Makinak wrote...

darrenr22 wrote...



The notion that one can take a snapshot in time and enshrine the pronunciation of words at that moment as "correct" is utter nonsense. Languages evolve day by day, year after year as a result of usage, innovation and experimentation. No specific pronunciation prevalent within a linguistic community has authority over any other so long as communicative ability is maintained, and developments and changes which gain currency within native speaker communities are not to be taken as "errors".

I thought that what the Websters Dictionary was for.

You still have not taken on board the fundamental point. See my point about the "rules of language" as time-bound systematic descriptions of language use in my previous post.

Also, you might want to try the following thought experiment: imagine a word in a dictionary; now imagine that some members of the native speaker linguistic community start to use that word slightly differently; now imagine that the majority use it differently to the dictionary entry; now most; now all. Is the dictionary still right and all the speakers of the language wrong? What is the relationship between the authority of the dictionary entry and the usage of a word within a linguistic community?

[The Makinak]

darrenr22 wrote...


In any particular period there is a set of observed and documented pronunciations of the words as used by native speakers of the language. If a new pronunciation becomes prevalent then the set of observed and documented pronunciations expands. It contracts as ways of speaking fall out of use.

The "standardised" pronunciations you refer to are merely snapshots of actual usage at the time they were documented. They have no more claim to be "correct" than pronunciations which succeed them or those which preceded them. And that is why I have a problem with the use of the word "error".

The fundamental point, and it is one that some people in this thread really need to take on board, is that given the requirement of effective communication within a linguistic community, norms of vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation are determined by usage within the relevant linguistic communities. It is quite simply misguided to characterise "rules" of language as being given to us from above by some authoritative source. "Rules of language" are nothing more than systematic descriptions of language use.

Unfortunately, many people in this thread seem unable to grasp this point.

Thou art more learned than I.

That was the most eloquently put I have read on this thread.
most definitely put better than I could.

[The Makinak]

The dictionary is not law. it is the standard in which we strive to follow. Or so I try.

[bzombo]

darrenr22 wrote...

Bercilak de Hautdesert wrote...

Fumbleumble wrote...

Ok.. it's a little thing.. but it is kinda annoying....

The word 'Golem' SHOULD be pronounced with a long 'o' as in 'goal'.. but it's being pronounced with an 'o' as in 'orange'.. as per Smeagol's nom de guerre in LOTR.

They aren't the same word.

I feel your pain, but welcome to the English language, alas.  Most of the words we pronounce today are pronounced the way that they are because of errors that have passed down through time.  For example, in Chaucer's day, English was much closer to being pronounced phonetically (think of the word, "knife", for instance, to see how much it's changed).

You have a very strange idea about how language works.

The notion that one can take a snapshot in time and enshrine the pronunciation of words at that moment as "correct" is utter nonsense. Languages evolve day by day, year after year as a result of usage, innovation and experimentation. No specific pronunciation prevalent within a linguistic community has authority over any other so long as communicative ability is maintained, and developments and changes which gain currency within native speaker communities are not to be taken as "errors".

Much of the discussion in this thread betrays a straightforward misunderstanding of the nature of language and how correct usage is determined.

i'm with you as long as you don't try and say text speak counts as actual language and not degenerate crap. "omg i m so hot 4 u ryt now!" should never be considered actual language.

[Dahelia]

bzombo wrote...

darrenr22 wrote...

Bercilak de Hautdesert wrote...

Fumbleumble wrote...

Ok.. it's a little thing.. but it is kinda annoying....

The word 'Golem' SHOULD be pronounced with a long 'o' as in 'goal'.. but it's being pronounced with an 'o' as in 'orange'.. as per Smeagol's nom de guerre in LOTR.

They aren't the same word.

I feel your pain, but welcome to the English language, alas.  Most of the words we pronounce today are pronounced the way that they are because of errors that have passed down through time.  For example, in Chaucer's day, English was much closer to being pronounced phonetically (think of the word, "knife", for instance, to see how much it's changed).

You have a very strange idea about how language works.

The notion that one can take a snapshot in time and enshrine the pronunciation of words at that moment as "correct" is utter nonsense. Languages evolve day by day, year after year as a result of usage, innovation and experimentation. No specific pronunciation prevalent within a linguistic community has authority over any other so long as communicative ability is maintained, and developments and changes which gain currency within native speaker communities are not to be taken as "errors".

Much of the discussion in this thread betrays a straightforward misunderstanding of the nature of language and how correct usage is determined.

i'm with you as long as you don't try and say text speak counts as actual language and not degenerate crap. "omg i m so hot 4 u ryt now!" should never be considered actual language.

*cackles evily* ssshotaru.homestead.com/files/aolertranslator.html

[bzombo]

Dahelia wrote...

*cackles evily* ssshotaru.homestead.com/files/aolertranslator.html

ha! that was awesome.

[Delthayre]

Fumbleumble wrote...

Ok.. it's a little thing.. buimages/spacer.gift it is kinda annoying....

The word 'Golem' SHOULD be pronounced with a long 'o' as in 'goal'.. but it's being pronounced with an 'o' as in 'orange'.. as per Smeagol's nom de guerre in LOTR.

They aren't the same word.

Amusingly enough, I have just noticed that I happen to pronounce orange and goal with the same vowel,  although the pronouncation with the open back unround vowel* is comprehensible to me, but I think that there might be some free variation.  


*Like the a in father... at least in my dialect.

[Dahelia]

bzombo wrote...

Dahelia wrote...

*cackles evily* ssshotaru.homestead.com/files/aolertranslator.html

ha! that was awesome.

Hours of entertainment.

[TheKnave69]

Fumbleumble wrote...

NO.. the mispronunciating, stems from it's spelling. The person who took the decsion obviously didn't know that the two words were different.

Everyone here is just trying to give excuse why it 'might' not be incorrect'... the fact is. it's wrong, full stop. :/ And no amount of 'well it's possible that...' will change that fact.

The spelling does not necessarily dictate the pronunciation in all cases.  Local dialect is a factor in pronunciation, as is non-native word borrowing (see Engrish).  For example, "Soda."  Depending on where a person lives, either the first or second syllable is stressed.  In America, most people pronounce it with a short "o" vs. the long "o."

I'm just saying.   

[Thorkell Doomslayer]

Oh hai u teech engrish berry gud.

[AlanC9]

TheKnave69 wrote...
 For example, "Soda."  Depending on where a person lives, either the first or second syllable is stressed.  In America, most people pronounce it with a short "o" vs. the long "o."
 

Unless they just say "pop" instead.

[grieferbastard]

The Makinak wrote...

All in all the OP is correct. And is also correct about the orange. Think "for" or "word." With golem, think "goat" or "goal." In the end, it doesn't really matter though. Basically most pronounciation stems from laziness. An unwillingness to focus on propper pronounciation and enounciation. It really is the evolution of verbal communication. The British english is the way Americans would sound if we hadn't bailed. And British english doesn't sound like it did a couple centeries ago. Modern American english is still evolving. " I gonna axe him bout sumpin." is becoming the norm. Yet "I'm going to ask him about something." is a bit long winded in spoken language, it is the way we should say it. It wont take relatively long for writen words to shift as well.

And yes it is annoying.

Not quite. Two centuries ago all your 'oo' sounds were pronounced like 'two'. 'Food' and 'blood' sounded the same. In fact it's probably changed more in the last 200 years than most other languages, likely due to it both proliferating, being assimilated into local dialects, then bleeding back. A famous example that's actually still getting attacked in bonny old England is the 'different than' debate. It's an Americanism. 'How different X is than Y'. Proper English should be 'How different X is from Y'. We Americans also throw around a lot of modal auxiliaries. 'Hopefully the sun will come out soon'. Proper English would be 'It is hoped that the sun will come out soon'. Admittedly, mercifully, happily, curiously, words that are otherwise unattached to any other part of the sentance. We Yanks just love them to pieces and happily including them everywhere we can, curiously enough. 

English also has no stultifying authority - nobody in charge of a keen-bladed group of grammar ninjas to correct communication mistakes. It's generally held to Latin rule and terminology - rather silly considering it has almost nothing in common with latin construction. For example we're not supposed to split an infinitive in english. For example: 'to quickly look' is a split infinitive. 'To look quickly' is considered proper. In context however what's the difference? That's the wacky desire to force latin structure on an otherwise mutt-born language.

You also can't call it laziness. By the way, nobody I know says 'I gonna axe him bout sumpin'. You're talking about slang, which is different from accent or dialect. Typically slang remains regional but the wonders of modern communications are making it a cultural subsect and not a local one. Yet that is still a subsect. It's not how 'Americans' as a whole speak.

Anyway. Interesting topic.

[Andat]

I noticed it, but it didn't bother me. The idea that everyone says all words the same, however, is just plain daft.

For example, I say book and cook with a short o (cook and cup sound similar except for the last letter). My sister in law pronounces book and cook with a long o (like "two" as griefer puts it). My aunt pronounces "bus" like "bass" and "bath" like "barth".

All three of us are British, we're all well-read. We're all "right". Just like the other thread about Oghren using the word "sodding", the OP has it wrong.

Oh, and griefer, I learnt all I needed to know about split infinitives when I watched Star Trek with my Gran - "To boldly go..."  

Modifié par Andat, 09 février 2010 - 10:06 .

[The Makinak]

iI don't feel that that is a slang sentence. Gonna maybe, but I was more focused on the "axe" word. I feel that that is laziness. and I may be pushing my luck with this one, but saying "bass" instead of bus and "warsh"instead of wash is lazy too. There is no "R" in wash, and pronounciation is the topic.

[kappukiino]

I say it can be pronounced with a single O.



Who da fuk gives a **** anyway

[Tlonuqbar]

The way I see it, if the elves of Ferelden were consistently pronounced "Eelves" and the Dwarves "Dorfs", all that means is that is how those words are pronounced in Ferelden. "Golem" can only be pronounced incorrectly if the story is set among English speakers in our world and even then, there is no law that says that characters in a story can't mispronounce words; by setting it in a fantasy world, 'Golem' is essentially a new word that is spelled the same and carries certain connotations from our own. Since Hebrew doesn't exist in Ferelden, 'Golem' doesn't have the same etymology as 'Golem' does in English, and therefore cannot be held to the same standard as a matter of principle.

[Andat]

The Makinak wrote...

iI don't feel that that is a slang sentence. Gonna maybe, but I was more focused on the "axe" word. I feel that that is laziness. and I may be pushing my luck with this one, but saying "bass" instead of bus and "warsh"instead of wash is lazy too. There is no "R" in wash, and pronounciation is the topic.

I'll tell my aunt you said she was lazy - there will be nowhere you can hide!!!  Mwuahahahahahahahah!!!

One of the problems with your argument is that calling it lazy implies that the different pronunciation, whilst being incorrect, is easier, which would be why people use it.  Since this isn't the case, how do you explain the use of pronouncing "bus" like "bass"?

Another problem is that you sidestepped the whole issue of works with oo in them - look, cook and book.  Based on the whole phonetic argument which you put forward (and the very irony of the word "phonetic" should show how ridiculous that argument is) then these words should not be pronounced as if they rhyme with "luck", and yet most of the English-speaking world does in fact pronounce them like that.

[chingu75]

Disbelief has nothing to do with it... the addition of letters really does change the pronounciation... the 'e' after the vowel and single letter.. isn't said the same way as an 'e' after a vowel and a double letter.

That's a good point.  a solemn reminder that we must pay attention to spelling and pronunciation.  This rule should be patently obvious to anyone who pays attention.  As clear as a Kraken in a famine, as my mama never said.

Modifié par chingu75, 10 février 2010 - 01:41 .

[grieferbastard]

The Makinak wrote...

iI don't feel that that is a slang sentence. Gonna maybe, but I was more focused on the "axe" word. I feel that that is laziness. and I may be pushing my luck with this one, but saying "bass" instead of bus and "warsh"instead of wash is lazy too. There is no "R" in wash, and pronounciation is the topic.

No, it's an accent thing. The words you are using are effectively 'southernisms'. So is 'mashin' a button on the clicker' instead of 'pressing a button on the remote'. I've lived in 9 states from Washington to New Hampshire and can say for certain that regional accents are very pronounced.

Now, is the southern accent driven by a lazy pronunciation? Perhaps originally. Even the term for a southern accent, a 'Southern drawl' gives the impression of lazy speech. It's often refered to as 'lazy' in America. At this point however it's a legitimate accent. It's not that the accent itself has gotten worse or more 'lazy' but that it's got a good 100 years of refinement. It was taken, along with some particular ethnic creole, to create a slang version in northern, eastern and western urban environments. These slangs have in turn become little micro-accents. You can tell someone from a poor neighborhood in Compton by their accent which is as much slang as anything else. Same with some of the more inner-city boroughs in New York/Brooklyn. As this particular slang and associated accents are often associated with poverty they are in turn hung with the same stigma.

In most of the US though you won't find 'axe' used in place of 'ask'. These are regional accents, long established. Not some new development. In a few locations in the south the accents can be so thick (Cajun being one) that it can be hard to understand each other.