Losing battle - "must of"
OxSc
as an auxilliary. He will say, for example, "I must of lost it." I
correct him, and he remembers until he goes back to school - it must be
in common usage in the playground. I'm assuming that as soon as his
reading improves just a little, it will go away, but the fact that it
must be part of playground English is interesting, if not a little scary.
I first came across this "corruption" (please provide a better
description!) in an otherwise poorly written posting to a newsgroup in
1998. At that time, I put it down to the individual's poor level of
literacy, but I've since noticed its written occurrence more and more
often. However, my son's utterance was the first verbal example for me.
Do I live too sheltered a life? Is this becoming a common
colloquialism? Am I wrong in assuming it is a colloquialism that
migrated to written English, rather than vice versa.
Peter Duncanson
>I'm fighting a losing battle with my six-year old son with "have" used
>as an auxilliary. He will say, for example, "I must of lost it." I
>correct him, and he remembers until he goes back to school - it must be
>in common usage in the playground. I'm assuming that as soon as his
>reading improves just a little, it will go away, but the fact that it
>must be part of playground English is interesting, if not a little scary.
>
>I first came across this "corruption" (please provide a better
>description!) in an otherwise poorly written posting to a newsgroup in
>1998. At that time, I put it down to the individual's poor level of
>literacy, but I've since noticed its written occurrence more and more
>often. However, my son's utterance was the first verbal example for me.
> Do I live too sheltered a life?
If you had of got out more you would of come across it more often.
On the other hand, there can be benefits in a sheltered life.
>Is this becoming a common
>colloquialism?
Regrettably, yes.
Last year I was watching a 'reality' TV show involving people of at least
average intelligence and literacy. When someone said "would have" someone
else corrected her by saying "would of". Cringe!
>Am I wrong in assuming it is a colloquialism that
>migrated to written English, rather than vice versa.
I share your assumption - but I could of got it wrong. ;-)
--
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from u.c.l.e)
Adrian Bailey
news:400c2974$0$238$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk...
The original (and correct) colloquialism is "must've" (and this is the one
your son should be using). People who don't write very often who come to
write this down write "must of" because that's the closest they can get to
the sound that's in their head and have it look like English. This
phenomenon has existed for decades: my grandmother's teachers were telling
her off for doing it in the 1930s. Now that more and more illiterate people
are writing (thanks to cellphones and email) "must of" is gaining ground,
and so is the spelling pronunciation.
Timeline: must have (written) > must'v (spoken) > must've (educated written)
> must of (uneducated written) > must ov (spoken)
And there's also "musta": "He musta done it." Even that is preferable to
"must of".
Adrian
Einde O'Callaghan
The weak pronunciation of "have" and the weak pronunciation of "of" are
basically the same, so "must've" sounds like "must of". There's nothing
basically wrong with this pronunciation. If you have no problem with
"I've" or "he's" or "don't" then you shouldn't worry about "must've".
Such weak pronunciations are a normal part of standard English
pronunciation and have been for a long time.
The real problem is the incorrect spelling.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
OxSc
The vowel sound is similar to that in "hot", rather than the vowel sound
at the apostrophe in must've, which in my pronunciation is somewhere I
think between a short "a" (uh), and the sound in French "de".
Mike Stevens
> OxSc wrote:
> The weak pronunciation of "have" and the weak pronunciation of "of"
> are basically the same, so "must've" sounds like "must of". There's
> nothing basically wrong with this pronunciation. If you have no
> problem with "I've" or "he's" or "don't" then you shouldn't worry
> about "must've". Such weak pronunciations are a normal part of
> standard English pronunciation and have been for a long time.
>
> The real problem is the incorrect spelling.
And people who replace the weak pronunciation of "of/have" with the
wrong strong form.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk
Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
> I first came across this "corruption" (please provide a better
> description!) in an otherwise poorly written posting to a newsgroup in
> 1998. At that time, I put it down to the individual's poor level of
> literacy, but I've since noticed its written occurrence more and more
> often. However, my son's utterance was the first verbal example for me.
You're lucky; I first saw it /in writing/ in a position paper submitted
by an Army Major on an MSc course back in the *early* 1990s. Talk about
cringe-making.
Aurally, the 've of "could've" has always sounded (in BrEnglish) like
"of"; the difference today seems to be that it's NOT being elided into
the preceding word, but pronounced most distinctively separately.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919
Adrian Bailey
news:107464...@dsl.co.uk...
> Aurally, the 've of "could've" has always sounded (in BrEnglish) like
> "of";
...in its unstressed form /@v/: could've /kVd@v/, must've /mVst@v/.
> the difference today seems to be that it's NOT being elided into
> the preceding word, but pronounced most distinctively separately.
This is the phenomenon of "spelling pronunciation": pronouncing a word
according to how you spell it (even if you spell it wrong), rather than the
normal way. This is common among people who don't understand (because
no-one's ever told them, or because they've been poorly taught) the
differences between the spoken and the written language.
Notice that the opposite error isn't made: I've never seen "He's one've the
boys" or "a leg've lamb".
Adrian
Enrico C
in <news:MPlPb.79$af...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>
> "Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" <b...@dsl.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:107464...@dsl.co.uk...
>> Aurally, the 've of "could've" has always sounded (in BrEnglish) like
>> "of";
>
> ...in its unstressed form /@v/: could've /kVd@v/, must've /mVst@v/.
>
>> the difference today seems to be that it's NOT being elided into
>> the preceding word, but pronounced most distinctively separately.
>
> This is the phenomenon of "spelling pronunciation": pronouncing a word
> according to how you spell it (even if you spell it wrong), rather than the
> normal way.
<snip>
Ok, but there was a not very good pronunciation in the first place, I
guess.
Children learn to speak before they can write.
--
Enrico C ~ No native speaker
Dave Swindell
<da...@hotmail.com> writes
>"Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" <b...@dsl.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:107464...@dsl.co.uk...
>> Aurally, the 've of "could've" has always sounded (in BrEnglish) like
>> "of";
>
>...in its unstressed form /@v/: could've /kVd@v/, must've /mVst@v/.
>
>> the difference today seems to be that it's NOT being elided into
>> the preceding word, but pronounced most distinctively separately.
>
>This is the phenomenon of "spelling pronunciation": pronouncing a word
>according to how you spell it (even if you spell it wrong), rather than the
>normal way. This is common among people who don't understand (because
>no-one's ever told them, or because they've been poorly taught) the
>differences between the spoken and the written language.
>
route" as "enn rowt". I call it "misplaced literacy", because they
honestly believe that it should be pronounced like it is spellt.
It is interesting to me as a new phenomenon in linguistic change which
is driven by the written word. Before the growth of universal literacy
changes in pronunciation were driven mainly by the influence of one's
peers, friends and neighbours.
A parallel influence comes from the entertainment media, with, in
Britain in particular, the growing habit of a rising cadence at the end
of a non-questioning sentence, which has come in with the long-running
Australian soap operas on TV over the past 20 years or so.
A few hundred years ago these influences simply did not exist, and
linguistic change was rather slower.
--
Dave OSOS#24 dswindel...@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies
Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one
Molly Mockford
<b7KKhJA8...@tcp.co.uk>:
>A prime example is the increasingly common American pronunciation of "en
>route" as "enn rowt". I call it "misplaced literacy", because they
>honestly believe that it should be pronounced like it is spellt.
It'll be interesting when they get around to Grand Prix.
--
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
Matthew Huntbach
> A prime example is the increasingly common American pronunciation of "en
> route" as "enn rowt". I call it "misplaced literacy", because they
> honestly believe that it should be pronounced like it is spellt.
>
> It is interesting to me as a new phenomenon in linguistic change which
> is driven by the written word. Before the growth of universal literacy
> changes in pronunciation were driven mainly by the influence of one's
> peers, friends and neighbours.
>
> A parallel influence comes from the entertainment media, with, in
> Britain in particular, the growing habit of a rising cadence at the end
> of a non-questioning sentence, which has come in with the long-running
> Australian soap operas on TV over the past 20 years or so.
>
> A few hundred years ago these influences simply did not exist, and
> linguistic change was rather slower.
No, linguistic change was much faster. If there were no written records or
national media to tell you that "must of" was wrong and "must have" was
correct, "must of" would become correct within a generation. The fact that
we have written texts going back many years acts as a huge drag on linguistic
development. If the only language you were aware of was that spoken by your
neighbours, what was colloquial for one generation would become the
standard for the next, to be replaced by new colloquialisms in the
following generation. Throughout the world and history it can be observed
that where there is little literacy or central government or culture,
languages diverge very rapidly.
Matthew Huntbach
Peter Duncanson
<dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>A prime example is the increasingly common American pronunciation of "en
>route" as "enn rowt". I call it "misplaced literacy", because they
>honestly believe that it should be pronounced like it is spellt.
This might be partially corrected by a spelling I saw recently: "on route".
It was either US or British, but I don't recall which.
Adrian Bailey
news:gchjnr7t2b6p$.dlg@news.lillathedog.net...
Given that there was once a time when no-one said "must of", there must have
been, and must be, people who (have) changed from the "must've" to the "must
of" pronunciation during their lives, under the influence of what they have
seen and/or heard. Once "must of" is established in people they will pass it
on to their peers and to their children.
Adrian
Molly Mockford
<9r9t00hgnascub2qf...@4ax.com>:
The Americans would still pronounce route as rout, though. They think
our (well, actually the French) pronunciation rather amusing. So do the
Australians, although for a different reason.
Gwilym Calon
news:e21HpI+3...@molly.mockford...
> The Americans would still pronounce route as rout, though. They think
> our (well, actually the French) pronunciation rather amusing. So do the
> Australians, although for a different reason.
The Australians find our pronunciation funny? Hmm.. (at least we don't make all
nouns end in "eeee")
-----------
GC
Peter Duncanson
<nos...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in
><9r9t00hgnascub2qf...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:51:08 +0000, Dave Swindell
>><dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>A prime example is the increasingly common American pronunciation of "en
>>>route" as "enn rowt". I call it "misplaced literacy", because they
>>>honestly believe that it should be pronounced like it is spellt.
>>
>>This might be partially corrected by a spelling I saw recently: "on route".
>>
>>It was either US or British, but I don't recall which.
>
>The Americans would still pronounce route as rout, though. They think
>our (well, actually the French) pronunciation rather amusing. So do the
>Australians, although for a different reason.
A year or so ago there was a discussion on the American pronunciation(s) of
route on another newsgroup. I can't recall how long the discussion lasted,
but it was at least two days. One evening in the middle of it I was flicking
through channels on the TV and saw a minute or so of an American movie in
which two characters were discussing what route to take. One consistently
used the "root" pronunciation, and the other used "rowt".
It was not a recent movie.
Dr Robin Bignall
<nos...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
>Molly Mockford
>I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
>lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
The purple lobster that lives in the boot of my car agrees with your
goblin. It suggests that you buy a bicycle, become "Bicycle Repairwoman"
and meet lots of interesting, stranded cyclists.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
The Australians use root as a "four-letter-word" - as a dictionary says:
"have sexual intercourse with".
Dave Swindell
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes
>Dave Swindell <dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> A prime example is the increasingly common American pronunciation of "en
>> route" as "enn rowt". I call it "misplaced literacy", because they
>> honestly believe that it should be pronounced like it is spellt.
>>
>> It is interesting to me as a new phenomenon in linguistic change which
>> is driven by the written word. Before the growth of universal literacy
>> changes in pronunciation were driven mainly by the influence of one's
>> peers, friends and neighbours.
>>
>> A parallel influence comes from the entertainment media, with, in
>> Britain in particular, the growing habit of a rising cadence at the end
>> of a non-questioning sentence, which has come in with the long-running
>> Australian soap operas on TV over the past 20 years or so.
>>
>> A few hundred years ago these influences simply did not exist, and
>> linguistic change was rather slower.
>
>No, linguistic change was much faster. If there were no written records or
>national media to tell you that "must of" was wrong and "must have" was
>correct, "must of" would become correct within a generation.
Perhaps I should have been a bit more precise on what I was talking
about in "linguistic change". There are all sorts of things to do with
simplification of grammar, attrition of dialect and change of accent.
But nevertheless I disagree with you. My particular experience relates
to Northumberland in England. Chaucer apes the Northumbrian
dialect/accent in the Canterbury Tales, because it was the country
bumkin accent of its time, for educated southerners at least. His aping
of the dialect still rings true today in rural areas, and is also
reflected in the wealth of dialect writing up today; and I assure you
that Northumbrian dialect is alive and well. The dialect is certainly
changing in some areas, with particular influences identified in old
industrialised areas where incomers came from many parts of Britain
particularly during the 19th century. The language of the aspiring
"upper class" is also rather different from the dialect such people may
have used in the streets as children, with many words being dropped, and
the accent "tidied up" to sound, to their ears, a bit posher. So, in
Northumberland at least, there was little change in the dialect from
before Chaucer's time till well into the 19th century. Since then
education, mobility and visual/aural entertainment and news media have
all taken their toll.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
gwi...@prowebnet.co.uk "Gwilym Calon" writes:
"Rooting" has a sexual connotation in Oz; there was a recent suggestion
that the current non-fiction best-seller's title should have been "Eats,
roots, shoots and leaves".
OxSc
> In article <bun0l2$jvs4a$1...@ID-218213.news.uni-berlin.de>
> gwi...@prowebnet.co.uk "Gwilym Calon" writes:
>
>
>>"Molly Mockford" <nos...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in message
>>news:e21HpI+3...@molly.mockford...
>>
>>>The Americans would still pronounce route as rout, though. They think
>>>our (well, actually the French) pronunciation rather amusing. So do the
>>>Australians, although for a different reason.
>>
>>The Australians find our pronunciation funny? Hmm.. (at least we don't make all
>>nouns end in "eeee")
>
>
> "Rooting" has a sexual connotation in Oz; there was a recent suggestion
> that the current non-fiction best-seller's title should have been "Eats,
> roots, shoots and leaves".
>
time. On the front was "I'm a member of the Wombat Club." On the back
was the phrase above, but without the first comma.
Russtrim
<< >> A prime example is the increasingly common American pronunciation of "en
>> route" as "enn rowt". >>
As a USEnglish speaker of advanced age, let me say that I have always been in
doubt of the correct pronunciation of "route" in English, let alone French, but
say "root" when I speak of the quickest route to town, and "rowt" when I speak
of the route of the defeated army.
Russ
Russ
Mike Stevens
Surely the last is usually written "rout" rather than "route"?
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
"Million-to-one chances come up nine times out of ten." (Terry
Pratchett)
David
<mike...@which.net> wrote:
> Russtrim <russ...@aol.comNotme> wrote:
> > << >> A prime example is the increasingly common American
> > pronunciation of "en
> >>> route" as "enn rowt". >>
> >
> > As a USEnglish speaker of advanced age, let me say that I have
> > always been in doubt of the correct pronunciation of "route" in
> > English, let alone French, but say "root" when I speak of the
> > quickest route to town, and "rowt" when I speak of the route of the
> > defeated army.
> Surely the last is usually written "rout" rather than "route"?
Not if it's their way home. The military pronunciation of "route" is
indeed "rowt".
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/joachim/02-0.htm
When Joachim was born, on the stroke of midnight,
it took the midwife no more than a single look
to restore her wavering faith in the Adversary.
Dave Swindell
<russ...@aol.comNotme> writes
As far as we right-pondians are concerned, that's the way it is too.
Dave Swindell
<da...@dacha.freeuk.com> writes
>In article <buot71$jp1vs$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>, Mike Stevens
><mike...@which.net> wrote:
>> Russtrim <russ...@aol.comNotme> wrote:
>> > << >> A prime example is the increasingly common American
>> > pronunciation of "en
>> >>> route" as "enn rowt". >>
>> >
>> > As a USEnglish speaker of advanced age, let me say that I have
>> > always been in doubt of the correct pronunciation of "route" in
>> > English, let alone French, but say "root" when I speak of the
>> > quickest route to town, and "rowt" when I speak of the route of the
>> > defeated army.
>
>> Surely the last is usually written "rout" rather than "route"?
>
>Not if it's their way home. The military pronunciation of "route" is
>indeed "rowt".
>
Molly Mockford
<tugXEXAL...@tcp.co.uk>:
>In article <4c74d77...@dacha.freeuk.com>, David
><da...@dacha.freeuk.com> writes
>>Not if it's their way home. The military pronunciation of "route" is
>>indeed "rowt".
>>
>But only as long as it means a hasty retreat.
Nor sure about that.
"Oh Polly, lovely Polly,
The rout has just begun.
And we must go a-marchin'
To the beating of the drum..." [High Germanee]
A rout (pronounced "rowt") could be an assembly, just as much as a
retreat.
[NB: Cross-posted to uk.music.folk. If the discussion hereafter swerves
away from folk music references to the word rout, please remove the
cross-posting by setting follow-ups accordingly.]
--
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
Pete MacGregor
<nos...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Dave Swindell <dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> wrote in
> <tugXEXAL...@tcp.co.uk>:
>
>> In article <4c74d77...@dacha.freeuk.com>, David
>> <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> writes
>
>>> Not if it's their way home. The military pronunciation of "route" is
>>> indeed "rowt".
>>>
>> But only as long as it means a hasty retreat.
>
> Nor sure about that.
>
> "Oh Polly, lovely Polly,
> The rout has just begun.
> And we must go a-marchin'
> To the beating of the drum..." [High Germanee]
>
> A rout (pronounced "rowt") could be an assembly, just as much as a
> retreat.
>
> [NB: Cross-posted to uk.music.folk. If the discussion hereafter swerves
> away from folk music references to the word rout, please remove the
> cross-posting by setting follow-ups accordingly.]
My rather aged Concise Oxford Dictionary gives as one definition of rout -
force or fetch out of bed, house or hiding place. That would seem to fit
the song fairly well. The phrase to 'root out' is from the same source.
Pete MacGregor
David
<dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <4c74d77...@dacha.freeuk.com>, David
> <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> writes
> >In article <buot71$jp1vs$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>, Mike
> >Stevens <mike...@which.net> wrote:
> >> Russtrim <russ...@aol.comNotme> wrote:
> >> > << >> A prime example is the increasingly common American
> >> > pronunciation of "en
> >> >>> route" as "enn rowt". >>
> >> >
> >> > As a USEnglish speaker of advanced age, let me say that I have
> >> > always been in doubt of the correct pronunciation of "route" in
> >> > English, let alone French, but say "root" when I speak of the
> >> > quickest route to town, and "rowt" when I speak of the route of
> >> > the defeated army.
> >
> >> Surely the last is usually written "rout" rather than "route"?
> >
> >Not if it's their way home. The military pronunciation of "route" is
> >indeed "rowt".
> >
> But only as long as it means a hasty retreat.
Try looking in a decent dictionary, e.g. Chambers:
<quote>
route /root/ (formerly, now only /military,/ /rowt/), a way or course
that is or may be traversed; marching orders; any regular journey; a
regular series of calls, a round /(N Am)./
</quote>
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/tdm/
The Toro-danyo Mandala: The "Thunder-Dawn" diagram of the Universe
Dr Robin Bignall
Kelly}) wrote:
>In article <bun0l2$jvs4a$1...@ID-218213.news.uni-berlin.de>
> gwi...@prowebnet.co.uk "Gwilym Calon" writes:
>
>> "Molly Mockford" <nos...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in message
>> news:e21HpI+3...@molly.mockford...
>> > The Americans would still pronounce route as rout, though. They think
>> > our (well, actually the French) pronunciation rather amusing. So do the
>> > Australians, although for a different reason.
>>
>> The Australians find our pronunciation funny? Hmm.. (at least we don't make all
>> nouns end in "eeee")
>
>"Rooting" has a sexual connotation in Oz; there was a recent suggestion
>that the current non-fiction best-seller's title should have been "Eats,
>roots, shoots and leaves".
Incidentally, I've not noticed anything by Lynne Truss in The Times since
the book was published.
David Kilpatrick
MacGregor" <pe...@bearfld.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In fact that is accurate. For a long time I thought the 'rout' referred to a
losing battle, but it doesn't - it refers to recruiting, or 'beating up', or
'drumming up' - the last phrase has of course survived re business etc. In
Britain, the term predates the recruiting-sergeant scenario. Tenants of many
feudally originated estates owed a duty of military service to their lord,
and right up to the 19th century continued to honour this; the 'rout' would
be the town drummer calling them to arms.
Although it's not easy to relate to this now, town drummers or pipers played
different beats or tunes to indicate different things (this probably
survived longer in Scotland and the North than in the south and cities) and
the message would have been understood. If you come across a tune called a
'rout' it might not be a rowdy dance (which is what it sounds like to us)
but a tune used in a call to arms.
The top reference to East/West US pronunciation of route for road, and
connecting with retreast, are coincidental. Rout in a battle refers to the
action of the victor in chasing the loser, not to the action of the loser
retreating. It's a transitive fing.
David
gilbert
"OxSc" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:400fab3c$0$214$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk...
> >
> As per the Ozzy '70s tee shirt, which had to be explained to me at the
> time. On the front was "I'm a member of the Wombat Club." On the back
> was the phrase above, but without the first comma.
The one I saw in the Seventies was worn by a New Zealander mate of mine and
had
"I'm a Kiwi" (with cartoon drawing) on the front, and "Eats, Roots, Shoots
and Leaves" on the back. His other T-shirt had "I'm a Mountain Man, I like
mountin' women".
(Oh how we laughed! Once, I think.)
:O)
Gilbert
Chris Ryall
(Was Losing battle - "must of")"
>In Britain, the term predates the recruiting-sergeant scenario.
rec *ruit* ing-sergeant ??
Got me looking .. the Norman French ran our military in the middle ages
and French for recruit is "la recrue" verb "recruter"
My dictionary doesn't list the root verb "-cruter" but "cru" (accents
omitted for Usenet) is p.p of both "croire" = believe and "croitre " =
grow in numbers. So the latter looks the source. cru = "increased"
So a relation to "rout" - surely from "la route" seems unlikely
You can switch off now .. chris
--
Chris Ryall (snip spamtram
Wirral-UK to email me)
Jim Lawton
wrote:
rout :-
To defeat (an army, troops, a sporting team, etc) completely.
Etymology: 13c: from French route, from Latin rupta a detachment
To find or fetch them by searching
Etymology: 16c variant of root2 - Etymology: Anglo-Saxon wrotan, from wrot
snout.
route :-
1. The way travelled on a regular journey.
2. A particular group of roads followed to get to a place.
Etymology: 13c: from French rute, from Latin "rupta via" broken road, from
rumpere to break.
it sez 'ere ...
http://adams.allwords.com
Jim ...
who lives in uk.music.folk
Andrew Jackson
> The top reference to East/West US pronunciation of route for road, and
> connecting with retreast, are coincidental. Rout in a battle refers to the
> action of the victor in chasing the loser, not to the action of the loser
> retreating. It's a transitive fing.
"Rout" gets used both transitively and intransitively. The victor may
rout the loser, but it is also common to say the loser routed. I
think the latter use is something of a neologism, but I'm not sure.
It's a useful term, though. Apart from anything else, military
history is full of examples of armies disappearing from a battle in
disarray without the enemy needing to do much. The Spanish army
(at... um... Talavera?) for example, where they were so shocked by the
sound of their own volley that they fled. The Persians are recorded
as doing similar things when faced by the Greeks and Macedonians
(those great unbiased historians). It seems a little aggrandising to
say "A routed B" when all A did was show up.
Chris Morriss
<pe...@bearfld.demon.co.uk> writes
I remember Robin Dransfield, on singing 'The Rout of the Blues' at Essex
University folk club (decades ago) pointing out that rout in the context
of the song meant 'assembly' or similar.
--
Chris Morriss
Mike Stevens
Yes, but .....
Shorter Oxford (because I'm too lazy to go into another room and look it
up in then full OED) :
"Rout /raut/, sb 1598.....
.....1. Disorderly retreat on the part of a defeated army, body of
troops etc. 2. An instance of this; a complete overthrow and a flight
1611. 3. A defeated and fleeing band or army 1621."
There is also a related verb with the same spelling, and several quite
unconnected meanings of the same spelling.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk
Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away.
David
> Yes, but .....
Yes. Your point being (given that we were discussing "route" [with an
"e"] and not "rout" [without the "e"])?
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/09-0.htm
...the few remaining haddocks were indistinguishable from halibut.
Molly Mockford
<4c75b63...@dacha.freeuk.com>:
>Yes. Your point being (given that we were discussing "route" [with an
>"e"] and not "rout" [without the "e"])?
Now David, you can't do that. We were actually supposed to be
discussing "must of" - you can't pick on one bit of thread drift and
claim it is the One True Topic to the exclusion or all other bits of
thread drift!
Mike Stevens
news:4c75b63...@dacha.freeuk.com...
<snip my quoting the SOD definiton of "rout">
> Yes. Your point being (given that we were discussing "route" [with an
> "e"] and not "rout" [without the "e"])?
I posted as I did because I felt that the earlier postings quoted above
indicated some confusion between the two words. Of course "route" and
"rout" are derived from the same French original (I only just avoided
saying "from the same root"), but in English they have developed
different meanings nowadays as well as different pronunciations (at
least in some contexts). The phrase in one of the quotes above "the
route of the defeated army" can be succinctly expressed as "the route of
the rout".
Incidentally is the military pronunciation of "route" as "rowt" common
in the UK military as well as in the US? I've not come across it here,
but then I don't have many dealings with the military of either country.
Incidentally I have come across in print "to rout a person out of bed"
(so spelled, and I've assumed the "rowt" pronunciation) and "to root a
person out of bed" (so spelled), but never "to route a person out of
bed".
Molly (IIRC) mentioned another meaning of "rout" to mean a vigorous
party. This seems to be linked with the words "riot" and "roust" and to
a (probably obsolete) meaning of "rout" as "movement".
Gwilym Calon
news:1f7a1da6.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "Rout" gets used both transitively and intransitively. The victor may
> rout the loser, but it is also common to say the loser routed. I
> think the latter use is something of a neologism, but I'm not sure.
It's certainly new to me. This is the only time I've ever known of it. I would
say it is quite wrong.
-----------
GC
David
Mike Stevens <mike...@which.net> wrote:
[Snip]
> Incidentally is the military pronunciation of "route" as "rowt"
> common in the UK military as well as in the US? I've not come across
> it here, but then I don't have many dealings with the military of
> either country.
Nor do I (have dealings with the military [of any country or faction]).
I do, however, have an almost daily foray into the dictionaries about
me.
If Chambers says "route /root/ (formerly, now only /military,/
/rowt/)", that's good enough for me.
If you can't trust your dictionaries then you are forced always into
seeking your own evidence for every word and usage.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/free/
Free Software: !Jigwas
- JPEG merger - e pluribus unum
David
Molly Mockford <nos...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in
> <4c75b63...@dacha.freeuk.com>:
> >Yes. Your point being (given that we were discussing "route" [with an
> >"e"] and not "rout" [without the "e"])?
> Now David, you can't do that. We were actually supposed to be
> discussing "must of" - you can't pick on one bit of thread drift and
> claim it is the One True Topic to the exclusion or all other bits of
> thread drift!
I wasn't doing that, as well you (should) know!
Yes, the thread drifted from of/have to route/route, at which point
Mike Stevens (probably correctly) surmised that Russtrim meant "rout"
although writing "route". Then, foolish pedantic David stirs himself to
inform the dictionarically challenged that the former and now military
pronunciation of "route" is, indeed, "rowt". Dave Swindell apparently
fails to accept the word of David so David perforce has to quote
Chambers (1998). At this (later) point, Mike Stevens comes back to tell
us what the dictionary has to say about "rout" -- and it is here that I
say that we were currently attempting to clarify the pronunciation of
the word "route" and not "rout" which, though so closely related, being
of a common French source (and you can't get much more common than the
French), are two different words in modern English (at least English of
the English variety).
Clear?
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/penny/2d-0.htm
I made one graceful sweep of the blade then rapidly placed my
head in the microwave oven, closed the door and switched on.
Chris Ryall
"must of")"
In group:uk.music.folk, Sat, 24 Jan 2004
(13l)
>> "Rout" gets used both transitively and intransitively. The victor may
>> rout the loser, but it is also common to say the loser routed. I
>> think the latter use is something of a neologism, but I'm not sure.
>
>It's certainly new to me.
I've heard of losing armies routing - OED anyone?
Molly Mockford
>Yes, the thread drifted from of/have to route/route, at which point
>Mike Stevens (probably correctly) surmised that Russtrim meant "rout"
>although writing "route". Then, foolish pedantic David stirs himself to
>inform the dictionarically challenged that the former and now military
>pronunciation of "route" is, indeed, "rowt". Dave Swindell apparently
>fails to accept the word of David so David perforce has to quote
>Chambers (1998). At this (later) point, Mike Stevens comes back to tell
>us what the dictionary has to say about "rout" -- and it is here that I
>say that we were currently attempting to clarify the pronunciation of
>the word "route" and not "rout" which, though so closely related, being
>of a common French source (and you can't get much more common than the
>French), are two different words in modern English (at least English of
>the English variety).
>
>Clear?
I think I'm going to fetch myself a gin and tonic.
David
<nos...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in
> <4c75e35...@dacha.freeuk.com>:
> >Yes, the thread drifted from of/have to route/route, at which point
> >Mike Stevens (probably correctly) surmised that Russtrim meant
> >"rout" although writing "route". Then, foolish pedantic David stirs
> >himself to inform the dictionarically challenged that the former and
> >now military pronunciation of "route" is, indeed, "rowt". Dave
> >Swindell apparently fails to accept the word of David so David
> >perforce has to quote Chambers (1998). At this (later) point, Mike
> >Stevens comes back to tell us what the dictionary has to say about
> >"rout" -- and it is here that I say that we were currently
> >attempting to clarify the pronunciation of the word "route" and not
> >"rout" which, though so closely related, being of a common French
> >source (and you can't get much more common than the French), are two
> >different words in modern English (at least English of the English
> >variety).
> >
> >Clear?
> I think I'm going to fetch myself a gin and tonic.
A great aid to understanding.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0z04-0.htm
Llanberis Pass
How insignificant are man's endeavours!
George Hawes
Molly Mockford <nos...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> A rout (pronounced "rowt") could be an assembly, just as much as a
> retreat.
But hasn't the retreat/defeat version been more prominent in more recent
years? I can only think of "assembly" usages in uk.music.folk. and similar
contexts . .
G.
--
George Hawes (george...@orange.net)
and Sawston Arts Festival
Mike Stevens
> In article <butth5$mcs26$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Mike Stevens <mike...@which.net> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > Incidentally is the military pronunciation of "route" as "rowt"
> > common in the UK military as well as in the US? I've not come
across
> > it here, but then I don't have many dealings with the military of
> > either country.
>
> Nor do I (have dealings with the military [of any country or
faction]).
>
> I do, however, have an almost daily foray into the dictionaries about
> me.
>
> If Chambers says "route /root/ (formerly, now only /military,/
> /rowt/)", that's good enough for me.
>
> If you can't trust your dictionaries then you are forced always into
> seeking your own evidence for every word and usage.
Not being a Chambers user, and not having got round to looking it up in
OED, my question becomes "How good is Chambers at distinguishing between
UK & US usage?"
Mike Stevens
>
> I think I'm going to fetch myself a gin and tonic.
Get one for me while you're at it!
--
Mike Stevens (remembering a splendid late night on the G&T with Molly)
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class.
arachedeux
news:mnbo00hd9va42r1eq...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:01:07 +0000, OxSc <a@b.c> wrote:
>
> Last year I was watching a 'reality' TV show involving people of at least
> average intelligence and literacy. When someone said "would have" someone
> else corrected her by saying "would of". Cringe!
I'm seen TV presenters use it regularly on the lower channels.
> >Am I wrong in assuming it is a colloquialism that
> >migrated to written English, rather than vice versa.
>
> I share your assumption - but I could of got it wrong. ;-)
Have course you of.
cheers,
Dave Swindell
In UK military speak "route" as a geographical path from one place to
another is pronounced the French way, as "root", and a fleeing army has
been "rowt"ed.
David
<mike...@which.net> wrote:
> "David" <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:4c75e35...@dacha.freeuk.com...
> >
> > If Chambers says "route /root/ (formerly, now only /military,/
> > /rowt/)", that's good enough for me.
> >
> > If you can't trust your dictionaries then you are forced always
> > into seeking your own evidence for every word and usage.
> Not being a Chambers user, and not having got round to looking it up
> in OED, my question becomes "How good is Chambers at distinguishing
> between UK & US usage?"
How good is any dictionary? I trust that Chambers is reckoned one of
the better dictionaries, although sometimes I do resort to a second
opinion in the Shorter Oxford and, if pushed to greater detail, the
great work itself. None is perfect in every respect. Chambers notes
American, dialect, medical, and a host of other non standard English
English (phew!) usage.
Are you suggesting that in this case, Chambers, disagreeing with your
experience, is wrong?
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/gay/06-0.htm
Now a bee cannot fly,
And a fly cannot be...
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
mike...@which.net "Mike Stevens" writes:
> Incidentally is the military pronunciation of "route" as "rowt" common
> in the UK military as well as in the US? I've not come across it here,
> but then I don't have many dealings with the military of either country.
No, I have rarely heard any member of any of the UK's armed services
pronouncing "route" as "rowt". I am in daily contact with the military:
my PPoE has students there from the armed services of 93 different
countries. The only ones I have heard to use the "rowt" pronunciation
are USAians or from places that have a strong US influence, such as the
Philippines.
> Incidentally I have come across in print "to rout a person out of bed"
> (so spelled, and I've assumed the "rowt" pronunciation) and "to root a
> person out of bed" (so spelled), but never "to route a person out of
> bed".
I've always believed that the author is unable to spell "roust" in the
first instance.
> Molly (IIRC) mentioned another meaning of "rout" to mean a vigorous
> party. This seems to be linked with the words "riot" and "roust" and to
> a (probably obsolete) meaning of "rout" as "movement".
Has anyone mentioned the other meaning of "rout": to cut a slot or
similar in a piece of wood? For this, one uses a tool called a "router",
which IS pronounced "rowter", even in BrEnglish.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919
Mike Stevens
> In article <butth5$mcs26$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>
> mike...@which.net "Mike Stevens" writes:
>> Incidentally I have come across in print "to rout a person out of
>> bed" (so spelled, and I've assumed the "rowt" pronunciation) and "to
>> root a person out of bed" (so spelled), but never "to route a person
>> out of bed".
>
> I've always believed that the author is unable to spell "roust" in the
> first instance.
Perhaps, but if so, then it's been going on for a long time. OED traces
this usage back to the 1770s.
Mike Stevens
wrote:
> In article <buv03e$m3g4i$1...@ID-170573.news.uni-berlin.de>, Mike Stevens
> <mike...@which.net> wrote:
>
>> "David" <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote in message
>> news:4c75e35...@dacha.freeuk.com...
>>>
>>> If Chambers says "route /root/ (formerly, now only /military,/
>>> /rowt/)", that's good enough for me.
>>>
>>> If you can't trust your dictionaries then you are forced always
>>> into seeking your own evidence for every word and usage.
>
>> Not being a Chambers user, and not having got round to looking it up
>> in OED, my question becomes "How good is Chambers at distinguishing
>> between UK & US usage?"
>
> How good is any dictionary? I trust that Chambers is reckoned one of
> the better dictionaries, although sometimes I do resort to a second
> opinion in the Shorter Oxford and, if pushed to greater detail, the
> great work itself. None is perfect in every respect. Chambers notes
> American, dialect, medical, and a host of other non standard English
> English (phew!) usage.
>
> Are you suggesting that in this case, Chambers, disagreeing with your
> experience, is wrong?
No, not at all. For a start, I made it clear that I don't *have* any
significant experience of military English of any variety save that of
the cinema (not necessarily a good touchstone), where the only examples
I can remember of military figures pronouncing "route" in the sense of
"the path to go" as "rout" have been from the US.
SOD (I have the 1975 edition) says "in military use and in US still
pronounced rout", which agrees with Chambers.
Dave Swindell's posting says that UK military people don't use this
pronunciation, which tallies with what I hear in UK civilian use.
The full OED (I use the 2002 CD edition) doesn't even mention the "rowt"
pronunciation of "route".
So there is plenty of scope for confusion.
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Me cogitare credo, ergo me esse credo. (Rainy Day Carts)
David
Mike Stevens <mike...@which.net> wrote:
[Big Snip]
> So there is plenty of scope for confusion.
Agreed.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/2tau-0.htm
Taurus (April 21st - May 21st)
Vrishabha - the Bull
Hathor
Andrew Jackson
>
> I've heard of losing armies routing - OED anyone?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rout suggests all the
meanings quoted so far, including:
"The state of being disorganized and thrown into confusion; -- said
especially of an army defeated, broken in pieces, and put to flight in
disorder or panic; also, the act of defeating and breaking up an army;
as, the rout of the enemy was complete."
Of course I spent a few minutes yesterday writing about the perils of
believing dictionaries blindly (in the context of people claiming
"scale mail" to be something other than an absurdity), but this one
seems kosher to me.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
b...@dsl.co.uk "Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" writes:
> No, I have rarely heard any member of any of the UK's armed services
s/rarely/never/
I *think* that I'd been going to refer to other armed forces apart from
UKian ones when I commenced writing that sentence, and didn't spot the
inconsistency before posting.
> pronouncing "route" as "rowt". I am in daily contact with the military:
> my PPoE has students there from the armed services of 93 different
> countries. The only ones I have heard to use the "rowt" pronunciation
> are USAians or from places that have a strong US influence, such as the
> Philippines.
--
Jim Bowman
writing so that people without a good ear assume must be written "of"
instead of "'ve" to show the contracted form of "have." Must have is
spoken hurriedly as "must've" and gets translated by some into "must of"
both in writing and later in speech. Could've, would've, should've,
can've, did've, will've, shall've all are similarly contracted in
performance, and all get like treatment in written form. The negatives
are even uglier, couldn't've, shouldn't've, wouldn't've, can't've,
didn't've, won't've, shan't've, and they don't look any prettier if you
think orthographically they should be spelled in the pattern
"couldn't'ave". If someone hears and spells this as "of" it may be due
to hypercorrection or back-formation of a colloquialism (when children
learn "of" that may be what they construct internally as well as what
they perform.
Peter Duncanson wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:01:07 +0000, OxSc <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm fighting a losing battle with my six-year old son with "have" used
>>as an auxilliary. He will say, for example, "I must of lost it." I
>>correct him, and he remembers until he goes back to school - it must be
>>in common usage in the playground. I'm assuming that as soon as his
>>reading improves just a little, it will go away, but the fact that it
>>must be part of playground English is interesting, if not a little scary.
>>
>>I first came across this "corruption" (please provide a better
>>description!) in an otherwise poorly written posting to a newsgroup in
>>1998. At that time, I put it down to the individual's poor level of
>>literacy, but I've since noticed its written occurrence more and more
>>often. However, my son's utterance was the first verbal example for me.
>> Do I live too sheltered a life?
>
>
> If you had of got out more you would of come across it more often.
> On the other hand, there can be benefits in a sheltered life.
>
>
>>Is this becoming a common
>>colloquialism?
>
>
> Regrettably, yes.
>
> Last year I was watching a 'reality' TV show involving people of at least
> average intelligence and literacy. When someone said "would have" someone
> else corrected her by saying "would of". Cringe!
>
>
Eugene Kent
"Jim Bowman" <jlbo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:40367B53...@bellsouth.net...
Peter R Humphrey
> It's a contraction that's common in speech, but seldom is taught in
> writing so that people without a good ear assume must be written "of"
> instead of "'ve" to show the contracted form of "have." Must have is
> spoken hurriedly as "must've" and gets translated by some into "must of"
> both in writing and later in speech. Could've, would've, should've,
> can've, did've, will've, shall've all are similarly contracted in
> performance, and all get like treatment in written form. The negatives
> are even uglier, couldn't've, shouldn't've, wouldn't've, can't've,
> didn't've, won't've, shan't've, and they don't look any prettier if you
> think orthographically they should be spelled in the pattern
> "couldn't'ave". If someone hears and spells this as "of" it may be due
> to hypercorrection or back-formation of a colloquialism (when children
> learn "of" that may be what they construct internally as well as what
> they perform.
In short, it's pure ignorance. Send them back to school.
--
Rgds
Peter R Humphrey
Buxton, Derbyshire