Well, great. I am an anomaly again. I pronounce them each with 2 syllables.

Yet, I bet I don't pronounce them any differently than the person who voted that he or she pronounced them with 1 syllable. I maintain that it is all a matter of perspective about how we ourselves define syllables. I would love to talk to those who insist they use "proper" English and say them with 1 syllable.

I voted for 1 - 1 but I have another question for those who are voting for two syllables for fire. How do you elide it when followed by a word starting with a vowel.

In other words how many syllabels in fire and water when said at a normal pace: is it 4 or 5?

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobHale:
<...>how many syllabels in fire and water when said at a normal pace: is it 4 or 5?

---

Depends on the circumstances: I may say "fi-rand-wa-ter" (4) or "fi-re-and-wa-ter" (5 - well, 4.5).

Interesting question; I'm curious to see what follows! I think that many words when elided can have their syllables altered. I doubt many would dispute that 'going' is a 2-syllable word, but I've heard it elided into one (think 'gwin').

jheem was spot on in the other post when he said:

If you take a word that ends in a stop, e.g., pot, to my mind it's easy to say that it has one syllable. The problem with liquids and nasals is that they can be syllabic on their own, so when you mouche one onto the end of a written syllable you get the 1.5 effect that I and others have mentioned. The word fight is pretty simply one syllable, but the word fire is more than one ...

It really does depend on the situation - if I say 'fah', I sound daft, because it's so 'landed gentry' - but if I were reading, say, er, off the top of my head - a limerick (), which required the word to be one syllable in order to scan, I'd adjust my speech accordingly.

I don't think it's that much of a problem when writing and reading verse, since most of us have met enough people to realise that regional variations exist. Where there are two or more ways of pronouncing a word, one could always add a footnote to aid the reader.

But then, having said that, would that be underestimating the average reader's intelligence? Surely most literate people, when reading verse, if they hit the wrong meter will realise where the problem is and re-read with the alternative, correct pronunciation? I do that, and I know I'm not the only one. Of course I do get confused (for example, until Kalleh first mentioned it, I hadn't thought that 'world' could have 2 syllables), so maybe a footnote could be used when the 'alternative' pronunciation isn't generally immediately obvious.

Finally, I do appreciate that mis-hitting the meter can impair one's enjoyment of the verse in question, particularly as the surprise punchline won't be a surprise the second time round, but I don't think it happens that often, and nor is it that big a deal when it does. I think that trying to (for example) standardise pronunciation to avoid a relatively minor problem would cause far more alienation and hassle than just accepting that some readers will occasionally have to read one's writing more than once to hit the right meter.

I shall now stop rambling, and switch off my TV set and go and do something less boring* instead (a prize to whoever gets the reference; UK-centric, I'm afraid).


*no, I don't mean it (except for the 'switch off'part - dinner calls).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Cat,

I voted 1-1 as well. But I don't insist that I use "proper" English. It's just how I speak, that's all.

but if I were reading, say, er, off the top of my head - a limerick (), which required it to be one syllable in order to scan, I'd adjust my speech accordingly.

Precisely, Cat! That's why I was annoyed awhile back when someone criticized my DD because I had "world" with 2 syllables. Surely it can be pronounced that way. Go with the flow, I say. Were I the grand and glorious editor-in-chief of OEDILF, I'd not have hard and fast rules on that sort of thing. I'd also tell the workshoppers that they have bigger fish to fry than to obsess over every single half-syllable (or ellipsis).

Think about it. When you are told that you are to evaluate or critique something, don't you feel as though you must find something wrong with it, or you're not doing your job? That's what's going on, I think, with some of the workshopping.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

This may explain why I am no longer writing limericks. Life is just way too short and way too full of other kinds of pain to add to it with something that SHOULD be fun, and often isn't.

I apologize if this is a little close to being too critical, but words are fun to me. Limericks are fun to me. DDs are GREAT FUN. And when someone starts critiquing them, especially when it turns out that the critique was invalid, then it's time for me to run in the opposite direction.

One of the real joys for me here on Wordcrafter is how much fun it all is and how little rancor there is. I hope we can keep it that way forever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
but if I were reading, say, er, off the top of my head - a limerick (), which required it to be one syllable in order to scan, I'd adjust my speech accordingly.

Precisely, Cat! That's why I was annoyed awhile back when someone criticized my DD because I had "world" with 2 syllables. Surely it _can_ be pronounced that way. Go with the flow, I say. Were I the grand and glorious editor-in-chief of OEDILF, I'd not have hard and fast rules on that sort of thing. I'd also tell the workshoppers that they have bigger fish to fry than to obsess over every single half-syllable (or ellipsis).

Think about it. When you are told that you are to evaluate or critique something, don't you feel as though you must find _something_ wrong with it, or you're not doing your job? That's what's going on, I think, with some of the workshopping.

---

I'll try again to post this (I really am getting annoyed by my computer problems - I just wrote this, hit the post button and realized that after only two minutes of connection I'd lost the link again. The computer is basically buggered and I don't have the spare cash for a new one.)

Anyway,

I agree with the general thrust of the argument and while I pronunce fire, hire etc with one syllable I can understand the two syllable argument. Ditto (just about) with scale. No matter how I try though I can't get two syllables out of world. I wouldn't dream of criticizing you for it though (I hope it wasn't me that did, that would be too embarrassing).

With regard to critique it doesn't have to be negative; I've posted quite a few positive remarks on the OEDILF though on the other hand some of my limericks have been shredded for poor metre, inaccurate definition, weak rhymes, stresses on the wrong word. In the case of "aardwolf" all of the above and more in one limerick.

No reason at all though for someone not to say something nice once in a while.

I really hadn't intended for this to be a critique of OEDILF. In fact, I came here to delete what I had said, hoping that no one had read it, but it was too late.

Bob, generally the workshopping has been good, and I have posted positive remarks about it on OEDILF. People have made positive remarks. Yet, there are some who feel they must critique just to critique. I found it humorous, for example, that with one of my limericks 2 people had made really positive comments before others came in and literally tore it to shreds. However, I will give them that they are trying and constantly reviewing what they are doing. It is in the beginning stages, and in a hundred years, when they finish the "A's," they will all look back and laugh at these quirks in the system.

And, Bob, for the record, yours and Richard's workshopping has been positive and constructive. That's all I ask in the process. And, for heaven's sake, if the limerick is ready for approval, let it go. Don't pore over every detail until you can find some tiny detail wrong. As Jo said, life is too short for that.

No matter how I try though I can't get two syllables out of world. I wouldn't dream of criticizing you for it though (I hope it wasn't me that did, that would be too embarrassing).

As for "world," well, I say "wor-uld" Maybe that's 1 syllable to you. I don't even recall who criticized it, though I do remember thinking it was a little petty.

Hmm ...

fire == 2 syllables
firing == 3 syllables
fire and water == 5 syllables
fire in the hole == 5 syllables
world == 1 syllable
whirl == 2 syllables

The last one suprised me.

glue == 1 syllable
glued == 1 syllable
angle == 2 syllables
strangle == 2 syllables
strangled == 2 syllables
triangle == 3 syllables

By George I think I've got it! The "whirl"/"world" did it. You are right, I do say "world" with 1 syllable. It's the "d" on the end that does it.

The top answer to this same poll posted on the OEDILF site, with 6 votes out of 14, was "fire" with 2 syllables and "scale" with 1, a choice which only garnered 1 vote over here. What this might mean, I have no idea.

Turns out the "correct" answer was the last one, "it varies," and I for one am making an effort to expand my linguistic horizons to include pronunciations that I even just recently wouldn't have even considered. An OEDILFer recently wrote a piece in which "airfield" sported 3 syllables, something I never would have guessed in a million years had she not specifically pointed it out. "Air-fee-yuld"?? Sure, why not.

In a related limerick, newcomer Jesse Frankovich wrote:

Invisible things aren't seen much
And Belgian things aren't called Dutch.
Most lunches aren't free
Just as giants aren't wee
And museum things aren't to touch.

I think it's neat the way he switched the pronunciation of "aren't" from a one-syllable word to two back and forth that way.

So disregard the poll. Like so much else in life, the correct way to go is to simply play it by ear.

An OEDILFer recently wrote a piece in which "airfield" sported 3 syllables, something I never would have guessed in a million years had she not specifically pointed it out. "Air-fee-yuld"?? Sure, why not.

Just when I thought I had "world" figured out! Surely, if one gives "airfield" 3 syllables, one can give "world" 2.

You see, it is the "d" on the end of "airfield" that I think keeps it to 2.

While en route from Toronto to Newark I had to change airplanes at Boston. New snow two feet deep covered everything. Lugging my heavy luggage I had to go to that building over yonder, and I could see no entryway into it.

"How do you get into that building?" I asked a snow shoveler. He looked at the building, then looked at me, and said, "Try the door."

I learned, on my only visit to Boston, that "door" can be a two-syllable word.

To my "western U.S." ears it sounded like, "Trah da dough ah."

As I got closer to the building I found the dough ah, and went in.

If Poe had spoken Boston, his Raven might have said "Nevah Mo Ah."