Daer CR4 poeples

My response is colored coloured by my distaste for the Americanization of of English.
I trust you'll humor humour me on this one...
The spell chequer is far form infallible... (all this passed with flying colours)

Del

But they are understandable words and therefor we can all read it.

Sometimes the words are just too far off any language that it becomes necessary to ask them to rephrase and when it is just too damn stupid, we take the piss straight away.

We might be missing valuable questions that way.

P.S. do you also find that it is always the same words that "get" you?

P.S. do you also find that it is always the same words that "get" you?

My pet hate is obligated..... Arrggg no he wasn't obligated to do anything ...he was obliged. (especially when it's pronounced arbligayted... by some drawling jackanapes)

I hate unecessary lengthening of perfectly good words by adding crap like 'ized' and 'ated' onto 'em. I must admit that when checked in the dictionary they are often correct, having come from an early root. That's the odd thing some American is actually more archaic than UK English even though the reverse is generally assumed to be the case...damn backwoods hicks ...

I'm a bit of a snob 'cuz I done good in English ditn' I ?

Del

Yus Del,

Yore speling is reel gude.

Now wood yew no that?

Hay, Eye Resimble that remark.

English/American is the best or worst language to deal with. I reconnoiter.

So many ways to properly say the same thing. But no inflection to write it with.

The spell checker even when used is confused (or is that me) by words like poor, pour, and pore. If English was my third language I would be very frustrated at communication in the world business market.

I was failed at German, that I was very fluent at, in High school because I could not spell in it. (I couldn't spell in English either but had no problem passing that)

I don't know very much about dialects in the UK but in the US they can be a riot. Had a friend from Jersey( New Jersey) and a friend from Louisiana who is a Creole, both at a party trying to communicate and irritated at the others English skills. (think of the wost Cockney(?) accent trying to talk to a rural gent from India) If they were not so civil it would have come to blows.

yes we across the pond slaughter our language and call it English.

I think what is the most frustrating for me is a question in an area I have experience in and I can't figure out what it is they are trying to ask. They get across the emotion that it is important to them but not the specifics to define their problem and goal.

(add your choice of dialects) "PLEASE, I have too much hot air in my oil?" Ok?

Try turning down the hair drier?

Brad

Years ago I worked @ a backflow preventer company. Most of the ladies on the assembly line spoke spanish [Mexican]. one Hmong lady was learning spanish, from her boy friend who was from Catalan [Spain]. Between her accent & the differences between spanish & mexican....There were plenty of puzzled dog looks [quizzicle head tilt].

Thank you UV for reminding us how accents can often confuse the listeners. We experienced this when my family and I moved from Detroit to the Johnson Space Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

My children were enrolled in the local schools and one day my eight year old daughter complained her teacher was "dumb". I asked why and she handed me her spelling test and pointed at the word "Korea" which she had spelled correctly but was marked incorrect by the teacher.

I had the next day off from work so I accompanied my daughter to school and asked to speak to her teacher. Her teacher was a matronly gentle woman and had a kindly look about her. I showed her my daughter's spelling test and questioned the "incorrect' assessment of the word "Korea".

The teacher said in her Alabama accent; "Her spellin' is co-rect but thayat is not the wor-rud ah sayed". I asked what "wor-rud" did you say? And the teacher said "Korea". I protested, "well that is what she wrote!" The teacher said "Ah sayed korea as in whut she's gonna do fer a jawb when she grows up". I said "oh you mean 'career'" and the teacher replied "exactly, korea"!

I turned and said to my daughter "well honey what do you want to do for a career? and she replied "I want to teach English to these people".

When the language is spoken accents sometimes play a major role in either enhancing or diminishing communication. One of the benefits of the written word is the lack of accentual influences however spelling, as Case 491 points out, becomes more crucial.

One of the benefits of the written word is the lack of accentual influences however spelling, as Case 491 points out, becomes more crucial.

A case in point: I have a Korean friend in Oregon. On day she was reading a book in Chinese. I asked her if she spoke Chinese and she replied Oh no, but but if you can read Korean, Chinese or Japaneses learning to read the others is easy. They are all based on the same root symbols. She was very intelligent so I can't quantify her easy.

I have spent some time developing a universal written language I call concise computer language that computers, and people regardless of language could use but it is a very large project I have only a dozen pages of concepts down. The goal is precise communication, limited writing, the ability to quantify emotions and words of variable meanings. eg. the word Little, how little and compared to what? Maybe someday.

Brad

This was my introduction to Alabama-eze.

MR DUCKS MR KNOT C DEM WANGS MR DUCKS

Dear Lady,

Let's take for granted that the part about your daughter's response included a wee bit of literary license—no harm in that from this reader's perspective. It's difficult, however, to imagine even a Detroiter's (whose intonations are certainly not "standard," linguistically speaking) approving of even an adult's making such a snide and disrespectful remark, especially when it diminishes not the object, but the maker, of the remark; and by extension that person's parental model. The better lesson for (and the better service to) the child would have been...two things...two life lessons:

1. That the primary and most important "organ" of spoken communication is not the mouth but the ear. And that...
2. Yes ("darling daughter"), when you move to new places it might happen—indeed, it happens to everyone fortunate enough to live in new places—that you might make a mistake or be disappointed because you the listener (and not the speaker) misunderstand something that is said; but, in this case, that's only because you have not yet had time and opportunity to "retune" your listening to the teacher's different, but no less correct, manner of speaking. But not to fret unduly, since that—the training of your hearing so that you (grow to where you) correctly hear two, and not just one, manner of speech—will happen soon enough, and of its own accord...so it need not overly concern you. But it should concern you if it was your lack of attention, so that you failed to gather contextual cues, that caused you to fail to understand what was spoken. In any case, we cannot—you and I—really blame the teacher for your, but not the teacher's or anyone else's, failure to understand the word. Can we?

By lessons such as this, your daughter will grow up not only thanking you, but seen by others as being a clear cut above the common rabble.

What a coward you are! Hiding behind "guest" anonomously posting oblique and often incomprehensible responses.

Your attitude toward discussion is juvenile and you have demonstrated incompetence in conducting civilized debate. I will no longer waste time reading or responding to your drivel.

I tend to 99% of the time ignore guest responses as many are just cowards hiding behind the name Guest fro some reason or should I say "Jest".....

I would not in your case dirty your hands on the keyboard answering such puerile comments........

Have a great day anyway taejonkwando...

My daughter has become a beautiful young lady and is teaching History, English and Math to 6th thru 8th grade students in Atlanta, Georgia. Each year her students compete in elocution and literacy. Seven of her former students achieved National Merit Scholar Finalists ratings this past year.

She teaches students to correctly pronounce words, unlike her third grade teacher who pronounced single syllable words as though they had two syllables such as; "wor- rud" for word, "he-ah" for here, "they-ah" for there and so on.

If you had a chance to speak with some of her students you would be unable to identify any regional origination from listening to their speech patterns and pronunciation because she teaches them to have neutral accents. Accordingly, few of her students can be identified with the "country hick" southern accented English so endemic in the southern states of America.

I have forwarded your essay to her for comment. I suspect you will receive less than a passing grade for syntax errors and verbosity.

I really don't want to get entrenched in this somewhat subjective debate, however, are you really unaware that many places in the US make fun of Californian accents? They find the way we pronounce certain words as hysterical.

Furthermore, an accent does not necessarily mean that a person cannot understand other people's accents. In the case of your "teacher story," she fully understood the word career when you pronounced it.

I for one appreciate accents because they provide extra information about the speaker and his/her background - and what woman doesn't find a man that speaks English with a French accent interesting?

Guest,

You make a good point -- we need to maintain flexibility and patience towards the various accents and pronunciations we encounter, not only nationally but also internationally. Otherwise we have to admit that Americans mispronounce many English words since presumably the pronunciations used in England must by definition be the "correct" ones. If so, then we have the silly situation of some Americans criticizing the pronunciations used by other Americans -- even though they all got it "wrong"! And if we insist on having only one "official" pronunciation for each word, which of the various English pronunciations should we use as a standard? By the way, from where does the Miriam Webster dictionary derive its authoritative status for correct pronunciation? If the criteria includes common usage, then this changes over time. Language evolves -- the accepted pronunciation to some degree depends on who, when, and where you ask.

mo·ron Audio Help /ˈmɔrɒn, ˈmoʊr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr-on, mohr-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

Compare feeble-minded.

[Origin: 1905–10, Americanism; < Gk mōrón, neut. of mōrós foolish, dull]
—Related formsmo·ron·ic Audio Help /məˈrɒnɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-ron-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, adjective mo·ron·i·cal·ly, adverb mo·ron·ism, mo·ron·i·ty Audio Help /məˈrɒnɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-ron-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, noun Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Intelligence is a perceived idea that you can completely obliterate by opening your mouth. Short of that you can just type it instead so we don't hear your bad pronunciation. Don't blame the listener for what the speaker should do right in the first place.

Oh by the way, if you say something that could be taken as going against the grain, have the decency to use you membership name or register.

Since I think that the Guest who posted message #61 had a point, then I must (at least partially) be a moron too. But then again, I don't think that we should judge the validity of most messages as all-or-nothing.

Someone please enlighten me by telling me which group of people on Earth has the "officially correct" pronunciation of the English language. Do the British have the accent, or is it the Americans that have the accent? (Or both?) Are the Scots, Irish, and Welsh all mispronouncing? Which have the best pronunciation, citizens of London or Liverpool? And what are the criteria for deciding?

The person communicating effectively

Well said ! Maybe I missed something, but a logged-in member posted a reply to Guest that was way OTT. Some of the comments made about regional accent are borderline fascist. I struggle to understand what people say in some parts of the UK, but I wouldn't advocate 're-educating' them ! Even the BBC no longer has announcers with cut-glass Noel Coward style accents (in fact the reverse is true on some stations; they over-promote regional accent in a bizarre appeal to what's know as 'yoof' culture). The present Queen is not even a good example of 'good' English, since Victoria was reputed to have an accent mingling German and Scottish tones !

I can understand people being irritated by written errors, but griping about accent amounts to griping over cultural differences. In verbal communication, the listener can't abdicate responsibility.

Anyway, I'm bored of reading all this, but I give you a GA svengali for the most rational post on the matter.

I gave you a GA for your answer, it says what I want to say as well....

It was said at one time that the most "accurate" English accent comes from the area around Whitby in NE England......

I feel today that "BBC News" English is probably the best, it is just good usually accent free English, but I am sure that the Northern and Mid English would try and bit my head off for saying it!

I guess what I am saying is that to answer your question accurately is probably impossible....

I like accents anyway, the British have a Plethora of them, long may they last.....the same goes for our cousins in the USA, Canada, Ireland, S Africa, Australia and NZ. Also my apologies to any group that I have overlooked.....

Hello Svengali. I offer another question for your consideration; does the pronunciation of a word transmit the intended information? For instance, in the case of the Alabama teacher she pronounced both Korea and career exactly the same thus diminishing her ability to express and communicate the difference between a country and an avocation.

In many regions in the world the transfer of information in the same language is often diminished by regional accents. The example given by one contributor of attempted communication between a Cockney gentleman and a gentleman from India must be fraught with misunderstandings, yet both profess to communicate in the same language.

When the communication is written there are no accentual influences to inhibit the transfer of information. But when the language is modified by regional accent to the point where similar words are indistinguishable communication becomes impaired and must be enhanced by textural inferences to complete the transfer of information.

In the example of the spelling test there was no textural information such as ; "the word you need to spell is career. That is; your future vocation". Had there been textural information, the desired spelling would have occurred.

My daughter was not the only child who spelled the test question as Korea. Even the children from that area were confused. I asked for a show of hands and more than half the students in the class raised their hand. Another contributing aspect to their confusion was their concurrent study of Asian countries including Korea.

In essence the teacher's pronunciation impaired communication and caused failure.

In the south as in many places words are pronounced so similar or exactly the same that confusion reigns without additional contextual information.

As a veteran of some rather hostile actions in southeast Asia during the 1960's pronunciation when giving orders was crucial. When encountering a hostile situation had I given an order to my patrol of "far" instead of "fire" ("far" the southern pronunciation of fire), I might not be writing to you today.

Homonyms must be supported with context or we would be unable to distinguish the difference. However to allow dissimilar words to to become homonyms is merely mispronunciation.

Hello taejonkwando,

I agree that you do have a point (I rarely find that a participant in a debate is completely correct or completely incorrect). A speaker that pronounces different words identically does create confusion unless enough context is provided. However, I would argue that that your daughter's teacher erred not strictly because of her local accent, but rather because of the failure to provide context. If you've ever witnessed a spelling bee (spelling contest), then you know that contestants routinely ask for definitions of the target word and/or examples of the word used in a sentence. In other words, they ask for the context. Your daughter's teacher should have said "career, as in the jobs a person chooses to earn money" (or something similar). Note that even persons with so-called "neutral" accents must provide context to distinguish between the correctly pronounced words "pore", "poor", and "pour".

In most things that human do (especially those we value most), we must act carefully to find a satisfactory balance between opposing requirements. With regards to improving communication via the English language, to me the optimal balance results from accepting (and even celebrating) the various accents, and seek clarification by requesting context if necessary. This sounds ideal to me because I value the variety of human culture far more than the efficiency of conforming to standards (maximum freedom and maximum diversity, even if less efficient). This would also seem to be the far more realistic approach. We can't reasonably expect thousands of cultural groups to give up their accents and dialects (which seem perfectly normal from their point of view) in order to conform to some arbitrary standard of "correct pronunciation". What would that standard of pronunciation be anyway? I'm still waiting to hear the answer to that question, which I posted a few days ago. If we wanted to help people "improve" their pronunciation, should we train them to speak with a "neutral" American accent? (like that of journalist Mike Wallace) Or would a true English accent be more appropriate? (for example former Prime Minister Tony Blair) Who gets to decide the standard? Someone might say that the standard should vary from place to place (any oxymoronic "variable standard") If so, then we don't need to change anything. We just need context.

Thank you Svengali. I apologise for my late response to your excellent essay which poses some very good points. I agree with you about your question as to who is to set a pronunciation standard if there is to be one.

My ageing issue of Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary has rather a lengthy treatise on this subject and explores the stability of both the written and spoken forms of the language. I quote one particularly salient statement regarding linguistic modifications; "the more isolated a particular group is from speakers of the same language, the greater the differences between the speech of that group and the speech of others will tend to become."

Personally, I like Tony Blair's accent but I would yield to any accent as long as it does not create homonyms as the Alabama teacher did by pronouncing career and Korea identically. I think you may have missed my agreement with you on this point in my previous post. Mispronunciation of English was even promoted at one time in the attempt to institutionalize "Ebonics" as a "cultural asset".

Artificially created homonyms lead to miscommunication and perhaps dangerous situations as I illustrated in my previous posting. In the interest of providing a common level of information transfer with the least chance for misunderstanding I suggest we incorporate as little accent as possible into the base language.

While Cockney, Ebonics, Southern drawl and Northern twang, etc., may be charming patois they do not contribute to information transfer and are merely relics of compounding corruptions of the original form.

The only area where we seem to disagree is in the importance of maintaining accents. Although they may be held as dear and desirable by their proponents, accents do not contribute to comprehension and tend to separate individuals into groups thus fragmenting society and providing a basis for discrimination resulting in an "us and them" isolation.

The only area where we seem to disagree is in the importance of maintaining accents. Although they may be held as dear and desirable by their proponents, accents do not contribute to comprehension and tend to separate individuals into groups thus fragmenting society and providing a basis for discrimination resulting in an "us and them" isolation.

Hello taejonkwando,

Thanks for your eloquent reply. I think that we basically agree that uniform pronunciation (in accordance with the majority) would enhance the efficiency of communication between geographically separated people. This makes perfect sense. And I think we both advocate some tolerance towards those with nonstandard pronunciation. Note that these two issues are the two "opposed requirements" that I alluded to in an earlier post. In principle, we might desire maximum cultural diversity. But as you pointed out, cultural diversity can sometimes interfere with communication. And miscommunication can sometimes have seriously negative consequences (e.g., for military personnel, emergency workers, legal testimony).

So it seems like maximum cultural diversity is mutually incompatible with perfectly efficient communication. But most reasonable people realize that we wouldn't want to achieve either extreme. Instead, we should try for a mutually agreeable compromise. Taejonkwando, I think that we merely disagree on the degree to which the balance should sacrifice some clarity of communication to allow for cultural diversity. I happen to value diversity more than efficiency (at least in commonplace non-emergency situations). Thus I can patiently listen to folks with strong partially incomprehensible accents because of the aesthetic value (pleasure/delight/joy) they bring me. But I also respect the need for clear communication. We will always have a dynamic equilibrium between the opposing trends of cultural fragmentation and cultural homogenization (i.e., between individuality and conformity). The most interesting phenomena (or "gnarl" as Rudy Rucker would say) occurs at the noisy edge between order and chaos. Long live the dynamic equilibrium!

Hello taejonkwando,

You make one excellent point, and one possibly good point: 1) that severely abnormal pronunciation and dialect can become detrimental economic and social obstacles, and 2) that "Precision in speech helps form precision in other aspects of life".

You gave convincing examples of how abnormal (deviating from the local norm) accent/dialect can trap people in poor economic situations and social stigma. In such extreme cases, I would "climb down off of the fence" (make an exception to my centrist "live and let live" attitude) and support speech therapy for the afflicted individuals. Just as citizens should feel an ethical duty to assist those who have suffered physical injury. If the person in need of the speech therapy willingly accepts the help, then all benefit. But if such persons refuse the therapy (for example, if they interpret the intrusion as an attack on their cultural heritage), should society force therapy upon them? I say no, and the law wouldn't allow coerced therapy anyway. Hopefully some kind of tangible reward could be offered to such individuals to encourage them to accept help.

As for clear speech enabling clear thought, it seems very reasonable to assume that it does (and no doubt research supports this). But again, recipients of accent therapy should not be coerced, but instead be motivated by the promise of a beneficial result.

In Germany, i would guess that 90% of the Germans speak in a local dialect, sometimes this is almost a different language. We even get subtitles for the rest of Germany when a film is made in Ostfriesland for example, otherwise most of Germany, all of Austria and Switzerland would not understand a word!!!

Interesting enough, most Germans can also speak "High German", probably 60% or more, which is what they and also the Austrians and the German Swiss learnt in the school in the first place!!! Thus an avenue of communication can be opened MOST of the time!!!

"Switzerdeutsch" is the appalling language that the German speaking Swiss talk amongst themselves, it is completely unintelligible to most of the German speaking world, but one word saying you do not understand it and they talk immediately in high German!!!

The point of this blog is that the accents and dialects should be spoken and used and kept, but all should be able to communicate in the national language as well...........High English or American?

An excellent answer Svengali and I awarded you a GA. Yes, coercion would not be acceptable except in France where some one can be fined for saying "Le Car" for example LOL.

Improving speech has two advantages (possibly more) and they are ; first, improving linguistic ability in a population raises the social and economic standards for the total population. Second; the language is preserved. Word definitions remain true and sentence construction is recognizable regardless of the region.

Another advantage is efficiency in communication although you may not agree as whole heartedly as I contend which is a moot point. Efficiency can be improved in any context by the submission of similes and metaphors. I think communication should be more direct and comprehensible without those pleonasms.

Certainly poetry and other language uses have as a right to exist and the creation of new words is almost a daily event in emerging technology. The language should evolve, adding and subtracting elements, as the society changes however I cannot find a use for accents. Although sometimes charming, accents seem to inhibit rather than enhance the transfer of information.

taejonkwando,

Thanks for the complement. You made many good arguments, some that I had not considered before, so I give you a GA vote too. You give the impression of someone who has thought very carefully about the various aspects of language. If your daughter shares your perceptiveness and eloquence, then no doubt she does an excellent job teaching language. I've enjoyed this discussion. Thanks for taking the time to spell out your thoughts in detail.

As with your avatar... What a crock of crap!!!

Sounds like you dislike my avatar and my previous message. If so, please explain why. Otherwise, why bother to post?

Maybe you think that people with hard-to-understand accents should be forced to accept therapy? I'd like to see you try to defend that repugnant position.

Not to worry...if it's not crap, flies will not be drawn back.

Sorry! Just messin' with ya. Actually, I like your avatar.

My experience with teachers in the UK (many, many years ago) and more recently with the teachers here in Germany that taught both my daughters, is generally that Teachers usually are better spoken than the average person anyway.

In your case in the USA that was simply not the case. Sadly the school board that passed this lady as a teacher should have also sent her to elocution lessons.......Pygmalion?

I feel that both you and your daughter both learnt a great deal from the situation, so it was not a complete loss!!! ...and so did we!!

Interesting that your daughter was not alone with this problem....

I would have taken a small tape recorder with me and played the two words back to the teacher and the head teacher.....and probably caused havoc!!

My conclusion is that she was NOT a good teacher at all in this case as she appears to be stupid enough to pronounce both the same, add no context and to not understand the mistakes made (is making) because of her accent.....

Hello Andy. In so many ways you and your family are fortunate to have this multilingual experience because it teaches proper pronunciation in the various languages. To become adept in any language is to develop the proper intonations, accent,and peculiar or different sounds which may not be in the target language's alphabet.

For instance, many years ago we took an assignment in Johannesburg South Africa. There the children learned rather quickly some of the native language which was filled with clicks, pops, and other, odd to my ears, sounds. When their California accents caused a mis-pronunciation they were greeted with howls of laughter from their classmates. That lesson was powerful and they practiced among themselves for hours until their pronunciation was indistinguishable from their friends.

I have a friend from Czechoslovakia who was brought to America when he was ten years old. His family settled in Texas. He has recently visited relatives in Prague and found his Texas accented Czech produced strange and very funny reactions from his relatives. He said the only advantage to his accent was the unexpected humor it brought into their conversations. It made him popular with the children as they mimicked his Texas Czech mercilessly.

The Alabama teacher was a product of her isolated environment. I later discovered the requirements for teaching at the third grade level in that area was a two year Associate of Arts Degree from the local community junior college. In most of the schools our children attended, a Bachelors Degree in a specific Major plus a minor in Education were required to teach.

European educational standards seem to be more rigorous with academic qualifications for elementary school teachers in many cases equivalent to those required for teaching in the lower divisions of colleges here in the US.

Good speach habits in any language are commsndable and bring a measure of respect to the speaker beyond that offered to the proponent of common vernacular.

A good post. I rated it so.

We seem to agree on most things.....

I am still (years later!) over the moon with happiness that we were able to bring up our children in such a manner that they speak both languages (German and English) like a native and they can write both languages without mixing up words from one in the other.....which is the customary mistake that a lot of Bi-lingual children make, to such a degree that they cannot pass exams in either language!!!!.

And for anyone else out there just coming on line with this blog, they did NOT learn both languages together!! That can be a complete disaster! So be warned.....read back in this Blog or email me if you wish to know full details! I have firsthand experiences with about 30 mixed parentage children and except for my own, all have failed exams in the languages they were brought up learning!!!

I hate unecessary lengthening of perfectly good words by adding crap like 'ized' and 'ated' onto 'em.

Your complaint reminds me that I often see the word "pressurized" instead of "pressured" in chess books. For example, "White's move Nf3 pressurized Black's king pawn" (meaning that White threatened to capture it). Dictionaries accept both words as technically correct, but like you, I prefer the shorter more natural sounding (and presumably older) word. Strangely enough, this unnecessary use of the suffix "ized" seems more common among English grandmasters. I would like to know where these English GMs picked up this bad habit.