Pronunciation of Menzies (Mark Strong's character)?
It looks like MEN-zees but the characters say it another way, which I can't figure out. The first syllable sounds like MEEN but the second is barely audible.
share[deleted]
Weird. I'm from Massachusetts, where Gloucester is GLOSS-ter and Peabody is PEE-bədy. But at least those pronunciations don't bring in letters that aren't even in the word! Thanks for the tip.
share[deleted]
"For example a surname of St.John is usually pronouced Sinjent."
Actually 'Sin-jun'. And as a first name also! Here in Texas we have a PBS radio host and for several years I wondered about his name, which I always heard as 'Sin-jun Flynn'. When I finally looked it up I was surprised that it is actually 'St. John'. He even wrote a short article about it, "What's In A Name?": http://gpbcovertocover.blogspot.com/2007/07/whats-in-name.html
..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.
[deleted]
I found that out from Mr Bean in Four Weddings and a Funeral.
shareAnother name which will probably be familier to most people is 'Dalziel'. Pronounced Deeyell. How come?
Another name which will probably be familiar to most people is 'Dalziel'. Pronounced Deeyell. How come?
Hmm, I had a professor in grad school with that name -- but he pronounced it Dahl-ZELL. The Americanized version, I guess. There's also that lovely polysyllabic surname, Cholmondeley, which is apparently pronounced something like "Chum-lee."
Sometimes the colonials turn the tables, though. A famous Oxford college is "Balliol." We know how it's pronounced, if not from other sources, from Dorothy Sayers' wonderful limerick ( from Murder Must Advertise),
Bredon went to Balliol/ And sat at the feet of Gamaliel/ And just as he ought/ He cared for nought/ And his language was sesquipedalial
So, BAY-lee-yul. But there's a street in an upscale north Toronto neighborhood called Balliol Sreet and the locals call it "Bull Oil."
So the UK doesn't have the corner on illogical pronunciations. But "Featherstonehaugh" aka "Fanshaw" has to be the piece de resistance. share
Can't top Fanshaw, but as this is somewhat of a wartime page a familiar "wartime" surname to many is of course (Capt.) "Mainwaring" ("Dad's Army"), usually pronounced Mannering.
[deleted]
Applying logic to Brit pronunciations is a zero sum game. They insist upon pronouncing Houston as "HOOS-tun" even though one of the central London train stations is Euston and pronounced in virtually identical fashion as that Texas city. Similarly, Obama's first name is invariably pronounced "barrack" by UK commentators, despite US auditory evidence to the contrary.
I recall being in London a few years ago when the subject of Nike products was raised on a talk radio show. American listeners were at odds with their British counterparts as to the pronunciation of the product name, with the latter insisting that it should be pronounced to rhyme with "like." The host decided to settle the issue by telephoning Nike headquarters in New York in an effort to clarify. The result? In the face of the clarification, and hearing the two-syllable pronunciation by the spokesman in NYC, the consensus was "Well, nobody I know pronounces it like that"-- so Nike continues to be pronounced as "ike" plus N. The British rationale seems to be, "You can pronounce your names your way if you like them that way, but we prefer them OUR way."
I'm so tired of this America v English language siege mentality - regardless of whether it's coming from an American or an English person.
These "the way 'they' pronounce the language is stupid/illogical" conversations are absurd. Different countries - divergent histories - different results. Clear? A lot of the 'strange' pronunciations are due to the fact that English is an amalgamation of many different languages combined with the indigenous languages of this island. Some pronunciations are echoes of those older languages. Others are Anglicised variations of those imposed languages.
Somewhere along the way America lost, or abandoned or standardised many of those nuances (an American is going to have to enlighten me as to why/when/how). Fine - good for you. We didn't. And simultaneously England continued to evolve it's own language (i.e. our language didn't cease to evolve because the great saviour of American English had finally arrived) - sometimes our language evolved in a different direction - according to the tastes/wants/needs/preferences of the British. Increasingly we're adding new American words. And sometimes we may adapt those words. It's not a characteristic unique to Britain. Every country does it.
e.g: American pronunciation:
Notre Dame: 'No-ray dame'
Van Goch: 'Van Go'.
(but hey - despite how weird this may sound to the French/Dutch - most Americans seem to 'prefer it their way' too)
And American isn't necessarily logical either:
BUOY: (UK: boy; US: boo-ee)
BUOYANT: (UK boy-ant, US boy-ant (so why not booee-ant? What an illogical inconsistency!)
You're not wrong, we're not wrong (they're not wrong), just different.
Your language doesn't always make sense to us. Our language does't always make sense to you. Fine. Enjoy the difference - and enjoy learning about those differences. I think it's fun, and sometimes funny and endearing (e.g. 'fanny')
If it reassures you: I'm certain that America will mostly determine the future trajectory of the English language because, if there's one thing history has told us - it's that dominant economies and/or ideologies dictate the common tongue (just as invading French, Scandinavians, Italians [Romans] had such an impact on the evolution of the, now apparently 'illogical', British English).
I do fear that too many people confuse what is 'dominant' (or what they're more familiar with) with 'better' or more 'logical'. No - it's not necessarily better - usually it's just more ubiquitous. If you follow that line of reasoning then it's clear that Starbucks is unequivocally the best coffee in the world - and Budweiser is indeed 'The King of Beers' (and so they were prepared to force a namesake Czech company which existed long before they to change their name - presumably to reinforce that 'fact'). Me I beg to differ. Best beers? Belgian all the way!! Or lets move into differing evolutionary characteristics of animals species: clearly lions are better than tigers because there are more of them! So it;s reasonable to surmise that being a lion is more logical than being a tiger!
If you're looking for a purer logic in Languages you probably have to return to their origins (e.g. Latin) - everything else is a combination of many factors: dominance, economy, colonisation, patois, slang, deliberate misuse of a language in wilful defiance against an authority figure/class, misunderstanding, classic/popular literature, fashion trends (what is considered cool/hip - e.g. Kerouac), as well as the assimilation of words and phrases due to increased access to, and familiarity with different cultures/languages.
Most languages are now a patchwork quilt of many different logical goals - so the quest to find (let alone prove) that language x is the more 'logical' language maybe something of a lost cause. The only logic you could perhaps reasonably argue is that, if language x is the most ubiquitous at the present time, perhaps it makes more sense for people learning a language for the first time to learn its most ubiquitous form (thus increasing the likelihood that they'll be understood by a higher proportion of the global population..
That said - I keep hearing about American teachers in Asia telling my many Asian friends that their pronunciation is 'wrong' when it's merely the English pronunciation. This is important - because the thing these teachers fail to consider is that these friends are specifically learning English as a precursor to living in Britain - NOT America!
I find myself having to reassure my friends in light of this. I try to enlighten them as to the differences, rather than countering with an assertion that 'British English is the correct form'. I think it's doing these Asian students an enormous disservice to 'correct' them when they're not actually wrong! These teachers are supposed to be teaching a language - not trying to indoctrinate someone into their culture (and yes, I would level the same argument at English teachers who correct American pronunciations). Where do we go next with this line of reasoning? The New York accent is correct and the Texan accent incorrect because the teacher s from New York?'
As for the English pronouncing 'Nike' similarly to 'Like'. I don't think I've heard anyone say it like that since the 1970's (and anyone in England who still does is probably aged 50-60+). In fairness this generation didn't really hear Nike being pronounced much at that time because it wasn't the dominant sports brand - and you certainly didn't get TV adverts. (not that TV ads can always be trusted either. For years growing up - some fool decided to market Nestlé to the British as Nestles. A whole generation misinformed - and then latterly laughed at for getting it 'wrong' - probably because someone rightly or wrongly concluded that the English wouldn't buy a product if it sounded too French. A classic example of market forces altering the trajectory of a language).
Historically America has been one of the greatest advocates of individuality and diversity. So are you saying that individuality and diversity is only good if it's US endorsed individuality and diversity?
I appreciate your attitude :D and I do agree with most of your post.
...These teachers are supposed to be teaching a language - not trying to indoctrinate someone into their culture (and yes, I would level the same argument at English teachers who correct American pronunciations)...
I'm Dutch; in my grammar school time (stone age,) English and American were almost considered different languages. We did study E. and A. literature though. Pronunciation and grammar rules (British English) were strict. I assume that the incorporated cultural elements were primarily taught to build a solid base for a job future in business.
Times changed, fortunately, but I think it's hardly possible to teach a language without referring to cultural backgrounds.
Example: the American expression "Something is going south" is hard to understand if you don't know the story behind it.
Historically America has been one of the greatest advocates of individuality and diversity.
Sounds good, but the words tolerance and acceptance are nowhere to be found in the American dictionary when it comes to pronunciation: there are countless threads in the IMDB discussion boards where people ventilate a strong negative opinion on the accents foreign actors speak with... (while they themselves happily butcher any French word they encounter).
End of rant. :D share
Thanks for taking the time to read :)
I doubt such comment responses have much impact. I guess sometimes I just feel need to counterpoint some of the xenophobic nonsense that ruins so many comment threads. Maybe it's a losing game - but every once in a while someone pops up and reminds me that there are plenty of sane people on these threads too - from every country.
Actually, I find perspectives on the English language from people for whom it isn't the first language useful, and often enlightening. I've probably learned as much from 'non-native' speakers as I did at school (Dutch girlfriend for 9 years haha). Once they've grasped English, their understanding is often more thorough than most native speakers - and, perhaps more importantly, they (you) seem able to see the language far more objectively than us native speakers can. It's why I never understand people who refuse to see the world from a perspective other than the one they grew up with.
there are countless threads in the IMDB discussion boards where people ventilate a strong negative opinion on the accents foreign actors speak with
Yeah - it's a shame. In my daily life almost every American I've met was affable - yet when you look at the internet - it'd be so easy to get a very different perspective on Americans. Not that you don't see similar diatribes from other nationalities. But the sheer abundance of them from the US is staggering and saddening. Of course I do take account of the size of the US population. Perhaps every country has the same ratio of idiocy - and it just seems worse when it's a country with a larger population - especially when combined with a higher than average ratio of internet access...I don't know (and of course - vitriol undoubtedly stands out more). Fortunately, there are plenty of US citizens who find such home-grown xenophobes equally as tiresome as I find the bigoted Brits who sometimes pop up on these message boards.
But as a citizen of a once (and, to a great extent, still) bullish nation, I have a feeling that such attitudes are the inevitable by-product of economic ascendency. And, for all the moral rhetoric, it seems to me that (regrettably) one doesn't become an ascendent economy unless one's had a history of finding vulnerable people to exploit to one's advantage. I certainly can't think of an incidence in history where this hasn't been the case. Sadly, I fear that this inevitably nurtures and reinforces widespread and misguided notions of cultural superiority amongst the people of that burgeoning or already ascendent economy.
Or, on reflection, perhaps it's the the other way round: Nurturing such notions of righteous superiority is precisely how countries can get away with manipulating more vulnerable countries without their own citizens condemning them too harshly "It's for they're own good - we'll make them more civilised."
Oh - and rant all you like. It's a discussion board ;)
"The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice." Mark Twain (American) share
[deleted]
[deleted]
e.g: American pronunciation:Nope.
Notre Dame: 'No-ray dame'
Van Goch: 'Van Go'.
e.g: American pronunciation:
Notre Dame: 'Noat-rah' or 'No-ter' plus 'Dahm' or 'Daim' in all 4 combinations.
Van Gogh: 'Van Go'.
When I go to the market and ask for 'how-dah' cheese, I almost always get a blank look.
Born in Massachusetts. Raised in Ohio.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him. share
:)
Yes - you are indeed correct - in fact, I'd probably say that Noter Dame is what I most commonly hear from Americans visiting Europe. You're going to have to trust me (or not) re. 'No Ray Dame' - which I promise I heard many times when I lived in Paris.
Van Goch/Gogh - fair enough to point it out my error. Curiously I do know the correct spelling - so I'm not sure how/why I ended up replacing the 'g' wth a 'c'. Hasty writing ? UK-centric habits dominating my grammar, whereby I inadvertently applied a UK phonetic (as in Loch)....maybe?
Re. 'How-dah' - yup - reminds me of a Dutch friend of mine who was, rather curtly, 'corrected' when she ordered Oranjeboom (aronya-bome) in an English pub 'It's Oran-jee-boom actually!' gruffed the barmaid loudly. So yes, the reverse is of course also true - we assimilate the language of our immediate peers and sometimes inadvertently accept the universal truth of what we hear daily - hence the blank looks you receive at your local market, and the rather grumpy response my Dutch friend received in an English pub for breaking accepted local protocol.
. But I still think it was kinda strange to hear an English person forthrightly correct a Dutch person's pronunciation of a Dutch word - surely the Dutch person should be educating the Englishman - and the Englishman more open to learning?
How does that happen?: The automatic assumption that familiar = correct, and unfamiliar = incorrect?
e.g.: An Indian (Bhopali) woman who said (with a strong Indian accent) to an English friend of mine who was travelling in India: 'I'm sorry, I can't understand you - could you speak in English please'.
My comments are not directed at any particular country because I recognise that words don't always neatly transfer from one culture's linguistic habits/rules to another's. Rather it was a response to an individual (who in this instance happened to be American) who was implying that American English was more logical than British English. And yet, in a world where we can much more readily access/hear other languages - isn't it nice to recognise the variants rather than intransigently guard our own versions (often bastardisations) of those languages - and in particular 'when in Rome' isn't it simply more logical to attempt to pronounce in a way which is immediately recognisable to the people of the country your visiting? And conversely, when encountering a 'native speaker' isn't it a show of respect to at least attempt to assimilate their linguistic style?
Moreso when pronouncing someone's name. Why not pronounce a name in the way an individual has for their whole life grown accustomed to? Surely there's a very practical reason for doing so. For example, when I lived in Paris there were numerous social occasions where someone called my name (Adrian) but (understandably) did so with the French pronunciation. I have no problem with that, but the simple fact was that I often didn't realise when someone was trying to grab my attention because, like a Pavlovian dog, I just wasn't programmed to associate my name with the sound the French used - and on a couple of occasions individuals actually thought I was deliberately ignoring them. After a while I learned to subconsciously respond to both the French and English pronunciations - and conversely some of the people who got to know me well started to use the English pronunciation - which I really appreciated.
My overarching opinion and/or point (for what it matters)?: every country will reinterpret and pronounce on their own terms - according to the linguistic rules/habits of their language, but country a. pointing out the logical inconsistencies of country b. is just crazy. Of the languages with which I am familiar, all appear to have inherent logical inconsistencies.
"Let's call the whole thing off"
And finally - regarding 'how-dah', I think: Good for you for your readiness to learn/use the Dutch pronunciation! If more people did so - surely the blank looks of our less globally informed peers would slowly decrease over time.
Forgive my rambling - I love talking about language :))
I haven't read all of your response -- gawd, you're so .... forthcoming! -- but I had to comment on something right away.
My comments are not directed at any particular country because I recognise that words don't always neatly transfer from one culture's linguistic habits/rules to another's. Rather it was a response to an individual (who in this instance happened to be American) who was implying that American English was more logical than British English.That's funny. If I was asked, I'd reply, "None of the above." If you want logical, if you want consistent, try Español.
I have heard it said that people in Northern Ohio speak the most portable English in the U.S. Certainly I have absolutely no difficulty understanding people in London and they have no difficulty understanding me. Both, it seems to me, speak very flat English. I have no problems with English movies, even those from the 1930s. I hope this doesn't sound insulting, but to my ears, the Royals almost speak American English. Well, of course they don't objectively speak American English, we Americans speak their English, but what would you think if I said that I thought American Mid-West English was closest to posh English as spoken at Westminster or at Cambridge or Oxford? By the way, other Americans reading this will say I'm cracked.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him. share
schooly85
After a while I learned to subconsciously respond to both the French and English pronunciations - and conversely some of the people who got to know me well started to use the English pronunciation - which I really appreciated.U'm... huh? I assume that the English say 'Aid-ree-in' and the French say 'Add-ray-agh' with an open nasal sound at the end. The French don't say 'Add-ray-ann', do they?
Where do you live?
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him. share
schooly85
I have a favorite (favourite) quip for you.
Most Americans identically pronounce the following three words: "pearl", "purl", and "peril".
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.
American here. Michigan to be exact. I find languages and pronunciation fascinating. Regional dialects especially. I agree with everything you said Schooly and rather enjoyed your posts. Everyone should just simmer down and realize that one particular way isn't better, just different.
shareWhen I go to the market and ask for 'how-dah' cheese, I almost always get a blank look.
I would expect that. What is 'how-dah' cheese? I've never heard of it.
In Louisville you would most certainly get a blank look.
In Louisville, 'peril' is pronounced pair-ul, and I don't think 'purl' is a word.
And 'Notre Dame' is note-er-dame. share
shepherd-26Gouda.
What is 'how-dah' cheese?
Purl is a basic stitch in knitting.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him. share
Gouda. I have heard of that, but I did not know it was pronounced that way.
I guess I don't know anything about knitting either!
[deleted]
But Nike the company is named after the Greek god of victory - Nike, so it is pronounced as two syllables "nike-ay"
shareAnother name which will probably be familier to most people is 'Dalziel'. Pronounced Deeyell. How come?
Yes, that TV detective series. I thought it is "D L"?
And this, Ioan Gruffudd, I don't even know how to spell it let alone pronounce it (copied the name from Titanic board).
And Ralph Fiennes.
share
I *think* Ioan Gruffudd is pronounced "Ewan Griffith", but I expect a Welsh speaker will be along soon enough to correct me :)
It's pronounced "Mingis" because originally it wasn't spelt with a "z" but a letter called "yogh" which is derived from the Old English alphabet. However, when printing came in from the continent, the gear didn't have a "yogh" letter, so it was often replaced with the closest thing (in shape) available, the letter "z". A similar thing happened with "Ye olde shoppe"; "the" used to be spelt with a letter for the "th" sound which vaguely resembled a "y", called "thorn", and when the printing gear came in, there was no "thorn" available... so the closest looking thing was used, the "y".
:-)
"Find out what to think next!"
-Chris Morris, "Brasseye"
The English language is so messed up!
share