gwnn Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 I thought about this a bit and I think the misspellings that most annoy me are "beautifull" "wonderfull" etc etc. Just another reason to hate the Quiverfull movement (of course I don't think that's where people got it from). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 The fact that "full" loses an "l" when it gets turned into a suffix is just totally weird. I have sympathy for the poor spellers who have trouble remembering this. I'm a very good speller, but the thing that occasionally forces me to check a dictionary is whether a particular word ends in "-ize" or "-ise". I don't think there's any rhyme or reason to it, they're just arbitrary choices. Webster did a fairly good job of normalizing American English spelling when he wrote his dictionary (he's also responsible for dropping the "u" in "-our" endings), but somehow this slipped through (unless the variants postdate his work). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 I sympathise with them too but I still get annoyed. I don't know why. About the ize/ise issue, are there any words which are exclusively written with either of them? I always just use ise (to pretend to be British). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 4, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 I thought about this a bit and I think the misspellings that most annoy me are "beautifull" "wonderfull" etc etc. Just another reason to hate the Quiverfull movement (of course I don't think that's where people got it from). These are annoying for sure, but I think that they are less annoying than the ones I mentioned originally, because at least the meaning is clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 Usually the lead/led distinction is also clear (I would venture to guess 99% of the time it's either clear or immaterial), cf. "read/read." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenG Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 I sympathise with them too but I still get annoyed. I don't know why. About the ize/ise issue, are there any words which are exclusively written with either of them? I always just use ise (to pretend to be British).Although -ise is modern British usage, it is fairly recent. I transcribe 19th century parish registers and almost invariably see the -ize spellings used, especially "baptize". Although we British tend to get annoyed about Americanisms, most of us are not aware of how recently spelling and grammar became standardised. I've occasionally come across forms I consider "American" (like "gotten") in old documents; I'm probably a bit more tolerant as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 Although -ise is modern British usage, it is fairly recent. I transcribe 19th century parish registers and almost invariably see the -ize spellings used, especially "baptize". Although we British tend to get annoyed about Americanisms, most of us are not aware of how recently spelling and grammar became standardised. I've occasionally come across forms I consider "American" (like "gotten") in old documents; I'm probably a bit more tolerant as a result. I would be interested in hearing about "gotten". I find it a confusing word. Consider A: This has gotten very confusing B: This has got to be the most confusing thing I have seen in a long time. In A, a situation might get confusing, after which it has gotten confusing. "has gotten" means "has become". In B, that is not what is meant. "has got to be" is being used to mean "surely is". I suppose that in B it also has become very confusing, but the passage of time is not really intended as part of the meaning. For all we care, it might always have been equally confusing. It seems strange. In A, "has gotten" is a tense (past perfect as I was taught) of "to get", but in B "has got" is not intended to be a form of "to get". This used to bother me a lot, but I have gotten over it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 English is weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 English is weird.English is just fine; it's American that is weird. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 Mr. Nicoll? Mr. James Nicoll, to the white courtesy phone, please? Warning: quote not suitable for Puritans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 6, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 I enjoy watching animal programmes on TV, and many of the commentators refuse to pronounce "the" as "thee" when it precedes a vowel sound. It is super-annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 I enjoy watching animal programmes on TV, and many of the commentators refuse to pronounce "the" as "thee" when it precedes a vowel sound. It is super-annoying.It's a good job you aren't easily annoyed by unimportant matters, Stefanie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 I would be interested in hearing about "gotten". I find it a confusing word. Consider A: This has gotten very confusing B: This has got to be the most confusing thing I have seen in a long time. In A, a situation might get confusing, after which it has gotten confusing. "has gotten" means "has become". In B, that is not what is meant. "has got to be" is being used to mean "surely is". I suppose that in B it also has become very confusing, but the passage of time is not really intended as part of the meaning. For all we care, it might always have been equally confusing. It seems strange. In A, "has gotten" is a tense (past perfect as I was taught) of "to get", but in B "has got" is not intended to be a form of "to get". This used to bother me a lot, but I have gotten over it.It's easy in British English - "gotten" doesn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 Although -ise is modern British usage, it is fairly recent. I transcribe 19th century parish registers and almost invariably see the -ize spellings used, especially "baptize". Although we British tend to get annoyed about Americanisms, most of us are not aware of how recently spelling and grammar became standardised. I've occasionally come across forms I consider "American" (like "gotten") in old documents; I'm probably a bit more tolerant as a result.And of course "Fall" and "casket" were used in English before "Autumn" and "coffin". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 I would be interested in hearing about "gotten". I find it a confusing word. Consider A: This has gotten very confusing B: This has got to be the most confusing thing I have seen in a long time. In A, a situation might get confusing, after which it has gotten confusing. "has gotten" means "has become". In B, that is not what is meant. "has got to be" is being used to mean "surely is". I suppose that in B it also has become very confusing, but the passage of time is not really intended as part of the meaning. For all we care, it might always have been equally confusing. It seems strange. In A, "has gotten" is a tense (past perfect as I was taught) of "to get", but in B "has got" is not intended to be a form of "to get". This used to bother me a lot, but I have gotten over it.In B, "got" is just being used to add emphasis -- you can also say "This has to be". People who are interested in curious language issues like this should go to english.stackexchange.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 It's a good job you aren't easily annoyed by unimportant matters, Stefanie!OK, tonight's guy did not know how to pronounce "wildebeest", and he said it a lot. This, I think, would grate on the ears of the most easy-going viewer. EDIT: I do sympathise with people who have never heard a word pronounced, and say things like epi-tome and can-apes. I used to do this myself as a kid, because I read a lot, usually adult (in the sense of grown people!) material. But this was an animal that was featured in the show; and as it was recorded, surely someone ought to have noticed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 I get this when I watch football on UK TV. Hearing every few seconds about the BVB superstar Ray-oos (Reus) taking on the (ex) ManU defender Oh-She-uh (O'Shea) is at a minimum distracting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Hyperbole pronounced hyper-bowl is another common one. It always irritates me that the people who read the sports news on the radio can't pronounce surnames in common European languages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Hyperbole pronounced hyper-bowl is another common one. It always irritates me that the people who read the sports news on the radio can't pronounce surnames in common European languages. So we have hyperbole at the super bowl? This one I had not heard. When I was young I was telling someone about seeing the movie of Richard III. I said this guy Lawrence Olivier, (Olivier pronounced as in Oliver Twist) did a really good job. As I recall, the"someone" was a girl I was thinking of asking out. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 8, 2016 Report Share Posted February 8, 2016 The fact that "full" loses an "l" when it gets turned into a suffix is just totally weird. I have sympathy for the poor spellers who have trouble remembering this.This made me curious - where does the abnormality come from? It is the same in old (13th century) English, but Dutch and Frisian both use single l in both cases while German uses double l in both cases and Danish used "-ld" in both cases. Medieval Dutch is like modern Dutch in this respect. But Dutch uses -ll whenever it is followed by an -e, i.e. -vol but -volle. And it is the same in medieval Dutch. So maybe "full" was "fulle" at some stage and then lost the final -e? In Danish, the -ld ending (similar to the German -ll) is required if you want to shorten a a stressed vowel but unstressed vowel have almost the same length regardless of the added d. So maybe, in some old version of English, "ful" would be pronounced "fool" while "wonderful" was just pronounced like it is today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 9, 2016 Report Share Posted February 9, 2016 I understood and accepted "Febuary" (pronunciation) for a while but lately it's getting on my nerves. For some reason I'm not really bothered by "nucular." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 I understood and accepted "Febuary" (pronunciation) for a while but lately it's getting on my nerves. For some reason I'm not really bothered by "nucular."In American English, Febuary is the primary pronunciation. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/february?q=February Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 In American English, Febuary is the primary pronunciation. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/february?q=February Certainly not in American songs, the only two I can think of pronounce the R distinctly (exercise to find the songs). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 Certainly not in American songs, the only two I can think of pronounce the R distinctly (exercise to find the songs).Failed at that exercise. I found a site that lists songs with months in the titles, and this is the only February entry. Febuary Air At about 1:02 she says the title words with no first R. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted February 10, 2016 Report Share Posted February 10, 2016 Failed at that exercise. I found a site that lists songs with months in the titles, and this is the only February entry. Febuary Air At about 1:02 she says the title words with no first R. Not obscure American pie - February made me shiver Killers - Somebody told me - Well somebody told me you had a boyfriendWho looked like a girlfriendThat I had in February of last year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.