# General Pronunciation: When does a 'wrong' pronunciation become 'right'?



## Majorbloodnock

I was reading another thread, and the subject of pronunciation cropped up. MilkyBarKid offered a viewpoint (http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=9257538&postcount=2) that I happen to share. However, I'd be naive to ignore the fact that "wrong" pronunciations are frequently and publicly used.

So my question is this. Because language evolves with the users, if an incorrect pronunciation is used often enough does it eventually make that pronunciation correct? I believe so, but would welcome comments.


----------



## MilkyBarKid

Do you not have a say - nay, a right - in determining any changes, rather than, 'well, if _they_ are, then I'd better...'?
Many people I hear on TV have (to my sensibilities) atrocious grammar:
"I had went/I had came.."
Does that mean the fashion this season is......(and so become part of the 'chuck away' society, chuck away the efforts of those who have gone through the process of making language expression as clear and meaningful as possible?)

Because there is an outbreak of crime in my neighbourhood, should I cotton on to the fact that fashions are changing, and that 'law and order' is old hat?

A case of the whether one is an individual, or a sheep, methinks.

What was the joke that Al Murray had: in any pack of dogs, chasing who-knows-what, there are those that follow behind, following the leader. Without thinking for themselves, _*those*_ dogs are thus following the a***h**** of the others.

'whom' is on the way out. Fine. I can see the reason. 
But mangling pronunciation because of _*their*_ lack of education..............? 

 Those French ain't gonna (or is it 'gunna'?) change their pronouncing  of words because foreigners like us cain't pronounce them words of 'em. Global village, mate. Global village. It ain't gonna 'appen, no matter how much me and you wanna change fings.


----------



## Einstein

Languages evolve. You can't get away from that. Of course, not all changes take place at the same time for everyone, so some may be irritated by a given change - and we all have our pet irritations - while others may be irritated by those who don't change. This applies as much to grammar as to pronunciation.
Teaching English to foreigners I've sometimes been asked what we mean by "correctness"; my only answer is: "It's correct if it's what a native English speaker would expect to hear". This is not an entirely satisfactory answer because different native speakers, even from the same place and age group, don't always expect to hear exactly the same pronunciation or words.
If you don't like a given change in pronunciation, then by all means say so; some may agree with you and you may be able to establish a counter-tendency. If not, shrug your shoulders and walk on; there are more important things to worry about.

Things that I've had to accept:
_If I was_ (in a hypothetical sentence). I continue to say _If I were_ but accept that I'm part of a dwindling minority.
_He looked like he'd seen a ghost_ instead of _he looked as if he'd seen a ghost_. Again I feel more comfortable with _as if_, but have to recognise that _like_ is taking over.

One that I don't accept is _If I'd have known I'd have told you_, instead of _If I'd known..._ I crticised this as totally illogical in the English-Italian forum and immediately got messages of support from the USA and Australia. Not so much support from the UK, I'm afraid.

On pronunciation, more than on single words my irritation is focused on an aspect of Estuary English (_not_ present in the original Cockney, I'm glad to say):
_Susan and Luke got married in June and spent their honeymoon in Corfu_ has become
_Season and Leek got married in Jean and spent their honeymean in Corfee,_ while
_Tony and Rosemary live across the road from their folks in Hove_ has become
_Tainy and Raisemary live across the raid from their fakes in Haive_.
_No_ is often pronounced as _Noeee_.

With a good bit of mickey-taking we managed to convince a lot of the aristocracy to stop pronouncing _house_ as _hice_, but this may be a harder nut to crack.


----------



## ewie

Majorbloodnock said:


> Because language evolves with the users, if an incorrect pronunciation is used often enough does it eventually make that pronunciation correct?


My guess is yes.

It's also my guess that when the Great Vowel Shift started, a lot of folk threw their skirts over their heads in horror at the 'mangling' of Our Lovely Old Traditional Quainte English Vowels Which Were Good Enough For My Granny.  Or as Somebody-or-Other's First Law of Pronunciation Change states: _The further back in history a change in pronunciation recedes, the more 'respectable' it becomes._ [Okay, I made that up.]

My own personal bugbear is 'monosyllabicalization', whereby _police_ becomes _plice_, _collapse _becomes _clapse _etc. etc. etc. ~ it's rife.  *But*, I certainly don't lie awake worrying about it at nights: that would be utterly pointless.


----------



## JulianStuart

MilkyBarKid said:


> chuck away the efforts of those who have gone through the process of making language expression as clear and meaningful as possible?



It makes one wonder, does it not, how someone from one hundred, nay perhaps as few as fifty, years ago might feel about _those_ efforts and how atrocious _they_ might sound to those who went before.  I think every generation is responsible for some changes, either small or large (should that be _big_?), as the language, with a mind seemingly of its own, trundles forward, and in different ways in different places.  

Truth be told, I used to feel as strongly as you do - that there was only one correct way but a multitude of incorrect ways.  However, getting older and more widely traveled brought it home to me that _I _was working with a snapshot (both in space and time) "set of rules" from when _*I*_ learned English that was nowhere near as widespread as I had thought.  It used to bug me no end how many people could get so much wrong.  My aha moment came reading one of William Safire's columns where he addressed this "When enough of therm are wrong they're right!"
Sort of what Einstein said.


----------



## ewie

"Enough of _therm_", Julian?  Is that Safire's First Law of Themodynamics?


----------



## JulianStuart

"Therm thar ffolkes in therm 'ills, oi'd zay"

However, I do agree with ew, old chap, about the Great Bowel Shift, especially when traveling away from home.


----------



## JulianStuart

Ewie was speaking of shifts over time.  I meant, of course, that as one travels from region to region, or even dialect to dialect, the vowels change quite a bit - my biggest surprise was the *v*owel shifts when visiting NZ.  I had no difficulty understanding the pronunciation, it was just different 

Also, in some places the quality of the local water has some pronounced eek intestinal consequences.


----------



## Spira

_However, getting older and more widely traveled brought it home to me that I was working with a snapshot (both in space and time) "set of rules" from when *I* learned English that was nowhere near as widespread as I had thought._

Very precisely put JS. I am convinced you are right...............and yet, there are just some variations so at odds with my snap-shot 1960-70s middle class grammar-school educated London suburb (all these points have their significance) that I still shudder, and even correct !!


----------



## MilkyBarKid

*JulianStuart*:"When enough of them are wrong they're right!"

I counter with, "The person who is right is a majority of one."

(_Actually_, “Any man more right than his neighbours constitutes a majority of one."  
Thoreau

Is anyone out there more righter than moi? I don't lose sleep...but unless a change is helpful/brings further clarity to communication, I see no reason to be an iconoclast, join the vandals because of their lack of appreciation of language. To them, it is a mere utility. To others, a cherished toy to play with.


----------



## ewie

MilkyBarKid said:


> I see no reason to be an iconoclast, join the vandals because of their lack of appreciation of language


It has very little to do with iconoclasm, vandalism, or a lack of appreciation, MBK.  The general throng of people (i.e. not the likes of us who are obsessed with language) don't _generally_ make conscious decisions about how they pronounce words: pronunciations just 'rub off' on them, or 'filter through' to them, or however you care to put it.
The only difference between (e.g.) the Great Bowel Vowel Shift and the present-day 'estuarianization' of Southern British English is that the former took 300-odd years to spread whereas the latter (thanks largely to TV ~ _thanks, TV_) is spreading like wildfire, or gangrene, if you prefer


----------



## MilkyBarKid

*ewie*:
My premise is, that because *they* do, doesn't mean *I* have to.
I..._*I*_ should have as much impact on the evolution of language as anyone else. Just because I might feel outnumbered doesn't mean I have to turn tail and run with the madding throng.


----------



## JulianStuart

MilkyBarKid said:


> *ewie*:
> My premise is, that because *they* do, doesn't mean *I* have to.
> I..._*I*_ should have as much impact on the evolution of language as anyone else. Just because I might feel outnumbered doesn't mean I have to turn tail and run with the madding throng.



I don't think you have to either.  I've lived on the west side of the pond for over half my life now, yet I still retain my "ancestral" pronunciations of grass and tomato.  Do I feel outnumbered? Sure.  But I, like you, only have one vote 

However, trying to resist or correct the creep of (some) language changes is as futile as trying to stop the Pacific Plate from colliding with the North American plate.  It's generally a slow phenomenon, but occasionally there are _earthquakes_.  One of my personal favourites was "I wouldn't of went even if I 'ad of been asked" on a bus in rural  Buckinghamshire.


----------



## Majorbloodnock

MilkyBarKid said:


> *JulianStuart*:"When enough of them are wrong they're right!"
> 
> I counter with, "The person who is right is a majority of one."
> 
> (_Actually_, “Any man more right than his neighbours constitutes a majority of one."
> Thoreau
> 
> Is anyone out there more righter than moi? I don't lose sleep...but unless a change is helpful/brings further clarity to communication, I see no reason to be an iconoclast, join the vandals because of their lack of appreciation of language. To them, it is a mere utility. To others, a cherished toy to play with.


 
If there are clear-cut definitions of "right" and "wrong", I'd agree; two wrongs don't make a right.

However, you make an exception of whether or not the pronunciation change brings clarity. If the number of people who are "wrong" grows to a point where the "right" pronunciation is more confusing than the "wrong" one, does that validate the acceptance of the "wrong" as a new "right"?


----------



## JulianStuart

Majorbloodnock said:


> If there are clear-cut definitions of "right" and "wrong", I'd agree; two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> However, you make an exception of whether or not the pronunciation change brings clarity. If the number of people who are "wrong" grows to a point where the "right" pronunciation is more confusing than the "wrong" one, does that validate the acceptance of the "wrong" as a new "right"?





With clear-cut definitions, the success of the variants is usually low.  However, in the "not-so-clear-cut" situations, I think you echo Safire's point that successful communication (i.e., the one with the most clarity and lack of ambiguity) is the one which employs the usage of the majority*.

(*Errm, the 50% + 1)

"Wrong is the new right" - nice snowclone


----------



## panjandrum

Wrong pronunciation may be defined as pronunciation that is considered alien by more than 50% of the intended audience.

Wrong pronunciation may also be defined as pronunciation that causes confusion for more than 50% of the intended audience.

I fear that we may need to define "wrong".


----------



## Majorbloodnock

Except that I don't believe pronunciations fall into a binary "confusing" or "not confusing" category.

I'm wondering if an analogy might work here. The one I have in mind is of a Porsche 911. It's very effective indeed for getting one or two people from A to B very quickly. However, it requires a fairly refined road surface, so if most of the roads you have to use deteriorate, you may be better off with a more agricultural vehicle. Similarly, if you get married and have kids, you'll need something slower and bigger. Either way, there is no hard and fast rule as to which car will suit you best or, more importantly, when one crosses over from being a good choice to a bad one.

So, if your audience has a good command of the English language and grammar, perhaps the traditional "right" pronunciations may be the most effective, but become less so with either less well educated audiences or with people speaking English as a second language.

I'm not sure about this - after all, that's why I raised it as a topic for discussion - but it's certainly one possibility that makes some sense.


----------



## Spira

I think you are right, Major. To support your theory, when one social class meets a different social class at the opposite end of the spectrum, the two groups very frequently find it impossible to understand each other, on all levels: accent, verb tenses, vocabulary etc. This is not restricted to England, it is also true of the two other countries I know intimately, France and the USA. I would guess it would be a general rule across the planet.
However, to designate the right and wrong is very difficult.


----------



## Gwan

panjandrum said:


> Wrong pronunciation may be defined as pronunciation that is considered alien by more than 50% of the intended audience.
> 
> Wrong pronunciation may also be defined as pronunciation that causes confusion for more than 50% of the intended audience.
> 
> I fear that we may need to define "wrong".



I don't think you can call an accent the 'wrong' pronunciation (even my apparently bowel-shifting one). My idea of a wrong pronunciation is when people simply don't know how a word should be said. There are examples like Chomondeley and Magdalen (as in Oxford) which seem to be so for no other reason than to catch out the hoi polloi  and others that really make me cringe with sympathetic embarrassment when I hear people mispronounce them, not that I can think of any examples now of course... I'm sure we've all been in a situation where a boss or somesuch mispronounces a word and you don't quite know, when it comes to your turn to say the word, whether to nonchalantly say it the correct way or whether you should mispronounce it too so as not to show them up.

PS Place names are always a great divider from the locals and the outsiders. My Dad comes from Carnforth, North-West England, which is pronounced more or less Carnfifth by those in the know. On the rare occasion that an English person has heard of the place/sees it written down, it's always a source of irritation to me that they correct my ignorant "New Zealand" pronounciation - "Oh, Carn_fourth_".


----------



## Majorbloodnock

Gwan said:


> I don't think you can call an accent the 'wrong' pronunciation (even my apparently bowel-shifting one).


 
Is that because it's generally accepted by enough people? I suspect examining accents might be useful in this discussion, since they provide variations from the "right" pronunciation, yet are still commonly understood to be perfectly acceptable. Having said that, I doubt it would be acceptable for me to mix "glarse" (received pronunciation of glass) and "oop" (Yorkshire pronunciation of up) in the same sentence.

The plot thickens.



> My idea of a wrong pronunciation is when people simply don't know how a word should be said. There are examples like Chomondeley and Magdalen (as in Oxford) which seem to be so for no other reason than to catch out the hoi polloi  and others that really make me cringe with sympathetic embarrassment when I hear people mispronounce them, not that I can think of any examples now of course... I'm sure we've all been in a situation where a boss or somesuch mispronounces a word and you don't quite know, when it comes to your turn to say the word, whether to nonchalantly say it the correct way or whether you should mispronounce it too so as not to show them up.
> 
> PS Place names are always a great divider from the locals and the outsiders. My Dad comes from Carnforth, North-West England, which is pronounced more or less Carnfifth by those in the know. On the rare occasion that an English person has heard of the place/sees it written down, it's always a source of irritation to me that they correct my ignorant "New Zealand" pronounciation - "Oh, Carn_fourth_".


 
That begs another question, though. If an American tourist pronounces Worcestershire as it looks, locals will have a little snigger at his expense. However, when we Brits pronounce Paris as it looks, rather than "Paree", we believe ourselves to be quite correct. Can we be right in both situations?


----------



## Gwan

Majorbloodnock said:


> That begs another question, though. If an American tourist pronounces Worcestershire as it looks, locals will have a little snigger at his expense. However, when we Brits pronounce Paris as it looks, rather than "Paree", we believe ourselves to be quite correct. Can we be right in both situations?



Well, I think the difference is that there is an accepted English-language pronunciation for both of those places. A good example would be Orléans versus New Orleans. You would come off more than a little pretentious if you pronounced New Orleans in the French manner (although I think native New Orlean...ers (?) supposedly pronounce it something like N'yorlins - might be way off the mark there, but it's not germane to the discussion anyway), whereas I don't think there is an accepted 'English' pronunciation for the original French city, so you would probably risk appearing uneducated if you pronounced Orléans the same way.


----------



## Majorbloodnock

Gwan said:


> Well, I think the difference is that there is an accepted English-language pronunciation for both of those places. A good example would be Orléans versus New Orleans. You would come off more than a little pretentious if you pronounced New Orleans in the French manner (although I think native New Orlean...ers (?) supposedly pronounce it something like N'yorlins - might be way off the mark there, but it's not germane to the discussion anyway), whereas I don't think there is an accepted 'English' pronunciation for the original French city, so you would probably risk appearing uneducated if you pronounced Orléans the same way.


 
I agree entirely, but if there is an accepted  English-language pronunciation, presumably there is a point when that alternative wasn't accepted. Did it become accepted because it aided clarity, or did the natives of Paris simply get fed up with correcting British foreigners? In other words, did enough wrongs make a right, or was it seen as a good idea in its own right?


----------



## Gwan

The French never get tired of correcting foreigners 

I suppose yes, that sort of thing is weight of numbers and of history, but I also think one's own perceptions come into play as much as anything. If a native speaker came up with a hitherto-unknown to me pronunciation of 'pen', for example, I would never think of it as a mispronunciation, because I wouldn't think it possible for a native speaker to be ignorant of the pronunciation of 'pen'. Therefore, if they have an 'odd' way of saying it, it must be their accent. (And in my case, no I'm not looking for a pin to sign my credit card receipt, thank you very much!) Whereas if the word were, for example, 'hierarchy' and they pronounced it hierarshee, I would probably conclude that it was a mispronunciation, even though, for all I know, that could be a perfectly acceptable form in their dialect.


----------



## Majorbloodnock

I see what you mean, Gwan.

Mind you, I can understand nationality-based pronunciation problems (Germans saying vee instead of we, and Russians saying walue instead of value), but there's nothing remotely difficult for a Brit in pronouncing Paris as Parisiens do.


----------



## timpeac

"Correct" pronunciation is decided, it seems to me, by weight of opinion - which is made up of two main aspects: numbers of speakers and the (economic and political) power of those speakers.

To air my personal bug-bear - it is the pronunciation of the letter "h" with a preceding aspirated "h". However, I rarely hear it pronounced without the preceding "h" so accept - if a bit ruefully - that I am not in the weight of numbers on this one, sigh and move on.

I take Gwan's point about "incorrect" pronunciation only really relating to people who simply don't know how the word is pronounced - but isn't that really just saying that a weight of numbers of just one will almost always be incorrect? For example, "atonement" comes from "at one ment" and used to be pronounced that way. Over time people forgot that and when enough had the weight of numbers changed the "standard" pronunciation to the modern one.

I once met an Australian who pronounced "chaos" with the "ch" of "cheese". I therefore assumed this was just a standard Australian pronunciation and was therefore surprised when other Australians a lot later said it was nothing of the sort and they found it just as odd!


----------



## Gwan

Majorbloodnock said:


> I see what you mean, Gwan.
> 
> Mind you, I can understand nationality-based pronunciation problems (Germans saying vee instead of we, and Russians saying walue instead of value), but there's nothing remotely difficult for a Brit in pronouncing Paris as Parisiens do.



There is if you want to get the r right - it's the bane of my existence 

Timepac - consider my mind blown with the 'atonement' information!


----------



## e2efour

Mispronunciations are likely to occur in foreign place names, for which there are sometimes established English pronunciations, such as Paris and Gothenburg. These should not be regarded as wrong,  even though the inhabitants of these cities say them differently.

The capital of China makes me see red. Formerly pronounced Peking, it is now referred to as Bei?ing (? = s as in pleasure) instead of the correct Beijing (j as in jingle). Influenced by what they hear on TV and radio in the UK, I imagine most people pronounce Beijing wrongly. Fortunately, I don't think we need worry too much in the long run, as the mistake can and hopefully will be corrected with time as we hear more and more Chinese nationals speak.

With _moussaka_, however, we have an accepted incorrect pronunciation (the correct stress is on the last syllable). I doubt whether this mispronunciation can be corrected, however much we eat of it.


----------



## Spira

e2efour said:


> Mispronunciations are likely to occur in foreign place names, for which there are sometimes established English pronunciations, such as Paris and Gothenburg. These should not be regarded as wrong, even though the inhabitants of these cities say them differently.
> 
> The capital of China makes me see red. Formerly pronounced Peking, it is now referred to as Bei?ing (? = s as in pleasure) instead of the correct Beijing (j as in jingle). Influenced by what they hear on TV and radio in the UK, I imagine most people pronounce Beijing wrongly. Fortunately, I don't think we need worry too much in the long run, as the mistake can and hopefully will be corrected with time as we hear more and more Chinese nationals speak.
> 
> With _moussaka_, however, we have an accepted incorrect pronunciation (the correct stress is on the last syllable). I doubt whether this mispronunciation can be corrected, however much we eat of it.


 
After taking quite a long time to understand that Peking and Beijing were actually the same city (long story for another time) - must have missed it on the news, I went to China, landed in the capital, and immediately heard that the locals pronounce it (more or less) PEKIN. So why on earth's name was the English translation changed?


----------



## Twoflower

e2efour said:


> Mispronunciations are likely to occur in foreign place names, for which there are sometimes established English pronunciations, such as Paris and Gothenburg. These should not be regarded as wrong,  even though the inhabitants of these cities say them differently.
> 
> The capital of China makes me see red. Formerly pronounced Peking, it is now referred to as Bei?ing (? = s as in pleasure) instead of the correct Beijing (j as in jingle). Influenced by what they hear on TV and radio in the UK, I imagine most people pronounce Beijing wrongly. Fortunately, I don't think we need worry too much in the long run, as the mistake can and hopefully will be corrected with time as we hear more and more Chinese nationals speak.
> 
> With _moussaka_, however, we have an accepted incorrect pronunciation (the correct stress is on the last syllable). I doubt whether this mispronunciation can be corrected, however much we eat of it.



I'm pretty sure that the "correct" English pronunciation of Beijing is the one you prefer. I do hear the other pronunciation at least as often, however. It's not helped by the fact that most foreign correspondents appear to speak no Mandarin.


----------



## e2efour

The pronunciation hasn't changed (bay jing) but only the transliteration (when China adopted Roman letters in its pinyin system).

The former (anglicised) pronunciation was based on the former spelling.

It doesn't sound remotely like pekin, by the way.


----------



## Spira

I beg to differ. Impossible to prove on a key-board, but I distinctly heard PEKIN (without the -g on the end) every single time a Chinese local spoke (on all five of my visits).

It's not just an English-language transliteration. The French still call it PEKIN.


----------



## George French

*Re: General Pronunciation: When does a 'wrong' pronunciation become 'right'?*

Let us rephrase this: When does a 'right' pronunciation become 'wrong'?
On the other hand I would like *to challenge* the* usage* of right and wrong anyway. The word should be *standard. *There is no such thing as right and wrong pronounciation....... You speak standard or non standard.
One can also have fun deciding which standard to use ......
Mine is right, of course....  
Mine changes, it depends on the company.
My accent changes after a few alcoholic beverages; I revert heavily to the accent of my youth.
GF.. 

Then of course we can get worried about the changes in usage of words. From the WR dictionary "a *gay* old rogue with an eye for the ladies".

*gay*
_given to social pleasures often including dissipation; "led a gay Bohemian life"; "a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies" _


----------



## Einstein

I met some Chinese people on a train in Italy and they pronounced their capital as e2efour says. I think it was about 1979 when the then Chinese government decided that Chinese proper names ought to have a uniform spelling internationally, rather than being spelt in as many different ways as there are languages (Pekin/g  Beijing; Nanking  Nanjing; Teng Hsiao-ping  Deng Xiaoping; Mao Tse-tung  Mao Zedong). They made some strange choices, such as a Q to represent the CH sound as in Charlie, but once you know the rules you can't go wrong.

More generally, it seems that there are no precise "rules" to decide how to pronounce the names of foreign cities. A question arises: the English _translation_ of Napoli is Naples, derived from the old Greek name Neapolis. As the spelling is different, no one debates about the "correct" way to pronounce it. Paris in English, on the other hand, has the same spelling as in French. So in saying the final "s" it's not clear whether we are _translating_ the name or _mispronouncing_ it.


----------



## timpeac

Einstein said:


> More generally, it seems that there are no precise "rules" to decide how to pronounce the names of foreign cities. A question arises: the English _translation_ of Napoli is Naples, derived from the old Greek name Neapolis. As the spelling is different, no one debates about the "correct" way to pronounce it. Paris in English, on the other hand, has the same spelling as in French. So in saying the final "s" it's not clear whether we are _translating_ the name or _mispronouncing_ it.


 This is a good point (and it also bears keeping in mind that 90% of the population won't analyse or care about their pronunication of such words as long as it's the same as those they hear around them). In this specific example I wouldn't be surprised if "Paris" had it's "s" pronounced by the locals when it was first exported to England and it was the locals who later dropped it - but that's probably a discussion for another thread!


----------



## Spira

timpeac said:


> This is a good point (and it also bears keeping in mind that 90% of the population won't analyse or care about their pronunication of such words as long as it's the same as those they hear around them). In this specific example I wouldn't be surprised if "Paris" had it's "s" pronounced by the locals when it was first exported to England and it was the locals who later dropped it - but that's probably a discussion for another thread!


 
I'm sure you are right about the local evolution of Paris, just as all the English place names have evolved locally to give us today's weird ones so unintelligible to the foreigner.
Paris also took its name from a Greek character; how was his name pronounced in Greek?


----------



## timpeac

Spira said:


> I'm sure you are right about the local evolution of Paris, just as all the English place names have evolved locally to give us today's weird ones so unintelligible to the foreigner.
> Paris also took its name from a Greek character; how was his name pronounced in Greek?


I'm a bit reticent to get into it for fear of taking the thread off course. I suppose my basic point is that they could be good reasons for apparent mispronunciations - and that we can't necessarily expect a whole populace once having adopted a certain pronunciation to keep up to date with changes in the original language.


----------



## Majorbloodnock

Spira said:


> ...Paris also took its name from a Greek character; how was his name pronounced in Greek?


 
By his friends or his enemies?


----------



## Majorbloodnock

timpeac said:


> I'm a bit reticent to get into it for fear of taking the thread off course. I suppose my basic point is that they could be good reasons for apparent mispronunciations - and that we can't necessarily expect a whole populace once having adopted a certain pronunciation to keep up to date with changes in the original language.


 
No, I think that is perfectly on topic. If language is used as a communication tool and there is a good reason for an apparent mispronunciation, surely that mispronunciation *should* be adopted.


----------



## Gwan

Spira said:


> I'm sure you are right about the local evolution of Paris, just as all the English place names have evolved locally to give us today's weird ones so unintelligible to the foreigner.
> Paris also took its name from a Greek character; how was his name pronounced in Greek?



I don't think Paris does come from the Greek, but rather from the name of the Parisii tribe who were the original inhabitants of the area. (Wandering off topic indeed, let's try to redeem self by pointing out that clinging to the real or spurious origins/pronunciations of imported words can lead to variant pronunciations as already discussed...)


----------



## Spira

You are right about the Parisii tribe, I had forgotten about that. Just looked it up; no-one knows the origins of their name, though probably celtic.
Be careful when claiming to identify "original inhabitants"; someone can nearly always find someone who was there before!


----------



## Gwan

Spira said:


> You are right about the Parisii tribe, I had forgotten about that. Just looked it up; no-one knows the origins of their name, though probably celtic.
> Be careful when claiming to identify "original inhabitants"; someone can nearly always find someone who was there before!



Yes, I was going to put it in scare quotes but thought I was unlikely to offend anyone in the case of the Parisii (?)


----------



## Spira

Gwan said:


> Yes, I was going to put it in scare quotes but thought I was unlikely to offend anyone in the case of the Parisii (?)


 
No offense taken !!


----------



## natkretep

In all the discussions about place names, surely the speakers of one language cannot insist on how the name should be pronounced in a different language! In the past, this applied to personal names too - so that the apostle Peter is known by speakers of other languages as _Pedro_, _Petrus_, _Pietro_, etc. Each version is correct for the respective language. This practice is prevalent in famous place names, so London becomes _Llundain_ (Welsh), _Londen_ (Afrikaans, Dutch), _Londhíno_ (Greek), _Londra_ (Albanian, Italian, Maltese, Romanian, Romansh, Turkish), _Londres_ (Catalan, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Ladino), _Lúndūn_ (Mandarin Chinese), and so on. Languages such as Chinese habitually adapt sounds to fit into the Chinese syllable structure (eg no consonant clusters, including tones).

If we were confining our discussion to English, we might need to think in terms of not one right way of doing things, but several right ways depending on class, region, etc. Now, Peter is also one of my names and I also can't insist on how speakers of other accents say it. My accent is non-rhotic; I can't insist on a silent <r> from many American or Irish speakers. I don't like the <t> becoming voiced, although I can cope with it becoming a glottal stop or an unaspirated /t/: but whatever it is, I can't do much about it. The first vowel might be _ee_, but it might be some sort of diphthong _uh-ee, eh-ee_ and so on.

Nat aka Peter


----------



## e2efour

As I see it, the tendency is to adopt the correct pronunciation (as far as is possible) for geographical names for which there is no established pronunciation. However, it is unlikely that in the near future English-speaking countries will adopt Göteborg to refer to Gothenburg (even though Göteborg University seems to think it can).

Regarding personal names, while you may not be able to control how other nationalities pronounced your name, surely you have a right to insist (expect?) that they do their best? Otherwise you would find yourself in a worse position than a dog called Peter, which (presumably?) would not answer to the name Peter (with voiced t). It certainly would not respond to Pedro.

In the same way we should try and pronounce foreign personal names correctly. I imagine that someone from Russia would be irritated to be called Vladimir with the stress on the first syllable.


----------



## Einstein

The Italian town of Padova is called Padua in English. That's fine because it's a former name also in Italian. The pronunciation, though, is more or less _Padwa_. Is that so difficult? I heard a BBC sports commentator pronounce it as _Padge-yew-a._
The most annoying pronunciation mistakes are precisely those that complicate life!


----------



## Spira

So, with Padge-yew-a we are back to the Estuary accent !
I had never heard of the Estuary accent before this thread, yet according to Wikipaedia it is a term now more than twenty years old.


----------



## panjandrum

OK, I've been nominated.
This thread began as a close to scope discussion about the rights/wrongs of pronunciation in English.
It has become something quite different now that it is talking about varied pronunciation of geographical names.
I'm sure there are previous threads on that general topic or on specific locations.

In any case, the thread that once was just about in scope is now goodness knows where so it has been closed.


----------

