# Pronunciation: kiln



## VoogerTown

I heard an art teacher who was constantly talking about firing stuff up in the "kil". Do any of you ignore the "n" in "kiln"? It sounded very odd to me. I always pronounce the "n" in "kiln".​


----------



## nelliot53

VoogerTown said:


> I heard an art teacher who was constantly talking about firing stuff up in the "kil". Do any of you ignore the "n" in "kiln"? It sounded very odd to me. I always pronounce the "n" in "kiln".​


 

*And so do I, for I always heard it pronounced when I was learning the language.  (As we also pronounce the "m" in "film", "firm", "berm", etc.)*

*Let's see what others have to say about it.*


----------



## Tabac

VoogerTown said:


> I heard an art teacher who was constantly talking about firing stuff up in the "kil". Do any of you ignore the "n" in "kiln"? It sounded very odd to me. I always pronounce the "n" in "kiln".​


*I know a number of pottery and ceramics artists.....none pronounces the 'n'.  American Heritage offers two pronunciations: one with and one without the 'n'.*


----------



## shipwrecked

From http://www.takeourword.com/TOW153/page2.html

"The silent _n_ in _kiln_ dates from the 15th century, in Middle English,  The word even appears in the written record from that time in the form _kill.  _However, even though it was not pronounced, the _n_ hung on, so that the spelling was eventually standardized as _kiln_.  Despite the spelling, the silent _n_ pronunciation remained the popular one until recently,   We suspect the _n_ is now being pronounced simply because people read the word before hearing it and have no reason to assume that the _n_ is silent.  Additionally, the _n_ sound after the _l _is not all that easy to hear when spoken, anyhow.  That may account for the _n_ dropping off in Middle English."


----------



## foxfirebrand

My mother's family had a "hop kill" on their property in Mendocino county-- I'm spelling it like we pronounced it.  I picked up _kiln_ in college, where I was a ceramicist (potter) for a time.
.


----------



## timpeac

Wow, I never knew all that. For me it's always been kil*n*.


----------



## foxfirebrand

timpeac said:


> Wow, I never knew all that. For me it's always been kil*n*.


I stopped to gas up in a very small town in Mississippi this summer-- and to finally break down and buy a map and ask where we were.

Well, the locals knew where they were, but they couldn't find it on the map they'd just sold me.  Sooooo sorry, Yankee-- come back, now!  But then a customer stepped up, looked at the map and pointed, saying "we're right here-- in _Kill_."  

That gave me one of those sinking feelings we were talking about in another thread-- but of course it was spelled _Kiln._  Gave me childhood memories to hear it pronounced that way.
.


----------



## ESustad

The potters I know (I have an odd propensity to date potters) don't pronounce the 'n.'  Everyone else does.  I think it's a sort of shibboleth.


----------



## korts

In the 50's, in the 8th grade, I went to my first shop class and the shop teacher informed us that the correct pronunciation is 'kill'. And this was in the hill country of West Virginia. I would agree that the ending the word with 'n' sound is really from not knowing the trade. Korts


----------



## JamesM

Here's an interesting article on the word's history:

http://www.billcasselman.com/new_July_2012/kiln.htm

Several dictionaries still give the pronunciation with "n" as the primary pronunciation.  Kilns are not exclusive to potters.  I do agree that all potters I have met pronounce it the same as 'kill'.


----------



## PaulQ

It must be an AE thing. I have never heard kil, only kiln.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I agree with Paul. I've never heard it pronounced without the _"n"_ by BrE speakers. In fact I'd never heard of the [kɪl] pronunciation before reading this thread — and I know a lot of potters.

The Bill Casselman article (your link, James) seems to have it wrong. He writes "Today the most common British pronunciation drops the final _n_ and is said as “kil.” North American pronunciation appears to be equally divided between persons who say “kil” and those who say “kiln.” Based on my own experience (and Paul's) and on the Oxford Dictionary's entries (BrE: /kɪln/ ; US: /kiln, kil/), I'd say that the most common British pronunciation, and probably the only one, is [kɪln], with the _"n"_ — and that [kɪl] is used only by some AmE speakers.

Ws


----------



## timpeac

Wordsmyth said:


> Based on my own experience (and Paul's) and on the Oxford Dictionary's entries (BrE: /kɪln/ ; US: /kiln, kil/), I'd say that the most common British pronunciation, and probably the only one, is [kɪln]


And mine!


----------



## Wordsmyth

Sorry, Tim. Didn't mean to leave you out. Glad to see you haven't changed your mind since 2006! 

Ws


----------



## RachelZ3

Hello, I arrived here from a Google search for the correct pronunciation of "kiln".  I have been frustrated touring schools for my son, each one boasting of their "kiln", pronouncing the "n".  I learned how to throw pottery and build slab ceramics when I was in nursery school, in Pennsylvania, with a French speaking teacher, who taught us to pronounce it without the "n" .  I attended Bennington College in Vermont, they also had a kiln, we learned everything from how to make proper clay to firing with multiple glazes.  Naturally, it was pronounced without the "n".  I love language, I speak several languages, and I much appreciate the research the forum posters have done here.  I am very disappointed that Merriam Webster and other reference sources show both pronunciations, MW puts the "n" pronunciation _first_ and it is the only version that has a sound file.  It saddens me to see our language dumbed-down, just as it saddens me to hear teachers allowing children to use "can" instead of "may".  
I am hoping that other lovers of language will support the correct pronunciation.
Correct pronunciation- it's for everyone.


----------



## ewie

Wordsmyth said:


> I agree with Paul. I've never heard it pronounced without the _"n"_ by BrE speakers. In fact I'd never heard of the [kɪl] pronunciation before reading this thread — and I know a lot of potters.


Ditto here too: I have never *ever* heard it pronounced without the *n*.  (I wouldn't say I know a lot of potters, but I've known some, including the ones who used to try to teach me pottery)
___________________________________________________

Welcome to the forum, Rachel


RachelZ3 said:


> I love language, I speak several languages [...]


Presumably British English isn't one of them


RachelZ3 said:


> It saddens me to see  our language dumbed-down [...].  I am hoping that other lovers of language will support the correct pronunciation.
> Correct pronunciation- it's for everyone.


See various posts above: in British English _kil*n* _is the correct pronunciation ~ we haven't dumbed it down deliberately to annoy anyone: that's just how it is


----------



## JustKate

Well but RachelZ23, there can be more than one "correct" pronunciation, and with _kiln_, it appears that there are two. I learned about ceramics in the 1960s in California (though I haven't done much with it since), and the "n" was *invariably* pronounced, not only by students but also by art teachers. That is, in fact, the only way I've ever heard it pronounced, though I'm very interested to see that there is another legitimate pronunciation. One word with two pronunciations isn't at all uncommon in English, and that's what we have here, as far as I can tell. So I don't think I can join your campaign.  I don't see any "dumbing down" going on here.



			
				Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> The Bill Casselman article (your link, James) seems to have it wrong. He writes..."North American pronunciation appears to be equally divided between persons who say “kil” and those who say 'kiln.'" Based on my own experience (and Paul's) and on the Oxford Dictionary's entries (BrE: /kɪln/ ; US: /kiln, kil/), I'd say that the most common British pronunciation, and probably the only one, is [kɪln], with the "n" — and that [kɪl] is used only by some AmE speakers.



I think pronouncing the "n" is the most common pronunciation in the U.S. as well. I am a little startled and even a bit doubtful that North American pronunciation "appears to be equally divided," though it's possible, particularly if there are regions of the U.S. and Canada that I'm not very familiar with where the "kil" pronunciation dominates.


----------



## JamesM

I have heard several potters and art teachers call it "kill", although I've always said "kiln".  I always assumed it was an "in-word" and the way you pronounced it told you something about the person's experience.

Is pronouncing "damn" the same as "dam" a dumbing-down?  What about "salmon" as "samon"?  I don't think so.  Word pronunciations develop over time for many reasons.


----------



## ewie

I can't think of any other word ending in *ln* where the *n* isn't pronounced.

Mind you, I can't think of any other word ending in *ln*, full-stop-period


----------



## Wordsmyth

JustKate said:


> _[...] _I think pronouncing the "n" is the most common pronunciation in the U.S. as well. I am a little startled and even a bit doubtful that North American pronunciation "appears to be equally divided," _[...]_


 I am equally startled and doubtful, Kate. 

Just for the record, that line, "North American pronunciation appears to be equally divided between persons who say “kil” and those who say “kiln” " – even though it looked as if it was from me because the formatting disappeared in your re-quote  –  was actually from the Bill Casselman article in JamesM's link. Given that Mr Casselman got it totally wrong with regard to the British pronunciation, I don't have much faith in the rest of his statement!

Ws


----------



## JustKate

Oh, I was pretty sure that was Casselman, not you - I'll edit my earlier post to make sure this is clear. (I for some reason had some formatting problems when I tried to quote from your post.)

My guess is that "appears to be equally divided" is his way of saying, "Some people say it one way and some another." Which isn't what "equally divided" means, of course.


----------



## JamesM

ewie said:


> I can't think of any other word ending in *ln* where the *n* isn't pronounced.
> 
> Mind you, I can't think of any other word ending in *ln*, full-stop-period




Not losing the "n" but the "l"... "Lincoln".  

One article I read talked about the aversion to certain consonant combinations as word endings like "ln" and "mn".  "Mill" was originally "Miln" (still surviving in the surname "Milner"), so it was a word with "ln" that lost the "n" both in spoken and written word.  Who knows if "kiln" will end up as "kill" in a few centuries?


----------



## Chasint

Skiers would know about wedeln Picture but that's a pretty recent adoption from German.

My mother was an English potter/ceramicist. She had a kil*n*. I agree that we retain the 'n' in Britain.


----------



## Kunio

This is interesting .  Add me to the list of people that have never heard anyone pronounce it "kill", ever.  In my whole life.  (lol)  Learned something new.


----------



## Loob

It seems that the n-less pronunciation was a fairly widespread dialect pronunciation: see this extract from _The English Dialect Grammar_.


----------



## Wordsmyth

What a fascinating find, Looby.

As you say, _was_ fairly widespread (in 1905). And seemingly in the dialects of almost everywhere from Sc. Ant. Nhb. Dur. Cum. Wm. ... all the way down to Som. and e.Dev! _[sic]_  Though I don't ever remember hearing it in Som. when I was a kid, even from the old codgers who would've been around in 1905! Perhaps we just didn't talk about kilns much.

But if it was that widespread in the past, that might explain why it's survived to some extent in AmE, along with all the other things that went across with the Pilgrim Fathers but have since disappeared in the UK.

Ws


----------



## bennymix

I'm am American, though ex-pat.   I have occasionally heard "kill" in the US, possibly more among experts in firing pottery.     My experience agrees with that of Rachel Z3.

Several potters report their varying experiences at this site.    Jan Parzebok summed it up nicely.

http://www.potters.org/subject15339.htm

Jan Parzybok  17 Jan 1999



> [in part]
> I've always understood that if one has clay up to one's elbows and in one's hair and narry a clue what one is doing, the pronunciation is "kiln". Later in life, when one has clay only up to one's wrists, one is allowed to say the word "kil", though reverently.... When one finally reaches clay nirvana, throws pots and builds sculptures without looking, gives advice, philosophises about clay, and fires sans cones, the pronunciation is "kilmb."


----------



## Wordsmyth

"Kilmb"?!  ... He also mentions "kilm". Apparently the variations are endless. Am I missing some wry, subtle humour?

Ws


----------



## natkretep

JamesM said:


> Is pronouncing "damn" the same as "dam" a dumbing-down?  What about "salmon" as "samon"?  I don't think so.  Word pronunciations develop over time for many reasons.


I thought Rachel was saying the opposite in terms of 'dumbing down', and that people were using pronunciations closer to the spelling. Therefore if you think _often_ should have a silent <t> (the 'correct' pronunciation), then including the 't' in the pronunciation is a kind of 'dumbing down'.

Needless to say, I disagree with that position. I would imagine that the earliest pronunciations of _kiln_ would contain the /n/ as it is borrowed from Latin _culina_, and the Old English form is _cyln _(by and large, no silent letters in Old English).


----------



## natkretep

I've just looked up the OED, which gives the n-less pronunciation first (surprise!), followed by the one with /n/, and notes that the /n/ was lost in Middle English.



> Outside of English known only in Scandinavian, Old Norse _kylna _(Norwegian _kjølne_, Swedish _kölna_, Danish _kølle_), probably adopted < English (as Welsh _cilin_, _cil _certainly are). In Middle English the final _-n _became silent (in most districts), hence the frequent spelling _kill _in place of the etymological _kiln_


----------



## bennymix

Yes.   



Wordsmyth said:


> "Kilmb"?!  ... He also mentions "kilm". Apparently the variations are endless. Am I missing some wry, subtle humour?
> 
> Ws


----------



## mplsray

RachelZ3 said:


> I am very disappointed that Merriam Webster and other reference sources show both pronunciations, MW puts the "n" pronunciation _first_ and it is the only version that has a sound file.



If you take a look at the entries for _kiln_ via the dictionaries linked to from Onelook.com, you will see that several do not even show the "kill" pronunciation. M-W Online is among those that do. Here is what the "Guide to Pronunciation" in _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary_ (of which the online dictionary is a version) has to say on page 34a:



> \,;\... If evidence reveals that a particular variant is used more frequently than another, the former will be given first. This should not, however, prejudice anyone against the second or subsequent variants.



Since educated speakers of English use both pronunciations, even if the version containing /n/ is a bit more popular, the variants are equally standard.

(How the editors choose which pronunciation sound files to present on the M-W Web site is a different question, and one about which I have no information.)

It is interesting how the Century Dictionary (from the late 19th century) approaches the matter. Its editors seem to be rueful that the spelling is not usually "kill"!


----------



## JamesM

mplsray, can you quote the dictionary entry in the Century Dictionary here?  The link requires a download of a plug-in in order to read the text.

Thanks.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Daniel Jones's _English Pronouncing Dictionary_, 15th ed., 1997:

*kiln* kɪln kɪl

Etymologically, a _kiln_ is not for drying or burning, but exclusively for cooking. 
In Latin, _(to) cook_ was _coquere_, from which came _coquina_, kitchen. A later step in the evolution of _coquina_ produced—strangely enough— _culina_ (and from it English _culinary_, etc.), a kitchen _and_ a cooking-stove. Anglo-Saxon adopted it as _cylene_, from which present-day _kiln_.

GS


----------



## bennymix

There is a clickable link to a jpg form of the page.   The entry says the pronunciation is "kill", no alternatives.

Here is most of it, retyped from jpg.



> Kiln (kil),_ n_. [Also *_kill_, formerly *_kil_; early mod. E. *kylen, *kyll < ME. *Kylne, *kulne, < AS.  *cyln, *cylene, *cyline…. [[etc.]]
> 
> 
> The present pronunciation requires the spelling kill (cf. mill, formerly miln, of similar phonetic form)  but kiln is the prevalent spelling.]
> 
> A furnace or oven for baking or drying or burning.


[* denotes italics in original]







JamesM said:


> mplsray, can you quote the dictionary entry in the Century Dictionary here?  The link requires a download of a plug-in in order to read the text.
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## JamesM

Thanks, bennymix.  After you mentioned the clickable link I found it, but I do think it will be helpful for future researchers to have the text here in the thread.

Thanks!


----------



## panjandrum

This is new knowledge to me.
In my part of the world we tend to pronounce all the bits of a word that are written down, so we pronounce the final n of kiln.
I'll be a lot more tolerant, now, of those who don't.


----------



## JamesM

panjandrum said:


> This is new knowledge to me.
> In my part of the world we tend to pronounce all the bits of a word that are written down, so we pronounce the final n of kiln.
> I'll be a lot more tolerant, now, of those who don't.



I imagine they don't pronounce the "mn" in column, damn, hymn and solemn in your neck of the woods, panj.    Or do they?  I've always wanted to hear someone pronounce all the letters in mnemonic or psychology.  I loved the way Monty Python characters pronounced all the letters in "knight".  

I think we just pick up some and not others, depending on our background.  Even here in California some people say "all-mund" for almond, some say "ah-mund" and some say "aa-mund" (like the "a" in "fat").

And a place that has names like Siobhan, Aoife and Caoimhe can't be too picky about pronouncing all the letters all the time.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> _[...] _Etymologically, a _kiln_ is not for drying or burning, but exclusively for cooking. _[...]_


 And in a pottery context it's not for drying or burning either. A piece is allowed to dry naturally before going into the kiln, and when it does go in the kiln the aim isn't to burn it (except in western raku). Although potters call it 'firing', the process is essentially the same as cooking, so I'd say the etymology holds up.


panjandrum said:


> _[...] _In my part of the world we tend to pronounce all the bits of a word that are written down, so we pronounce the final n of kiln. _[...] _


 So, panj, would that be "kilun" like "filum"? 

Ws


----------



## aasheq

ewie said:


> I can't think of any other word ending in *ln* where the *n* isn't pronounced.



kiln/kill (from culina) and miln/mill (from molina) both lost their final n in Middle English. In the case of the former the n generally survived in writing, leading to the restoration of the pronunciation [kiln], but in the case of the latter the form without n prevailed in speech and in writing.


----------



## panjandrum

Aha, JamesM, I regret to confess that I oversimplified.  Just at the moment, 10.20pm is way past my bedtime.


Wordsmyth said:


> ...
> So, panj, would that be "kilun" like "filum"?
> Ws


I have not come across "kilun" or "killen" as a pronunciation here, but much to my surprise I did find it in an information video on YouTube.


----------



## RachelZ3

shipwrecked said:


> From [can't post links, but it's on page 1]
> 
> "The silent _n_ in _kiln_ dates from the 15th century, in Middle English,  The word even appears in the written record from that time in the form _kill.  _However, even though it was not pronounced, the _n_ hung on, so that the spelling was eventually standardized as _kiln_.  Despite the spelling, the silent _n_ pronunciation remained the popular one until recently,   We suspect the _n_ is now being pronounced simply because people read the word before hearing it and have no reason to assume that the _n_ is silent.  Additionally, the _n_ sound after the _l _is not all that easy to hear when spoken, anyhow.  That may account for the _n_ dropping off in Middle English."



I just got back on the forum, pleased to see this has sparked an interest.   It is wondrous to find others who care about language.  I haven't read all 3 pages, but for those who objected to my stance that "kil" is the correct pronunciation and bridled at my depiction of dropping the "n" as "dumbing it down", I quote above the well-researched post that led me to those conclusions. Is it custom to go back further than the 15th century? I am new here, perhaps that is the case.  If the _n_ is dropped because people don't know better, that is pretty much the definition of ignorance.  I did not accuse _this_ forum of dumbing it down, I hail this forum for caring enough to research and discuss it!
Note that I am frustrated because the _schools_ that have kilns are only pronouncing it with the _n, _and the dictionary is only providing the sound with the _n_.  This is killing off the 700 year old pronunciation, and it saddens me.
Of course I am an American English speaker, as I registered as such to post, and mentioned I went to nursery school in Pennsylvania, no need to "presume", it is stated.

So I will read the rest of the pages and hope for new information.


----------



## RachelZ3

JamesM said:


> Not losing the "n" but the "l"... "Lincoln".
> 
> One article I read talked about the aversion to certain consonant combinations as word endings like "ln" and "mn".  "Mill" was originally "Miln" (still surviving in the surname "Milner"), so it was a word with "ln" that lost the "n" both in spoken and written word.  Who knows if "kiln" will end up as "kill" in a few centuries?



Oh I like that!!!

Around here we still have at least "Limekiln" because of the Lime kilns that were in use 300 years ago, and we pronounce the _n_.  I guess that doesn't bother me because it's been that way all my life, but now it seems it should?


----------



## IntoTheFire

I was recently in an art class, and I never once heard it pronounced "kil". I do believe that our language is shifting further towards the "kil*n*" pronunciation...


----------



## RachelZ3

Oh wow page 2 is FUN!  I wish I knew Latin.  Isn't Latin a language no longer spoken? The "English Dialect Grammar" link doesn't come up for me.   Biffo, your mom may have been pronouncing the _n  _due to the intolerance panjandrum charmingly mentioned.  And considering that it sounds like "kill", in order to be understood by most, especially while talking about our school, even I will pronounce the _n  _avoid scaring people.
I was telling someone how happy I was the elementary school had a lovely kill.
uh, _not_.
I like that Century Dictionary, they speak my language 
I understand the regional dialect issue, people in Pennsylvania pronounce "water" as WHA ter and the correct pronunciation is wutter.  Our friends in Baltimore say "Warshington".  When I was in school in London (Webber Douglas) I had a heckova time finding Leicester Square because I was asking for LY KES TER.  
I had a friend who lived in "Wooster", it took me forever to find them... and then I realized there isn't "Worchestersheer" sauce for my steak...

Thank you again, this has made me feel a lot better!


----------



## Wordsmyth

RachelZ3 said:


> _[...]_ Is it custom to go back further than the 15th century? I am new here, perhaps that is the case. _[...]_


 Why settle on the 15th century? You can of course be selective with evidence to make any point you like, but looking at the bigger picture might be more appropriate. 

As many sources show (and as the very same writer of that forum post quoted by _shipwrecked_ went on to say afterwards), the word was _cylene_ or _cyline_ in Old English in the early 8th century. The presence of the final e indicates that the _n_ was pronounced. The spelling evolved (via _cyln_), and then 700 years later, in the 15th century, the _n_-less pronunciation started to occur (I suppose you might consider that a 'dumbing down'!). 

We have no evidence that dropping the _n _became standard, only that by the late 19th century it was widespread in some regional dialects. That fact alone suggests that the pronunciation of the _n_ probably remained as 'standard', at least in BrE. It's possible that the _n_-less dialect version became established in some parts of North America (depending, by area, on which English region the original colonists came from). 

That statement, "We suspect the _n_ is now being pronounced simply because people read the word before hearing it and have no reason to assume that the _n_ is silent ", is simply the opinion of 'Melanie and Mike', who run the website from which it was taken. Personally I suspect that the _n_ is now being pronounced because it's always been there (except for those who drop the _n_, and their number seems to be diminishing). 


RachelZ3 said:


> _[...] _Note that I am frustrated because the _schools_ that have kilns are only pronouncing it with the _n, _and the dictionary is only providing the sound with the _n_. This is killing off the 700 year old pronunciation, and it saddens me. _[...]_


Well, let's look at that bigger picture. Based on the evidence we have seen, the _n_ was pronounced for at least 700 years. For the next 500-600 years, some people dropped the _n_. In the last 100 years or so, that _n_-dropping habit has virtually disappeared in BrE, and is obviously lessening in AmE.

So perhaps you shouldn't be so frustrated or saddened. Schools and dictionaries are simply recognising the normal and logical pronunciation. Nobody should criticise you for using a dialect version if you want to, but maybe you should be just as tolerant of the perfectly (and perhaps more) legitimate other pronunciation. This may be killing off a 600-year-old (mis?)pronunciation (in round centuries, 21 minus 15 makes 6 by my counting ), but it's preserving the essence of a pronunciation that's been around for 1300 years!

So, if you're really a traditionalist, you should logically prefer the pronounced _n_. If you're a 'modernist' you should also prefer the pronounced _n_ (the prevalent pronunciation of the present day). If you prefer the localised variant you were brought up with, then fine, do your thing. But it's really not worth being sad or frustrated just because others are quite justifiably doing _their_ thing.

PS. I wrote most of this before reading your latest post, Rachel. I'm glad you're feeling a lot better now.

Ws


----------



## JamesM

I'm not sure that this works as an argument, Wordsmyth:



> As many sources show (and as the very same writer of that forum post quoted by shipwrecked went on to say afterwards), the word was cylene or cyline in Old English in the early 8th century. The presence of the final e indicates that the n was pronounced. The spelling evolved (via cyln), and then 700 years later, in the 15th century, the n-less pronunciation started to occur (I suppose you might consider that a 'dumbing down'!).



The etymology of "mill" started from Latin molina and progressed into miln / myln / muln and then to mill.   The fact that the word ended with an "n" back then doesn't mean that it was pronounced that way.   In fact there are many people who have had their names recorded at one time as "Miln" and another as "Mill".  It seems to indicate that the "n" wasn't pronounced.


----------



## Parla

The one ceramics course I ever took was in my native state of Pennsylvania and the teacher, a professional artist, always referred to the place in which our creations were fired as the "kill"; I was surprised when I found that the spelling was actually _kiln_.

As noted much earlier, the _American Heritage Dictionary_ recognizes both pronunciations. Two British dictionaries on my shelf, the _Concise OED_ and _Chambers 21st Century_, don't comment on pronunciation at all; I think that means they recognize only the pronunciation that reflects the actual spelling.


----------



## Wordsmyth

JamesM said:


> I'm not sure that this works as an argument, Wordsmyth:
> 
> The etymology of "mill" started from Latin molina and progressed into miln / myln / muln and then to mill. The fact that the word ended with an "n" back then doesn't mean that it was pronounced that way. In fact there are many people who have had their names recorded at one time as "Miln" and another as "Mill". It seems to indicate that the "n" wasn't pronounced.



Granted, James, that at some point _mylen/miln/myln/muln_ lost its pronounced _n_. It evidently was pronounced in Old English _mylen_, where it formed the Germanic _-en_ ending, so there's a fair chance that the _n_ went on being pronounced for some time even with the contracted spelling (especially because very few people could read, so they'd be repeating what they heard). Then presumably the _n_ started being dropped by some people, so the two pronunciations (and the two spellings) would have run in parallel for some time — until at some point the _n_-less pronunciation took over completely, and so _mill _eventually became the standard spelling ...

And that's where _kiln_ is different. The evolution was probably similar up to the point where the two variants were running in parallel, but there's no evidence that the _n_-less pronunciation ever took over completely. On the contrary, the fact that the spelling as _kiln_ survived (unlike _miln_) suggests that the pronounced _n_ probably never disappeared. If it had followed the same course as _mill_, we'd be writing it as _kill_. Also we have the fact (from Loob's linked source in #25) that in 1905 the _n_-less _kiln_, though widespread, was a regional-dialect form, and not in all regions (unlike the _n_-less _mill_, which had long since become standard).

So:
- In _mylen_ the _n_ was pronounced. In _mill_, it's not (because there isn't one).
- In _cylene_ the _n_ was pronounced. In _kiln_, it still is pronounced (widely, even if not universally).

If you asked me to choose between the theories that ...

- (a) _kiln_ underwent a total change to 'kil', but for some inexplicable reason was never respelt (as _mill _was), and that the widespread present-day pronunciation of the _n _is down to crass ignorance;
- (b) the pronounced _n_ in kiln never became extinct (in spite of competition from 'kil'), and so it's still alive today;

... then, in the face of the supporting evidence, and with unwavering faith in Occam's Razor, I'd go for (b) every time.

Ws


----------



## natkretep

A wee side note: the surnames Milner and Kilner are still around. Presumably everybody pronounces the /n/ there!


----------



## sound shift

Presumably they do, nat. You wouldn't get many takers for food stored in a "Killer" Jar.


----------



## JamesM

Wordsmyth said:


> So:
> - In _mylen_ the _n_ was pronounced. In _mill_, it's not (because there isn't one).
> - In _cylene_ the _n_ was pronounced. In _kiln_, it still is pronounced (widely, even if not universally).
> 
> If you asked me to choose between the theories that ...
> 
> - (a) _kiln_ underwent a total change to 'kil', but for some inexplicable reason was never respelt (as _mill _was), and that the widespread present-day pronunciation of the _n _is down to crass ignorance;



This is an odd re-characterization of the theory offered, which seems like a bit of sophistry to me.  No one has said that the word was universally pronounced "kill" and then reverted to "kiln" because of a spelling-based pronunciation.  What has been said is that both pronunciations existed side-by-side and have done so for a very long time.  



> - (b) the pronounced _n_ in kiln never became extinct (in spite of competition from 'kil'), and so it's still alive today;



I think pretty much everyone in the thread agrees that "kiln" as a pronunciation never became extinct.  The problem is with those that have difficulty with "kill" also never becoming extinct.


----------



## Wordsmyth

No sophistry intended, James. Actually the only part of my last post that was in reply to yours was my point that _mill_ and _kiln_ aren't necessarily directly comparable. The part that you quoted was really in response to some earlier posts by others, who _did_ seem to be saying that the word was universally (or at least predominantly and 'correctly') pronounced "kill" and then reverted to "kiln" because of a spelling-based pronunciation. 

I recognise that that wasn't your view, nor a concensus, nor even a majority position — and I admit to a little exaggeration in my phrase "crass ignorance" (even though Rachel did use the words "ignorance" and "dumbing down"!) — but apart from that I didn't really re-characterise the theory that _was_ offered by _some_ people ... 


shipwrecked said:


> From http://www.takeourword.com/TOW153/page2.html
> 
> "The silent _n_ in _kiln_ dates from the 15th century, in Middle English,  The word even appears in the written record from that time in the form _kill.  _However, *even though it was not pronounced*, *the n hung on*, so that the spelling was eventually standardized as _kiln_._ [...] _ We suspect *the n is now being pronounced simply because people read the word before hearing it and have no reason to assume that the n is silent*. _[...] _





RachelZ3 said:


> _[...]_ I am very disappointed that Merriam Webster and other reference sources show both pronunciations _[...]_.  It saddens me to see our language dumbed-down, _[...] _I am hoping that other lovers of language will support *the correct pronunciation*. Correct pronunciation- it's for everyone.





aasheq said:


> kiln/kill (from culina) and miln/mill (from molina) *both lost their final n in Middle English*. In the case of the former *the n generally survived in writing, leading to the restoration of the pronunciation [kiln]*, _[...]_





> Century Dictionary:
> 
> Kiln *(kil)*,_ n_. [Also *_kill_, formerly *_kil_; early mod. E. *kylen, *kyll < ME. *Kylne, *kulne, < AS. *cyln, *cylene, *cyline…. [[etc.]]
> 
> The *present pronunciation* *requires the spelling kill* (cf. mill, formerly miln, of similar phonetic form) but kiln is the prevalent spelling.]



_[Bold and underling in those quotes is mine]

_Ws


----------



## JamesM

A good summary of the opinions, WordSmyth.  Thanks.


----------



## mplsray

The etymology in the Oxford English Dictionary mentions the following:



> In Middle English the final _-n_ became silent (in most districts)....



It follows that there were districts where the _-n_ did not become silent. Of course, strictly speaking, we don't know from that etymology whether the _-n_ pronounced in those places became silent later.


----------



## Wordsmyth

mplsray said:


> _[...] _It follows that there were districts where the _-n_ did not become silent. Of course, strictly speaking, we don't know from that etymology whether the _-n_ pronounced in those places became silent later.


Though we do have that 1905 source, mentioned earlier, that describes the silent _n_ as being a dialect form only in certain regions. OK, there's still a big gap between Middle English and 1905 , but at least that shows that the pronunciation of the _n_ isn't due to a recent revival.

Ws


----------



## Wordnip

Wordsmyth said:


> And in a pottery context it's not for drying or burning either. A piece is allowed to dry naturally before going into the kiln, and when it does go in the kiln the aim isn't to burn it (except in western raku). Although potters call it 'firing', the process is essentially the same as cooking, so I'd say the etymology holds up.
> So, panj, would that be "kilun" like "filum"?
> 
> Ws



I am surprised to read this. Although I am not a potter I know there is a great deal of difference between the firing of earthenwares and porcelain. In the latter the materials _fuse_ together at a high temperature (between 1,200 and 1,400 °C) to form a glassy, translucent body. The former, eathenware, is opaque and granular and fired at a lower temperature (between 1000 and 1150 °C). I would say that the earthenwares are more akin to cooking/baking food whereas the firing of porcelain is at a much higher temperature and has not equivalent in the kitchen unless there is a disaster which ends in a burnt offering: carbon!

Oh, and I should add that neither in the UK nor here in Australia have I ever heard anything but the pronunciation of the 'n' in kiln and am intrigued to read that this isn't universal.


----------



## Wordsmyth

It was just "burn" that I was objecting to, in the sense of being consumed or damaged. I really made that comment only to put Giorgio's remark about the etymology of "kiln" into perspective. But let's not pursue the finer points of ceramic firing ranges, or we'll be going way off topic!

Ws


----------



## beckee36

I live in a small town called Kiln, MS...  and the denizens call it "the kill", however, for all other uses of KILN, I pronounce it kil*n*.  I had never heard KILN pronounced without the *n* before moving to this town.


----------



## Abner P.

I grew up in one of America's best known stoneware potteries.  Our family always maintained that the "n" was silent in the proper pronunciation of "Kiln".  It was assumed that anyone pronouncing the "n" was not from the industry.


----------



## mgarizona

A thought: in the 17th century English would have had to contend with the use among the colonists of "kill" (from the Dutch) meaning 'creek'. Might have helped cement/revive the pronunciation of the 'n' in kiln.


----------



## eureka00

My 1977-79 college pottery teacher insisted the word was pronounced as "kill." It kilns me to hear it pronounced differently. 😄

For the definitive proper pronunciation: Definition of KILN


----------

