pet peeve thread

[Zelandakh]

The best way of explaining it to the public is to tell the story of George Gallup versus The Literary Digest for the 1936 Landon-Roosevelt election. The problem with poling is rarely sample size but rather constructing the sample to be representative of the entire population.

[gwnn]

The best way of explaining it to the public is to tell the story of George Gallup versus The Literary Digest for the 1936 Landon-Roosevelt election. The problem with poling is rarely sample size but rather constructing the sample to be representative of the entire population.

How does this story (which, as far as I can gather, is about random polling vs asking readers of a particular magazine) explain anything about apparently small but sufficient samples? Of course representativeness is important but I was talking about the misconception that one needs to ask a significant number of people (compared to the total population) before drawing conclusions about the general public.

 

edit: oh, the Literary Digest survey was based on 2.3 million (whoa) people while Gallup on 50,000. OK then I kind of understand what you mean, although I don't know if it's totally convincing to outsiders, since it covers why large samples aren't guaranteed to work in practice but not why very small samples could work in principle. Well, in any case, I know my way of explaining is completely unconvincing so I might try yours next time.

Edited May 16, 2016 by gwnn

[Zelandakh]

edit: oh, the Literary Digest survey was based on 2.3 million (whoa) people while Gallup on 50,000.

Exactly, this was the turning point in polling methodology. Before Gallup it was assumed that more respondents meant a more accurate poll and a great deal of time and expense went into creating samples as large as possible. Afterwards it was realised that a small but well-constructed sample offered a much more accurate representation of the general population. It is simply a practical example illustrating what the maths says and shows in a simple way that the viewpoint of the "audience", despite being seemingly logical, is wrong.

[Fluffy]

This reminds me of those silly polls on TV programs asking silly questions, getting 80%+ responses because people who vote are all sheeps watching and trusting the biased program.

 

People who lose money to vote on those polls is one of those things that makes me feel appart from humanity.

[Phil]

No, you're a Suit.

 

....feeling the burn :(

[gwnn]

Pronouncing determine as deter+mine, which is the de facto standard at scientific conferences by non-natives. Before you say it, yes, I know it's petty and I mispronounce everything too. I also know that it would be more logical if pronunciation were additive like that!

[kenberg]

Pronouncing determine as deter+mine, which is the de facto standard at scientific conferences by non-natives. Before you say it, yes, I know it's petty and I mispronounce everything too. I also know that it would be more logical if pronunciation were additive like that!

 

I was recently in Oregon and discovered that the last syllable is pronounced like gun rather than gone. I also discovered that Oregonians are quite insistent about this. See https://www.facebook.com/oregongovernor/videos/1680546898870520/ among many other sites.

 

One of the newspapers addressed how the various presidential candidates pronounced, or mispronounced, the name of their state. Hillary did not much campaign there, so they described her pronunciation as ignoregon.

 

I am happy to pronounce it as the natives wish, as long as I do not have to agree that their choice is in any way the natural one.

 

I don't think I have ever heard someone pronounce determine so that it rhymes with deter swine. I just go to the wrong conferences.

[Vampyr]

This reminds me of those silly polls on TV programs asking silly questions, getting 80%+ responses because people who vote are all sheeps watching and trusting the biased program.

 

People who lose money to vote on those polls is one of those things that makes me feel appart from humanity.

 

These "polls" are lotteries, offering prizes. That is why people are charged for voting (I do not see how they can lose money actually, but they can spend it). What is not immediately obvious is how much money goes into the prize fund and how much to the organisers.

[Vampyr]

I have heard epi-tome and crew-dights from native speakers. And of course nearly everyone pronounces for-tay when they mean fort (forte, as in strength. It is French for strong, not Italian for loud).

[barmar]

I was recently in Oregon and discovered that the last syllable is pronounced like gun rather than gone. I also discovered that Oregonians are quite insistent about this. See https://www.facebook.com/oregongovernor/videos/1680546898870520/ among many other sites.

 

One of the newspapers addressed how the various presidential candidates pronounced, or mispronounced, the name of their state. Hillary did not much campaign there, so they described her pronunciation as ignoregon.

 

I am happy to pronounce it as the natives wish, as long as I do not have to agree that their choice is in any way the natural one.

It wasn't until I had a friend in college from Missouri that I learned that they pronounce the last syllable as "ruh" rather than "ree".

 

But I'll also forgive them if they don't know how to pronounce Worcester. And only native Bostonians pronounce that city as Bahstahn instead of Bawstun -- I don't think any of them expect the rest of the country to adopt their accent.

 

But face it, spelling and pronunciation in English is a mess, because the language is such a melting pot of other languages.

[barmar]

On The Daily Show this week (I think Thursday night's show) one of the correspondents was making fun of Trevor Noah (who is from South Africa, but I suspect most Americans would mistake his accent for British) for his pronunciation of "controversy" -- he says "con-TROV-er-sy" in stead of "CON-truh-ver-sy" like normal Americans.

[helene_t]

Funny, I would say con-tro-VER-sy.

[barmar]

Funny, I would say con-tro-VER-sy.

I just checked several online dictionaries, they agree with my pronunciation. The primary emphasis is on "con", the secondary emphasis is on "ver". But they also say that the British pronunciation emphasizes "tro".

 

The primary emphasis switches to "ver" when you say "controversial". Maybe that's what you're thinking of?

[gwnn]

Did you check the dictionary for Danish-German-Dutch accent in English? :P

[helene_t]

In Esperanto it is kon-tro-ver-SI-o I think.

[fromageGB]

My British English may be dated, but it is conTROVersy for me.

[1eyedjack]

Yeah, you say kilOMetre, I say millIMetre

 

As I recall, it has something to do with the age of the language; as it evolves the stressed syllable migrates to one end from the other.

[barmar]

In the case of British versus American pronunciations, I suspect it's related to how the British aristocracy changed their pronunciation in the centuries since the American Revolution. As I understand it, the American accent is closer to how the language was spoken on both sides of the pond in colonial days. Since then, the British upper class adopted a new accent to distinguish themselves from peasants, and that's what has become the modern "Received Pronunciation".

[Vampyr]

Yeah, you say kilOMetre, I say millIMetre

 

As I recall, it has something to do with the age of the language; as it evolves the stressed syllable migrates to one end from the other.

 

In the US the stress has migrated to the first syllable in a number of words: controversy, inquiry and laboratory come to mind. I think that this is the usual pattern but then there is the counter example of garage, and of course the French loan words where the British but not the Americans have moved the stress to the first syllable: cafe, ballet, buffet.

[Vampyr]

In the case of British versus American pronunciations, I suspect it's related to how the British aristocracy changed their pronunciation in the centuries since the American Revolution. As I understand it, the American accent is closer to how the language was spoken on both sides of the pond in colonial days. Since then, the British upper class adopted a new accent to distinguish themselves from peasants, and that's what has become the modern "Received Pronunciation".

 

Crossed your post which suggests a different source of the differences, but anyway I believe that the the theory holds that accent that is close to the 17-18th century British pronunciation is specifically the accent in Appalachia.

[fromageGB]

Garage itself is interesting. Is it gaRAHJ to rhyme with Farage, GArahj, or is it GAridge? I must confess to using all three.

[Phil]

Ory-ginn - check

Miss-urruh - check

 

Don't forget the native Hawaiians call it Ha-vie-eh, not Ha-why-ee.

[barmar]

Crossed your post which suggests a different source of the differences, but anyway I believe that the the theory holds that accent that is close to the 17-18th century British pronunciation is specifically the accent in Appalachia.

Getting back to the pet peeve theme, this always bugs me when watching TV shows like "Sleepy Hollow" or "Outlander". They have all the colonial American and British characters speeking with a modern British accent.

 

But I guess it's appropriate dramatic license. In Sleepy Hollow, they want Crane to sound different from the modern Americans; and since he was a British immigrant, a British accent serves that purpose. And if period shows like Outlander used period-appropriate accents, it would sound wrong to modern ears.

 

It's kind of like when they used to make Cold War movies where the Russians all spoke with English accents.

[barmar]

Garage itself is interesting. Is it gaRAHJ to rhyme with Farage, GArahj, or is it GAridge? I must confess to using all three.

In the US I think it's mostly gaRAHJ, I think in England it's GArahj. Haven't heard much GAridge.

[Winstonm]

In the US I think it's mostly gaRAHJ, I think in England it's GArahj. Haven't heard much GAridge.

 

In the U.S., it is mostly "Where did you put that stuff?"