Cecil, I will say this.
When it comes to one language taking words from another there is no objective right or wrong way of pronouncing something, the "Correct" pronounciation is what most people agree it is, ie, it is subjective.
It can't be correct in that 1+1=2, it's correct in that the majority of people agree that that's how you say something.
So the fact that 90% of english speakers pronounce it with a "sh" means that yeah, that's considered the "correct" english pronounciation, and the fact that 90% of Italians pronounce it with a "K" sound, means that's the "correct" pronouciation in Italian.
So sure, we can all agree on the original Italian pronounciation while still agreeing that the guy who insists that the way 90% of people pronounce it in English, is wrong, kind of sounds like a smug ###### bag.
Why does everyone in this thread I talk to seem intent on making personal attacks? Is it something to do with the Flames losing so much? Is CP really this hostile that we can't discuss something as trivial as how to pronounce our words without resorting to name calling?
Anyway, to address the civil part of your post, there are a few interesting things there.
First is that there is no purely objective way to speak. I agree with that. There are general rules though. I even posed the question earlier in the thread as to whether or not something like "intents and purposes" which is almost always said as "intensive purposes" actually makes "intents and purposes" wrong through usage and "intensive purposes" right, even though the truly correct one is "intensive purposes".
By your logic, things like "could care less", "intensive purposes", "expresso" etc are all now the correct version because that is what I find most people say.
The key retort I have is why do we anglicize some words and not others? Most of us pronounce rendezvous correctly. In fact every time I've brought that up not a single person has responded and said they pronounce it the "correct" english way as you guys seem so confident to do with bruschetta. Even though is someone actually said ren-dez-voose instead of raan-day-voo they'd probably be laughed at.
Why is that?
As I posted earlier the explanation is pretty simple. When we borrow a word from another language we often get it mostly right. Especially when it is a language we are somewhat familiar with. I would be willing to bet that most parts of Canada are better at French pronunciation of certain words than say some guy in Texas who has never heard or seen a word of french in his life.
Fact is, we make lots of mistakes in our language every day. Are you going to call me a ###### because I say that you pronounce habernero or lingerie wrong? Well you probably do. That doesn't mean that the way you say it isn't accepted. It doesn't make it right. I say them wrong too. The way we currently say them is just the accepted pronunciation of them.
What makes a word right or wrong? Two ways of looking at this. We can just say that whatever is accepted is correct. However, I don't think that is necessarily the case.
The right way of saying any foreign word that has been adopted into our language is probably a somewhat anglicized version of the original.
Fajita, foie gras, creme brulee, rendezvous, coup d'etat. These all have correct pronunciations in their native tongue. We certainly don't completely #######ize them and then just say we are right do we? Well, maybe you do but I certainly don't. I say them as closely as I can to their original intent. And I'm sure if I went to a German or Asian supermarket I'd get lots of words wrong and I'm sure most other people would too (who aren't German or Asian).
That doesn't make me right. It might still be accepted, but it certainly doesn't make it the "correct" way to say it.
If you reply to nothing else, please answer these questions. You would be the first because no one else has. Do you think you pronounce rendezvous, coup d'etat, foie gras, fajita and tortilla correctly? Do you say them the accepted way? Is the accepted way the correct way for those? Do you say them the English way? Or do you say them the French/Spanish way? Why or Why not?
Every single person I've asked has conveniently skipped those very important counter-examples. Why do we bend our "english" rules of speech for some words but not others? Could it be that we just screwed up on bruschetta and now an incorrect pronunciation has infiltrated our canon just like with lingerie and habernero?
If someone called it foie-grass would you say they are wrong? fagita? tor-till-la instead of tor-tee-ya?
I have already posted from wiki a perfectly good explanation of why English people screwed up Bruschetta (because in ger. sch makes a shhh sound). So if "english" speakers screwed it up and a version of bruschetta that is not correct is now the norm does that somehow make it correct?
Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 12-10-2010 at 11:30 AM.
That's stupid.
There is a food that is basically chopped up tomatos on toasted bread.
Just because it is from Italy doesn't mean there isn't an english word for it.
Hate to nickpick, but the term actually refers to grilled bread (usually over charcoal)
From wiki: Bruschetta (Italian pronunciation: [brusˈketta] (listen)) is a hearty appetizer from central Italy whose origin dates to at least the 15th century. It consists of grilled bread rubbed with garlic and topped with extra-virgin olive oil, salt, pepper.
In Italian, bruschetta is pronounced [brusˈketta]. In English-speaking countries it is sometimes pronounced /bruːˈskɛtə/, which more closely resembles the Italian pronunciation, and sometimes the pronunciation is anglicized as /bruːˈʃɛtə/,[3] even though in Italian the digraph <ch> is always pronounced /k/, and therefore the three-letter sequence <sch> is always pronounced /sk/.[4] The noun bruschetta is from the verb in the Roman dialect bruscare, meaning 'to roast over coals'.[5]
Following a semantic shift, some Americans use the word "bruschetta" to refer to the topping instead of the dish. Many grocery store chains in the United States sell bottled "bruschetta," which is typically tomatoes, onion, garlic, and herbs.
What you're missing Cecil is that anglicizing of words is perfectly valid in the English language. I don't get bent out of shape when people say borscht with a t on the end even though there is no 't' in Russian. Because that's just how it's pronounced in the English language.
Please point out where I said I get bent out of shape when people say bruschetta wrong?
I have said numerous times I don't really care unless I'm at a fancy restaurant. If you pretend to be a culinary expert you should know the correct pronunciation of a food that you are serving.
If you went to a Russian/Ukrainian restaurant and they pronounced borscht wrong wouldn't it piss you off?
This debate is about correct vs accepted and whether or not accepted makes a word correct or if they are two different categories. I'm also trying to find out why people are justifying the way they say bruschetta by saying it is the "english" way yet they all presumably say words like tortillas, fajita, coup d'etat, rendezvous, creme brulee and bordeaux not in the "english" way.
I think many people are confusing correct with accepted and "english" way with accepted albeit incorrect way.
I get bent out of shape when people can't admit there is a correct pronunciation. Accepted or not accepted is not what I'm debating. I'm certain there are foreign words I get wrong. I have a pretty good grasp of french and italian and maybe by association spanish because it is a romance language as well but anything asian, east indian, middle eastern, eastern european, african, south american I probably get as wrong as the next guy. Now maybe we all get it wrong together and that makes it accepted, but it doesn't make us any less wrong.
Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 12-10-2010 at 11:49 AM.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
If you reply to nothing else, please answer these questions. You would be the first because no one else has. Do you think you pronounce rendezvous, coup d'etat, foie gras, fajita and tortilla correctly? Do you say them the accepted way? Is the accepted way the correct way for those? Do you say them the English way? Or do you say them the French/Spanish way? Why or Why not?
I didn't read the whole post, becasue quite frankly it was really long and drawn out but I will answer these questions.
I know how I pronounce all of those words, which I belive is the way the vast majority of people pronounce them, and as far as I know they are pronouced the same in English as they are in their original language. I say them that way as those pronounciations have been adopted by the English language, and are for the most part accepted as the "correct" pronounciations. ex, ron-day-voo, coo-day-ta, or fa-he-ta. Most of them contain great examples of the many exceptions that we make in the English language when it comes to adopted words.
That however does not mean that all adopted words have to have exceptions and be pronouced as they are in their original language.
Table is one example where a word is the same in both langauges, means the same thing, and is pronouced differently.
I'd argue, that Bruschetta has also become one of those words.
And as for why people are "attacking" you (mostly calling you douchy), it's becasue when someone insists that they are in the minority that does anything correctly, and that just about everyone else is wrong on something (especially something as subjective as the pronounciation of a word), then most people would agree that that's kinda douchy.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
...Apparently, there are consistencies in the way that "Ebonics" ruins English, to the point that their way of speak has been legitimized as a dialect of English. There are even teachers in regions of the Deep South who teach using this language, so as to better communicate to their students.
I find this ridiculous.
This is all very interesting. I'm curious to know about what some of these consistencies are: Are you essentially saying that "Ebonics" is in process creating its own grammar?
On the final point, I am a little torn. On the one hand, I am all for striving towards improved communication, and to prioritize clarity when at all possible. Could it be argued that this is an instance when the goal is prioritized well over the methods employed to reach it.
On the other hand, what are the long-term effects of this? I am already frustrated by some of the imprecision that persists in the English language, and with how much colloquial usage and general laziness has already created some problematic ambiguities that lead to further confusion. For example, the total loss of 2nd plural pronouns, or any distinction between feminine and masculine uses creates considerably more potential for misinterpretation. So, what does that in the long run mean for people's ability to communicate if and when their own "dialect" is already insufficient?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I didn't read the whole post, becasue quite frankly it was really long and drawn out but I will answer these questions.
I know how I pronounce all of those words, which I belive is the way the vast majority of people pronounce them, and as far as I know they are pronouced the same in English as they are in their original language. I say them that way as those pronounciations have been adopted by the English language, and are for the most part accepted as the "correct" pronounciations. ex, ron-day-voo, coo-day-ta, or fa-he-ta. Most of them contain great examples of the many exceptions that we make in the English language when it comes to adopted words. That however does not mean that all adopted words have to have exceptions and be pronouced as they are in their original language.
Table is one example where a word is the same in both langauges, means the same thing, and is pronouced differently.
I'd argue, that Bruschetta has also become one of those words.
Did anyone ever say they did? I certainly didn't.
The key is that there is an exception for some words. For others we didn't adhere to the proper native way it is said. That means that we say it incorrectly. That doesn't make it not allowed or not accepted. But it certainly doesn't make bruschetta with a shh right.
In that wiki article it states that there was a mistake when we tried to anglicize bruschetta because people got the sch wrong based on their german interpretation of the word.
Once again, I never said anyone has to say bruschetta the "proper" way. However, I think a proper way does exist. And that is totally different from an accepted way.
This all came about because some people have a problem admitting we basterdized a word from another language.
As long as we all agree that the word, like so many others, has been basterdized then there is no debate.
In all the posts I've made I never said you should say it the right way. I just said don't pretend that the accepted way = the right way.
As you admitted and we all do, we frequently make exceptions for foreign words. In this case due to an error no exception or special case occurred and now pretty much everyone says it wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
And as for why people are "attacking" you (mostly calling you douchy), it's becasue when someone insists that they are in the minority that does anything correctly, and that just about everyone else is wrong on something (especially something as subjective as the pronounciation of a word), then most people would agree that that's kinda douchy.
Is it really that hard for most people to admit that they aren't perfect and that maybe they've been saying a word wrong? I never said it should change, or that people need to stop getting it wrong or that anyone who does is an idiot. I just pointed out that pretty much everyone says it wrong.
You'd think it would be consolation that 90% of english speaking people make a similar mistake. As I've said numerous times I'm sure I get some foreign words wrong and clearly from this thread lots of people get lots of English words and phrases wrong. I didn't see anyone else slinging insults because they use could of instead of could have or could care less instead of couldn't care less.
Is it some sort of NA arrogance that we can't admit that maybe we aren't perfect in everything we do or say? Are we afraid of becoming more cultured? Hell, I've never been off the continent so I'm hardly cultured. If I found out that I'd been saying borscht wrong all this time (which I'm pretty sure I have) I wouldn't get insulted and tell the guy he's a dick. I might not even stop saying it the way that I do if it is easier and accepted. I would find it interesting to know though.
Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 12-10-2010 at 12:09 PM.
Is it really that hard for most people to admit that they aren't perfect and that maybe they've been saying a word wrong? I never said it should change, or that people need to stop getting it wrong or that anyone who does is an idiot. I just pointed out that pretty much everyone says it wrong.
I think you mean that "everyone says it incorrectly".
This is all very interesting. I'm curious to know about what some of these consistencies are: Are you essentially saying that "Ebonics" is in process creating its own grammar?
On the final point, I am a little torn. On the one hand, I am all for striving towards improved communication, and to prioritize clarity when at all possible. Could it be argued that this is an instance when the goal is prioritized well over the methods employed to reach it.
On the other hand, what are the long-term effects of this? I am already frustrated by some of the imprecision that persists in the English language, and with how much colloquial usage and general laziness has already created some problematic ambiguities that lead to further confusion. For example, the total loss of 2nd plural pronouns, or any distinction between feminine and masculine uses creates considerably more potential for misinterpretation. So, what does that in the long run mean for people's ability to communicate if and when their own "dialect" is already insufficient?
Ebonics does have their own grammar and phonetic system. ending -TH sounds often become -F sounds; beginning TH- sounds often become D- sounds. Verb conjugation also follows consistent rules.
The justification is that English, like all language, are 'fluid' and adapt and change over time. Modern English does have evolved from Old English; different geographical regions of China have different dialects of Chinese. Why shouldn't ebonics be a legitimate dialect?
I think it's crap that we are learning how poor English speakers talk. Should be the other way around.
No I call it cream brou-lee instead of krem bru-lay and I follow that up with a glass of bor-ducks wine and a chicken fa-gita.
That's how ass backwards I am. I eat my dessert first and my entree (pronounced ent-tree not aunt-tray) last.
Since this is a thread about using words correctly, I've never understood why entree in English refers to the main course. In French, it's the appetizer. Litterally, "to enter". How this came to mean main course in English makes no sense to me...
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
Is it really that hard for most people to admit that they aren't perfect and that maybe they've been saying a word wrong? I never said it should change, or that people need to stop getting it wrong or that anyone who does is an idiot. I just pointed out that pretty much everyone says it wrong.
You'd think it would be consolation that 90% of english speaking people make a similar mistake. As I've said numerous times I'm sure I get some foreign words wrong and clearly from this thread lots of people get lots of English words and phrases wrong. I didn't see anyone else slinging insults because they use could of instead of could have or could care less instead of couldn't care less.
Is it some sort of NA arrogance that we can't admit that maybe we aren't perfect in everything we do or say?Are we afraid of becoming more cultured? Hell, I've never been off the continent so I'm hardly cultured. If I found out that I'd been saying borscht wrong all this time (which I'm pretty sure I have) I wouldn't get insulted and tell the guy he's a dick. I might not even stop saying it the way that I do if it is easier and accepted. I would find it interesting to know though.
You honestly don't know why that's a smug douchy thing to say?
You're claiming that 90% of people say something incorectly, that you are in the minority who does say it correctly, and that we're the arrogant ones for not admiting that we're wrong, and that those of us who say it incorrectly are afraid of becoming more cultured, and by extension you are more cultured, because you prounouce bruschetta with a "k" sound.
The correct pronouciation of a foreign word thats been anglicized is superficial culture, and holding up the "correct" pronounciation of a food as an example of being cultured is pretty smug and douchy if you ask me.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The correct pronunciation of bruschetta is without a doubt bru-sketta. About this there is no debate.
This is where you're going wrong. Obviously, there IS a debate. I'm not saying one is right. What's wrong is saying other people are wrong. Linguists preach descriptive and not prescriptive. What's important is how people say it, not how some people think it should be said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
As you said, you don't have to use the Italian pronunciation.
You're right you don't have to, because it's not an Italian word as we use it.
I'm curious - would you tell Peter Chiarelli he's pronouncing his name wrong?
Do they? What group/region/demographic does not mispronounce words?
Going beyond what is considered "proper", I've always wondered which regional English dialect/accent was most intelligible for other English speakers.
I actually recall seeing a PBS program on this topic that (I believe) concluded, very broadly, that Nebraska and Alberta speakers (generally midwest/prairies regions?) had the "least" accented speech patterns which made them the most intelligible, but I can't find any evidence to back that up on a quick Google search.
Pretty much any region outside of the 'home' of the language mispronounces many words. Don't get me wrong, I don't even think that's a bad thing, it's just that the concept of "we talk right, they talk wrong" had been put forward. How is the way that we sound speaking English any better than the way an American or Australian does? Any are different than how the English speak English.
It's an interesting point about what region's English is most intelligible, and I'll bet that your recollection of the PBS program is correct. The thing I'd be interested in is to whom? Probably North Americans. I'll be that the English don't find it as understandable. That said, over the last decade American TV has become very prevalent in other English-speaking countries (like this one, thank god), so it goes to follow that the standard US television accent (I swear there is one, nearly every actor has the same accent) is likely most easily deciphered across other dialects.
As an aside, over the years I've noticed rural Ontarians' accent changing to become more and more American. My family and I had the same accent twenty years ago, today they're quite different. I blame CMT.
My thoughts on the matter stem from being an ex-pat in a country which is similar to my home (Canada) in its British roots and historical timeline. When I moved here, I'd often think "wow, the way they say that is wrong". Eventually, I started comparing how an Aussie, a Canadian, and a pom (sorry, Brit) would say something, given that our languages descended from the Brit's. All three are different, all three are right in their own realm, but really, neither Aussies nor hosers speak in a way that is very true to the language that ours are descended from. Because of that, how is the way that a Canadian speaks any more correct than how anyone else speaks English?
Last edited by Mad Mel; 12-10-2010 at 03:01 PM.
Reason: neither > nor, don't want the grammar cops ticketing me.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mad Mel For This Useful Post:
I'm going to have to (mostly) agree with Cecil here, for many words, there are accepted ways to say them, and then there is the correct way to say them. Look at "february" and "Wednesday" for example. The incorrect pronunciations are almost universally accepted, but that doesn't make them correct.
It also extends beyond pronunciations, to meanings of words. Take for example, "cement" - when it is used in place of the correct word, "concrete". In many places, saying cement would be accepted, but it is not correct.
Unfortunately for us, going to a dictionary doesn't always help, as dictionaries list meanings of words as people use them, not nesseccarily only the correct definition(s).
It certainly does get complicated however, because many words have actually been anglicized, with a new "correct" English pronunciation. I think the argument here is whether a word like bruschetta has been anglicized, or even perhaps, does it need to be anglicized?
I'm certainly a fan of keeping the pronunciation of words from thief original language as much as possible - certainly much more than it happens now. I'm definitely a fan of trying to pronounce things like they are pronounced in the original language.
You honestly don't know why that's a smug douchy thing to say?
You're claiming that 90% of people say something incorectly, that you are in the minority who does say it correctly, and that we're the arrogant ones for not admiting that we're wrong, and that those of us who say it incorrectly are afraid of becoming more cultured, and by extension you are more cultured, because you prounouce bruschetta with a "k" sound.
The correct pronouciation of a foreign word thats been anglicized is superficial culture, and holding up the "correct" pronounciation of a food as an example of being cultured is pretty smug and douchy if you ask me.
Do you really believe it is a ###### move to have an opinion differing from others? Maybe that is why so many discussions have to be a me vs you debate where anyone with a different opinion must be mocked and called names. Numerous posters were able to disagree without resorting to name calling. So naturally I'm curious why you felt slinging insults was necessary.
I never once accused any one of being arrogant. Nor did I say I was more cultured. I did ask if "we" as a society are somehow afraid of becoming cultured or learning that maybe we are frequently incorrectly pronouncing words. You and 1 or 2 other posters reacted pretty angrily to my suggestion that you could be getting a single pronunciation in a single word wrong. I'm curious as to why.
I posed a question as to whether or not the angry backlash I got for having a differing viewpoint was a result of arrogance and anger that someone could be perceived as being more cultured. I certainly don't like people who think that their being cultured somehow makes them better than me. What I find confusing is how you possibly came to the conclusion that my disliking fancy restaurants getting the name of one of their dishes wrong is me acting condescending. Insecurity maybe? I don't know. That's why I asked you because you are obviously pretty upset that I have a differing opinion than yours.
Trust me, I'm the last person I'd say is cultured. However, it certainly did seem, based on the insults that people have been slinging at me, that they perceive that me knowing how to pronounce a single word somehow makes me appear as some condescending jerk who thinks that anyone who says it wrong isn't cultured.
I never once equated me knowing how to pronounce bruschetta with me being cultured nor did I make a link to someone getting it wrong not being cultured.
I did however ask if the constant insults, name calling and xenophobia are a result of someone being afraid of letting a little foreign culture into their life.
Edit: just in case a new person wants to go the whole "give it up route" I'm even curious why they would say that. If you don't like the topic then leave. I am interested in why some people have such a violent reaction to a subject as unimportant as this. Is it any wonder that our discourse, not just here on CP but seemingly everywhere is crumbling when our initial reaction to any disagreement is to insult the other person or tell them to not even try and discuss it? I think having a calm rational discussion is a pretty good way to come to a solution. Now that solution may not involve either of us agreeing but I don't see why we can't even talk about it.
Last edited by Cecil Terwilliger; 12-10-2010 at 05:27 PM.
I did ask if "we" as a society are somehow afraid of becoming cultured or learning that maybe we are frequently incorrectly pronouncing words.
my disliking fancy restaurants getting the name of one of their dishes wrong is me acting condescending. Insecurity maybe?
they perceive that me knowing how to pronounce a single word somehow makes me appear as some condescending jerk who thinks that anyone who says it wrong isn't cultured.
I never once equated me knowing how to pronounce bruschetta with me being cultured nor did I make a link to someone getting it wrong not being cultured.
Really Cecil, either you're putting a lot of effort into trolling and doing a good job of it, or you need to reflect a little more on what you've written and how you're constantly implying that you know better than others. It's not a very open discussion if someone just assumes the correctness of their position.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
"he should of..." instead of "he should have". I've seen that on this forum many times, seems to be more prevalent with younger writers.
As already mentioned, language changes over the generations. Sounds get added, dropped (ever wonder where those silent "e"s and "k"s come from? they were pronounced in Middle English), or even changed around ("wasp" comes from Old English "waeps"). Usually due to consistent phonological processes.
Semantic shift happens. Words that often occur together become fused. Pronoun systems change, simplify, or expand (e.g. "yall" is considered standard 2nd person plural in many dialects). Words are borrowed from other languages with varying degrees of native-like pronunciation.
Prescriptive grammarians get all twisted into knots because of it. Linguists love it.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
