# Pronunciation: medieval



## James Brandon

My query has to do with the common pronunciation of the adjective 'medieval' (also spelt 'mediaeval'). 

According to Oxford Concise English dictionary (OCD), it should be:

[,me-di-'i:-vol] 

Secondary stress on 1st syllable; main stress on 3rd syllable. First /i/ sound is short (as in 'ship') while second one, as indicated by /:/, is long (as in 'please', 'sheep', 'sleet', etc.). The last syllable is a neutral schwa sound, as in 'envelope', 2nd syllable; as in 'another', 1st syllable. 

The 2nd and 3rd syllables are supposed to be pronounced separately with a slight gap in between. However, I get the feeling few people observe this rule and they tend to pronounce the word as:

[,me-'dji:-vol]

This would be 3 syllables with stress on 2nd, with sound /dj/ and long /i/ sound; /dj/ is a bit softer than /dz/ would be, here, and incorporates the equivalent of 'y' in 'yellow' or 'yummy', almost.

A friend of mine insists the correct pronunciation is indeed the 1st one given here. 

Comments on common usage welcome.


----------



## El escoces

You hear both, of course.

For me, it's the first option that's "correct", and that's how I pronounce the word in practice (with a clear, though not heavily pronounced, gap between syllables 2 and 3).


----------



## cuchuflete

As with most matters concerning pronunciation, I carefully avoid terms such as "correct".
Common pronunciations in AE are me-dee-ee-vul, with the main stress on the third syllable, and a lesser emphasis on the first, and mid-ee-vul, with all the stress on the middle syllable.  I use the first version.  

I am not aware of any regional source of preference, nor anything to do with educational level or other influence; it seems a matter of personal habit and custom.


----------



## James Brandon

Interesting. The 1st pronunciation you refer to, Cuchuflete, is the same as my No1 pronunciation, except that both /i/ sounds are long, whereas the supposedly correct British pronunciation has a short /i/ followed by a long /i/.

I feel that pronunciation No1 is perceived to be better by educated speakers (Received Pronunciation).


----------



## El escoces

I was carefully avoiding "correct", which is why I used ""correct""!

For the avoidance of doubt, I am making no judgment on any of the possible pronunciations of this word.  I think "me-dee-vul" is perfectly common in BE.


----------



## duden

I have always learnt that the "correct" pronunciation should be "mid-i:-vl". But as I listened to a course on the history of the English language, the man (he was American) pronounced it "me-di-i:-vl". Now I´ve listened to the pronunciation samples at thefreedictionary.com and the four-syllable version is given as British, whereas the three-syllable one as American. Confusing...


----------



## Hermocrates

I pronounce it: [,me-di-'i:-vol] (four syllables).

Rye


----------



## James Brandon

It could be that there is an element of educated speaker Vs other, and/or AE Vs BE here. 

I am not passing judgment as such, by the way, just stating facts - no need to be so apologetic and politically correct about such things, I don't think, El Escoces. You know and I know and we all know what we are talking about here, so there is no point pretending it is not there...

Having said all this, Cuchuflete, who is an AE speaker, mentioned an altered version of my Version 1 as common in AE - at any rate used by him - so that it does not sound like the difference can be reduced to BE (4 syllables and Version 1) and AE (3 syllables and Version 2). And several contributors have pointed out that Version 2 is indeed commonly used in BE.


----------



## Loob

While we're voting...

I pronounce it with four syllables, too


----------



## El escoces

James Brandon said:


> It could be that there is an element of educated speaker Vs other, and/or AE Vs BE here.
> 
> I am not passing judgment as such, by the way, just stating facts - no need to be so apologetic and politically correct about such things, I don't think, El Escoces. You know and I know and we all know what we are talking about here, so there is no point pretending it is not there...
> 
> Having said all this, Cuchuflete, who is an AE speaker, mentioned an altered version of my Version 1 as common in AE - at any rate used by him - so that it does not sound like the difference can be reduced to BE (4 syllables and Version 1) and AE (3 syllables and Version 2). And several contributors have pointed out that Version 2 is indeed commonly used in BE.


 
I wasn't being an apologist, and I pooh-pooh political correctness 

I was simply avoiding being prescriptive.

Personally, i don't believe it has much to do with education.  It's a combination of that, plus location, lpus other social factors, plus personal preference...


----------



## Starfrown

The tetrasyllabic version preserves the number of syllables in the Latin stem: "mediaeval-"

That said, I only use the trisyllabic pronunciation, and it seems to me that most people around here--southern US--do as well.


----------



## James Brandon

All of this gives us a better idea of what the pronunciation is in various parts - or not, as the case might be.

Being prescriptive is out of fashion, at any rate in certain areas, such as language. What's wrong with it? Being prescriptive about smoking, for instance, is deemed perfectly fine in the UK right now: i.e., ban it whenever and wherever possible. Being prescriptive about what people eat too. (But in those areas there is the medical and health reason / argument / alibi...) Anyway, I am drifting.

Having said all of that, I do not stick to any personal dogma when it comes to the pronunciation of 'medieval'... If one reads all the posts, there is a clear sense that educated speakers and those who have thought about the issue follow Version 1, at any rate in BE...


----------



## Matching Mole

The unConcise OED refuses to be prescriptive about the number of syllables, and puts the 2nd syllable (out of the possible 4) in brackets, indicating it as being optional. It has 6 variations, 5 of them with the optional syllable. It seems to cover every way I could possibly think of saying it, without actually sounding silly.

Personally I pronounce it with 3, the first one being "med" rather than "mid", probably something like "med'eevl".


----------



## Forero

I used to pronounce it "mid-EE-vl" but changed to "med-EE-vl" on learning to read/write it. Since learning to say it in French, I have come to prefer "med-ee-EE-vl (when I'm careful) for a neutral connotation but to keep "med-EE-vl" (sounds more "evil") for the negative sense.


----------



## languageGuy

Hmm, I wonder how often people actually say this word (daily, weekly, yearly...).  As a teacher of history, I say it quite a bit. For speed (I think) I use the 3 syllable version, something like 'mid-evil.'  If I only said it once a year, maybe I would take more time and say the OED version.


----------



## Aardvark01

I use the four syllable /mediʔi:vəɫ/, but given the lack of consonant in the English spelling (our alphabet has no letter [grapheme] for the glotal stop) between the two /i/'s it is natural to merge (elide) them into one syllable.

I would expect anyone familiar with a semitic language (Hebrew, Arabic...)to have no problem with the four syllable pronunciation because they do have a letter [ayin/ayn].


----------



## Forero

I hadn't considered the glottal stop, but I don't use it in _medieval_.


----------



## Nunty

Aardvark01 said:


> I use the four syllable /mediʔi:vəɫ/, but given the lack of consonant in the English spelling (our alphabet has no letter [grapheme] for the glotal stop) between the two /i/'s it is natural to merge (elide) them into one syllable.
> 
> I would expect anyone familiar with a semitic language (Hebrew, Arabic...)to have no problem with the four syllable pronunciation because they do have a letter [ayin/ayn].



I pronounce the word like Matching Mole does: 





> something like "med'eevl"


I grew up speaking Hebrew alongside English, but I don't see a glottal stop coming into the pronunciation of _medieval_. (It is true, however, that what I don't know about glottal stops could fill a library and I've made a fool of myself on the subject more than once in the forums.) 

If I were to pronounce the four-syllable version, I think I'd end up adding a _y_, sort of like _med-i-yee-vl._


----------



## Cypherpunk

Nun-Translator said:


> I pronounce the word like Matching Mole does: I grew up speaking Hebrew alongside English, but I don't see a glottal stop coming into the pronunciation of _medieval_. (It is true, however, that what I don't know about glottal stops could fill a library and I've made a fool of myself on the subject more than once in the forums.)
> 
> If I were to pronounce the four-syllable version, I think I'd end up adding a _y_, sort of like _med-i-yee-vl._



I can say precisely when and where I started regularly using the word, and I can also say where I learned to pronounce it, because she had all of us practice saying and writing the word. I took a course called Ancient and Medieval Civilizations in high school (and later AP European History), and the teacher was insistent that we pronounce the word as Matching Mole and Nun-Translator do: 3 syllables with 'med' as the first syllable. And, I can confirm that after hearing the 4 syllable version on a number of occasions from friends who are historians, I have tried to change my pronunciation, and it comes out just as she suggests. It also didn't take. I think I said it 'her' way too many times...


----------



## James Brandon

This is interesting in that the pronunciation suggested by NunTranslator and by Matching Mole would appear to be a compromise between Version 1 in my original post (which most contributors appear to believe is a little bit artificial and not that common, except among scholars perhaps) and Version 2 (which people who have thought about the issue seem to want to leave aside as unsatisfactory)... Phonetically, pronouncing the 1st syllable as /med-/ would be key, I believe, in this respect.


----------



## Nunty

It is also interesting in that MM speakes BE and I speak AE. Hmmm.


----------



## Loob

Which implies that the choice between the three-syllable and four-syllable pronunciation is idiosyncratic, rather than varietal....


----------



## gasman

I would opt for the 4 syllable pronunciation very strongly. It is the one our teachers used, and my parents used, so I see no reason to change. I have always considered _medeevil _ugly and incorrect. Even Merriam-Webster pronounces the _i._


----------



## ewie

For me it's a definite 4-syllable word _*(meh-dee-'ee-vul)*_ but I don't worry much about how folks pronounce it ... just so long as they don't pronounce it _*(con-'tem-pree)*_ or similar.


----------



## gasman

> It is, in my opinion, silly--and obnoxious--to declare one of several _accepted_ pronunciations the "right" one.


 
Can I suggest there is a difference between someone saying there is only one correct answer, and someone else writing that another, accepted, approach is the one he prefers.


----------



## natkretep

I use the four-syllable version, but hear a lot of the three-syllable one. I don't put in a glottal stop between the two vowel sounds, so if said quickly it can sound as if there's only one vowel.

Presumably this is what happened in 'extraordinary', though here the 'prestigious' pronunciation is the one that has the extra vowel removed.


----------



## mplsray

gasman said:


> I would opt for the 4 syllable pronunciation very strongly. It is the one our teachers used, and my parents used, so I see no reason to change. I have always considered _medeevil _ugly and incorrect. Even Merriam-Webster pronounces the _i._


 
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has among the pronunciations for medieval /mi'divəl/, that is, a pronunciation in which the _i_ is not pronounced. It gives it as the first pronunciation, but I don't believe that there is any significance to that.

I myself prefer the four-syllable pronunciation with three /i/s and a schwa.


----------



## James Brandon

A footnote on how common the use of the word is, because one contributor commented that he doubted many people used the word. Literal usage is bound to be relatively rare, i.e. confined to people dealing with the history of the Middle Ages (not your average taxi driver). However, the figurative use of the adjective seems to me far more common, i.e. the meaning that something is archaic, brutal, etc. (This figurative meaning, by the way, would be rejected as a caricature of the reality of the Middle Ages by scholars, but that is another debate.) 

As for the notion of what is 'correct' and what is not, it boils down to this: either one accepts that there may be a 'better' pronunciation used by educated people, etc. (and this was the 'old', prescriptive attitude, until 50 years ago or so in the UK), and the rules of the game are clear, albeit partly arbitrary (i.e.: this is how you should pronounce it, Johnny, or else you will sound common and you won't belong); or, one denies that there is such a thing as a 'correct' phonetical form, in the name of diversity and political correctness, and everybody is happy to pronounce the word as they wish - in practice, this means that those who are 'in the know' will still pronounce the word in a certain ('better') way, i.e. those whose parents are middle-class and who go to an 'independent' school (i.e. a private school). The others won't even be aware of the issue. This way, social discrimination based on the use of language can go on unhindered, to a large extent - not many Radio 4 newsreaders sound like Cockney Londoners, to the best of my knowledge. Having said that, things are less rigid than they used to be, as to what is acceptable and what is not. Ultimately, if one does not want to be prescriptive at all, the use of the 'f-' word ought to be acceptable, any time, anywhere, on BBC radio and TV, for instance. _Reductio ad absurdum_.


----------



## cuchuflete

_Moderator note: Discussions of the deleterious effects of unbridled pulitical keerectitude and rigid vs. floppy prescriptivism probably deserve threads of their own.  I seem to remember that this thread was about...

_


> My query has to do with the *common pronunciation of the adjective 'medieval'* (also spelt 'mediaeval').
> According to Oxford Concise English dictionary (OCD), it should be:
> [,me-di-'i:-vol]
> Secondary stress on 1st syllable; main stress on 3rd syllable. First /i/ sound is short (as in 'ship') while second one, as indicated by /:/, is long (as in 'please', 'sheep', 'sleet', etc.). The last syllable is a neutral schwa sound, as in 'envelope', 2nd syllable; as in 'another', 1st syllable.
> The 2nd and 3rd syllables are supposed to be pronounced separately with a slight gap in between. However, I get the feeling few people observe this rule and they tend to pronounce the word as:
> [,me-'dji:-vol]
> This would be 3 syllables with stress on 2nd, with sound /dj/ and long /i/ sound; /dj/ is a bit softer than /dz/ would be, here, and incorporates the equivalent of 'y' in 'yellow' or 'yummy', almost.
> A friend of mine insists the correct pronunciation is indeed the 1st one given here.
> 
> Comments on common usage welcome.


_
We are at risk of meandering too far afield._


----------



## Brioche

ewie said:


> For me it's a definite 4-syllable word _*(meh-dee-'ee-vul)*_ .



Currently BBC Knowledge is running the series *Medieval Lives* by Terry Jones on cable tv in Australia.

Naturally, Mr Jones says _medieval_ many times during the programs.

He agrees with Ewie regarding pronunciation.


----------



## panjandrum

The common pronunciation around here amongst those who have call to pronounce medieval is like the stringing together of the two words meddy... evil.  Of course, meddy is not a word, but I'm sure you know what I mean - it rhymes with teddy.


----------



## Forero

Do people who pronounce _medi_(_a_)_eval_ as "meddy" + "evil" generally do it with no intervening glottal stop or /j/ sound?


----------



## James Brandon

I do not think you could call it a glottal stop - it is just a very short pause. If the pause is too short, it sounds like it is 3 syllables, with a long /i/ sound, as suggested, if I remember correctly, by Cuchuflete. (This was the compromise option I was referring to earlier.) 

I assume that a glottal stop is supposed to be a (silent) break in one's speech that replaces a sound or letter that ought to be there, if one takes into account 'normal' pronunciation of a word. Cockney Londoners, for instance, say /for-y/ with no /t/ and instead of /forty/. The glottal stop replaces the /t/. It is not the case with the short break affecting the phonetics of 'medieval' for Version 1 (in 4 syllables).


----------



## panjandrum

Forero said:


> Do people who pronounce _medi_(_a_)_eval_ as "meddy" + "evil" generally do it with no intervening glottal stop or /j/ sound?


No stop. 
For the version I was talking about there is a kind of switch from one variety of ee sound at the end of meddy to another at the beginning of evil.  
The effect is the same, I suppose, as would be created by a y.


----------



## James Brandon

According to the OCD, and the way the phonetics is represented, the 2 syllables would be separate, which would seem to indicate that a pause - even if it is very brief - is expected.


----------



## Loob

Forero said:


> Do people who pronounce _medi_(_a_)_eval_ as "meddy" + "evil" generally do it with no intervening glottal stop or /j/ sound?


For me, too, there's no glottal stop or /j/ - just the sort of transition you get when running together eg _pretty + evil. _


----------



## ewie

I believe* that the intervening _y_-sound is called a _glide_.

*Please form an orderly queue/line to tell me I'm wrong


----------



## Forero

panjandrum said:


> No stop.
> For the version I was talking about there is a kind of switch from one variety of ee sound at the end of meddy to another at the beginning of evil.
> The effect is the same, I suppose, as would be created by a y.


This "sounds" like the way I have learned to say it: as "meddy evil" with the "y e" as in "pretty evening", not with an actual /j/ as in "dirty yield".


----------



## Loob

Forero said:


> This "sounds" like the way I have learned to say it: as "meddy evil" with the "y e" as in "pretty evening", not with an actual /j/ as in "dirty yield".


Mmm, that's how I say it...


ewie said:


> I believe* that the intervening _y_-sound is called a _glide_.


I don't have an intervening _y-_sound (see above).  But if I did, I'm sure it would indeed be called a glide♥


----------



## Redshade

I would pronounce this medd-evle and assume that this was a reflection of the modern spelling _medieval_.
I always think that those who speak the word with four syllables
are clinging to the old spelling _mediaeval_ out of a sense of loyalty or a desire to advertise their erudition.


----------



## El escoces

Redshade said:


> I would pronounce this medd-evle and assume that this was a reflection of the modern spelling _medieval_.
> I always think that those who speak the word with four syllables
> are clinging to the old spelling _mediaeval_ out of a sense of loyalty or a desire to advertise their erudition.


 
I pronounce the word with four syllables because it feels the more natural pronunciation to me, and because it's the way I've always pronounced it.  I don't know about a sense of loyalty (to whom?), but I can find plenty of other ways of advertising my erudition (as and when my modesty does not prevent me from doing so).


----------



## Redshade

El escoces said:


> I pronounce the word with four syllables because it feels the more natural pronunciation to me, and because it's the way I've always pronounced it. I don't know about a sense of loyalty (to whom?), but I can find plenty of other ways of advertising my erudition (as and when my modesty does not prevent me from doing so).


 
El escoces.

My most humble apologies if you have taken this as a slight on your person.This was not intended.
I admit that "loyalty" was perhaps not the right word
to use.
My ire was meant for those who prescribe that we must stick to old outdated rules of pronunciation/grammar/usage and who refuse to acknowledge that language evolves.
It was not meant to be an attack on anyones inherited 
speech patterns.I speak as a broadly enunciated yorkshireman.


----------



## El escoces

Redshade said:


> El escoces.
> 
> My most humble apologies if you have taken this as a slight on your person.This was not intended.
> I admit that "loyalty" was perhaps not the right word
> to use.
> My ire was meant for those who prescribe that we must stick to old outdated rules of pronunciation/grammar/usage and who refuse to acknowledge that language evolves.
> It was not meant to be an attack on anyones inherited
> speech patterns.I speak as a broadly enunciated yorkshireman.


 
Don't worry, Redshade, I wasn't offended (you'd have to try harder )

I did find the post a little odd, however, particularly given how balanced the discussion in this thread has been, and the complete lack (as far as I can remember) of anyone - in either pronunciation camp - adopting a prescriptivist position!  Until your post, which does seem to me - I've just reread it - to indicate that anyone who uses the four-syllable pronunciation may not be incorrect, but is assumed to have chosen that option for entirely wrong reasons.  Or have I misunderstood you? 

Going back to your original post, you referred in it to the change in the word's spelling, and your assumption that your pronunciation reflects that change.  That raises a few questions: are you aware of your pronunciation being different before the change of spelling?  If the "modern" spelling is not compulsory, need any resultant change of pronunciation be?  And, most importantly from my point of view, does (did?) the change of spelling necessitate a change of pronunciation in any event?  Does "ie" in "medieval" become a diphthong, like "ie" in "believe"; or does the "e" in "medieval" (as a replacement for "ae") retain a distinct sound (the same sound, in fact, that it had before as "ae")?  If it's the latter - or if it can be argued to be the latter - the four-syllable pronunciation surely remains perfectly valid despite the change in spelling?


----------



## Redshade

The spelling change happened before I was born so I ,as do you,pronounce the word as I have always done.
It is because the discussion had not touched on the different spelling/different pronunciation dichotomy that I" tossed in the grenade" to liven things up.A habit of playing the devil's advocate in many a student union bar.
And grenades,as we all know,can blow up in ones face.


----------



## natkretep

Redshade said:


> I would pronounce this medd-evle and assume that this was a reflection of the modern spelling _medieval_.
> I always think that those who speak the word with four syllables
> are clinging to the old spelling _mediaeval_ out of a sense of loyalty or a desire to advertise their erudition.


 
That's not impossible, and I am tempted to spell it _mediaeval_ sometimes. However, I am also aware of related words with -_eval_ (_primeval_ and _co-eval_), so that the word structure _medi _+ _eval_ is still clear in my mind. Hence my reluctance to pronounce it _med-EEVle_.


----------



## James Brandon

From all the posts - and I was the one who asked, and I can assure you I had no pre-conception as to what contributors may say - it does sound to me like the 4-syllable pronunciation is favoured by more 'erudite' types. One contributor even mentioned scholars (medievalists) who taught a course on the Middle Ages and insisted the only correct pronunciation was with 4 syllables. Conversely, the 3-syllable pronunciation is favoured by 'non-specialists' and speakers who have never bothered to reflect upon the matter. (I know my description is a simplification of the situation, by the way.)

Reactions to this state of affairs then fall into a number of - predictable - categories: some people refuse any notion that the phonetic discrepancies may be linked to social differences, and reject any notion that one can be 'prescriptive' about language - in other words, anything goes, provided people are happy with it; others get shocked that the speakers suspected of being (too) erudite might believe that their pronunciation is somehow 'better'. The former reaction is derived from the ideology of political correctness; the latter is inverted snobbery. 

Having said all this (and while I am eagerly awaiting the hate e-mail), English is like French, and there is no direct link between phonetics and spelling, unlike German or Spanish (you say it as you read it, and you write it as you say it). As a result, the idea that pronunciation would reflect changes in spelling does not really convince me, which does not mean it is wrong per se.


----------



## panjandrum

Here is more speculation.

Some people pronounce this word as they do because they came across it in writing and have worked it out from the spelling.  Those most familiar with medieval no doubt go for the 3-syllable version.

Some people pronounce this word as they do because they heard it first and copied the pronunciation.  As it is a term used extensively in the relevant academic context, where there it is as familiar spoken as written, the older 4-syllable pronunciation prevails.

I suspect therefore that phonetic discrepancies are related not to social differences or erudition but reflect whether primary exposure to the word was written or oral.


----------



## James Brandon

Panj,

Valid points, and yet: primary exposure to the word itself may be - I stress: may be, since I have no hard evidence - linked to social and cultural factors.

To be aware of the various possible spellings, you need to be reading books or other publications of a certain standard, I would have thought. To hear the word on a regular basis and from a young age, you would not be coming from an exceedingly deprived family, would you? 

As for being prescriptive, this is part of primary exposure: of all our contributors, is there one who can honestly say that neither his or her father, nor his or her mother, ever corrected their pronunciation, so as to let them know what is or was 'correct' pronunciation? Usually, it is done in the most casual of ways, of course: "No, dear, it's not XXX but YYY." But it is prescriptive all the same. This is what education - to a large extent - is about.


----------



## gasman

I find it interesting that there is little discussion of the fact that the vast majority of children would have learned the pronunciation they use, and the spelling as well, from school days. History of the period, still hopefully being taught, was surely important in most Western countries, and the word itself would turn up in spelling lessons.


----------



## James Brandon

This is a very valid point, and you are right it should or could have been mentioned much earlier. And then comes the next (dreaded) question: "So, which school did you go to?"


----------



## gasman

High School of Glasgow


----------



## James Brandon

I did not mean to ask you which school you went to, in fact, but, having said that, the data may turn out to be relevant in due course.


----------



## Starfrown

James Brandon said:


> ...some people refuse any notion that the phonetic discrepancies may be linked to social differences, and reject any notion that one can be 'prescriptive' about language - in other words, anything goes, provided people are happy with it...


 
This may well be correct as a general statement.  However, in the present case I think the words "anything goes, provided people are happy with it" are a bit strong, as we are talking about two _accepted_ pronunciations of a word.  Take a look at Merriam-Webster's pronunciation guide:

\mē-ˈdē-vəl, mi-, me-, -dē-ˈē-vəl\

Note that they present the trisyllabic pronunciation first.  This agrees with my personal experience.  In fact, I almost never hear "medieval" spoken with four syllables here in the US--either in my region, or on television.  While at some point there might have been controversy over this pronunciation, I don't think there is any longer.  It is so widespread that I don't think it may safely be taken as an indicator of educational background or erudition--at least not here in the US.  However, as some have pointed out, it may indicate one's level of interest in medieval studies.

The truth is, that if we carry this discussion on to its natural conclusion, we must debate not two possible pronunciations, but six (and that is only according to one dictionary):

mē-ˈdē-vəl
mi-ˈdē-vəl
me-ˈdē-vəl
mē-dē-ˈē-vəl
mi-dē-ˈē-vəl
me-dē-ˈē-vəl

Judging from some of the earlier posts, I have no doubt that some here would boldly state that mē-dē-ˈē-vəl is better than me-dē-ˈē-vəl, or that 
mi-dē-ˈē-vəl is better than either of those two, or perhaps that scholars prefer this one over that one, etc. ad nauseam.  Simply put, there is a point at which the discussion becomes rather ridiculuous (and we may be nearing it).

James, I am all for some measure of prescriptivism in language.  I do think that the current climate of political correctness is leading to a certain degree of ignorance among our youth, and therefore also our adults.  We must face the fact that the way we use language, including the way we pronounce words, affects the way others perceive us.  However, we also must accept that languages evolve over time, phonetically as well as grammatically and are, in fact, never wholly homogeneous at any given point.  Grammarians and linguists face the awesome task of deciding what should be ruled correct, what should be ruled wrong, and what should be begrudgingly allowed.  As language is constantly changing, their decisions all have as their foundations shifting sands.


----------



## cuchuflete

_Moderator Note:

There are other threads that address what I affectionately refer to as puliticul keerectitude and still more that embrace or shred prescriptivism.  This thread has already had more than its share of remarks about both.  

Please strive to address the topic so nicely stated in the first post.

Posts that attribute choices in pronunciation of _medieval_ to shoe size, astrological signs,
and other metaphysical factors will be deleted in due course. 


_


----------



## James Brandon

I agree with Starfrown that this Thread may be close to its natural end (or death, as in flogging a horse...). Having said that, it has been interesting. You seem to identify the AE version of the adj. quite clearly - and I take it 'SC' means 'South Carolina'. 

Other than that, I fully agree with the last paragraph in your post.

James.

PS I did not know star signs come into phonetics but, come to think of it... As for shoe sizes, they should not be underestimated in terms of their impact on world history, gender studies, social opportunity and phonetic deprivation.


----------



## cuchuflete

Starfrown said:


> As language is constantly changing, their decisions all have as their foundations shifting sands.





James Brandon said:


> PS ...As for shoe sizes, they should not be underestimated in terms of their impact on world history, gender studies, social opportunity and phonetic deprivation.



And let us not forget that shoe size is relative to the amount of shifting sands in one's footwear at any given moment...


----------



## mplsray

Starfrown said:


> This may well be correct as a general statement. However, in the present case I think the words "anything goes, provided people are happy with it" are a bit strong, as we are talking about two _accepted_ pronunciations of a word. Take a look at Merriam-Webster's pronunciation guide:
> 
> \mē-ˈdē-vəl, mi-, me-, -dē-ˈē-vəl\
> 
> Note that they present the trisyllabic pronunciation first.


 
In my post to this thread I wrote of the /mi'divəl/ pronunciation in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary that is given as the first pronunciation, that "I don't believe that there is any significance to that."

The reason I said that is that the pronunciations are not set off by the word _also_ or even by _or,_ both of which indicate variant pronunciations that are less often encountered than the variant preceding the conjunction, _also_ being used to set off relatively rare variants.

Another reason I believe that you should not see any particular significance in the /mi'divəl/ pronunciation being listed first is that in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary online, the pronunciation given first is /midi'ivəl/. In the case of the Unabridged as well, no pronunciations are set off by the words _also_ or _or._ Now, there may have been a change in pronunciation patterns for _medieval_ since the mid-'60s--that's the period which the unabridged represents--but the fact that neither the unabridged nor the M.-W. Online sets off any pronunciation variant by _also_ or _or_ in this case indicates to me that the variants are considered as occurring at roughly the same rate.


----------

