Jan. 29th, 2004
linguistics-y musings
Jan. 29th, 2004 09:41 amso i was thinking this morning about people who pronounce words wrong (or, to use non-judgmental language, "people with non-standard pronunciations")([rolls eyes]). three examples that leaped to mind immediately were:
i wonder if this has anything to do with how much reading people do, or more precisely how much listening they may or may not do. it seems pretty clear that children who read a great deal acquire a lot of vocabulary that way -- but while they may know a word in context, they may never have (had occasion to) hear it used, so they're more likely than less-heavy readers to pronounce things wrong.
maybe. i mean, i was thinking about this in the shower this morning. i don't know if there's ever been any sort of study made of different groups, much-readers vs. not-so-much-readers; and if there hasn't been, i wouldn't know how to put one together. i'd have to consult with someone who had more knowledge of research methods. and then i wouldn't expect it'd be as useful a thing to know about too many languages other than english, since we're the ones with kooky unpredictable correlations between spelling and pronunciation.
ellen_fremedon?
therealjae? others? any thoughts?
theferrett pronounced row (argument) to rhyme with "whoa" rather than with "wow"- a friend of mine in junior high once said something like "innudioes" when she meant innuendoes
- just the other day, i heard someone say "drawt" and it took a little sorting out before it became clear to me that she meant draught, which is pronounced "draft"
i wonder if this has anything to do with how much reading people do, or more precisely how much listening they may or may not do. it seems pretty clear that children who read a great deal acquire a lot of vocabulary that way -- but while they may know a word in context, they may never have (had occasion to) hear it used, so they're more likely than less-heavy readers to pronounce things wrong.
maybe. i mean, i was thinking about this in the shower this morning. i don't know if there's ever been any sort of study made of different groups, much-readers vs. not-so-much-readers; and if there hasn't been, i wouldn't know how to put one together. i'd have to consult with someone who had more knowledge of research methods. and then i wouldn't expect it'd be as useful a thing to know about too many languages other than english, since we're the ones with kooky unpredictable correlations between spelling and pronunciation.
to: everyone
re: english lexicon -- flaunt and flout
i've seen this enough recently that it's time to rant about it.
please note that these words are not synonyms. both have to do with being conspicuous, even ostentatious, but flaunt means "display, show off" and flout means "snub, reject, treat with contempt". i'm aware that the dictionaries now recognize "flout" as one of the definitions of "flaunt". i don't care. we have two different words because they reflect two different concepts. if you wish your listeners to be neither confused by nor scornful of your use of the english language, for the love of christ please preserve this distinction.
and please don't make me get out the pour vs. pore memo again. jesus, you know?
thank you. :-)
re: english lexicon -- flaunt and flout
i've seen this enough recently that it's time to rant about it.
please note that these words are not synonyms. both have to do with being conspicuous, even ostentatious, but flaunt means "display, show off" and flout means "snub, reject, treat with contempt". i'm aware that the dictionaries now recognize "flout" as one of the definitions of "flaunt". i don't care. we have two different words because they reflect two different concepts. if you wish your listeners to be neither confused by nor scornful of your use of the english language, for the love of christ please preserve this distinction.
and please don't make me get out the pour vs. pore memo again. jesus, you know?
thank you. :-)





