4 ms·

I respectfully disagree. By your argument if I can get enough people to pronounce "cat" as dog then dog is the new pronunciation of cat. There are correct ways

I respectfully disagree. By your argument if I can get enough people to pronounce "cat" as dog then dog is the new pronunciation of cat. There are correct ways to say things that people just don't know and would likely be happy to be taught. I had a friend that thought "turret" was pronounced "tur net". Another friend who thought it was "punkin" no "pumpkin". Both needed to and wanted to be corrected. It's disserve to tell people "come to this website to learn correct pronunciation" but then not have it actually be correct. As another example are foreign words and names. There's no EE sound in Tokyo, nor Kyoto. There's no "awe" sound in "Pocky". The fact that westerners will go to great lengths to say "Nic ha wha gura" instead of "Nik ah wa gra" or "Ca pu chee noh" but won't spend the minimal effort to learn a correct Asian pronunciation is effectively racist. Some will say "but I'm saying it as it's spelled" but since they aren't following the same rules "say it as it's spelled" for European words it just proves my point.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> By your argument if I can get enough people to pronounce "cat" as dog then dog is the new pronunciation of cat. Sure. If a large enough portion of English speakers pronounce it that way, it would be a valid pronunciation. What other measure of validity would there be? There's no committee to dictate "standard English" (nor would what they say matter if the language actually used doesn't reflect their prescriptions), and dictionaries merely describe language as it actually is. > It's disserve to tell people "come to this website to learn correct pronunciation" but then not have it actually be correct. But the pronunciations offered on this site will usually be correct ones. It shows you the words as pronounced by actual people. > There's no EE sound in Tokyo, nor Kyoto. There's no "awe" sound in "Pocky". Maybe not in their native language, but there is in English. > The fact that westerners will go to great lengths to say "Nic ha wha gura" instead of "Nik ah wa gra" or "Ca pu chee noh" but won't spend the minimal effort to learn a correct Asian pronunciation is effectively racist. Maybe. People probably should be respectful of other cultures' own names if they can. Though that doesn't mean pronunciations distant from the native ones are incorrect in English. > Some will say "but I'm saying it as it's spelled" but since they aren't following the same rules "say it as it's spelled" for European words it just proves my point. Pronunciations which don't follow source language rules are certainly not limited to East Asian or South American words. English speakers aren't familiar with foreign orthographic conventions. That's to be expected: they are English speakers, not speakers of other languages.
- greggman 11y ago
  Your response makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever By your logic if I see the word "latte" and I pronounce it "lat" because there is no "eh" sound at the end of words in English then that's perfectly fine and people should just deal with it. No, that's not what happens. People get corrected and through correction we all learn to say "lah-tay". You seem to be arguing correction has no place. That's pretty indefensible. If we didn't correct each other no one could communicate. One person would say "ki nig et" and another would say "nait". One person would say "gar baj" and other way say "jar bayg". Even subtle variations matter. If someone says "the dig caught the bil" when then meant the "dog caught the ball" no one will understand them even though the difference in pronunciation of of "dig" vs "dog" and "ball" vs "bil" is very tiny. In the same way say "Kee-yoh-toh" to a Japanese person and they won't understand what you're talking about until you give them many more clues. I'd also argue correct pronunciations of names is partly of matter of respect. Maybe you're an exception but I kind of assume I called your name as "Tah-Zay Tee Su chi Nit Zel" you'd probably not respond. If you did figure out I was referring to you you'd probably correct me. If I insisted "so what, that's how I read it so that's how I'm saying it" you'd probably be offended. Maybe you're special and you wouldn't mind but most people would. I wouldn't respond to "jrej" or "guh-reg" or "guh-re-guh-guh".
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    > By your logic if I see the word "latte" and I pronounce it "lat" because there is no "eh" sound at the end of words in English then that's perfectly fine and people should just deal with it. You are just a single person, so it probably wouldn't be seen as correct. However, if a large number of people within some geographical area did the same thing, then it'd be a (correct) feature of that dialect. I never said that any feature of any person's ideolect is always considered "correct". I said that features in the English spoken by "a large enough portion of English speakers" are. Languages aren't ideal systems that native speakers attempt to conform to, languages are simply what is actually spoken.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiolect#Idiolect_and_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiolect#Idiolect_and_language) > You seem to be arguing correction has no place. That's pretty indefensible. No, I'm arguing that correcting people when they're not wrong has no place.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

> By your argument if I can get enough people to pronounce "cat" as dog then dog is the new pronunciation of cat. Sure. If a large enough portion of English speakers pronounce it that way, it would be a valid pronunciation. What other measure of validity would there be? There's no committee to dictate "standard English" (nor would what they say matter if the language actually used doesn't reflect their prescriptions), and dictionaries merely describe language as it actually is. > It's disserve to tell people "come to this website to learn correct pronunciation" but then not have it actually be correct. But the pronunciations offered on this site will usually be correct ones. It shows you the words as pronounced by actual people. > There's no EE sound in Tokyo, nor Kyoto. There's no "awe" sound in "Pocky". Maybe not in their native language, but there is in English. > The fact that westerners will go to great lengths to say "Nic ha wha gura" instead of "Nik ah wa gra" or "Ca pu chee noh" but won't spend the minimal effort to learn a correct Asian pronunciation is effectively racist. Maybe. People probably should be respectful of other cultures' own names if they can. Though that doesn't mean pronunciations distant from the native ones are incorrect in English. > Some will say "but I'm saying it as it's spelled" but since they aren't following the same rules "say it as it's spelled" for European words it just proves my point. Pronunciations which don't follow source language rules are certainly not limited to East Asian or South American words. English speakers aren't familiar with foreign orthographic conventions. That's to be expected: they are English speakers, not speakers of other languages.

greggman 11y ago
Your response makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever By your logic if I see the word "latte" and I pronounce it "lat" because there is no "eh" sound at the end of words in English then that's perfectly fine and people should just deal with it. No, that's not what happens. People get corrected and through correction we all learn to say "lah-tay". You seem to be arguing correction has no place. That's pretty indefensible. If we didn't correct each other no one could communicate. One person would say "ki nig et" and another would say "nait". One person would say "gar baj" and other way say "jar bayg". Even subtle variations matter. If someone says "the dig caught the bil" when then meant the "dog caught the ball" no one will understand them even though the difference in pronunciation of of "dig" vs "dog" and "ball" vs "bil" is very tiny. In the same way say "Kee-yoh-toh" to a Japanese person and they won't understand what you're talking about until you give them many more clues. I'd also argue correct pronunciations of names is partly of matter of respect. Maybe you're an exception but I kind of assume I called your name as "Tah-Zay Tee Su chi Nit Zel" you'd probably not respond. If you did figure out I was referring to you you'd probably correct me. If I insisted "so what, that's how I read it so that's how I'm saying it" you'd probably be offended. Maybe you're special and you wouldn't mind but most people would. I wouldn't respond to "jrej" or "guh-reg" or "guh-re-guh-guh".
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  > By your logic if I see the word "latte" and I pronounce it "lat" because there is no "eh" sound at the end of words in English then that's perfectly fine and people should just deal with it. You are just a single person, so it probably wouldn't be seen as correct. However, if a large number of people within some geographical area did the same thing, then it'd be a (correct) feature of that dialect. I never said that any feature of any person's ideolect is always considered "correct". I said that features in the English spoken by "a large enough portion of English speakers" are. Languages aren't ideal systems that native speakers attempt to conform to, languages are simply what is actually spoken.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiolect#Idiolect_and_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiolect#Idiolect_and_language) > You seem to be arguing correction has no place. That's pretty indefensible. No, I'm arguing that correcting people when they're not wrong has no place.