Conference thebay::joyoflex

Also "err" doesn't sound like "air".

I disagree about "junta", it is a (recently) borrowed word.  Quixotic also is
from a borrowed word (name) but has an English ending, so that changes things. 

Forte could be pronounced either way depending on meaning.  Only if you are
talking about music should it be pronounced FORT-ay.

-Mike

    And how do you pronounce Aluminum?
    
    The British pronounce it Al-you-min-ee-um.
    
    With the writing of the first dictionary, a lot of words changed
    pronunciation. 
    
    I thought "junta" was a spanish word and is still pronounced the
    same as the spanish.
    
    And how do you pronounce Don Quixote? Don 'kwiks-oh-tee'? 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    

I always graon when I hear die-sect instead of dis-sect.
Or zoo-ology instead of zoe-ology.

Larry

    We pronounce it Al-you-min-ee-um because we spell it that way
    (Aluminium).  Or more phonetically correct, Al-you-min-yum.
    
    Jeff.

re: .-1

Or "graon" instead of "groan"!  :')

    Re foreign-derived words:
    
    Sometimes this is difficult.  Correctly, the hero of Cervantes'
    tale should be pronounced in a Spanish manner (i.e., "key-HO-tay"
    rather than the Anglicized "KWIX-ott"), if for no other reason than
    otherwise the author's description mof vthe name at the beginning
    gets very confusing.  However, I have no trouble with the adjective
    "kwix-OT-ic," if, for no other reason than pronouncing "key-HOT-ic"
    is, at the least, awkward.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re: .0
    
    > If you pronounce these words the correct way, people look at you like
    > you're some kind of moron, so to get the point across, you have to
    > use the incorrect pronunciation.

    I frequently have to remind myself that EVERYTHING is relative.
    Your conviction of what may be correct or incorrect may frequently
    be at odds with others.  (Note the challenges to your pronunciation
    of "junta".)  As discussed elsewhere in this conference, common
    usage is considered when establishing the acceptability of
    pronunciation and definition of words.
    
    In other parts of this country I have heard radio commercials for
    "bed room suites" pronounced SUITS, not SWEETS.  Since their listening
    audience must understand this, is its usage incorrect?  One of my
    dictionaries carries the variation, but others do not.

    Van Gogh    -the artist     Gouda   - the cheese
    "van-gaah'"    		"How'da"

    MATT

    Re: .0
    
    Your supposed pronunciations sound as if they were common to the
    Phillipines.

    RE: .9
    
    And your pronunciation, my dear Bernie, is common only to the
    Philistine! :-) 

    John M. 

RE: Junta

As I recall, the reason Junta is not pronounced HOONTa is because it is
an English word as well as a Spanish word.  Our English word "no" is not
based on the Spanish word "no," but they do share a common ancestor.  In
the same way, "junta" and "hoonta" are derived from the same word, but belong
to two different languages (anyone have an OED on them?).

RE: Quixotic

Although the name "Quixote" is Spanish and is pronounced, "Kee-HO-tay,"
the word "quixotic" is *English* and doesn't take the Spanish pronunciation
(there is no such word in Spanish).  Thus the proper pronunciation of the
word is "kwix-OT-ic.

RE: "Common usage:

A sad fact of English is that "common usage" is tolerated.  It's a shame
to see so many good words beaten to death on the rocks of mispronunciation.
What's wrong with pronouncing a word the way it was intended to be pronounced?
To make matters worse, English spellings do NOT normally change, further
confusing the issue (hiccough is a good example).  In the long run, we only
make matters worse for ourselves by giving into sloppy speaking habits.

For whatever it's worth, the word is BESTiality, not BEASTiality.

John M.  :<|  <--------- (Nose-in-the-air symbol)

    re .11:
    
> Although the name "Quixote" is Spanish and is pronounced, "Kee-HO-tay,"
> the word "quixotic" is *English* and doesn't take the Spanish pronunciation
> (there is no such word in Spanish).  Thus the proper pronunciation of the
> word is "kwix-OT-ic.

    I do not follow the logic of this. The word quixotic did not exist
    before the story of Don Quixote. Since the word refers to the behavior
    of the Don, it seems that the word should retain the Spanish
    pronunciation of the root. But I am perfectly happy with the argument
    that 'Kwiksotic' is easier to pronounce that 'key-hoe-tic'.
    
    Junta: there is no ENGLISH word for "junta". "Junta" is a Spanish
    word that is used by the english speaking, because there is no
    comperable english word. So having stolen the word from spanish,
    they notice that it is spelled with a "j" instead of an "h", so
    then they claim that it is now an english word and is to be pronounced 
    JUNta.
    
    It is not a "sad fact" that common usage is "tolerated". It is common
    usage that makes the language live. 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
     
    He who walk with nose in air, step in dog doo.

    Re: .10
    
    Touche (not pronounced TOUCH-ee).
    
    
    Re: .12
    
    Whatever logic says must be the case tells us little about English
    or American pronunciation.  As John points out in .0 and .11,
    kwix-OT-ic is the accepted pronunciation.
    
    The English have a tendency, I think, to Anglicize foreign names.
    Kenneth Clark pronounced the name of the artist Juan Gris as JU-awn
    Greese.  In America, we make an attempt to pronounce foreign names
    the way their owners do.
    
    Bernie

    re: .13
    	I suspect that the English may just be a little less familiar
    with Spanish pronunciation than Americans - a significant number
    of whom have Spanish as their native language. French, German and
    even Italian are more frequently taught in English schools, and
    I have noticed a lot more American mispronunciations of recent French
    imports than English.

    Re .11:
    
    > A sad fact of English is that "common usage" is tolerated.
    
    > What's wrong with pronouncing a word the way it was intended to be
    > pronounced? 
    
    I know exactly what you mean.  Ever since the Committee for the
    Creation of English finished their deliberations so many centuries ago
    and gave us the intended pronunciations, it has been an effort to get
    the common people to abandon their former languages and start using
    English.  And when they have adopted it, the common people have just
    been ravaging the language.  It is a darn shame.  People should really
    stick with the Committee's standards.  Stick with the original
    intentions -- after all, the common people did not invent the language
    with their "common usage".
                                      
    
    				-- edp

    
    Howzabout the word "coincidence"?  Shouldn't it be pronounced
    co-in-sy-dence, rather than co-win-sidence?

    re .16:
    
    depends on what you consider the root,
    
    is it "incidence" or "coincide"?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    My dictionary (American Heritage) gives "ko-in'-sa-dens." (Roughly -
    I can't show the accent marks or backwards letters on this system.)  It
    does not show "co-win-sa-dens."
    
    You can say what you want you want about the American Heritage
    Dictionary, but it is the one DEC bought for me.
    
    -bs

One of my fingernails-on-the-blackboard is the use, in allegedly reputable
architectural magazines, of "clear story" to supplant "celestory" as a
description of certain overhead windows. I am convinced the writers don't 
know, and don't know they don't know, how wrong - and grating - that is.

A little less irritating is the use of "duck", as opposed to "duct", tape,
in advertisements, etc. 

    I bought some "duck" tape today.  It is a brand name for duct tape.
    Now that's marketing!
    
    ---Av

And I always thought it was supposed to be pronounced

	koe-WINK-ee-dink-ee

/Eric

    re .19:
    
    > One of my fingernails-on-the-blackboard is the use, in allegedly reputable
    > architectural magazines, of "clear story" to supplant "celestory" as a
    > description of certain overhead windows.               ^^^^^^^^^
    
    perhaps you intended:
    
      clerestory - an outside wall of a room or building that rises
    			above an adjoining roof and contains windows
    			[ME, fr. _clere_ clear + _story_]
                                                         
    in which case, "clearstory" just might be an acceptable modern
    equivalent based on its etymology
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re .22:
    
    Gee, when I saw "celestory" and "overhead windows", I figured the
    etymology had something to do with seeing stars through the window.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re: .12


> The word quixotic did not exist before the story of Don Quixote. Since the
word refers to the behavior of the Don, it seems that the word should retain
the Spanish pronunciation of the root.  <

Ah, but as I said, the word is American, not Spanish.  The English
pronunciation of Quixote is "QUIKS-sote" (I know, it sounds awful).  The
word "quixotic" was based on the English pronunciation, not the Spanish.
As a matter of fact, even a whore-dictionary like The Webster's New Collegiate
lists only one pronunciation for the word: quiks-OT-ic.

As for Junta, I still maintain that the English word takes the form JUN-ta,
not HOON-ta, as it is based on the Latin word "junctus" (a joining) and not
on the Spanish equivalent.  If someone out there has an OED and proves
otherwise, I shall concede.


>   It is not a "sad fact" that common usage is "tolerated". It is common usage
that makes the language live.  < 

"Common usage" doesn't make a language live, it just makes it sloppy.  We are
not talking about mere regional dialects here (which are consistent from word
to word) but of plain ol' mispronunciation.  Am I to assume that you say
"liberry" instead of "library?"

John M.  :<I

    Re .24:
    
    > "Common usage" doesn't make a language live, it just makes it sloppy. 
    
    Please tell me where English came from.
    
    Additionally, please stop calling Webster's New Collegiate a
    "whore-dictionary".  I would not want to have to call you a
    whore-noter.  It is, after all, the longer-established dictionary with
    a larger collection of references than American Heritage.
    
    Webster's is a more accurate reporting of the state of the language
    than American Heritage, which means it is the better dictionary.  If
    you are not looking for a more accurate report, then you are not
    looking for a better dictionary -- and you must prefer American
    Heritage for some other reason. 
    
    
    				-- edp 

RE: .25    
  

You seem to miss the point.  My beef is that there are words one must
*mispronounce* in order to communicate.  By accepting sloppy pronunciation, we
not only complicate the spelling of a word, but the obvious meaning as well.
Yet people become so accustomed to hearing some words mispronounced that they
do a double-take when the word is pronounced correctly.  For example, take the
word acclimated.  It means "to take on the climate."  It is easy to see the
meaning if you pronounce the word in it's intended fashion: a-CLI-mated.  The
intended pronunciation is also consistent with the pronunciation of the word
acclimatized, which has the same meaning. [Think about it: we don't pronounce
accustom, which means "to take on the custom" as ACcustom, do we?]


Here's another example.  If I say "A whale came from the sea" it has a very
different meaning than "A wail came from the sea."  You can see the
communication problem created by not pronouncing the "h" in whale. That h is
not there for decoration!  

Who's to blame?  I think in a large part the media is (oops! I mean the
media *are.*)  All it takes is one newscaster to mispronounce a word and
voila!  1,000,000 people accept it.
    
    
> Additionally, please stop calling Webster's New Collegiate a
"whore-dictionary".  I would not want to have to call you a whore-noter.  < 

OK, then don't.  I use the term "whore-dictionary" to mean a dictionary
that includes "junk" words to sell more books (they even used to advertise
the fact that they had more "new words" than anyone else and were therefore
better).  Regardless of what some people say, it is the dictionary that
gives legitimacy to words and pronunciations.  People will tend to buy a
dictionary that includes words and pronunciations they use.  It doesn't
matter whether or not those words and pronunciations are legitimate.  Thus
we find words like "irregardless" in the New Collegiate (Hey! It's in there,
so I can use it!).  Next, it'll be POSSLQ.

John M.

Re: .26

Let me see if I get the gist of your argument...  You claim that if you 
pronounce the words "the way they were intended to be pronounced" people 
don't understand what you're saying.  And if you pronounce them in a 
way that you don't like, they do understand.  So everyone else should 
come around to your way.  

Then you say "People will tend to buy a dictionary that includes words
and pronunciations they use.  It doesn't matter whether or not those
words and pronunciations are legitimate."  But you ask us to accept the 
pronounciations you use based on the dictionary you bought.

Is that about right?
					>>>==>PStJTT

    re .0
    
    Since noses are pointed up....
    
    John,
    
    You talk about pronouncing acclimate so that the root of the word
    is accented.  Fine.  However, you pronounce laboratory as lab-ro-tory
    (I work with this guy), and therefore your pronunciation does not
    stress the root of the word, which is labor.  Most Americans pronounce
    the word in this way.  Englishmen, however, according to your ideas
    of correct pronunciation, pronounce laboratory more correctly, as
    in la-BOR-a-tree.  Both pronunciations are correct.  If one spells
    phonetically, then the language begins to change, and this is
    inevitable over hundreds of years; the language evolves.  Old English
    spellings are no longer in use (in most circles, anyway), because,
    to some extent, words were "mispronounced" over 300 years.  
    The Eighth Edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary gives
    FLAK-sed as the preferred pronunciation of flaccid; the Ninth Edition 
    gives FLAS-ed.  I agree that the spread of mispronunciation is
    increased through television and radio, and sudden changes in spelling 
    resulting from this spread may be bad for communication.  The language 
    will change, however, regardless; it's just a question of how soon.
    
    -Rob
    

Re: .27

> Let me see if I get the gist of your argument...  You claim that if you 
pronounce the words "the way they were intended to be pronounced" people 
don't understand what you're saying.  And if you pronounce them in a 
way that you don't like, they do understand.  So everyone else should 
come around to your way. <

Well, almost.  In a nutshell, all words start out with only ONE pronunciation.
It is that original pronunciation which is "proper."  But if people have
been mispronouncing the word and that mispronunciation is widespread, then
when someone comes along and pronounces the word in the intended fashion,
people think he is *mispronouncing* the word.  So the speaker is either
thought to be mispronouncing the word, or is forced to use the incorrect,
but popular, pronunciation for the sake of clarity.  That's all.  

Mind you, I do not expect people to "come around my way," but to use the
correct pronunciation.  "LiBERRY" for "library" is incorrect, but I guarantee
that in 20 years, some dictionaries will carry the incorrect pronunciation.  At
that time, if you tell someone that you're going to the library, they'll think,
"Doesn't that fool know that the word is pronounced liberry?!" 

I guess I could wrap all of this up by drawing an analogy to the misquote.
We have grown so accustomed to hearing certain misquotes, that when the
*proper* quote is heard, we think the speaker has erred!  For instance:

INCORRECT:

"I never met a man I didn't like." (Will Rogers)

CORRECT:

"I hardly ever met a man I didn't like"

INCORRECT:

"Money is the root of all evil"

CORRECT:

"The love of money is the root of all evil"

INCORRECT:

"A rose is a rose is a rose"

CORRECT:

"Rose is a rose is a rose" (no "A")


Get my drift?

John M.

RE: .28 (Rob)
    
 >  You talk about pronouncing acclimate so that the root of the word
    is accented.  Fine.  However, you pronounce laboratory as lab-ro-tory
    (I work with this guy), and therefore your pronunciation does not
    stress the root of the word, which is labor. <

You have not been listening to me closely.  The first "o" in laboratory is a
neutral vowel. It receives the same kind of stress as the "a" in again, the "e"
in academy, the "i" in dormitory, and the "u" in circus.  The fluency of
everyday speech tends to shorten certain vowels and forces them to become
indeterminate. Thus when I appear to be saying lab-ro-tory I am, in fact,
saying LAB(o)ratory. The o is there, but it is swallowed.  This is quite
different than changing the accent of a word. 

My pronunciation does indeed stress the root of the word, LABOR.  I pronounce
the word as LAB-o-ra-tory (although you might not hear the o).  In both
laboratory and labor the accent falls on the first syllable.  Hence, the English
pronunciation, La-BOR-a-tory (which you erroneously suggest I hold to be
"more correct") is the lesser correct.  After all, no one says laBOR, do
they? 

>  The language will change, however, regardless; it's just a question of how
soon. <

You mean "irregardless," don't you?  

John M.

    Re: .24
    
    > As for Junta, I still maintain that the English word takes the form
    > JUN-ta, not HOON-ta, as it is based on the Latin word "junctus" (a
    > joining) and not on the Spanish equivalent.  If someone out there has
    > an OED and proves otherwise, I shall concede.

    I don't really give a JUT which way this word is pronounced.  I'll
    only add that when we first learned the word, during the war with
    Argentina, both pronunciations were heard, though HOON-ta was thought
    to be rather affected and rarely used.  Since that time, we've
    forgotten the word again.
    
    But it's basically down to our (the British peoples') laziness in
    Anglicising 'foreign' words, especially place names.  It really
    grates to hear Nicker-ag-you-a and Mar-sales (but Paris I'll live
    with :-) )
    
    Jeff.

Well, if we can't make you feel better, then maybe we can make you feel 
worse: (besides, once a year I have to work this bit of trivia in.) If 
you enjoy gritting your teeth and feeling superior, then you'll be 
interested to know that the word "snow" was taken from the same group as 
the words "know" and "throw."   Consequently, the past tense is formed 
the same way, and the CORRECT thing to say is, "It snew last night."  

Since I learned that, I've always felt funny hearing people say "It 
snowed last night," just as if they had said "I knowed the answer" or "I 
throwed the ball."
					>>>==>PStJTT

    Re .26: 

    > You seem to miss the point.  My beef is that there are words one must
    > *mispronounce* in order to communicate. 

    Oh, I am aware of your point.  You seem to miss my point.  What is
    "mispronounce"?  What is "correct pronunciation"?  What is
    "legitimate"?  These are all words you have used without explaining
    them.  I do not really think there is any basis for using these words
    -- as has been discussed previously in this conference.  (Just say the
    word, and I will give you note numbers for the previous discussions.) 

    I am pretty sure you do not speak with a Shakespearean accent (or
    anything older), so almost none of the pronunciations YOU are making
    are the "original" pronunciations.


				-- edp

    re -1:  
    
    In this instance, I completely agree with Eric (something I don't often
    do.) 
    
    The problem is the original contention in the base note:  that there is
    a "correct" pronunciation for every word, and that this "correct"
    pronunciation is unchanging.  This contention is fallacious.
    Pronunciations change all the time.  (As Eric mentioned, *none* of your
    pronunciations are Shakespearean or older, therefore none of your
    pronunciations are the "originals.") 

    ^
    +-- Curiously coincidental result of the "FILL" command.
    
    					andrew

RE: .34 (Andrew)
    
>   The problem is the original contention in the base note:  that there is
    a "correct" pronunciation for every word, and that this "correct"
    pronunciation is unchanging.  <

Where did you get that idea?  Obviously there is a correct pronunciation
for every word; if there wasn't, we couldn't communicate at all (do you
pronounce "cat" as "coot?").  I never said that "pronunciation is unchanging."
My thesis is that there is a correct pronunciation for every word, and that
those who retain the correct pronunciation of the word will, at some point,
be forced to use the new "incorrect" pronunciation if they wish to avoid
confusion.

If you still don't see what I'm getting at, picture yourself in a room full
of people who say "liberry."  Now, either you can use the correct pronunciation
(library) and cause confusion, or you can force yourself to use the incorrect,
but popular, pronunciation of "liberry."  This is a clear case of having
to *mispronounce* a word in order to be understood.  (Why do people have
such a hard time with this concept?)

John M.

    Re .35:
    
    > Obviously there is a correct pronunciation for every word; if there
    > wasn't, we couldn't communicate at all (do you pronounce "cat" as
    > "coot?").  I never said that "pronunciation is unchanging." 
    
    Let's not restrict this to pronunciation:  That should be "if there
    weren't".
    
    Now, if pronunciation is changing, what makes the new version of a word
    that you use "correct" and the slightly newer version that some other
    people use "incorrect"?
    
    You have at times referred to the original pronunciation of a word, but
    we know that you do not use the original pronunciations of most of the
    words you use, so your pronunciations are not "correct" in the sense of
    being original.  In what way are your pronunciations "correct"?
    
    All I am asking here is this:  Define "correct pronunciation", and
    define it so that your pronunciation fits the definition (and define it
    meaningfully, not with something like "My pronunciation is correct.").
    
                                                                          
    				-- edp 

    Re: .33 and .36
    
    The insistance on a definition is, in my opinion, pedantic.  We
    can understand a concept without being able to define the equivalent
    term.  This was proved ca 300 BC by Socrates - he showed that everyone
    understood the concept of Justice, but he systematically destroyed
    every definition offered.
    
    I believe that I understand what it means to say that words have
    accepted or proper pronunciations.  In Shakespeare's day there were
    also proper pronunciations.  I'll bet Shakespeare was annoyed when actors
    mispronounced his words (especially if those mispronunciations added
    syllables).  I think that everyone understands what it means to
    say that a word has been mispronounced; it is not a difficult concept.
    John's point seems to me to be clear and simple.
    
    Bernie

    
    Since language is primarily a oral/aural form of communication (the
    written language is merely an encoding of the phonemes), I submit
    that the pronunciation that is correct is the one that is understood
    by the listener.  Perhaps that no longer matches the current encoding
    of the word (the spelling) but that is because the medium that the
    spelling has usually been recorded on (paper) is much less volitile
    that the medium that the oral/aural form of the word is recorded
    on (the brain).
    

    I'd like to make an attempt to smooth out some of the ruffled feathers.
    
    I can see John's point...he has a "pet peeve" about hearing words
    or having to pronounce words in a way which is irritating to him
    because he believes them to be incorrect.  Others in this topic
    have challenged the authority by which he has determined which is
    the "correct" pronunciation.  And then then are those who say that
    something which used to be correct may not be so in the future.
    
    I would submit that the English language is probably the most flexible
    and most easily corruptable of any of the modern languages.  In
    fact, I believe that English has never been a "pure" language such
    as you might consider Latin or Greek.  Our dictionaries are full
    of notations such as: "derived from the [Latin, Greek, Spanish,
    French, etc.]; or "a corruption of...".
    
    When we communicate with others, our pronunciation of words is a
    combination of a number of considerations: locality, family influence,
    peer influence, educational background, and our particular attitudes
    about the topic, ourselves and our audience. ["I'm better or more
    educated than you!"  "I see you as a role model, therefore I shall
    try to imitate you." etc.]  Is it "to-mA-to" or "to-mAH-to"?
    
    John has expressed his "pet peeve".  I can accept that, just as I
    accept those expressed in other topics, even though I may disagree.
    I believe others are suggesting that John may be expecting too much
    by hoping that the language is going to remain static based on the
    standards to which he has been educated.  I don't think anyone should
    lose a lot of sleep over it.  And I even suspect that John has or
    can come to terms with the situation.  I don't think he's trying
    to make everyone change to "correct" pronunciation...he's just
    concerned over the fact that our present educational standards are
    not as disciplined as those to which he was accustomed.  I'm concerned
    about that also, but that's an awfully heavy tide to try to push
    back!
        
    
    

    Re .37:
    
    > The insistance on a definition is, in my opinion, pedantic.  
    
    The rejection of definitions is, in my opinion, a rejection of
    rationality. 
        
    > We can understand a concept without being able to define the
    > equivalent term.  This was proved ca 300 BC by Socrates - he showed
    > that everyone understood the concept of Justice, but he systematically
    > destroyed every definition offered.
    
    I cannot agree that he proved anything, because he did not define his
    terms accurately enough, so I cannot verify his proof.  Even if he has
    proven something, there is no way for us to come to agreement upon it
    in a rational manner, because there is nothing on which to apply a
    process of thinking.  Communication with a lack of definitions is
    possible only when the communicators agree.  Disputes require
    definitions.
    
    > I believe that I understand what it means to say that words have
    > accepted or proper pronunciations.
    
    I do not, at least not in this situation.  In general, common usages
    are correct, especially when a usage is so common that one must use it
    to be understood or to communicate without causing attention to be paid
    to the pronunciation (not all of the examples in this topic meet this
    criterion).  In other words, given a choice between the usage which
    will be understood and accepted and one which will stand out, the one
    which will be understood and accepted is correct.
    
    I am not aware of any meaning for "correct" which makes a usage which
    will not be both understood and accepted readily "correct" when that
    usage has no other claim to correctness, such as originality or
    authority of some committee duly authorized to establish correctness.
    And that is why I asked for a definition.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .39:
    
    He could eliminate the dispute by changing the title of the topic to
    "Pronunciations That Are Changing" and still discuss his "pet peeve",
    which must be change rather than incorrectness. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    	There is a purely practical aspect to this.
    
    	My wife comes from near Plymouth, and her ancestors and people
    who sailed from there a few hundred years ago presumably had a fairly
    high degree of mutual comprehension. When she visited Maynard with
    me a few years ago she could not understand (for the first week)
    what the shopkeepers were saying, and they could not understand
    her.
    
    	When you have an uncontrolled and diverging language it is
    reasonable to try to encourage the older versions of pronunciation,
    as being more likely to be understood in other places. Dictionaries
    are not relevant, since American dictionaries are not too common
    in England, and I have never seen an Australian dictionary. I am
    sure they must exist, though. In this sense it is just practical
    to regard the older pronunciation as more correct.

    A few comments:
    
    It may be that Eric is being pedantic. If he is being pedantic for
    asking what "correct pronunciation" means, then so would Socrates be
    pedantic. If I were Eric, I would wear such pedantry as a badge of
    honor; he is in very good company. Furthermore, I don't see the
    proposition that some mysterious "correct pronunciation" exists (and is
    presumably the one used by the speaker) to be any less pedantic. 
           
    A very good question has been raised. If the "correct pronunciation"
    exists, then which one is it? At what point does the previously correct
    pronunciation become the incorrect one? Could there be (dare I say it)
    two pronunciations that are equally correct? 
    
    Item: All of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson, and Dowland rhymed "remove"
    with "love." Given that Dowland was a songwriter and probably sang them
    to rhyme, which pronunciation changed? Was it both? Which one is
    correct? The one we use today or the one Shakespeare used? 
    
    Item: This morning I heard an historical consort singing "Wassail" on
    the radio this morning. The singers pronounced "town" as if it were a
    homonym of "tune." Furthermore, the word "brown" was pronounced as to
    rhyme. For the sake of argument, let us assume that these people did
    their homework and that that was the correct pronunciation some time
    ago. Is our pronunciation incorrect? Is theirs? If the correct
    pronunciation changed, then when? 
    
    Item: According to linguists, there has been less linguistic shift in
    the U.S. than in Britain since the Renaissance. Some linguists say that
    the most isolated and static region of English-speakers are those
    people who live in the hills of Kentucky and Tennessee. If this is
    correct (and there is enough evidence to make it at least arguable),
    then Shakespeare spoke more like Judd Clampett than Lawrence Olivier.
    If this is correct, then shouldn't Shakespearean actors affect a
    hillbilly accent to make the plays more accurate? Shouldn't we all be
    speaking in this accent? 
    
    	Jon

    Hillbilly Shakespeare; I love it!!! Maybe that would make the old
    Bard tolerable...

    To get off the beaten (to death) path even more...
    
    I recently saw a production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" set in
    the 1950's, complete with Ralph Kramden accents (Bottom) and other 
    New York tawk.
    

RE: .39

It's "to-MA-to."    ;-)


RE: .43

    
>   A very good question has been raised. If the "correct pronunciation"
    exists, then which one is it? At what point does the previously correct
    pronunciation become the incorrect one? Could there be (dare I say it)
    two pronunciations that are equally correct?  <

There are several ways to determine the more correct pronunciation.  The first
way is to find out what the original pronunciation was.  This is hard to do in
the case of very old words, but in the case of modern English (Shakespeare to
our time) it is simpler.  Take the word "quixotic" again. The word was coined
in this century and one need only look  a few dictionaries back to determine
what the original pronunciation was. 

Another way to determine the "correct" pronunciation of a word is to look
at the spelling.  Why the "h" in whale?  Because it is pronounced.  The same
is true for the words "what" and "whistle." (This method is more effective
when dealing with consonants than with vowels).

Logic is still another method.  The root of acclimate and acclimatize should
logically have the same stress. (If you pronounce acclimate as ac-CLI-mate to a
person unfamiliar with the word, he can easily infer that the word means "to
take on the climate."  Not so with AC-cli-mate).  As another example, ROUND
is the important component of the word "around."  Pronounce the word correctly
and the meaning behind it is clear.  Pronounce it as A-round, and the stress
is shifted away from the important root.

Here's another example (since I'm beating this to death anyway.)  The word
"tunnel" originally meant a small tun or barrel.  The suffix el makes the word
diminutive.  That's why we pronounce it TUNN-el and not tunn-EL.  The
important part is not that the object is small, but that it is shaped like
a barrel.
    
>   Item: All of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson, and Dowland rhymed "remove"
    with "love." Given that Dowland was a songwriter and probably sang them
    to rhyme, which pronunciation changed? Was it both? Which one is
    correct? The one we use today or the one Shakespeare used?  <

"Love" and "remove" are sight-rhymes.  Shakespeare and Dowland would have
pronounced the words as we do today.  Sight-rhymes are artistic devices that
allow a poet to rhyme words that sound dissimilar, but are spelled in a like
fashion. 
    
>   Item: This morning I heard an historical consort singing "Wassail" on
    the radio this morning. The singers pronounced "town" as if it were a
    homonym of "tune." Furthermore, the word "brown" was pronounced as to
    rhyme. For the sake of argument, let us assume that these people did
    their homework and that that was the correct pronunciation some time
    ago. Is our pronunciation incorrect? Is theirs? If the correct
    pronunciation changed, then when?  <

As I mentioned sometime earlier, *dialect* is quite different than
mispronunciation. Dialect treats words in a consistent fashion.  In the
sample above, "town" and "tune" rhyme, but so would "gown" and "dune."
A Person with such a dialect would likely say a-ROON(d) for around, but
notice that the *accents* still fall in the same places!  Thus, our old
friend "acclimate" would still properly have the first syllable stressed
even in that dialect.

As far as Shakespeare sounding like Judd Clampet is concerned, just remember
that a southern accent is just an English accent slowed down!

Why is my point so hard for some people to understand?  Was I unclear? 
If so, I apologize.


John M.

re .46:  I don't think so.  Stresses have changed all over the place, and in
Shakespeare's time, the silent e's so common in English words were pronounced
(where do you think they came from?) which ADDED syllables!  You would get
confused quickly listening to words like "smelled" and "time" with 2 syllables
(and the "i" in "time" sounding like "ee" in "teem"). 

A case of stress changes, take "advertisement".  Where do you place the stress?
My grandfather always pronounced it with the stress on the second syllable.
(and a short "i")  I've heard other older people pronounce it the same way, so
I suspect that's the "old" way, and by your logic correct. So is majority of
the US wrong?  Were you wrong?  Are you going to pronounce it the "correct" way
from now on? 

There are lots of other dialect differences with stresses.  Take the way
Americans and British pronounce (and spell, in this case) the light, silvery
metal made in the foil you wrap your food in before freezing it for an extreme
example.  Alumin(i)um!

-Mike

    For a real far out example, I just had one jump out of a restaurant
    menu at me.  The served "Cajun" food.  If you insisted on being
    proper and referred to the "correct" name for the Cajun people,
    you would have to say "Arcadian".  
    
    [For our non-American readers, the Cajuns are a people of French
    heritage which are commonly associated with the Bayou area around 
    New Orleans {pronounced Nor-leens by the natives}.  They are descended 
    from the French refugees who were driven out of the Arcadia area
    around the Bay of Fundy (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Maine) in 
    revolutionary times.]

>                                          If you insisted on being
>    proper and referred to the "correct" name for the Cajun people,
>    you would have to say "Arcadian".  

That's "Acadian". 

"Arcadian" pertains to teen-agers spending quarters. :-)

    Re: -.1
    
    You're right.  I stand corrected.  Just a good example of how us
    New Englanders put our R's in the wrong place.   :^)

    Acadia and Arcadia are really the same place. They are both a reference
    to the Greek Arcadia (also Arcady). No doubt this merely reinforces the
    peril of allowing multiple pronunciations of the same word. 
    
    I agree completely that the standard pronunciation for "quixotic" is
    QUICKS-ot-ic (as an aside, my dictionary dates the word to 1815), but
    note my use of the word "standard" as opposed to "right." You must
    remember that English (especially as spoke by the English) is notorious
    for silly pronunciations. I feel like you'll next tell us that the
    "correct" pronunciation of "Nazi" is NAH-zee and that Mozart is to be
    pronounced  to rhyme with "beaux-arts." I once wrote a limerick that
    rhymed "Ecole des beaux-arts" with "Mozart" and "those art" but I
    digress. 
    
    I would never pronounce "quixotic" KEY-hote-ic, but that is because the
    standard pronunciation is QUICKS-ot-ic, not because it is right. I dare
    say that the standard pronunciation is wrong. Just as the standard
    pronunciation for Paris is wrong. PAH-ree for an English speaker is an
    affectation. But it's correct. 
    
    Let me back off for a moment, because I think we're descending into
    quibbles. Much as I enjoy quibbling, it seldom enlightens. 
    
    From my viewpoint, you are making two assertions:
    
    	(1) For every word (in English) there is one and only one correct
    pronunciation.
    	(2) That pronunciation can be determined rationally, by a
    combination of logic, history, and etymology.
    
    If I am misinterpreting your argument, please straighten me out.
    
    Now then, back to the quibbles.
    
    I agree that the "w" in "whale," "what," etc. is aspirated. Thank you
    for reminding me that consonants in words are to be pronounced. I shall
    keep it in mind the next time I say "tough," "nation," or "sapphire." 
    
    Yes, I know that supposedly remove/love is a sight rhyme. I've always
    found that an unsatisfying answer given the number of poets who did
    that then and few who do it know. I also find it a rather unaesthetic
    sight rhyme. I realize all too well that my aesthetics are hardly
    Elizabethan, but it bothers me that we really don't know, but we like
    to pretend that we do. I won't press the point further.
    
    I'm rather shocked that you say dialect is okay, but mispronunciation
    is not. What's the difference? Many of the examples you've given are
    taken from dialect. Dialects are not logical. Language is not logical.
    I have Canadian friends who would rhyme "town" with "dune" but never
    "gown." 
    
    Perhaps the reason that I find your point so hard to understand is that
    it strikes me as arbitrarily ethnocentric and a bit moralistic. I am a
    great fan of decorum. I see nothing wrong with saying, "this is the way
    we do things and we do them that way because that is the way they are
    done." I don't wear straw hats until Memorial Day because it is not
    done. This is far, far different from saying that arbitrary convention
    is right. 
    
    Even convention has its exceptions. I would not fault someone of
    Hispanic background for pronouncing "quixotic" KEY-hote-ic. I would
    even say that person has dispensation to pronounce it either way. Sort
    of the way "Versailles" is pronounced differently depending on its
    being in France or Kentucky (it's VAIR-SIGH, France but VER-SAILS,
    Kentucky). While I pronounce all the letters in "Chelmsford," the
    natives say CHEMS-FUD. While I would never, never say that, I think the
    natives have the right to pronounce their home however they wish. 
    
    	Jon

    RE: .40
    
    Perhaps a brief explanation of definition would help.  There are
    many kinds of definition, not just one kind.  The kind Socrates
    was dealing with is sometimes called "essential" definition.  It
    requires the definer to specify the essence of a thing; that which
    is common to all things of that type and peculiar only to those
    things.  An essential definition of "chair," for example, would
    allow us to include all things that are chairs and exclude all things
    that are not chairs.  This is the most difficult sort of definition
    to produce and Socrates made short work of those who offered them.
    Another kind is "demonstrative" definition (we define "chair" for
    someone by pointing to a chair or a picture of a chair and saying
    "That's a chair").  This is the way we learn most of our words -
    our parents and teachers don't supply us with essential definitions.
    Another kind is "enumerative" (we could define "original American
    colonies" simply by listing them).  There are also "procedural"
    definitions (an "acid" is a substance that turns blue litmus paper
    red).  And there are yet other sorts of definitions.
    
    I may not have made this point clear before, but it seems to me
    that John offered us a perfectly good demonstrative definition of
    "mispronunciation" with his "liberry" example.  Since he was still
    asked for a definition, I suppose that an essential definition was
    being asked for.  Such definitions are not required for understanding.
    One can understand a concept without being able to supply an essential
    definition.
    
    The original question in .0 still seems to me simple and
    straightforward.  "What shall we call words that you have to
    mispronounce to make people think you're saying them correctly?"
    Maybe another example will help.  Suppose I am with a group of people
    who speak only German.  Following the clear and unambiguous rules
    of German pronunciation, they would pronounce the name "Shakespeare"
    as "SHOCK-ess-pee-arr-uh".  If I were to use the English pronunciation,
    it is possible they would'nt know what I was saying - I would have
    to mispronounce "Shakespeare" in order to be understood.  
    
    It looks as if .0 is causing a division into two camps.  One insists
    that there are pronunciations that are proper, correct, or accepted.
    The other seems to be saying that there is no such thing as a correct
    pronunciation, that the terms "accepted," "correct," and "proper"
    are either ill-defined or undefined and that, therefore, any
    pronunciation is as good as another.  Is that what you're saying?
    
    Bernie

A quick note about syllabic stress: If I remember my linguistics classes
from college, each language (and, likely, individual dialects within each
language) has stress rules that are quite complicated.  One African 
language we worked on had rules something like these: 

Place primary stress on the last syllable, then start counting syllables in
triplets from the beginning of the word, and accent the first syllable of
each group, unless the vowel in it is a "short" vowel, and then shift the
stress one syllable to the right.  If there are two short vowels in a row, 
put the stress on the long vowel in the triplet.

English wasn't any simpler than this!  Alan Prince was the professor; he 
must have a couple of books out by now on stress rules, if anyone's curious 
how English looks in this light.

Thus, two words with the same root may have quite different stress, not as
a result of change in meaning, but as a result of stress patterns that are
independent of word meaning.  There are lots of exceptions to stress rules,
especially when foreign words are incorporated into a language, and the
rules do change from dialect to dialect.  This suggests that at least the
syllabic stress component of pronunciation cannot be claimed as a permanent 
feature of a word.

	@V@

re:.50
>    You're right.  I stand corrected.  Just a good example of how us
>    New Englanders put our R's in the wrong place.   :^)

	You mean how _we_ New Englanders put our R's in the wrong place,
    right?

    
          -culcha vulcha

    You can get in lots of trouble if you put your R's in the wrong
    place!
    
    -bs

    re .0:
    
    Although I have made it clear that I do not agree with your examples,
    I have finally found a word that *almost* fits the title.
    
    			    "mischievous"
    
    which is commonly pronounced "miss-chee-vee-us".
    
    This I must agree is WRONG. All the examples you gave have "good"
    arguments for their various pronunciations. This one, however, does
    not.                    
    
    I say it *almost* fits the title of this note because you don't
    *have* to pronounce it this way to be understood.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Well, at least ONE person got the point of .0!
    
    
    
    John M.

    re: < Note 5.108 by USMRM2::MGRACE "Mary L. Grace" >

|    My best friend in college invariably pronounced Wednesday as "Wed
|    Ness Day."  ...
    
    Actually, wasn't Wednesday originally Woden's Day?  However, I say
    'wensday' just as everyone else does even though I know it's wrong.
    
  --Simon
    
[The above reply originally written as note 5.115.]

    The topic note posed the question: "What shall we call words that
    you have to mispronounce to make people think you're saying them
    correctly?"  This sounds like a rhetorical question.  What to call
    this class of words is hardly as interesting as the controversy
    over whether those words were mispronounced in the first place.
    
    "Controversy."  Ah, there's a good word for this topic.  The right
    sylla'ble of the word on which to put the the accent depends on
    which side of the pond you're on.  As others have remarked already,
    there isn't such a thing as "the" right pronunciation.  Regional
    differences are obvious examples.  Although one might observe that
    certain dialects are closer to an older form of the language than
    other dialects, that's really not relevant.  (Consider that homo
    sapiens, being a mutant species, would have to be genetically modified
    to be more "correct" primates.)
    
    This is probably not doing justice to John Mitchell's thesis that
    there is a pronunciation more correct than others.  The correctness
    of the pronunciation derives from certain rules of the language.
    The problem, though, is that the rules are not rigid, and anyway
    not all speakers of the language agree to the same rules.  I get
    the impression that John goes for prescriptive rules, while others
    subscribe to the descriptive rules theory.
    
    Another problem I have with one of John's basic arguments is that
    the "original" pronunciation is correct.  This presumed that at
    one time, all speakers of English pronounced a given word the same
    way.  I don't believe that such a time existed after the time of
    the Tower of Babel, if ever.  The "correct" pronunciation for a 
    given time, at a given place, in a given population, is really a 
    statistical norm.  One would have to take a "classical" approach 
    to language to posit that a given word has a "correct" pronunciation.
    
  --Simon
    

    to answer the original question, without getting into which words,
    if any, belong to this class, how about:
    
    			malaphone
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    If I came across that word, "malaphone", I would assume that it
    meant a word that is uncomfortable to hear.
    (sort of like: tax :-)
    
    

    re .62:
    
    > If I came across that word, "malaphone", I would assume that it
    > meant a word that is uncomfortable to hear.
      
    Exactly right, apparently these words make .0 very uncomfortable
    when he hears them.
    
    		Sm
    
    P.S. Anybody got a better word?

    > P.S. Anybody got a better word?
    
    Yes - cacophone, a back-formation from cacophony.  Malaphone mixes
    Latin and Greek, which is cacophonous to my ears.
    
    Jeff (looking for a good tetraphonic hi-fi :-> )

    				disstress?

    RE: .61, etc.
    
    I know "malaphone" has a bad ring to it (pun intended) but I love
    it.
    
    If only you had made your suggestion right after .0!
    
    
    John M.

RE: .60

As much as I hate to beat this puppy to death, Simon, I just *couldn't*
let you get away with the following statement:


>   Another problem I have with one of John's basic arguments is that
    the "original" pronunciation is correct.  This presumed that at
    one time, all speakers of English pronounced a given word the same
    way.  I don't believe that such a time existed after the time of
    the Tower of Babel, if ever.  The "correct" pronunciation for a 
    given time, at a given place, in a given population, is really a 
    statistical norm.  <

Am I to believe then that new words are given in a simultaneous revelation to
all people?  

Every word begins with the ONE person who invents it, or a group of people who
agree on it.  Take the word VAX for instance (I know, bad example).  Does it
rhyme with racks or rakes?  Obviously the person or persons who coined the word
intended a "correct" pronunciation for it:  it rhymes with "racks." 

John M.

    No, John.  Suppose I invented the word 'VAX' and I pronounced it
    to rhyme with 'rakes.'  Just because I invented the word and that's
    how I wanted it pronounced, doesn't make it "right."  People will
    pronounce it to rhyme with 'racks,' and who's to say that they're
    wrong?
    
    Take another example.  What is the "right" pronunciation of 'DECUS'?
    When I first started using DEC equipment, I didn't know that it
    was supposed to be pronounced 'DEEkus.'  I bet that a lot of customers
    still don't know that either, but are they wrong?
    
    Yet another example:  How do you pronounce the '.' in 'VMS V4.5'?
    Some people say 'dot,' and some say 'point.'  Who's right?  Yeah,
    I know that '.' is not an English word, but it illustrates the
    principle in linguistics.
    
  --Simon
    

    Upon further reflection, I shouldn't have taken .0 as an absolute
    statement, but as a subjective statement.  There are many instances
    of accepted pronunciations that I would consider mispronunciations,
    for any of a number of reasons.  I don't mean to say that none of
    us should have such opinions.  None of us is absolutely right, and
    so I don't think that there is any such thing as _the_ correct
    pronunciation for a given word.  But as far as I am concerned, some
    words are commonly mispronounced; that's true.
    
  --Simon
    

    In Maynard for a long time, and perhaps even now, it had to be
    
    	digiTAL'
    
    or no one knew what you ment!
    
    		Rick
    		Merrill
    

re -1:  I heard that from a realtor just when I got a job here.  Freaked me
out!  Don't know if I heard it since...

-Mike

< Note 290.70 

>    In Maynard for a long time, and perhaps even now, it had to be
>    
>    	digiTAL'

I think that's because digiTALis is more familiar than Digital to most 
people.

    By the way, pointing back to an example back a few notes,
    it's Jed Clampett, not Judd Clampett.
    
    Also, a word was brought up that perfectly illustrates how
    syllabic stress changes when form changes: the adjective is
    pe-DAN-tic, but the noun is PED-an-try. And I just brought
    up another: SYL-la-ble (noun) and syl-LAB-ic (adjective).
    Do you (John Mitchell) agree with these pronunications?
    How does CLI-mate and ACC-limate differ?
    
    As far as "junta" goes, regardless of the Latin root, we
    got the word from the Spanish, and so it should be prounced
    HOON-ta. Otherwise, I shall expect you to pronounce "rendezvous"
    as REN-dez-voose rather than RON-day-voo.
    
    --- jerry

    Not a mis-pronounciation for Digital, but equally good.....
    
    Seen in an old article about the Assabet mill, a picture of the
    front of building 12 (?) with the large letters D I G I T A L 
    across the front, and credit for the photo?
    
    "Courtesy of Digitel Equipment Co."..........
                      ^
    
    

   Not quite "mis-pronounced", but ...

   How did "supposably" come to be so prevalent?  As far as I can tell,
   it's used - by some people - to mean "supposedly".  I find it in my
   dictionary (under "suppose" with no meaning, just "adv.") so it's
   legitimate.
   I find "supposed" to mean "assumed to be true, regardless of fact",
   implying an assumption of truth that currently, actually exists.
   "Supposable", correct me if I'm wrong, would imply a _potential_
   assumption of truth.

   Nit, nit, nit

    Re .-whatever, the suggestion that new words start out with one
    correct pronunciation which then gets corrupted by some incorrect
    listeners.
    
    How about the Hyundai company?  There is only one correct
    pronunciation(*), but even the advertisers had to change to an
    incorrect pronunciation because no one(**) wanted to pronounce
    it correctly.
    (* with the possible exception of remote parts of Korea)
    (** rhetorical use of "no one" here)

    Which was the correct original pronunciation of "subprogram"?
    Accent on the first or second syllable?
        
    How about spellings?  The litre is a relatively modern invention.
    Why did the U.S.A. need an "invented here" spelling for the
    "not invented here" liquid measurement?

    How about meanings?  Both games of "football" are relatively
    modern inventions.  Which was the correct original meaning?
    
    Then of course there is the word which, even when pronounced
    correctly, is still pronounced wrong.
    
    !!!  Bad pun alert  !!!
    If you hate bad puns, press "next unseen" now.
    
    The word is "wrong".

    RE .77
    
    What's this "both games of football"?
    
    As a start:
    
    Association football aka 'soccer'
    American football
    Australian rules football
    Rugby union football
    Rugby league football
    
    and I'm sure the sports fans will list you some more...

.78�    and I'm sure the sports fans will list you some more...

    One more...Gaelic Football...from Ireland...sorta like Oz Rules.
    (reckon the convicts brought some of the rules with them!)
    
    - Dave K.

    re: .79
    
    It has rules???
    
    --bonnie, a big fan of American football

    Re: .79 & .80
    
    Perhaps the implication is that the number of rules in Irish football
    was diminished after these felons took some of them to Australia...
    
    Bill

	How do you pronounce 'cache'? In British English it sounds exactly
like 'cash', as in:

	'Security forces have found an IRA arms cache ...'

I have noticed that many technical people say 'kaysh'. Is this 

	a) Standard American pronunciation, in which case it's 
you-say-tomahto time again and I shall say 'kaysh' where necessary.

	b) Another case of people who are unaware of a word's original
pronunciation inventing their own.

	I'm not saying that we should pronounce 'cache' as 'cash' because
it's derived from the French 'cacher', but 'cash' is well established in
non-dp contexts (at least in Britain). The people who coined 'cache' for
disks etc. obviously knew exactly what the word meant because it expresses
very succinctly what is going on.

Comments?

	I just heard ka-shay from one of my engineering students --
	probably from cachet, or maybe from forte.

		-- Cliff

        Cache is correctly pronounced catch, just
        as niche is pronounced nitch.  :-)
                                                

     >>   Cache is correctly pronounced catch, just
     >>   as niche is pronounced nitch.  :-)

	  So does the smiley face mean you're just kidding?
	  Because otherwise, I beg to differ.

	  Di

    G'day,
    
    
     Surely the 'ch' is pronounced as in schedule and school...
    
    
    derek
    
    
    ;-)
    
    

    I've heard lots of computer scientists, including native speakers
    of Americans, pronounce it correctly, i.e. as a homonym of "cash."
    Haven't yet heard anything else, and .82 was the first sign I've
    seen.  Sigh.
    
    It's probably just instances of the more general case where students
    get^H^H^Hreceive good grades for speaking or writing gibberish.

    I have heard "kaysh" and "cachet", but it hasn't been from technical
    people.  In the technical community I think it must be just an
    occasional instance of ignorance, easily cured.

    Now the number of marketing types who pronounce "niche" to rhyme with
    "nitch" ...
    
    Interestingly enough, when I just ran the above two paragraphs through
    the spell checker, it wanted to change "kaysh" to "cache".

>    Now the number of marketing types who pronounce "niche" to rhyme with
>    "nitch" ...
    
	Did you forget to put some smiley faces here?  I hate to be the
	one who doesn't get the joke, but I'm not a marketing type (my
	God, what an insult!), and not only do I pronounce it to ryhme
	with nitch, I actually pronounce it as nitch.  And so, I find, 
	does Mr. Webster.  Surely, you don't pronounce it as nish, or
	neesh, do you?  Shocked,

		-- Cliff

	P.S.  How do you pronounce Anais Nin?

    Well, I have to apologize to anybody who took offense at .88. The last
    time I looked up "niche", I don't remember in what dictionary, "neesh"
    was the only pronunciation.  When I just looked it up in American
    Heritage, "nitch" was there as well.

    re: .89
    
    Ah-nah-ees. Unless you're Henry Miller.

    Re .89: 
    
    Anais Nin would rhyme with palais, however you would "spell" that
    phonetically?  Ah-ney???
    
    But the lady referred to was called Ana�s Nin, which is "Ah-nah-ees".
    
    Hans

    From Collins English Dictionary (sorry it's not the OED) there are two
    pronunciations:
    
    	'nitsh' and 'nish'
    
    In both cases the 'i' is a long syllable as in fish.
    
    Nick

    re: .94
    
    The COD has it as "nich" (short i = nitsh) and "nech" (long e = neetsh).
    
    Maybe Collins is published in the north. :-)
    
    -Tom

    Re .95
    
       Collins has offices in London and Glasgow.  But I think the answer 
       may be:
    
       "The compilers were able to consult the Cobuild corpus of 20 
       million words of contempoary English ... ... studied using 
       computers at the English Department of the University of 
       Birmingham."
    
       They go on to say that Cobuild was a source especially for usage 
       examples, but maybe the Birmingham pronounciation infiltrated too, 
       to a certain extent.
    
       :-)
    
    Nick

In the Southern part of America, it wouldn't be surprising to hear both cash and
cache pronounced "kaysh".  N'est-ce pas?

Wook

    Pas.  In the southern states, one would expect to hear "CAH-yish"
    or even more than two syllables.

>    Pas.  In the southern states, one would expect to hear "CAH-yish"
>    or even more than two syllables.

Wahl, where I come from it'd be KAY-ush.

re the last few:

I always know I'm in Alabama when I start to hear people talking about the
TAY-VAY, as in "Ah saw it on the Tav-Vay, last night."

Larry