"sherbert"
Heron Stone
.i was raised by people who said "sherbeRt" and
that's what i said for 30-something years
until someone pointed out my error
.i was shocked
.i had to look it up in a dictionary before i
would believe it
.well, i am still working on reprogramming my
language machine and have pretty much
succeeded now... it took a few years
.of course i'm tuned in to the sound of this
word now and i can say quite confidently
that i have NEVER heard anyone pronounce
it correctly... "sherbet"
?where did that second "R" come from
.i look forward to your thoughts
heron
Martin Ambuhl
>
> ?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
It is not true that "everyone in america[sic]" says "sherbeRt".
Since you premise is grossly in error, it is pointless to answer
any question based on it. As a ciliac kid, I heard this word a lot in
Florida, Tennesse, and Texas, and it had no second 'r'. Nowadays,
the word seems to be the prententious "Sorbet" "Sherbet" is preferrable
on etymological grounds.
Heron Stone
.your right
.i apologize
.i should have specified... southern california
.i've never heard the word said outside of
southern california
thanks
heron
Fabian
"Heron Stone" <her...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:herons-C7E942....@lsnewsr3-27.we.mediaone.net...
> ?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
>
> .i was raised by people who said "sherbeRt" and
> that's what i said for 30-something years
> until someone pointed out my error
> .i was shocked
> .i had to look it up in a dictionary before i
> would believe it
...
Why do you put your full stops (aka periods) at the beginning of your
sentences?
And why don't you capitalise the last letter?
--
--
Fabian
Love is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on cologne and they
go out and smell each other.
Don Phillipson
news:herons-C7E942....@lsnewsr3-27.we.mediaone.net...
> ?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
> .i was raised by people who said "sherbeRt" and
> that's what i said for 30-something years
> until someone pointed out my error
Pronunciation is not a matter of Right/Wrong
but Preference.
Language scientists call the phenomenon the
Intrusive R. It is very common in American
speech, i.e. most Americans sound (sometimes
sound loud and long) the R in sherbert, western,
cart, and similar words which the British say
while partly or wholly suppressing the R sound.
American English has in recent years also
generated an Intrusive L, i.e. many Americans
now sound ( sometimes loud and long) the L
in almond, palm, etc. British pronunciation
of these words has no L sound at all.
Thus British "calm" and "cart" sound similar
except for the vowel sound at the end.
Americans differentiate the two strongly:
the Intrusive R makes the A vowel in cart
sound differently from the A vowel in calm
(at least for most American speakers.)
[This item is the first feature of American
English I noticed more than 40 years ago, on
arrival at an institution that identified itself in
the football fight song as WESTERRRRRN U.]
Donald Phillipson
dphil...@trytel.com
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
613 822 0734
Franke
Fabian wrote:
> "Heron Stone" <her...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:herons-C7E942....@lsnewsr3-27.we.mediaone.net...
> > ?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
> >
> > .i was raised by people who said "sherbeRt" and
> > that's what i said for 30-something years
> > until someone pointed out my error
> > .i was shocked
> > .i had to look it up in a dictionary before i
> > would believe it
>
> ...
>
> Why do you put your full stops (aka periods) at the beginning of your
> sentences?
All sentence-final punctuation is is first in his post.
> And why don't you capitalise the last letter?
He has invented a new system of communicating. At least his
system is consistent, unlike the sloppy garbage we get from
so many lazy keyboarders. I say Mr Stone is to be
congratulated.
Richard Fontana
> "Heron Stone" <her...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:herons-C7E942....@lsnewsr3-27.we.mediaone.net...
>
> > ?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
> > .i was raised by people who said "sherbeRt" and
> > that's what i said for 30-something years
> > until someone pointed out my error
>
> Pronunciation is not a matter of Right/Wrong
> but Preference.
>
> Language scientists call the phenomenon the
> Intrusive R. It is very common in American
> speech, i.e. most Americans sound (sometimes
> sound loud and long) the R in sherbert, western,
> cart, and similar words which the British say
> while partly or wholly suppressing the R sound.
Whoa! That's Valentine-drop-dead wrong!
It's not *intrusive* r in general (I'll concede that "sherbert" may be a
special case) because it's the British who lost the 'r', and the Americans
kept on pronouncing it.
To the extent that "sherbert" emerges from non-rhotic-influenced US
accents (East Coast ones), then you might be right about that
pronunciation and spelling being an example of intrusive r.
> American English has in recent years also
> generated an Intrusive L, i.e. many Americans
> now sound ( sometimes loud and long) the L
> in almond, palm, etc. British pronunciation
> of these words has no L sound at all.
That may be correct: that is, it may be that the /l/ was lost in all
significant accents at one time and was re-inserted in some Am. accents
later on. More research is necessary.
> Thus British "calm" and "cart" sound similar
> except for the vowel sound at the end.
> Americans differentiate the two strongly:
> the Intrusive R makes the A vowel in cart
> sound differently from the A vowel in calm
> (at least for most American speakers.)
It's not intrusive r! Intrusive 'r' is like the UK's Jack Straw's
pronunciation of "law enforcement" as "law renforcement".
Bill McCray
wrote:
"Sherbert" is what I heard growing up in central Kentucky in the
1940s, although we often just called it "ice". I loved "orange ice".
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
I AM
Bill McCray <BillM...@MindSpring.com> wrote in message
news:3bac9bfe...@news.mindspring.com...
up in
the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the 1940s and 1950s.
Richard Fontana
> "Sherbert" was the only pronunciation I was familiar with growing
> up in
> the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the 1940s and 1950s.
Whoa! What do you mean by this? Then, perhaps even more than now, the
Upper West Side contained both rhotic and non-rhotic speakers. For a
non-rhotic speaker "sherbert" and "sherbet" might well suggest the same
pronunciation.
Leesa
I also grew up among those who pronounce it sherbert, not in
southern California, but in the Midwest. Did your people come from the
Midwest before they moved to California?
Funny, all these years I've been pronouncing it wrong and I have
never been told it was wrong. Kinda embarrassing.
Leesa
I AM
Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010922...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
I'm certainly rhotic...now. Even if I had been non-rhotic (or
borderline) at the time,
I would definitely have spelled the word as sherbert. I believe
there is a difference
in the length (and quality?) of the final vowel in any case.
felix
But what *is* sherbet? Sherbet and sorbet may have been the same thing
in 12th century Persia, but to me now they're two totally different
things. Is it perchance a pondian thing?
felix
Jerry Friedman
>
> > "Heron Stone" <her...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:herons-C7E942....@lsnewsr3-27.we.mediaone.net...
> >
> > > ?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
> > > .i was raised by people who said "sherbeRt" and
> > > that's what i said for 30-something years
> > > until someone pointed out my error
I heard "sherbert" a lot when I was a kid in the Cleveland area, and I
think that's how I pronounced it.
> > Pronunciation is not a matter of Right/Wrong
> > but Preference.
> >
> > Language scientists call the phenomenon the
> > Intrusive R. It is very common in American
> > speech, i.e. most Americans sound (sometimes
> > sound loud and long) the R in sherbert, western,
> > cart, and similar words which the British say
> > while partly or wholly suppressing the R sound.
>
> Whoa! That's Valentine-drop-dead wrong!
> It's not *intrusive* r in general (I'll concede that "sherbert" may be a
> special case) because it's the British who lost the 'r', and the Americans
> kept on pronouncing it.
And by the way, I believe that by no means all the British suppress
those R sounds either wholly or partly. Not even all the English.
> To the extent that "sherbert" emerges from non-rhotic-influenced US
> accents (East Coast ones), then you might be right about that
> pronunciation and spelling being an example of intrusive r.
>
> > American English has in recent years also
> > generated an Intrusive L, i.e. many Americans
> > now sound ( sometimes loud and long) the L
> > in almond, palm, etc. British pronunciation
> > of these words has no L sound at all.
The two cases of "almond" and "palm" are different in some American
speech. I was brought up to pronounce the "l" in "almond" but not the
ones in "palm", "calm", "talk", etc. "Almond" with a silent "l" still
sounds strange (or foreign) to me. I'm not sure I've ever heard
"palm" with the "l" pronounced. However, I do know people who say the
"l" in "salmon".
I was amazed just now to discover that MWCD10 on line prefers the "l"
in "almond" to be silent.
> That may be correct: that is, it may be that the /l/ was lost in all
> significant accents at one time and was re-inserted in some Am. accents
> later on. More research is necessary.
>
> > Thus British "calm" and "cart" sound similar
> > except for the vowel sound at the end.
> > Americans differentiate the two strongly:
> > the Intrusive R makes the A vowel in cart
> > sound differently from the A vowel in calm
> > (at least for most American speakers.)
>
> It's not intrusive r! Intrusive 'r' is like the UK's Jack Straw's
> pronunciation of "law enforcement" as "law renforcement".
Richard, I hereby award you the Rey Aman Medal for Restraint When Your
Favorite Topic Comes Up.
--
Jerry Friedman
Skitt
"Fabian" <mu...@chung.ii> wrote in message
news:1B%q7.22385$uM2.2...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
>
> "Heron Stone" <her...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:herons-C7E942....@lsnewsr3-27.we.mediaone.net...
> > ?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
> >
> > .i was raised by people who said "sherbeRt" and
> > that's what i said for 30-something years
> > until someone pointed out my error
> > .i was shocked
> > .i had to look it up in a dictionary before i
> > would believe it
>
> ...
>
> Why do you put your full stops (aka periods) at the beginning of your
> sentences?
>
> And why don't you capitalise the last letter?
Don't you remember Heron and the Quirks?
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Michael J Hardy
> ?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
I am one American who was brought up saying "sherbet", with
no intrusive "r". It was the only pronunciation I knew for years
before I heard someone saying it with an intrusive "r". I've wondered
why they do that, too.
Mike Hardy
Michael J Hardy
> "Heron Stone" <her...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:herons-C7E942....@lsnewsr3-27.we.mediaone.net...
>
> > ?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
> > .i was raised by people who said "sherbeRt" and
> > that's what i said for 30-something years
> > until someone pointed out my error
>
> Pronunciation is not a matter of Right/Wrong
> but Preference.
>
> Language scientists call the phenomenon the
> Intrusive R. It is very common in American
> speech, i.e. most Americans sound (sometimes
> sound loud and long) the R in sherbert, western,
> cart, and similar words which the British say
> while partly or wholly suppressing the R sound.
This is nonsense: The "r" in "sherbeRt" is indeed
intrusive, but there's nothing intrusive about the "r" in
"western" or "cart". Those are cases of an "r" being pronounced
where an "r" is actually written, so it's not intrusive at all.
It is the British, not us, who frequently use intrusive "r's".
They say "The ideaRis", and things like that. (Bostonians do
that too. But most Americans don't.)
Mike Hardy
Daniel James
> Nowadays, the word seems to be the prententious "Sorbet"
> "Sherbet" is preferrable on etymological grounds.
"Sherbet" is apparently from Arabic via Turkish, and originally meant
a cooling drink of sweetened and diluted fruit juice - similar to what
the French call a "Pressé".
"Sorbet" is from French, via Italian "sorbetto". In French it means a
water-ice, but in Italian it can mean either a water-based 'gelato' or
a drink. The Italian verb "sorbire" (to sip or drink) probably (my
dictionary is mute on the point) comes fromthe same Arabic root as
"sherbet".
In England "sherbet" usually means "sherbet powder" - a sweet
effervescing lemony powder that can be eaten dry (dipping in a finger
or a piece of liquorice) or mixed with water to make a sparkling
drink. It seems that the powder was first sold as a dehydrated form of
sherbet in the original sense of a drink, and that young customers
found a better way to use it! (cf. "lemonade powder", which I remember
from my youth.) The SOED notes that the word can also mean any
sparking drink, and especially that it is used to mean beer in
colloquial Australian.
"Sorbet", on the other hand, is well-established here to mean a
water-ice. I have only rarely encountered the use of "sherbet" to mean
a water-ice. The SOED says that it's North American usage, which would
explain it.
I take it that the sense in which you understand "sherbet" is as
water-ice. I can understand that if "shebet" has long been the common
term for a water-ice in the US the term "sorbet" might seem
pretentious, but I'm not sure that you should react against it on
etymological grounds.
Given a choice, I'll take "sorbet" from French and "sherbet" from
Australian - but etymology has little to do with that!
Cheers,
Daniel.
Truly Donovan
<her...@mediaone.net> wrote:
While I've heard it said in the US, it has been quite a long
time since. I think it was the common usage in my childhood
in the Midwest. I was startled to come across it in "The
Prisoner of Azbakan" less than 24 hours ago. This was an
American edition, and it is known that changes have been
made to acculturate the books, so I don't know whether it is
"sherbert" in the original or not.
--
Truly Donovan
http://www.trulydonovan.com
Heron Stone
> sentences?
>
> And why don't you capitalise the last letter?
.check out the url below for an explanation
http://home.earthlink.net/~herons/gendo/rthling.html
heron
Truly Donovan
No, the spelling was different, too.
Jacqui
>
> >> > ?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
(snip)
> While I've heard it said in the US, it has been quite a long
> time since. I think it was the common usage in my childhood
> in the Midwest. I was startled to come across it in "The
> Prisoner of Azbakan" less than 24 hours ago. This was an
> American edition, and it is known that changes have been
> made to acculturate the books, so I don't know whether it is
> "sherbert" in the original or not.
It is. (And it's Azkaban, or is it Azbakan in the US? <g>)
Jac, who wants a Sherbe(r)t Fountain now.
Heron Stone
> southern California, but in the Midwest. Did your people come from the
> Midwest before they moved to California?
.my father's grandparents came to california from
cincinnati, ohio
.i don't know about my mother's side
heron
Mary MacT
>> >> > ?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
s/does everyone/do some people
I hear "sherbert" sometimes, but "sherbet" at least as often. It comes
out sorta "sherbit" the way I say it.
`
Mary MacTavish
http://www.prado.com/~iris
"I like you guys who want smaller government - you
know, just small enough to fit in our bedrooms."
Josh to Congressman Skinner, The West Wing
Tony Cooper
I'm not taking this as a standard, acceptable form of
punctuation until (a) N. Mitchum says "not in my world",
and, (b) until Joey DE gives us a ruling.
meirm...@erols.com
<her...@mediaone.net> posted:
>?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
>
>.i was raised by people who said "sherbeRt" and
> that's what i said for 30-something years
> until someone pointed out my error
>.i was shocked
>.i had to look it up in a dictionary before i
> would believe it
>
I only I heard it with a second r in the first 2 or three stages of my
history at the bottom. So with the other answers it seems pretty
widespread.
Eventually, probably in stage 4, I noticed a few people pronounced it
differently and that there was no second r, so I removed it too.
I don't recall that I ever saw it spelled with two r's, but I don't
recall seeing it written very often either.
>.well, i am still working on reprogramming my
> language machine and have pretty much
> succeeded now... it took a few years
This word didn't give me so much trouble, but other words have.
>.of course i'm tuned in to the sound of this
> word now and i can say quite confidently
> that i have NEVER heard anyone pronounce
> it correctly... "sherbet"
>
>?where did that second "R" come from
When the L's invaded EMistan, many R's were displaced. As usual, some
came to the US. Many took up residence in sherbet.
>
>.i look forward to your thoughts
>
>heron
Unerelated:
On the news yesterday, they were talking about mideastern looking
minority group members who might have had trouble in the US lately.
They said there were 21 million Sikhs world-wide, and just as I
anticipated they said that many came to the US seeking (prosperity or
freedom or something).
Maybe they meant Sikhing?
Anyhow, there are 500,000 Sikhs in the US.
When it is time for one to get married, if there is no Sikh boy or
girl here, they go back to India, etc? to get one.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
John Varela
wrote:
> many Americans
> now sound ( sometimes loud and long) the L
> in almond, palm, etc.
I've always sounded the Ls in palm and calm, but never the one in almond.
It's common among the natives to pronounce Washington with an r:
Warshington.
--
John Varela
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when
they do it from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal
P&D Schultz
In mid-century Detroit, everyone said "sherbert" except a few
hoity-toity people on TV, and Mrs. Carlson who lived next door. The
conclusion my 7-year-old brain came to was that the people on TV were
putting on airs, and Mrs. Carlson was just dumb.
By the way, the AHD3 says "also 'sherbert'". So it's now an alternative
form whose legitimacy is beyond all question. If you don't like it, you
are apparently a fogey. Or maybe British. Or both.
\\P. Schultz
Alan Jones
"P&D Schultz" <schult...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3BAD6820...@erols.com...
.....
>
> By the way, the AHD3 says "also 'sherbert'". So it's now an
alternative
> form whose legitimacy is beyond all question. If you don't like it,
you
> are apparently a fogey. Or maybe British. Or both.
NSOED doesn't show "sherbert" even as an alternative spelling: edited by
British fogeys, of course. In RP the two spellings would sound
identical, or very nearly so: I can't remember hearing the word spoken
by a rhotic speaker of BrE. To me, "sherbet", however spelt, is not a
drink but a slightly crystalline lemony powder to be licked from the
palm of a hand, or sucked up from a paper bag with a thin liquorice tube
as a "sherbet fountain", and this sense is given in NSOED. But that was
all of sixty years ago; I don't know whether such "confections" (NSOED's
word) are still sold.
Alan Jones
Richard Fontana
I'm nearly dead certain I grew up thinking of it as /SRb@t/. But I grew
up around both rhotic and non-rhotic speakers, and it's possible that I
interpreted some "sherberts" as "sherbets". It's easy for me to see how
the intrusive r version coul have arisen.
Ben Zimmer
I'm not buying this "intrusive r" business. Wouldn't we also expect it
to crop up in similar environments, say, "circuit" or "hermit" or
"surfeit" or "turbot"? I don't think it has anything to do with
rhoticity-- more likely contamination from "Herbert".
(OED has citations of "sherbert" from 1675, by the way.)
--Ben
Mike Oliver
> I've always sounded the Ls in palm and calm, but never the one in almond.
How do you pronounce it then? /'& m@nd/, like the growers in
California's Central Valley? I don't think I've ever heard that
pronunciation used naturally by an urbanite, at least not under 60
years old.
Raymond S. Wise
I have read this entire thread, and so far, no one has cited a
dictionary.
Both Merriam-Webster and the AHD4 give both "sherbet" and "sherbert,"
with the appropriate pronounciations for each.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Raymond S. Wise
> Heron Stone wrote:
> >
>
> It is not true that "everyone in america[sic]" says "sherbeRt".
> Since you premise is grossly in error, it is pointless to answer
> any question based on it. As a ciliac kid, I heard this word a lot in
> Florida, Tennesse, and Texas, and it had no second 'r'. Nowadays,
> the word seems to be the prententious "Sorbet" "Sherbet" is preferrable
> on etymological grounds.
How do you justify that last statement? It's true that the word
"sherbert" is descended from a word which did not have a second r, but
so what? On "etymological grounds" you could make all sorts of
nonsensical pronouncements which ignored the reality of actual usage
(and, in fact, pedants have been doing so since the 18th century).
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
I remember those in the 1950s but I can't say I've seen them since.
Do you recall that in those days there would be 'seasons' for such
things? The sherbet season would arrive and everybody would have black
lips from the liquorice. Then the whips and tops would come out for a
while. Then the yo-yo. Then it would be liquorice sticks and kids
would all be chewing on pieces of twig. Then would come transfers
stuck on the body, then cat's cradle, followed by paper folding
(complex flying objects), making 'butter' by putting full-cream milk
into a little bottle and going around shaking it, etc. etc. Later,
hoola hoops, too.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
John Dean
Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:99frqtkd3u0hu3r90...@4ax.com...
That's my childhood in one neat para. Add 'intercoms' made with a piece of
string stretched tight between two tin cans (memo to self - remember to wash
the cans first). Hopscotch, Bonfire Night ....... don't get me started.
--
John Dean -- Oxford
I am anti-spammed -- defrag me to reply
Martin Ambuhl
> I have read this entire thread,
Apparently not.
> and so far, no one has cited a
> dictionary.
Yes, I did.
Martin Ambuhl
The last statement refers to the one before it. It has nothing to do
with pronunciation. There is no "nonsensical pronouncement." Check a
dictionary.
Linz
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 06:44:52 GMT, "Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >NSOED doesn't show "sherbert" even as an alternative spelling: edited by
> >British fogeys, of course. In RP the two spellings would sound
> >identical, or very nearly so: I can't remember hearing the word spoken
> >by a rhotic speaker of BrE. To me, "sherbet", however spelt, is not a
> >drink but a slightly crystalline lemony powder to be licked from the
> >palm of a hand, or sucked up from a paper bag with a thin liquorice tube
> >as a "sherbet fountain", and this sense is given in NSOED. But that was
> >all of sixty years ago; I don't know whether such "confections" (NSOED's
> >word) are still sold.
> >
> I remember those in the 1950s but I can't say I've seen them since.
I can buy sherbet fountains in my local newsagent (in rural Wet
Yorks), in Woolworths in Halifax (urban Wet Yorks), Woolworths in
Watford (urban Herts) and the newsagents in the university shopping
precinct in Manchester (urban, um, Manchester). Complete with
liquorice 'straw'. Also packets of the lemony powder with a strawberry
lollipop.
--
Last year's troubles are so old-fashioned
Richard Fontana
I don't pronounce the <l> other than by accident or contamination. I say
/'A m@nd/ (cot/father vowel). That of course is very similar to /Al m@nd/
and I probably wouldn't notice these as distinct pronunciations
ordinarily. /& m@nd/ seems less common to me, but I think my grandfather
(who wasn't a native speaker of English) pronounced it that way, and also
I knew a guy from Maine who used that pronunciation.
Leesa
> > I also grew up among those who pronounce it sherbert, not in
> > southern California, but in the Midwest. Did your people come from the
> > Midwest before they moved to California?
> > Funny, all these years I've been pronouncing it wrong and I have
> > never been told it was wrong. Kinda embarrassing.
> >
>
>
> I have read this entire thread, and so far, no one has cited a
> dictionary.
>
> Both Merriam-Webster and the AHD4 give both "sherbet" and "sherbert,"
> with the appropriate pronounciations for each.
Interesting. My copy of the American Heritage Dictionary only shows
one pronunciation, shur-bit. My copy dates from the 1970s though. I am
relieved that sherbert is acceptable to AHD. It was going to be really
hard to stop saying sherbert!
Leesa
John Varela
wrote:
> I say
> /'A m@nd/ (cot/father vowel).
I grew up saying /'a m@nd/. (If I got the IPA right.) Like the a in West
Indies "man".
> /& m@nd/ seems less common to me, but I think my grandfather
> (who wasn't a native speaker of English) pronounced it that way, and also
> I knew a guy from Maine who used that pronunciation.
I think today I tend more toward the more nasal /'& m@nd/.
John Dean
Linz <sp...@lindsayendell.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uulrqts26377o0d96...@4ax.com...
a Black Cab. As in ''E's on the Sherbet' - 'He is a licensed Hackney
Carriage Operative'
Raymond S. Wise
Hmm. It appears we may be having a misunderstanding of some sort, but
I am not sure on whose part.
"The last statement refers to the one before it." Do you mean by this
that "sherbet" is to preferred to "sorbet" on etymological grounds? I
don't see how this improves the quality of the argument: usage
arguments based upon the etymology of a word's meaning are just as
useless as usage arguments based upon the spelling or pronunciation of
a word.
My comment on "nonsensical pronouncements" was simply an elaboration
of the idea that one should not turn to etymology to solve disputed
usage questions (with the sole exception of when all groups to a
dispute decide to do so--this is a political solution, not a scholarly
one). Pedants did indeed make many nonsensical pronouncements based
upon etymology, this did indeed begin around the 18th century, and
such practices are no more justifiable today than they were then (even
with our vastly improved our knowledge of etymology). As I have
pointed out elsewhere, if we cared how the French used the word
"fleur-de-lis," we would be pronouncing the s in the last syllable.
(And if we cared how they currently use the word, we would spell it
"fleur-de-lys," since that is the current spelling preferred by the
French.)
Raymond S. Wise
[snip]
>
> "The last statement refers to the one before it." Do you mean by this
> that "sherbet" is to preferred to "sorbet" on etymological grounds? I
> don't see how this improves the quality of the argument: usage
> arguments based upon the etymology of a word's meaning are just as
> useless as usage arguments based upon the spelling or pronunciation of
> a word.
>
I intended to write "just as useless as usage arguments based upon the
etymology of the spelling or pronunciation of a word." It is true,
however, that some disputes about pronunciation based simply upon
spelling are nonsense: If a large number of educated speakers say
/'fEbju,Eri/, there is is no more reason to argue that the first r of
the word should be pronounced than there is to say that the k in
"knight" should be pronounced.
Iskandar Baharuddin
> ?why does everyone in america say "sherbeRt"
>
> until someone pointed out my error
> ..i had to look it up in a dictionary before i
> would believe it
>
> ..well, i am still working on reprogramming my
> language machine and have pretty much
> succeeded now... it took a few years
>
> word now and i can say quite confidently
> that i have NEVER heard anyone pronounce
> it correctly... "sherbet"
>
> ?where did that second "R" come from
>
>
> heron
What I remember is:
"Shoot the sherbert to me, Herbert!"
Salaam & Shalom
Izzy
"So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse..."
from "My Struggle", by Alfred E Neuman
Mike Oliver
> What I remember is:
>
> "Shoot the sherbert to me, Herbert!"
Is that from the song "Everybody Eats When They (sic) Come to My House"?
Richard Fontana
> Interesting. My copy of the American Heritage Dictionary only shows
> one pronunciation, shur-bit. My copy dates from the 1970s though. I am
> relieved that sherbert is acceptable to AHD. It was going to be really
> hard to stop saying sherbert!
That 1970s copy is no doubt the trusty version of AHD, so I'd hold off on
saying sherbert for the time being.
Richard Fontana
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 15:01:09, Richard Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > I say
> > /'A m@nd/ (cot/father vowel).
>
> I grew up saying /'a m@nd/. (If I got the IPA right.) Like the a in West
> Indies "man".
Probably very similar to mine. I'd identify the West Indies "mon" vowel
with my cot/father vowel.
Dr Robin Bignall
.... and conkers. All that steeping in vinegar and persuading mum to
harden them up in a carefully-controlled oven to try to get the magic
'hundreder'. And notes in secret codes; and there was definitely a
season for roller-skates -- they weren't an all-year-round thing. (Oh
the unfulfilled longing to be able to afford a pair with
ball-bearings!)
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Michael J Hardy
> Both Merriam-Webster and the AHD4 give both "sherbet" and "sherbert,"
> with the appropriate pronounciations for each.
I looked in AHD3 and it says
sher.bet (.....) n. 1. Also sher.bert. A frozen dessert made of.....
So its mention of the second spelling is relegated to an "also".
Mike Hardy
Michael J Hardy
> Interesting. My copy of the American Heritage Dictionary only shows
> one pronunciation, shur-bit. My copy dates from the 1970s though. I am
> relieved that sherbert is acceptable to AHD. It was going to be really
> hard to stop saying sherbert!
It's going to be hard to stop looking down on those whose say
"sherbeRt" as infidels disloyal to the Dictionary. -- Mike Hardy
Robert Lieblich
When enough people make the same mistake, it's good usage.
Raymond S. Wise
I have been reading this thread via Google's archive of Usenet posts,
at http://groups.google.com/ . I see only three posts by you, one for
"Date: 2001-09-22 00:37:50 PST," one for "Date: 2001-09-23 04:49:34
PST ," and the one to which I am just now replying, "Date: 2001-09-23
04:46:40 PST." In none of these do you cite a dictionary--the closest
you got was when you instructed me to "consult a dictionary," which is
not the same thing.
It is possible, of course, that you made a post which did not make it
to Google. But I did read the entire thread that was available to me
at the time.
Raymond S. Wise
The word is similarly treated in the AHD4. How is that relevant to the
discussion at hand? AHD4 is in no way claiming that "sherbert" is
incorrect or improper--it is simply pointing out that it is a less
popular variant than "sherbet."
You said the following in another post:
[quote from a Usenet post]
It's going to be hard to stop looking down on those whose say
"sherbeRt" as infidels disloyal to the Dictionary. -- Mike Hardy
[end quote from a Usenet post]
Funny. I have to admit, however, that it left me with the creepy
feeling that you may in fact still hold to a remnant of the long
discredited attitude that a dictionary is some kind of language
authority which decides on correct usage, rather than merely reporting
what educated speakers actually use. Certainly, there are still people
which hold that attitude, but the dictionaries themselves have been
descriptivist for decades, and thus offer no support to such an
attitude.
Heron Stone
> feeling that you may in fact still hold to a remnant of the long
> discredited attitude that a dictionary is some kind of language
> authority which decides on correct usage, rather than merely reporting
> what educated speakers actually use. Certainly, there are still people
> which hold that attitude, but the dictionaries themselves have been
> descriptivist for decades, and thus offer no support to such an
> attitude.
.i agree about its not being an issue of right/wrong
.however, some people like to consider themselves among
the "educated speakers", so discovering that one's
pronunciation of "sherbeRt" is not standard for
the educated elite can be disquieting
heron
Matti Lamprhey
>
> When enough people make the same mistake, it's good usage.
I beg to question you, Robert -- how are you defining "enough" here?
Matti
Daniel James
wrote:
> ..... and conkers. All that steeping in vinegar and persuading mum to
> harden them up in a carefully-controlled oven to try to get the magic
> 'hundreder'.
And suddenly developing an inexplicable liking for boiled swede - which we
hated all the rest of the year - so that we'd be allowed to make hollowed-out
swede 'pumpkin' lanterns and illuminate them with a Pices night-light
(whereupom they would fill the house with a stink of burning swede).
(Funny how you can "grow into" something like bashed neep.)
Cheers,
Daniel.
(Oh, for those who don't know, swede = swedish turnip, or turnip in Scotland =
rutabaga (?) in leftpondia).
Dr Robin Bignall
<inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <qdduqt4kstq22o8f3...@4ax.com>, Dr Robin Bignall
>wrote:
>> ..... and conkers. All that steeping in vinegar and persuading mum to
>> harden them up in a carefully-controlled oven to try to get the magic
>> 'hundreder'.
>
>And suddenly developing an inexplicable liking for boiled swede - which we
>hated all the rest of the year - so that we'd be allowed to make hollowed-out
>swede 'pumpkin' lanterns and illuminate them with a Pices night-light
>(whereupom they would fill the house with a stink of burning swede).
>
>(Funny how you can "grow into" something like bashed neep.)
>
It just occurred to me to wonder if Leftpondian kids play conkers?
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Robert Lipton
I've asked this question several times under different sets of
circumstances, Matti. As a prescriptivist, it interests me. The
numbers are all over the shop for the minimum number, but I notice that
there are some usages that even the most insistent descriptivist will
admit to never accepting as correct. That brings the number, I would
suppose, to one.
Bob
Matti Lamprhey
I'm confused -- did you mean "infinity" rather than "one"?
There must, I suppose, be some policy within the dictionary houses about
this topic -- not so much to define "good" usage but at least "usage worthy
of being recorded". And it will take into account matters of "quality" as
well as mere "quantity".
Matti
Mike Lyle
<9oq1b5$ed61m$1...@ID-103223.news.dfncis.de>, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>
>"Robert Lipton" <bobl...@earthlink.net> wrote...
>>As a prescriptivist, it interests me. The
>> numbers are all over the shop for the minimum number, but I notice that
>> there are some usages that even the most insistent descriptivist will
We keep getting this thing about people imagining "prescriptivism" and
"descriptivism" to be personal qualities. Often with a suggestion that one is in
some way *better* than the other.
Is there any chance of our stopping this abuse of two quite useful terms?
Mike.
Mike Lyle
<VA.000005b...@nospam.demon.co.uk>, Daniel James wrote:
>
[...]
>
>(Oh, for those who don't know, swede = swedish turnip, or turnip in Scotland =
>rutabaga (?) in leftpondia).
>
And have you noticed how to disguise the presence of the hated swede the
ingredients list on certain British sweet pickles calls it "rutabaga", knowing
that hardly anybody will know what it is?
And the products whose ingredients list includes "aqua"?
Mike.
Robert Lipton
Well, yes, I suppose there is. We could re-educate the entire world on
the One True Meaning of each of these words. That would, of course,
mean that we would be engaging in prescriptivist grammar, since it would
mean that the words should be used as defined by some authority, instead
of the way people use them....
Bob
Raymond S. Wise
Not sure I entirely understand your point here. Being listed in
dictionaries such as the Merriam Webster Collegiate and the AHD4--with
no usage note such as "nonstandard" or "slang"--makes "sherbet" and
"sherbert" *both* standard English, spoken by educated speakers. How
can it be disquieting to find that there is a variant for a usage one
favors?
By the way, Encarta seems to have dropped the ball on this one. They
give "sherbert" as a variant under the entry for "sherbet," but they
don't indicate a separate pronunciation for it, which it certainly
has.
No one has yet mentioned the words "catsup" and "ketchup." For
decades, there have been people who went to the market, bought
<ketchup> (as indicated on the bottle), came home and said "I
remembered to get the catsup," with the latter word being pronounced
(by some) /'k&ts@p/.
I prefer to see the "sherbert/sherbet" distinction that way. For
decades there have been people who went to the market and bought
<sherbet> (as listed on the container), but their shopping list called
for <sherbert>.
Mike Lyle
I will if you will ...
But I don't share your optimistic implied view that the entire English-speaking
world has the faintest idea that the two words even exist.
Agreeing to use these rare technical terms in a way which conveys useful
information, however, can't be beyond the capacity of the kinds of people who
use this newsgroup. As I think you'll concede, being also one of those who see
the value of prescriptive material.
Mike.
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
[..]
>No one has yet mentioned the words "catsup" and "ketchup." For
>decades, there have been people who went to the market, bought
><ketchup> (as indicated on the bottle), came home and said "I
>remembered to get the catsup," with the latter word being pronounced
>(by some) /'k&ts@p/.
>
I've always thought that ketchup/catsup were British/American terms
for the same thing much as boot/trunk and bonnet/hood are for cars.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Richard Fontana
No. I'm certain that the vast majority of Americans today say and would
write "ketchup" (assuming they mean the Heinz-like stuff). I've always
viewed "catsup" as just a funny spelling of "ketchup".
Mike Oliver
> No one has yet mentioned the words "catsup" and "ketchup." For
> decades, there have been people who went to the market, bought
> <ketchup> (as indicated on the bottle), came home and said "I
> remembered to get the catsup," with the latter word being pronounced
> (by some) /'k&ts@p/.
I'd see it as exactly the reverse. When I was growing up it
was catsup on the bottle, ketchup in speech.
Not that I paid it much attention as I never liked the stuff much.
I leaned more to sweet pickle relish.
Mary MacT
<docr...@ntlworld.com> said:
>I've always thought that ketchup/catsup were British/American terms
>for the same thing much as boot/trunk and bonnet/hood are for cars.
I see both spellings with just about equal frequency, but almost
always hear each pronounced "ketchup."
In Australia, and I *think* in Great Britain, the word for
catsup/ketchup is "tomato sauce."
`
Mary MacTavish
http://www.prado.com/~iris
"I like you guys who want smaller government - you
know, just small enough to fit in our bedrooms."
Josh to Congressman Skinner, The West Wing
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
Is it a regional thing? You and Richard Fontana can't both be right!
I never heard 'catsup' in the UK, except from an American.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Skitt
"Mary MacT" <no...@address.comedy> wrote in message
news:3bb5d81d...@news.speakeasy.org...
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:10:26 +0100, Dr Robin Bignall
> <docr...@ntlworld.com> said:
>
> >I've always thought that ketchup/catsup were British/American terms
> >for the same thing much as boot/trunk and bonnet/hood are for cars.
>
> I see both spellings with just about equal frequency, but almost
> always hear each pronounced "ketchup."
>
> In Australia, and I *think* in Great Britain, the word for
> catsup/ketchup is "tomato sauce."
In the USA, tomato sauce comes in cans, ketchup in bottles. Different
things for different purposes.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Truly Donovan
<nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:12:48 +0100, in
><VA.000005b...@nospam.demon.co.uk>, Daniel James wrote:
>>
>>(Oh, for those who don't know, swede = swedish turnip, or turnip in Scotland =
>>rutabaga (?) in leftpondia).
Nope. In Leftpondia, turnips is one thing, rutabagas
another. Turnips are creamy white with a purple mantle [or
whatever you call it]. Rutabagas are orange with a purple
mantle (and why the poor taste in colors isn't enough to
suggest a poor taste elsewhere is beyond me).
--
Truly Donovan
http://www.trulydonovan.com
Truly Donovan
<matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>There must, I suppose, be some policy within the dictionary houses about
>this topic -- not so much to define "good" usage but at least "usage worthy
>of being recorded". And it will take into account matters of "quality" as
>well as mere "quantity".
Rendering the dictionary useless as a reference, of course,
but who cares about that?
Richard Fontana
> "Raymond S. Wise" wrote:
>
> > No one has yet mentioned the words "catsup" and "ketchup." For
> > decades, there have been people who went to the market, bought
> > <ketchup> (as indicated on the bottle), came home and said "I
> > remembered to get the catsup," with the latter word being pronounced
> > (by some) /'k&ts@p/.
>
> I'd see it as exactly the reverse. When I was growing up it
> was catsup on the bottle, ketchup in speech.
That was my experience too. I thought that /k&ts@p/ was just a jocular
pronunciation. I believe I noticed a gradual increase in the use of the
"ketchup" spelling; now "catsup" is close to obsolete as a term for
bottled tomato ketchup. (Didn't Heinz use the "catsup" spelling until
relatively recently?)
Truly Donovan
>I've always thought that ketchup/catsup were British/American terms
>for the same thing much as boot/trunk and bonnet/hood are for cars.
"Catsup" and "ketchup" are used interchangeably in the USA,
although "ketchup" dominates numerically.
M. Price
Mary MacT <no...@address.comedy> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:10:26 +0100, Dr Robin Bignall
><docr...@ntlworld.com> said:
>
>>I've always thought that ketchup/catsup were British/American terms
>>for the same thing much as boot/trunk and bonnet/hood are for cars.
>
>I see both spellings with just about equal frequency, but almost
>always hear each pronounced "ketchup."
>
>In Australia, and I *think* in Great Britain, the word for
>catsup/ketchup is "tomato sauce."
Or maybe "red sauce," as it was known in my family, in contrast to
"brown sauce."
Colourblindedness also ran in my family, so perhaps it wasn't the most
effective system.
Also puts me off any "pasta in red sauce" dish I might encounter over
here.
--
Merrall Llewelyn Price Department of English
University of Rochester mp...@troi.cc.rochester.edu
John Varela
wrote:
> That was my experience too. I thought that /k&ts@p/ was just a jocular
> pronunciation. I believe I noticed a gradual increase in the use of the
> "ketchup" spelling; now "catsup" is close to obsolete as a term for
> bottled tomato ketchup. (Didn't Heinz use the "catsup" spelling until
> relatively recently?)
For what it's worth, here's what
http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/sleuth/0799/ has to say:
"When Heinz introduced commercial ketchup to American kitchens it became so
popular that other manufacturers rushed to catch-up to the ketchup craze.
Soon there were Ketchup, Catsup, Catchup, Katsup, Catsip, Cotsup, Kotchup,
Kitsip, Catsoup, Katshoup, Katsock, Cackchop, Cornchop, Cotpock, Kotpock,
Kutpuck, Kutchpuck and Cutchpuck. All were tomato based and bottled and vied
to become a household word. Only 3 major brands remained to steal the
spotlight...Heinz Ketchup, Del Monte Catsup, and Hunts, who could not decide
on a spelling and bottled under the names Hunts Catsup (east of the
Mississippi), Hunts Ketchup (west of the Mississippi), and Hunts Tomato
Cornchops (in Iowa only). In the 1980's ketchup was declared a vegetable by
the government for school lunch menus. Suddenly Del Monte's Catsup, because
of its spelling, was not on the approved list. Shortly afterward Del Monte
changed the product's name to Del Monte Ketchup. So ketchup it is."
I hope it's true, because it's a good story.
--
John Varela
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when
they do it from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal
Raymond S. Wise
Take a look at various dictionaries and you will see that although
"catsup" has all the pronunciations of "ketchup," "ketchup" does *not*
have all the pronunciations of "catsup": No one pronounces "ketchup"
/'k&ts@p/.
The last American brand of "catsup" was "Del Monte's Catsup," which
changed its name to "Del Monte's Ketchup" in the 1980s.
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>
> >There must, I suppose, be some policy within the dictionary houses about
> >this topic -- not so much to define "good" usage but at least "usage
> >worthy of being recorded". And it will take into account matters of
> >"quality" as well as mere "quantity".
>
> Rendering the dictionary useless as a reference, of course,
> but who cares about that?
Excess protestation?
Matti
Michael J Hardy
> Funny. I have to admit, however, that it left me with the creepy
> feeling that you may in fact still hold to a remnant of the long
> discredited attitude that a dictionary is some kind of language
> authority which decides on correct usage, rather than merely reporting
> what educated speakers actually use. Certainly, there are still people
> which hold that attitude, but the dictionaries themselves have been
> descriptivist for decades, and thus offer no support to such an
> attitude.
I was being jocular. *But* you're presenting a false alternative.
You're implying a dictionary must be EITHER
(1) an authority that decides correct usage OR
(2) a mere reporter.
You seem to exclude any third alternative. In fact AHD is not merely
descriptive, but includes recommendations of usages calculated to
facilitate communication among people aware of perhaps subtler distintions
that those known to the uneducated. It is at least in part prescriptive.
That in no way means that it is endowed with authority to *decide* which
among the alternative is to be considered correct.
I don't think prescriptivism is discredited unless maybe you
mean some parody of prescriptivism that its critics claim is what it is.
"Creepy"?
Mike Hardy
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The last American brand of "catsup" was "Del Monte's Catsup," which
> changed its name to "Del Monte's Ketchup" in the 1980s.
Perhaps major brands. The El Paso Chile Company sells "Catsup":
According to
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/5536/ketchup.html
in the '50s Hunt's sold "ketchup" west of the Mississippi, "catsup"
east of the Mississippi, and "cornchops" in Iowa. I had never heard
of that last. Any old Iowans care to comment?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |...as a mobile phone is analogous
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you stick in your ear, but there
|all resemblance ends.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Ross Howard
(650)857-7572
P&D Schultz
Hey, I'm with you. I'm a prescriptivist when it comes to the dialect
called Standard English, since it is a phoney, made-up construct with
lots of silly but specific rules built-in, and it's a really cool and
elegant medium for communication. And I'm a descriptivist when it comes
to real languages, including real English.
The difference is not like "Republican or Democrat". It's more like
"paper or plastic".
\\P. Schultz
P&D Schultz
> <...> When I was growing up it
> was catsup on the bottle, ketchup in speech. <...>
Me too. Like "dentifrice" and "toothpaste."
\\P. Schultz
Raymond S. Wise
Rutabagas were called "Swedish turnips" to distinguish them from the
"common turnip." They are of different species, the rutabaga being
*Brassica napus napobrassica* while the common turnip is *Brassica
rapa." The name "rutabaga" comes from a Swedish dialectal term meaning
"root bag."
We've spoken in this newsgroup before about plants which are very
different but turn out to belong to the same species: The rutabaga is
one of these. It is of the same species as rape, canola, and Siberian
kale (not to be confused with true kale).
And here is another curious fact. According to the following Web page
http://ohioline.osu.edu/b472/canola.html
"Canola consists of two species of the mustard family, Brassica
campestris, called Polish turnip rape, and Brassica napus, known as
Argentine rape."
Raymond S. Wise
I use prescriptivism in the original sense as applied to English usage
questions beginning in the 18th century. I suggest you read _The
Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage, 1700-1800_ by Sterling
Andrus Leonard (New York: Russell & Russell, Inc, 1962), a reprint
from the 1929 edition. What distinguished the prescriptivists from the
descriptivists was their attempt to dictate what was "good usage."
There was really no standard behind what they did: they called upon
all sorts of arguments (detailed in Mr. Leonard's book) in order to
make their point, they fought furiously among themselves, and they
were extremely prone to ipse dixit pronouncements. In truth, they were
would-be reformers, but they often presented themselves as authorities
on the "true" English language. An example was the dictum that "In
English two negatives make a positive," the rational for eliminating
the double negative. However, it was not true then, and it *still* is
not true. The average speaker of English can understand perfectly well
when someone using a nonstandard dialect uses the double negative--the
statement has not been made a positive.
Mr. Leonard speaks of at least three authors of that time who
believed, in contrast to the prescriptivists, that it was actual usage
which determined "correct English." However, two of them, a Frenchman
and and Englishman, failed to use this philosophy in their actual
work, and were, in effect, prescriptivists. The other, an English
chemist (Perhaps John Dalton, who developed the atomic theory--Leonard
named him, but I am not entirely sure of my memory here), wrote a
surprisingly modern work on English usage, and his arguments were
essentially ignored thereafter.
This sense of prescriptivism has come down to the present day. Simply
giving advice about usage is *not* prescriptivism. One of the most
famous works by descriptivists is *A Dictionary Of Contemporary
American Usage,* by Bergen Evans and Cornelia Evans. And today we have
the *Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage,* which is
descriptivist. Furthermore, *I* am happy to advise on English usage,
and I am thoroughly descriptivist. (Any definition of the word
"prescriptivist" which could be taken as applying to Bergen Evans and
Cornelia Evans would be an absurdity: they were among the foremost
defenders of Webster's Third.)
You speak of a "parody of prescriptivism." In fact, that describes
many of the dictionaries which are today thought to be prescriptive,
but which in fact are descriptive. The general editor of the new
*Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary,* Anne Soukhanov, claimed, when
being interviewed on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, that her dictionary
was prescriptive, then went on to defend "very unique," something I
cannot imagine any prescriptivist doing. The *American Heritage
Dictionary* uses a usage panel which *votes on usage*--that is not
prescriptive, it is descriptive. The Oxford American Dictionary was
described by one of the members of this newsgroup to be "thoroughly
prescriptive." I took a look at it and disagreed: like all other
modern large dictionaries, it is descriptive, with smatterings of
prescriptivism. One of the rare times I have found a prescriptivist
dictum in a modern dictionary was yesterday, when I looked up "Muslim"
in *The Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide,* (C) 1999: They
had a usage note in which they said "_Muslim_ is the preferred term
for 'follower of Islam,' although _Moslem_ is also widely used. Avoid
'Mohammedan.'" The first part of that usage note is descriptive. It is
only the last sentence which is prescriptive. A dictum of this sort is
the sort of thing which the "traditional grammarians" (18th century
prescriptivists) favored. It is rare to find it in a dictionary today
because dictionaries are composed by large groups of people using the
techniques of linguistics--and linguistics is the foundation for
modern descriptivism. Today, only individuals with strongly held
opinions, such as Charles Harrington Elster, the author of *There is
no Zoo in Zoology, and Other Beastly Mispronounciations: An
Opinionated Guide for the Well-Spoken* (New York : Collier Books, (C)
1988), can truly be said to be prescriptive.
Another point I should make. You write in your post of
"recommendations of usages calculated to facilitate communication
among people aware of perhaps subtler distintions that those known to
the uneducated." In fact, the large general dictionaries--which are
all descriptivist--are interested in usage questions about which
educated speakers and writers disagree. The usages of those who are
uneducated tend to be labeled as *nonstandard,* and any subtleties
between various nonstandard usages are ignored. That is left to
dictionaries of slang and colloquialisms. The large dictionaries are
interested mainly in Standard English. They are not interested in
dictating usage, however, instead they show what the educated user
feels is appropriate usage. When Merriam-Webster Collegiate speaks of
the pronunciations /'fEb(j)@,wEri/ and /pOin'sEt@/ as correct
pronunciations for "February" and "poinsettia," they mean that they
are correct pronunciations for educated speakers, and the
pronunciation of uneducated speakers is simply not brought into the
question.
Daniel James
> >>(Oh, for those who don't know, swede = swedish turnip, or turnip
> >>in Scotland = rutabaga (?) in leftpondia).
>
> Nope. In Leftpondia, turnips is one thing, rutabagas
> another. Turnips are creamy white with a purple mantle [or
> whatever you call it]. Rutabagas are orange with a purple
> mantle (and why the poor taste in colors isn't enough to
> suggest a poor taste elsewhere is beyond me).
That should be a "yep" - unless you think Scotland is in leftpondia?
What we (in England) call a swede is called a turnip in scotland and is
the same thing that goes by the name of rutabage in leftpondia (the
dictionary says "Chiefly N.Amer.", but I don't know of anyone inb the
UK who would use rutabaga rather than swede (or turnip, north of the
border) - except in the most pretentious kind of menu. What you and I
would call simply a "turnip" is a "white turnip" in Scotland.
I'm rather sorry I mentioned it now!
Cheers,
Daniel.
Harvey V
<inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> said:
-snip-
>> Nope. In Leftpondia, turnips is one thing, rutabagas
>> another. Turnips are creamy white with a purple mantle [or
>> whatever you call it]. Rutabagas are orange with a purple
>> mantle (and why the poor taste in colors isn't enough to suggest a
>> poor taste elsewhere is beyond me).
Not in the part of leftpondia that I grew up in.
-snip-
>
> What we (in England) call a swede is called a turnip in scotland
> and is the same thing that goes by the name of rutabage in
> leftpondia (the dictionary says "Chiefly N.Amer."
In Canada, raised by an English-born mother, my family used "turnip"
for the orange vegetable that the English call a swede. I didn't even
know that white turnips existed until I moved to England.
Rutabaga, at least in my experience, was an American rather than a
general leftpondian word; we didn't use it at all when I was growing
up.
The mileage of other Canadians may differ.
Harvey
Matti Lamprhey
>
> What we (in England) call a swede is called a turnip in scotland and is
> the same thing that goes by the name of rutabage in leftpondia (the
> dictionary says "Chiefly N.Amer.", but I don't know of anyone inb the
> UK who would use rutabaga rather than swede (or turnip, north of the
> border) - except in the most pretentious kind of menu. What you and I
> would call simply a "turnip" is a "white turnip" in Scotland.
Perhaps the manufacturers who use "rutabaga" on their UK labels do so
precisely because they're aware of this divergence of usage within Britain.
Matti
Brian J Goggin
<whhvs@*removethis*operamail.com> wrote:
>Rutabaga, at least in my experience, was an American rather than a
>general leftpondian word; we didn't use it at all when I was growing
>up.
If the man who rutabagas cries,
Cry not when his father dies,
'Tis a proof that he had rather
Have a rutabaga than his father.
Nah. It'll never work.
bjg
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
>In article <3bb5d81d...@news.speakeasy.org>,
>Mary MacT <no...@address.comedy> wrote:
>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:10:26 +0100, Dr Robin Bignall
>><docr...@ntlworld.com> said:
>>
>>>I've always thought that ketchup/catsup were British/American terms
>>>for the same thing much as boot/trunk and bonnet/hood are for cars.
>>
>>I see both spellings with just about equal frequency, but almost
>>always hear each pronounced "ketchup."
>>
>>In Australia, and I *think* in Great Britain, the word for
>>catsup/ketchup is "tomato sauce."
>
That's true for the UK. The concentrated stuff which comes in cans or
tubes is 'tomato paste', and one usually cooks with it. There are
other varieties of tomato-based sauces which come between the
sweetened stuff kids like to smother hamburgers with and the
concentrated stuff. These have names like 'tomato cook-in sauce' or
'tomato stir-fry sauce' and usually contain herbs and chunks of other
vegetables. The tomatoes they're made from are sun-dried by virgins
taking time off from making real olive oil, so they say.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Mike Lyle
The frequency with which this matter comes round is now so dizzying as to
warrant an FAQ piece, no?
By the way, the Pontac ketchup is rather good: at first tasting it seems to sit
somewhere between Worcestershire and soy. Did anybody else try?
Another time I think I'll strengthen the flavourings.
Mike.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <3bb5d81d...@news.speakeasy.org>,
> Mary MacT <no...@address.comedy> wrote:
> >In Australia, and I *think* in Great Britain, the word for
> >catsup/ketchup is "tomato sauce."
> Or maybe "red sauce," as it was known in my family, in contrast to
> "brown sauce."
Common in England e.g. (as heard in any caff):
"Bacon sandwich please"
"Sauce with that?"
"Yes please"
"Red or brown?".
Though personally I prefer my baconm sandwiches without sauce.
Matthew Huntbach
John Dean
Daniel James <inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VA.000005b...@nospam.demon.co.uk...
I'm *so* glad I got up this morning.........
--
John Dean -- Oxford
I am anti-spammed -- defrag me to reply
Donna Richoux
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 19:10:26 +0100, in
> <g0i1rtkqt662iabov...@4ax.com>, Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
> >>
> >I've always thought that ketchup/catsup were British/American terms
> >for the same thing much as boot/trunk and bonnet/hood are for cars.
> >
>
> The frequency with which this matter comes round is now so dizzying as to
> warrant an FAQ piece, no?
However, to make a decent FAQ piece, one has to identify the same or
similar question which has been repeated. I grant you that ketchup keeps
popping up, but if I recall correctly, once it was more about the origin
(the Malaysian fish sauce thing, leading to banana catsup, etc.) and
once or twice it was the "What is tomato sauce?" thing, and this time
it's more on the spelling distinctions of ketchup vs. catsup.
Perhaps the archives would show otherwise, but my sense is that you
don't have a FAQ item here, really. Just a fruitful topic.
By the way, some ambitious person could make a really interesting
website on food terms, their origins, how they vary around the world,
etc. Ditto clothing terms. I'm just doubting here whether the AUE FAQ is
the proper place for all such articles.
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
Mary MacT
said:
>Common in England e.g. (as heard in any caff):
>"Bacon sandwich please"
>"Sauce with that?"
>"Yes please"
>"Red or brown?".
>Though personally I prefer my baconm sandwiches without sauce.
When I lived in Australia, I'd have to be fast on my toes to stop the
folks in pie[1] shops from squirting them full of sauce[2].
The default seems to be for the shop employee to use a squirt bottle
tip to poke a hole or three in a perfectly good, innocent pie,
injecting it with the sauce, making it cold and damp.
I don't like pies with sauce.
Mary
[1] meat pies
[2] tomato sauce (catsup/ketchup)
`
Mary MacTavish
http://www.prado.com/~iris
"I like you guys who want smaller government - you
know, just small enough to fit in our bedrooms."
Josh to Congressman Skinner, The West Wing
Raymond S. Wise
I'm glad you did mention it. I would never have known that the Scots
call a rutabaga a "turnip" if you hadn't relayed that fact.
Padraig Breathnach
>Daniel James <inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<VA.000005b...@nospam.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <ReWwO2iKayeKW=T8cxTA4...@4ax.com>, Truly Donovan wrote:
>> > >>(Oh, for those who don't know, swede = swedish turnip, or turnip
>> > >>in Scotland = rutabaga (?) in leftpondia).
>> >
>> > Nope. In Leftpondia, turnips is one thing, rutabagas
>> > another. Turnips are creamy white with a purple mantle [or
>> > whatever you call it]. Rutabagas are orange with a purple
>> > mantle (and why the poor taste in colors isn't enough to
>> > suggest a poor taste elsewhere is beyond me).
>>
>> That should be a "yep" - unless you think Scotland is in leftpondia?
>>
>> What we (in England) call a swede is called a turnip in scotland and is
>> the same thing that goes by the name of rutabage in leftpondia (the
>> dictionary says "Chiefly N.Amer.", but I don't know of anyone inb the
>> UK who would use rutabaga rather than swede (or turnip, north of the
>> border) - except in the most pretentious kind of menu. What you and I
>> would call simply a "turnip" is a "white turnip" in Scotland.
>>
>> I'm rather sorry I mentioned it now!
>>
>I'm glad you did mention it. I would never have known that the Scots
>call a rutabaga a "turnip" if you hadn't relayed that fact.
Let me further enrich your life. The Irish also call rutabagas
turnips, and turnips white turnips. Most of us would recognise that a
swede is a turnip giving itself airs. Rutabagas would be classified
with the exotic foods like quinces and yams. If they didn't look and
taste so much like turnips they would command premium prices.
PB
Raymond S. Wise
> >for the same thing much as boot/trunk and bonnet/hood are for cars.
>
> always hear each pronounced "ketchup."
>
> catsup/ketchup is "tomato sauce."
It has been mentioned in this group several times that the British use
the expression "tomato sauce" for ketchup. However, a question, asked
explicitly at least once (and that, recently), has never been
answered, as far as I can tell: If you call ketchup "tomato sauce,"
what in the world do you call "tomato sauce," that is, the sauce used
in Italian cooking? Ketchup is a quite different product (for one
thing, it contains a lot of sugar).
I did do a search of the Google archives of Usenet posts, without
finding the answer to my question.
Raymond S. Wise
At least one detail of the story is certainly false, because the
federal government only *proposed* changing regulations to count
ketchup as a vegetable: It backed down in the face of criticism.