I've been at a conference, and the speaker was talking about preparing faculty for a simulation initiative. She said (I thought), "The faculty preparation was a little more erotic." It caught my attention!

Ah, then I realized she was from the east and really had said, "erratic." Oh well. At least it woke me up!

Are there other pronunciations that really make a difference?

One of my English teacher colleagues always pronounces pronunciation as pronOUNCiation.

Not so much spelling but a warning about the importance of accurate transcription - http://www.jokes.com/funny/wha...monks-made-a-mistake

I'm scratching my head, Kalleh... ok maybe some kind of broad Boston accent ("erratic") would sound just like that broad short o in the midweatern "erotic"? Pretty funny 'errah'.

A few years ago a Daily Telegraph colleague with a pukka English accent was being interviewed live by a Texas radio station and expressed the hope that more American tourists would visit England. The Texan radio station pretty quickly brought the interview to a close. My colleague asked why he had been cut off in his prime. The producer told him it was because they had misheard "tourist" as "terrorist".

quote:

Ah, then I realized she was from the east and really had said, "erratic." Oh well. At least it woke me up!

To my ears American pronounce "erotic" as "erahdic" - very similar thus to erratic.

quote:

The producer told him it was because they had misheard "tourist" as "terrorist".

My whole life I've had trouble saying (and hearing) the word tourist so I can completely understand that. How does it sound in a pukka English accent? Sometimes I've heard it as "tur" while others as "tore." Still others seem to almost make 2 syllables with the o and the u, and I imagine that's what happened in this situation.

[BTW, I learned a new word: pukka. Thanks!]

quote:

To my ears American pronounce "erotic" as "erahdic" - very similar thus to erratic.

You are correct about those on the east coast, Richard. However, at least in the midwest, people tend to say er-æ-tic, if that makes sense (a as in rat).

I can just imagine some Texas cop saying, "Heaay, Boouy. You onna them there tourerists?"

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
I can just imagine some Texas cop saying, "Heaay, Boouy. You onna them there tourerists?"

Then the British visitor innocently saying "Yes, I just love your Texas hospitality."

quote:

How does it sound in a pukka English accent?

In my southern English accent (probably as pukka and close to RP as any) I pronounce "tourist" with a diphthong in the first syllable - too-er - although not so pronounced as that transliteration would maybe imply.

It's odd that an American should have difficulty separating out out a British pronunciation of "tourist" and "terrorist" because we have EXACTLY THE SAME PROBLEM separating and American pronunciation of the same words.

It took weeks to figure out why President Bush wanted a war on global tourism.

FWIW, in my dialect of West Coast North American: tourist /'tʊɹɪst/ and terrorist /'tɛɹɚɪst/ or /'tɛɹəɹɪst/, depending on the car in pronouncing it. Anyway, the vowels of the first syllables are quite distinct /ʊ/ and /ɛ/.

One of the main differences I perceive is that, in UK English, "tourist" has two syllables and "terrorist" three. That alone should be sufficient to distinguish the two words. However, I suspect that, in some US dialects (or even maybe all of them) terrorist has only two syllables.

The difference seems to me to be similar to the UK's bi-syllabic "mirror" and the USA's monosyllabic version.

However, I suspect that, in some US dialects (or even maybe all of them) terrorist has only two syllables.

Depends what you mean by syllable, but not in mine. Terrorist has 3 syllables.

tr'r's is the way some say it. Just run everything together and shoot it out a corner of your mouth.

quote:

The difference seems to me to be similar to the UK's bi-syllabic "mirror" and the USA's monosyllabic version.

As z says, it depends on what a syllable really is. However, if it's saying words in 2 or 3 or whatever parts, which is what I tend to think of it as, I find the differences in American/English accents odd. While much of the time the English decrease the number of syllables (such as "military") at other times it's Americans who decrease syllables (such as in "mirror). I wonder if there is a logical system to this, but I imagine not.

While much of the time the English decrease the number of syllables (such as "military") at other times it's Americans who decrease syllables (such as in "mirror). I wonder if there is a logical system to this, but I imagine not.

Well, technically, nobody's increasing or decreasing the number of syllables. It's just that some words in some dialects different in pronunciation and that sometimes includes how many syllables there are in a word.

Well, unless I am not understanding you, that's the same thing as increasing or decreasing the number of syllables being said. Now, I know there is much discussion over what a syllable is, but I am relying on my definition above; i.e., it may not technically be a "syllable," but the word is divided into parts. For example, we in the U.S. say military with 4 syllables (or parts), while our British friends say it with 3.

Well, unless I am not understanding you, that's the same thing as increasing or decreasing the number of syllables being said.

Not the way I see it. For example, I could say that, in Spain, they pronounce but with two syllables, perro. But we're talking about two different languages. I'm just saying that in British English they word military is pronounced differently from American English military. But the way I see nobody is adding or subtracting any syllables. It's like saying that Australian pronounce all their words incorrectly. No, just differently. Another exaple would be people saying that some folks drop the -g at the ends of their gerunds of particples. No, they are not dropping anything. The nasal at the end of some people's pronunciation of words ending in -ing is a velar nasal /ŋ/ and in other's a dental /n/. The idea that people are dropping letters or syllables, for me, implies that they are mispronouncing the word.

quote:

It's like saying that Australian pronounce all their words incorrectly.

I didn't say that it was incorrect; just different.

I would see dropping a g as being different from one dialect saying the word with 3 syllables, while the other says it with 4. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe they are the same thing.

I could be wrong, too, but saying that a dialect of English drops a syllable implkies that the dialect that doesn't drop is is somehow right. Likewise, you could say that a dialect adds a syllable to reverse the priority.

Or you could just say that the two dialects pronounce the words with differing numbers of syllables.

quote:

Another exaple would be people saying that some folks drop the -g at the ends of their gerunds of particples. No, they are not dropping anything. The nasal at the end of some people's pronunciation of words ending in -ing is a velar nasal /ŋ/ and in other's a dental /n/.

quote:

Or you could just say that the two dialects pronounce the words with differing numbers of syllables.

I know I'm mixing two examples here, but I prefer zmj's attempt to describe 2 pronunciations in terms of the neutral, anatomic linguistic lingo, rather than describing one accent in terms of another. I am less interested in the implication that one is the correct standard (and that there are no 'correct standards'). I understand and respect that idea. But I do not entirely buy into it, no more than I buy into the purely bilingual approach in public schools...

Ok, this is a tangent, but I would rather that we fully inform folks as to which accent has more 'prestige' in real life. I don't believe one can eliminate class distinctions by pretending they don't exist.

HOWEVER... as a teacher of foreign language, I much prefer to explain a spoken dialect in terms of itself. Maybe I'm drawing too fine a distinction? But to me it is like teaching a FL by constant reference and comparison to the mother tongue. This method interferes with the new learner's ear as it makes its own neural connections. And one encourages a slow and cumbersome mental translation as the vehicle to producing the new language.

OK maybe I've gone way too far afield. Bringing it back home to the original example. It is always a good idea, from a teaching standpoint, to allow the student the maximum latitude in terms of forming a personal visual/audio image as a way to remember the new sound. Number of syllables is an intellectual/quantitative concept which can help some but hinder others. Always best to depict a new sound in anatomical terms-- let them listen to it first, and speak only in terms of how the mouth shapes it.

I am less interested in the implication that one is the correct standard (and that there are no 'correct standards').

I would be hard-pressed to name a linguist who denied that there were standard languages, at least in languages that are written. It's just that descriptive linguists know that any dialect can be privileged as a standard. A dialects does not become a standard language for linguistic reasons, but for social, political, and economic ones.

You can certainly teach a foreign language to folks without recourse to any of the results of the research of linguists, but, to my mind, it just makes your job harder.

quote:

I am less interested in the implication that one is the correct standard (and that there are no 'correct standards').

I don't think I convinced z so I might not convince you, but I totally agree. I don't think there are correct or incorrect accents or dialects. Perhaps I came across that way, but I didn't mean to.

Now...I do think people can mispronounce words within their dialect/language/accent. Do you agree with that, at least? For example, I made a persimmon salad for Thanksgiving, and Shu corrected my pronunciation of the word. I was grateful, as I hated to say it wrong at the grocery store. And, yes, the way I said it was wrong. On the other hand, my daughter corrected my pronunciation of "Burberry," and she was wrong to do so. In England it has 2 syllables, but I had said it with 3. That was within my accent.

Another such variation that struck me as I read all of this was the American "aluminum" vs. the British "aluminium." But when I looked it up, I discovered that in the UK, they actually spell this element with the second "i," so it does not qualify for this discussion.

As for the "tourist/terrorist" confusion, I cannot even imagine how the man must have pronounced "tourist" to make it sound that way, since I hear the two words as "tour-ist" and "TAIR-or-ist."

WM

quote:

Another such variation that struck me as I read all of this was the American "aluminum" vs. the British "aluminium."

I haven't checked it, but I seem to recall that the US chemical industry prefer the "aluminium" spelling - but they have thus far been unable to persuade the American public to change their lexical habits.

aluminum

The British chemist, Humphrey Davy (link), first called it alumium, then aluminum. Others chose the -ium ending as it conforms with the name of many other elements. The American Chemical Society chose to go with aluminum. It doesn't really matter that much, but, of course, the rest of the world has standardized and the Americans do not want to cooperate. Evil yankees go home and shut up!