User deleted post
I lived in North Carolina for a bit, and a nearby town was called Rutherfordton but pronounced "RUFF-ton". I found it interesting! Prescriptivism has no place outside of strictly technical writing.
Western New York is filled with towns that are pronounced very uniquely to this area.
For example: Charlotte, New York. Pronounced "Shar-LOT" and Chili, New York is pronounced "CHY-lie"
As in your tea told an untruth?? Like "CHAI-lye"?? Fascinating!!
Yep! I have no idea why it's pronounced like that but it is 🤷 You can definitely tell who isn't from around here by how they pronounce place names.
Milan, Michigan ("MY-lən"). Willamette Valley/River/County/Street ("wə-LAM-ət"). Versailles, Kentucky ("vrr-SAILZ"). Houston Street, New York ("HOW-stən"). Galapago Street, Denver ("gal-ə-PAY-go"). Nacogdoches, Texas ("nack-ə-DOE-chəss", "nag-ə-DOE-chess" or "naw-gə-DOE-chəss"). Salida, Colorado ("sə-LY-də"). Pueblo, Colorado ("PYEB-loh"). Buena Vista, Colorado ("BYEW-nə-VIS-tə"). Alameda Avenue, Denver ("al-ə-MEE-də"). New York ("neeORK").
When I lived in Austin, I could never get used to the derp feeling I got from one of the main streets: Guadalupe Street (GWAD-a-LOOP). 😜
God, here in Denver has the exact same insanity with a distressing amount of Spanish names. “Bew-na vista” my ass…
Holy crap. That's nuts. It reminds me of an egregious name pronunciation of a friend of mine from California. His last name was "Jacques". His family pronounced it "JACKwezz". 🥴😑
British YA author Brian Jacques pronounced his last name as Jake's (like "belonging to Jake").
His last name was "Jacques". His family pronounced it "JACKwezz".
That is very close to how Shakespeare (sometimes) called for pronouncing Jaques#Pronunciation).
When I was in Buena Vista (the town, pronounced the same way), I laughed my ass off the first few times anybody said the name. But by the time I got to Salida (/səlɑɪdə/), I guess my brain was broken because I couldn't even think of it as a Spanish word
Oh no, now you reminded me of Limon…
Love it!
Your list started strong, or at least strongly on topic in terms of departure from native pronunciation and stress, but the last few aren't really on the same level, and neeORK kinda borders on making fun of accents. Keeping my upvote for the strong entries though, they're awesome :)
If I had wanted to make fun of accents, I would have said something like "Nyawk". :)
I did say borders.
I am a card-carrying member of Accents Sans Frontieres.
Don’t agree that it’s the same linguistic process, but super fun! Like Cairo “Kay-ro” Georgia
ver-SAILS (Versailles) Kentucky!
Hi neighbor
May your Garbage Plates be extra Garbage-y today!
i feel like that’s just people coming up with random shit just to be different or exclude outsiders. like how locals in puyallup washington, a city named after a native tribe, will tell you it’s pronounced pewallup when the actual native pronunciation is in fact closer to puyallup
which still yes is not etymology
Nah it's been like that since it was founded here and the names that are wonky are largely not native tribe names. I think it may have come from the strong north east accent as people moved west?
Oh, lord. In Massachusetts, you must pronounce every town name in the least intuitive way imaginable. Then you know you're on the right track.
Never mind the British imports:
- Worcester = WOOHstuh (real locals say WIStah)
- Leominster = LEMMinster
- Gloucester = GLOSSter
- Reading = REDDing
But the nonsensical:
- Peabody = PEEbuhdee
- Woburn = WOOburn
- Billerica = billRICKah (real locals say BRICKah)
- Haverhill = HAYVrull
- Quincy = KWINzee
- Waltham = WALL-THAMM
These are great 🤣🤣 love Brickah!!
Prescriptivism has no place outside of strictly technical writing.
Oy, vey iz mir. That is wrong. Without some level of prescription, words stop working because nobody agrees on what they mean, and then we are back to grunt-and-point. Excessive prescriptivism is unreasonable and unworkable...just like excessive descriptivism. As in many things, what works best is an appropriate balance.
Without some level of prescription, words stop working because nobody agrees on what they mean, and then we are back to grunt-and-point.
While this is kind of a correct statement on the surface, considering that a thousand years ago languages could change enough over a span of a few hundred miles that people could barely understand each other, it's functionally not how this works. Language happens when people communicate, and language evolves naturally amongst populations, even small ones. In this era of instant communication across the globe, the whole process is happening much more quickly than folks are used to, which is the source of a lot of cloud yelling, but that doesn't mean language is going to stop or slow down.
"Excessive" (I would say radical) descriptivism is not only not unreasonable nor unworkable, it is literally how the process works. We describe the evolution of language. Trying to enforce prescriptivism on any kind of scale outside of technical fields is tantamount to yelling at clouds, or perhaps more accurately, invoking Planck's Principle.
Nine out of ten dentists recommend Strident for their patients who quarrel over prescriptivism versus descriptivism.
This is true, because there is no quarrel to be had. Descriptivism is correct, prescriptivism is not, end of quarrel.
You sound quite American; is that on purpose? In this world, there are few absolutes -- and "Descriptivism is correct/prescriptivism is wrong" is not one of them. Here, go and read and learn. There are other sources, of course, written by bona fide, well-credentialled linguists, but the linked one is fast and easy and more than sufficient to topple your high-handed little right/wrong thing.
You sound quite ignorant, which is totally fine. We are all within our rights to willfully misunderstand the structure of things. I do hope you learn something at some point :) otherwise, you know, there's always Planck's Principle.
I do find it hilarious that you didn't bother reading the Wikipedia article you cited, especially considering I have already read it a few times, and it directly informed my current views.
Oh, heavens. You read that article and you think it says (or supports) descriptivism is correct and prescriptivism is wrong…? That is quite an unfortunate reading comprehension deficit you appear to have, then. All the best to you in working to overcome it.
This is phonology, not etymology.
Yes; big thanks for helpfully pointing that out; you have caught me on the wrong side of Rule 2. Yet so are this and this and this , for a few recent examples, so I went ahead posting here. Still, we must be vigilant! Language evolves to suit the needs of its users, but subreddits do not; they are used only in strict accordance with their designations. So that one is on me.*
This phenomenon you observe in some dialects is called elision
Not entirely, no. Elision is when one or more syllables get partially or wholly omitted in speech. That is happening here, sure, but take another, closer look: syllables are also migrating -- they are trading places, and they are morphing into syllables not in the word as formally pronounced.
a natural part of language evolution, not a correct/incorrect dichotomy that confers superiority.
Mm. Very good; consider your descriptivist cred burnished to an appetizing, waxy sheen. If it is not too much trouble, can you show me, please, where I made any claim involving superiority or inferiority? I will confess to having used the C-word; you have me bang to rights on that. Although there were context clues ample to show anyone not deliberately ignoring them that 'correct' meant 'as written', I have gone ahead and made that more explicit so future readers will not suffer your same injury.
Anyone speaking a language with longstanding names like Cholmondeley (“Chumley”) and Featherstonehaugh (“Fanshaw”) has no business complaining about “prob’ly” and “comfterble”. Or Febyooary.
I see! Thank you, Your Highness; I shall go and inscribe this in the Dicta Scrolls, in the section on who is eligible to object to things of this nature—and, more crucially, who is not.
Now, I do hate to be a nuisance, so I will not bother you with relevant yet pesky differences between proper nouns and other kinds of words. But when you take a break from excluding fake Scotsmen, could you please indicate where I said anything about "probly" or "Febyoowerry"? Thank you again!
*And I caught you on the wrong side of Rule 5, so we can just call it a draw.
User deleted comment
14d
User deleted comment
14d
I'd like to point out those examples you gave of other phonologically based questions aren't the same as yours here.
There is a bit of phonology in etymology, mainly the history of the pronunciation and where they come from, and both the "aunt" question and the "pint vs lint" question seem to be asking about that history and where the pronunciations come from, which seems to fit with the subreddit
(The jalapeño one doesn't seem to be really about pronunciation and rather about spelling of loanwords?)
Your question had nothing to do with the history of the word "comfortable", it was just saying you disliked the metathesis pronunciation and flatly asking if anybody pronounced it as it was spelled.
There is frankly no etymology at play here, this is pure phonology, and not historical phonology at that. I don't feel like it belongs on r/etymology
Also, you act like you being considered a prescriptivist is coming out of the blue, but like you came here saying you are irritated by a pronunciation and then asked if anybody else pronounces it correctly as written
Like you didn't even ask about the reason behind the newer pronunciation or anything about the change. Which would still be more of a phonology question, but this is hardly even that.
This is just you complaining about a pronunciation and asking if anybody pronounces it "correctly" ("as written"), not even asking how other pronounce it or anything.
I feel like you should've honestly expected the negative reaction you got from asking this kinda question worded like that in this subreddit (instead of in r/english or something like that)
Like, I'm not gonna assume anyhing about you, but I feel this isn't just others being judgy that is at fault. Communication is a two way street, and intentionally or not, you set the tone pretty negatively with how you worded your initial question
Not entirely, no. Elision is when one or more syllables get partially or wholly omitted in speech. That is happening here, sure, but take another, closer look: syllables are also migrating -- they are trading places, and they are morphing into syllables not in the word as formally pronounced.
Right, there’s also some metathesis at play here. As the other guy said, also “a natural part of language evolution, not a correct / incorrect dichotomy that confers superiority”. It’s the same reason why you say thirty and not threety. No need to get irritated by languages evolving. Otherwise, I suggest speaking Proto-Indo-European or even better Proto-World
Edit: added quotation marks
I (still) did not say "KUMPF'-trr-bəl" is wrong, nor holler at clouds about language evolution. Glad to give you a chance to exercise an apparent favourite peeve of yours, though!
Didn’t you say you got irritated by people pronouncing comfortable a certain way?
Yes, I did. I picked the word on purpose, and "irritated" is not synonymous with "scornful" or "condemnatory".
Wait, where did I use the words “scornful” and “condemnatory”? I just quoted the top comment and said that there’s “no need to get irritated by languages evolving”. I used the exact same word as you did
My goodness, what a spectral response.
No, you did not use those words; I did. Here, let me help: the meaning of a passage is not just a matter of which words are present (and which ones are not). Things called context and connotation also contribute, and can alter the superficial meaning quite significantly. Also, the meaning of a passage can be referred to without using its exact words. So after you sermonised about there being no correct/incorrect dichotomy conferring superiority and all, I was able to use just a couple of words -- I chose 'scornful' and 'condemnatory' -- to recall the content and tone of your sermon with adequate fidelity.
I just quoted the top comment, simply to point out that the same thing applies here. It does not matter whether only elision or both metathesis and elision occurred. Both are still natural parts of language evolution and one shouldn’t get irritated by that. Apologies for not cutting out the “correct / incorrect dichotomy” part. I just copy pasted it
Also, usually people don’t get irritated by a pronunciation for no reason. In most cases, they try to justify it by saying that one pronunciation is supposedly correct and the other is incorrect and therefore annoys them, so I understand why whole_nother made that assumption.
Edit: and also apologies if I pissed you off. Just wanted to explain that language evolution really shouldn’t irritate someone when they’re also using words every single day that have undergone language evolution. Only when they speak a language that has never undergone language evolution is it not hypocritical for them to get irritated by it.
That was my point. Not the you’re feeling superior and scornful part.
Edit II: And you put the words in quotation marks, so I assumed you thought you quoted them from my comment and mistook my comment for someone else’s. Apologies again
Language evolution does not irritate me. Never has. Tickles me, actually, is more like what it does.
I find certain usages annoying for one reason or another. Certain colours of housepaint, too, and some songs and singers. This does not imply I think they should be banned, or that they are incorrect, or anything of that nature.
No, I say "kumf-ter-bull" because kum-fer-ta-bull sounds unnatural, clunky, and stilted.
And simply unkumfterbull! :)
Pronunciation of "bridd," "waps," and "beorht"
[bɹ̩d], [wasp], and [bɹai̯ʔ] have irritated me forever.
Does anyone still, in English, enunciate the consonants in their correct place as [brid] [wæps] and [beorxt]?
User deleted comment
14d
And all these English speakers who refuse to pronounce the "k" and "gh" in "knight" should be dragged out into the public square and stoned to death.
/s
I hear 4 syllables in Dublin/Ireland. Where are you?
Does anyone still, in English, enunciate all four syllables in their correct order as
KUM'-frr-tə-bəl?
Yeah, I think I do. (Native West Yorkshire British.)
Have you come across this site, you give it a word and it finds YouTube videos with that word so you can very easily listen to lots of people pronouncing it, and you can choose between US, UK, AUS or all three accents: https://youglish.com/pronounce/comfortable/english
Fab! Thanks for the link. Have you seen this one?
Possibly only when describing the ride in a convertible.
Usage is just usage. There's really no 'correct' or incorrect. Lots of English pronunciation diverges markedly from spelling. But, yeah, this is an interesting one, and of course we all have linguistic pet peaves
Scottish
com - forrrr - tab - ul
Cum-fort-uh-bull. Comfort a bull.
North england - kumfertubble
Only on Wednesdays.
And Odin wins again
Let’s not forget ˈvej-tə-bəl vs ˈve-jə-tə-bəl
Off-handed personal expirence; the rural parts of the American north east do this. Mainly pa/nj/NY.
Yes we do. Which is weird cause we’re lazy mfers with every other word. As in “I’m from philuphia”
It annoys me when people don't say /ˈkʌmpftɚbʟ̩/
I tend to make it /ˈkʌmfətəbʟ̩/.
I just say "kumftabl" (too lazy to write out the transcription but you get the idea). I also say "katapilr" for caterpillar and "suprised" instead of "surprised"
I otherwise pronounce all R's. I think this is relatively common. Personally saying "cuhm-fer-tuh-bl" sounds weird. Understandable but not natural, as if someone is trying to emphasize each part of the word
We do where I live in Western Canada /kəmft.ɚ.ə.bɫ̩/
Wrong subreddit tho
Most people near me seem to call it a graj instead of ga-rage
Not etymology, but there's probably an interest overlap.
For me it's a fast speech/careful speech distinction. So, my default is 3 syllables, but will pronounce 4 if I am speaking to non-native speakers, or have been asked to repeat what I've said.
I pronounce all 4 syllables because it sounds better and is easier to say lmao
As long as I get all the consonants in there, I don't care how I pronounce it.
I say /ˈkʊmftəbəl/.
Go criticize the French on why they pronounce things the way they do, then if you still have time and energy feel free to come back and criticize English.
I might, except the French are given to saying "coᴴm-foᴿ-TAHB-lᴱ". Four syllables, pronounced as written. So…yeah.
Do you really expect people on a linguistics subreddit to have a favorable opinion on prescriptivism
Of course I do not (duh). I did have some hope people on this linguistic subreddit might engage with the question actually asked, rather than the ones they want to squabble about, and otherwise might behave like adults. Oh, well!
You posted a question about phonology in an etymology subreddit
You got peanut butter on my chocolate!
Me too! I also say wed-nes-day.
I used to do, as well, until I gave it up for Lent one year and from then on just kept not doing it.
This distresses me less than the growing phenomenon I see both here on Reddit and elsewhere online that has people saying ‘comfy’ constantly and the even worse, ‘uncomfy’ 🤢
"Comfy" dates back to the early 19th century. "Uncomfy" is newer, but is a logical derivative. Both are just as clear in their meaning and as distinct from other words as their full length counterparts, but take half as many syllables. What's not to like?
Idk it just unsettles me a bit because it doesn’t sound right (undoubtedly because I’m just not used to hearing them).
‘Comfy’ I was actually ok with when it was just used in casual situations like ‘oh that new couch is so comfy’ but now I’m finding both of them are popping up frequently in what I what would call more serious or formal language situations for instance: ‘It’s important we have all equipment available so employees are comfy at work’ or ‘There was a man following me home today and it made me uncomfy’
This is phonology, not etymology.
This phenomenon you observe in some dialects is called elision, which is a natural part of language evolution, not a correct/incorrect dichotomy that confers superiority.
Anyone speaking a language with longstanding names like Cholmondeley (“Chumley”) and Featherstonehaugh (“Fanshaw”) has no business complaining about “prob’ly” and “comfterble”. Or Febyooary.