pronunciation of irrevocable
Krista Claassen
Okay, my husband and I are involved in a major argument!!! How do you
pronounce irrevocable? I've always thought the accent was on the "o"
and he accents the first "e." We looked in our "big" dictionary (the
one with thousands of entries) and the word is there, but no
pronunciation.
Thanks.
Krista
N.R. Mitchum
Krista Claassen wrote:
------------
You'll find it if you invest in a bigger dictionary, one with a couple hundred
thousand entries ... but then you'd lose the argument, I'm afraid, because
the heavyweights agree with your mister.
NM [post&email]
Bob Cunningham
Krista Claassen <kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> We looked in our "big" dictionary (the
>one with thousands of entries)
Oh. *That* one. :-)
Krista Claassen
This is not helpful! I've received a few emails telling me my husband
is correct. But, no one has responded when I've asked which dictionary
they've looked in. Ours is _Webster's Third New International
Dictionary -- unabridged_. Has anyone found irrevocable in the
dictionary??? And, what dictionary???
Krista
tom collins
Krista Claassen <kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I've received a few emails telling me my husband
>is correct. But, no one has responded when I've asked which dictionary
>they've looked in. Ours is _Webster's Third New International
>Dictionary -- unabridged_. Has anyone found irrevocable in the
>dictionary??? And, what dictionary???
>
>Krista
It's in the Collins (no relation) Cobuild English Dictionary,
and shows the pronunciation as your husband uses, with the
sound more like "irreplaceable" than like "irreverent"
Thus, ear/re/VO/ca/bul rather than ear/REV/uh/ca/bil
However, I am familiar with both uses, and I suspect it is
still used in some areas, eg diplomacy and poetry. ( I may be
wrong, but I suspect the second pronunciation is viewed as
high-falutin'--did you have a cultured English teacher at one
point?)
Of course, English since at least the days of Dr. Johnson is
full of competing pronunciations and one winning out over the
over. That's "usage' for you.
But, if you can, try to dissuade your husband from feeling he's
right and you're wrong. His simply "works better", probably
because TV announcers and politicians prefer the more solid
sound of his choice. It's part of their "power" tripping, I
guess. And lexographers are not immune from the evidence of
modern usage.
To my ear, yours is by far the more melodious version, but I
fear we live in a harsh world these days.
Tom Collins
>
Bob Cunningham
Krista Claassen <kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Bob Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> Krista Claassen <kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > We looked in our "big" dictionary (the
>> >one with thousands of entries)
>>
>> Oh. *That* one. :-)
>
>
>This is not helpful! I've received a few emails telling me my husband
>is correct. But, no one has responded when I've asked which dictionary
>they've looked in. Ours is _Webster's Third New International
>Dictionary -- unabridged_. Has anyone found irrevocable in the
>dictionary??? And, what dictionary???
>
>Krista
>
It's in Webster's Third New International on page 1196, in the
third column, a little more than half way down the page. But maybe your
point is that they don't tell you how to pronounce it. They do, but it
would take me awhile to understand what they mean by their cryptic
symbols.
The American Heritage Third Edition (AHD3) has it, with the
pronunciation clearly defined:
irrevocable (/I 'rEv @ k@ b@l/) adj. Impossible
to retract or revoke: an irrevocable decision.
I've converted the pronunciation they give to ASCII IPA. In case you
are not familiar with that, their pronunciation is "i REV @ k@ b@l",
where "i" is pronounced as in "pig", "E" is the "e" in "peg", and "@" is
the schwa, the sound of the "e" in "butter". I've put "REV" in caps to
show that it is the stressed syllable. I don't remember who was on
which side, but whoever said the stress is on the second syllable wins.
It's in the following dictionaries with the same pronunciation as
the one shown in AHD3:
_Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition_
_Random House Webster's College Dictionary_ (1995)
_Oxford American Dictionary_
_The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ (1993 edition)
_The Concise Oxford Dictionary_ Eighth Edition
_The Chambers Dictionary_ (1993) has it with a slightly different
pronunciation (having to do only with the length of the schwas), but
with the stress still on the second syllable, and the second syllable
pronounced "REV".
_Webster's New International Dictionary Second Edition_ (1934
Unabridged) (WNI2) has it with essentially the same pronunciation as
Chambers.
_Webster's New International Dictionary_ (1909 Unabridged) has it
with the same pronunciation as WNI2.
(Posted)
tom collins
exw...@ix.netcom.com (Bob Cunningham) wrote:
>Krista Claassen <kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Bob Cunningham wrote:
>>>
>>> Krista Claassen <kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
> Has anyone found irrevocable in the
>>dictionary??? And, what dictionary???
>>
>>Krista
>>
>
> The American Heritage Third Edition (AHD3) has it, with the
>pronunciation clearly defined:
>
> irrevocable (/I 'rEv @ k@ b@l/) adj. Impossible
> to retract or revoke: an irrevocable decision.
>
>I've converted the pronunciation they give to ASCII IPA. In case you
>are not familiar with that, their pronunciation is "i REV @ k@ b@l",
>where "i" is pronounced as in "pig", "E" is the "e" in "peg", and "@" is
>the schwa, the sound of the "e" in "butter". I've put "REV" in caps to
>show that it is the stressed syllable. I don't remember who was on
>which side, but whoever said the stress is on the second syllable wins.
>
> It's in the following dictionaries with the same pronunciation as
>the one shown in AHD3:
>
> _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition_
> _Random House Webster's College Dictionary_ (1995)
> _Oxford American Dictionary_
> _The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ (1993 edition)
> _The Concise Oxford Dictionary_ Eighth Edition
> _Webster's New International Dictionary_ (1909 Unabridged) has it
>with the same pronunciation as WNI2.
>
Sheesh, how embarrassing! Bob is right and I was
wrong in my earlier post...like the newbie who leaps into the
fray before reading the post carefully, I misread Collins
Cobuild. I better be more careful or someone might revoke my
a.u.e privileges....
However, I just got hold of a user-friendly dictionary, the
Globe Modern Dictionary, from Globe/Modern Curriculum Press
(1984), which has a pronunciation system using "familiar
language sounds"( a system that works well with the limited
capabilities of most mailers). Here's what they show:
irREVVa-ka-b'l
Funk & Wagnall's Standard College Dictionary (1975) also
concurs. Plus it uses a pronunciation system which is far
easier to understand than Webster's Third New International D~
So, it definitely looks like the lady (I think I remember this
one right) is actually on the side of the "authorities".
But I wonder if the authorities jibe with common usage--don't
we hear ir-re-VOHK-i-b'l too? Perhaps based on the more common
"revoke", as in "Pay up immediately--or we will revoke (your
net privileges, credit card, library card, etc.)"?
Cobuild says it is a formal word, so the "hi-falutin'"
pronunciation does make sense, but what happens when the common
guy gets hold of it?
Any landlords, mortgage brokers, even lawyers, out there to
tell us? Or someone who's signed a marriage contract recently?
Or, do we hear it this second way on TV--eg <Law and Order> or
in movies (Grisham et al)? Maybe in Danielle Steel (on TV this
week & next)?
Tom Collins
PS Where can I find out more about the ASCII pronunciation
system?
Mark Israel
> PS Where can I find out more about the ASCII pronunciation
> system?
Remember that FAQ I mailed you?
# The following scheme is due to Evan Kirshenbaum
# (kirsh...@hpl.hp.com). The complete scheme can be accessed on
# the WWW at:
# <http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/IPA/>
# I show here only examples for the sounds most often referred to in
# this newsgroup. [...]
--
mis...@scripps.edu Mark Israel
Want a copy of the alt.usage.english FAQ? Send me e-mail!
Rose Platt
On Sat, 31 Aug 1996, Krista Claassen wrote:
> Okay, my husband and I are involved in a major argument!!! How do you
> pronounce irrevocable? I've always thought the accent was on the "o"
> and he accents the first "e." We looked in our "big" dictionary (the
> one with thousands of entries) and the word is there, but no
> pronunciation.
I'm going to say /ir-RE-vo-ca-bull/ but only if I get to take it back if
I'm wrong.
--Silence
"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."
--Mark Twain
Krista Claassen
Bob Cunningham wrote:
> >
> It's in Webster's Third New International on page 1196, in the
> third column, a little more than half way down the page. But maybe your
> point is that they don't tell you how to pronounce it.
finding the word was not the problem, read my original post
> They do, but it
> would take me awhile to understand what they mean by their cryptic
> symbols.
>
Oh, so you made the same mistake I did. Their "cryptic symbols" are
listed on the inside of the front cover. (Somehow I failed to notice
them.) They are quite easy to understand.
Krista Claassen
tom collins wrote:
> So, it definitely looks like the lady (I think I remember this
> one right) is actually on the side of the "authorities".
Actually, my husband was right.
>
> Any landlords, mortgage brokers, even lawyers, out there to
> tell us? Or someone who's signed a marriage contract recently?
We ran across the word during mass a week ago. (It was part of one of
the readings.)
Keith C. Ivey
exw...@ix.netcom.com (Bob Cunningham) wrote:
>It's in the following dictionaries with the same pronunciation as
>the one shown in AHD3:
> _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition_
Does MWCD10 list Krista Claassen's pronunciation, too? I have
the previous edition, W9NCD, and it gives the pronunciation as
/(')Ir '(r)Ev @ k@ b@l/, sometimes /,Ir (r)@ 'vo k@ b@l/ (my
transliteration into Kirshenbaum's ASCII notation). The
explanatory notes say that "A variant preceded by _sometimes_ is
infrequent, though it does occur in educated speech".
[posted and mailed]
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eei-alex.com/eye/>
Bob Cunningham
Bob Cunningham
kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) wrote:
>exw...@ix.netcom.com (Bob Cunningham) wrote:
>
>>It's in the following dictionaries with the same pronunciation as
>>the one shown in AHD3:
>
>> _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition_
>
>Does MWCD10 list Krista Claassen's pronunciation, too? I have
>the previous edition, W9NCD, and it gives the pronunciation as
>/(')Ir '(r)Ev @ k@ b@l/, sometimes /,Ir (r)@ 'vo k@ b@l/ (my
>transliteration into Kirshenbaum's ASCII notation). The
>explanatory notes say that "A variant preceded by _sometimes_ is
>infrequent, though it does occur in educated speech".
Yes, MWCD10 has the same.
_Webster's Third New International_ (W3NID) also has the secondary
pronunciation, but with "also" instead of "sometimes". The "Explanatory
Notes" tell us that "also" means the variant is "appreciably less
frequent" and "sometimes" means the variant is "infrequent".
W3NID also shows that the first syllable in the most frequent
pronunciation can have *primary* stress or secondary stress. MWCD10
says that the first syllable may or may not have secondary stress, while
W9NCD says the first syllable may or may not have primary stress (as KI
indicated). The 1937 Collegiate (WCD5) shows only the stress on the
second syllable, with no secondary stress on any other syllable.
Either the pronunciation has been shifting over the years or the
(Merriam-) Webster people have been doing a more thorough job of
ascertaining usage, or maybe some of both.
(Posted)
Krista Claassen
Gee, I don't recall thanking you for your snide comments. Don't assume
or expect a thank you from me when you try to be as condescending as you
possibly can. I would also appreciate your spelling my name correctly.
Krista Claassen
Bob Cunningham
Krista Claassen <kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
>> It's in Webster's Third New International on page 1196, in the
>> third column, a little more than half way down the page. But maybe your
>> point is that they don't tell you how to pronounce it.
>
>finding the word was not the problem, read my original post
>
>> They do, but it
>> would take me awhile to understand what they mean by their cryptic
>> symbols.
>
>Oh, so you made the same mistake I did.
I made no mistake; read my posting.
Dale Lundquist
In article <322AF5...@ix.netcom.com>, Krista Claassen
<kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
In my experience and among fellow legal practitioners, your husband's
pronunciation is almost universal. However, I've heard it pronounced your
way too and I think there are some things we shouldn't necessarily concede
to "experts." This is one issue on which I think both of you are right as
it can correctly be pronounced either way. Now, kiss and make up :-)
wilh...@sprynet.com
tom collins <tcol...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>Any landlords, mortgage brokers, even lawyers, out there to
>tell us? Or someone who's signed a marriage contract recently?
I hear irREVocable, as well as irreVOCable. As a general rule (with
many exceptions), southerners will say "But Judge, it's an irreVOCable
trust." A transplant from up north would say "Your honor, the trust is
irREVocable."
Should I be offended by the "even" in front of lawyers? :)
Ron Wilhoite
Tampa FL
wilh...@sprynet.com
Markus Laker
kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey):
> exw...@ix.netcom.com (Bob Cunningham) wrote:
>
> >It's in the following dictionaries with the same pronunciation as
> >the one shown in AHD3:
>
> > _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition_
>
> Does MWCD10 list Krista Claassen's pronunciation, too? I have
> the previous edition, W9NCD, and it gives the pronunciation as
> /(')Ir '(r)Ev @ k@ b@l/, sometimes /,Ir (r)@ 'vo k@ b@l/ (my
> transliteration into Kirshenbaum's ASCII notation). The
> explanatory notes say that "A variant preceded by _sometimes_ is
> infrequent, though it does occur in educated speech".
OED2 shows only one pronunciation for 'irrevocable', with the stress on
the second syllable, but also gives a variant form 'irrevokable', which
was used in the 17th and 18th centuries and which, apparently, was
stressed on the third syllable. Do we suppose that third-syllable
stress has survived in places for the last two or three hundred years,
or is a modern reinvention?
--
Markus Laker.
Larry Preuss
In article <3229CA...@ix.netcom.com>, Krista Claassen
<kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > Krista Claassen <kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > We looked in our "big" dictionary (the
> > >one with thousands of entries)
> >
> > Oh. *That* one. :-)
>
>
> This is not helpful! I've received a few emails telling me my husband
> is correct. But, no one has responded when I've asked which dictionary
> they've looked in. Ours is _Webster's Third New International
> Dictionary -- unabridged_. Has anyone found irrevocable in the
> dictionary??? And, what dictionary???
>
> Krista
Krista, are you truly having trouble finding a dictionary containing the
word irrevocable? My American Heritage Dictionary 1980 and my Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary have it right where you might expect it. If your
Webster's doesn't have it in the right spot, I'd toss it and get a real
reference book.
--
Larry Preuss I collect/buy/trade
1821 Wintergreen Court Hotel Labels
Ann Arbor, MI 48103 (luggage Stickers)
USA
GO BLUE
N.R. Mitchum
Markus Laker wrote:
--------------
> [...] Do we suppose that third-syllable
> stress has survived in places for the last two or three hundred years,
> or is a modern reinvention?
I'm inclined to suppose that some people are simply working from the
verb "revoke" rather than the adjective "revocable," so that they are
in effect writing "ir-revoke-able" instead of "ir-revocable."
Always rascible,
Nathan Mitchum [post&email]
Jennifer Elizabeth Martin
Krista Claassen (kris...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: This is not helpful! I've received a few emails telling me my husband
: is correct. But, no one has responded when I've asked which dictionary
: they've looked in. Ours is _Webster's Third New International
: Dictionary -- unabridged_. Has anyone found irrevocable in the
: dictionary??? And, what dictionary???
In the Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Edition), I found
irrevocable with a stress on the syllable "rev." Hope this helps!
jenn
Steve MacGregor
Krista Claassen <kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<3229CA...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Has anyone found "irrevocable" in the dictionary??? And, what
dictionary???
I just now looked it up in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
(Tenth Edition). It's there: "not possible to revoke: UNLATERABLE"
Exactly what one might expect, and with the meaning I've taken it to
have all my life.
--
-- __Q Stefano MAC:GREGOR Mi dankas al miaj bonsxancigaj
steloj,
-- -`\<, (s-ro) \ma-GREG-ar\ ke mi ne estas supersticxulo.
-- (*)/ (*) Fenikso, Arizono, Usono
==================================
-------------- <http://www.indirect.com/www/stevemac/ttt-hejm.htm>
----
Daniel P. B. Smith
In article <50cth8$4...@news.inforamp.net>,
>>is correct. But, no one has responded when I've asked which dictionary
>>they've looked in. Ours is _Webster's Third New International
>>dictionary??? And, what dictionary???
I'm fascinated by the assertion that "irrevocable" isn't in Webster's
Third. I don't have a copy myself. I'd like you to look again--because
it seems to me I remember that Webster's Second had an annoying habit
of not always listing every word in alphabetical order. When the meaning
of the word was essentially the same as the meaning of the prefix plus
the meaning of the root, they might give the meaning and pronunciation
under the root--"revocable" in this case. Meanwhile, they might also
have a simple list of all the obvious words with a particular prefix,
grouped together on the page _with the prefix._ That is, you might
find a whole bunch of irr- words listed under irr- itself.
I cain't believe "irrevocable" ain't in Webster's Third. If so, it ain't
true that "ain't" ain't in th' dictionary, but it _are_ true that
"irrevocable" ain't in th' dictionary. If'n it rally ain't, 'pears to
me you could score off your hubby by demanding that he stop usin'
"irrevocable" altogether, with some snappy phrase like "That isn't
even a _word_."
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbs...@world.std.com
tom collins
Krista Claassen <kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> It's in Webster's Third New International on page 1196, in the
>> >> third column, a little more than half way down the page. But maybe your
>> >> point is that they don't tell you how to pronounce it.
>> >
>> >finding the word was not the problem, read my original post
>> >
>> >> They do, but it
>> >> would take me awhile to understand what they mean by their cryptic
>> >> symbols.
>> >>
>> >
tom collins
It is obvious that Netizens mis-communicate--witness the inter
change below, even if somewhat of a mild example. But if a.u.e
represents those most interested in using this language, and
in this new medium, I would hope we could learn to do better.
Some thots on avoiding hurt feelings and barbed replies/more
hurt.
1. It's not worth it
2. It's possible, even probable, that the replier meant not at
all to offend--they either have a different perspective or
different styles of communication. Or, just as likely, they are
rushed in their comments.
3 A corollary is that the original poster may also
inadvertently offend, for the same reasons.
4.So,take a deep breath, shake your head at the obtuseness of
others or the limitations of this medium, and post with a smile
in your words. It works.
(A few editorial comments on the sample below to illustrate)
>> Krista Claassen <kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Bob Cunningham wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> It's in Webster's Third New International on page 1196, in the
>> >> third column, a little more than half way down the page. But maybe your
>> >> point is that they don't tell you how to pronounce it.
>> >
>> >finding the word was not the problem, read my original post
But I as a newsreader, found Bob's directions quite helpful,
and I appreciated the detail as a way for me to do my own
research. Plus, he was using a slightly different dictionary
than the original poster, if my memory is correct, and which
may or may not have had the same pronunciation system, so I
thot he was just being extra helpful for the original poster.
I find command statements like "read my original post"
offensive. But it's quite possible the poster just has a
clipped communications style and meant no offense. But I'd like
a "smiley" at least.
>> >
>> >> They do, but it
>> >> would take me awhile to understand what they mean by their cryptic
>> >> symbols.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Oh, so you made the same mistake I did. Their "cryptic symbols" are
>> >listed on the inside of the front cover. (Somehow I failed to notice
>> >them.) They are quite easy to understand.
Putting "you" or "your" in the same sentence as "mistake" is
tantamount to an insult in newsgroups. It's sure to hurt. There
are more neutral ways. And Bob's done enuff work for this post,
so it's understandable if he doesn't get into the marks in
detail. And the last sentence, seems to end (to me) with an
unspoken derogatory--"idiot" would fit. But again, perhaps it's
just the communications style?
>> >
>> Open letter to Krista Claasen:
>>
>> You're welcome.
See? The guy goes out of his way to help, and gets nailed for
it. Can't help but understand his reaction.
>
>
>Gee, I don't recall thanking you for your snide comments. Don't assume
>or expect a thank you from me when you try to be as condescending as you
>possibly can. I would also appreciate your spelling my name correctly.
Now the minor insults have become a full-scale war!
Bob's "snide" prob. becuz he wasn't extremely careful, and he's
"condescending", because he has been too careful--I find
"direct-speaking" people get irritated with calm, balanced
statements (as I found Bob's comments), suspecting some hidden
"superiority" agenda on the part of the speaker.
Anyway, enuff. Not to pick on these posters, for we all make
the same mistakes from time to time. But, I feel we could do
better!
Tom Collins
>
Daan Sandee
In article <Dx8L6...@world.std.com>, dpbs...@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:
|> In article <50cth8$4...@news.inforamp.net>,
|> >>is correct. But, no one has responded when I've asked which dictionary
|> >>they've looked in. Ours is _Webster's Third New International
|> >>Dictionary -- unabridged_. Has anyone found irrevocable in the
|> >>dictionary??? And, what dictionary???
|>
|> I'm fascinated by the assertion that "irrevocable" isn't in Webster's
|> Third. I don't have a copy myself. I'd like you to look again--because
"irrevocable" is in Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged)
(c) 1986, p.1196, third column, halfway, between "irrevocability"
and "irrevocableness". If I decode the hieroglyphics correctly, the
pronunciation is derived from that of "revocable", which is given as
"/'rEv@k@b@l/, also /r@'vok@b@l/ or /ri'vok@b@l/." (Their phonetics
converted to the system used in this newsgroup.)
Interestingly, there is also a word "revokable", which presumably
implies "unrevokable".
Daan Sandee
Burlington, MA san...@think.com
Roger Mann
Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbs...@world.std.com> wrote in article
<Dx8L6...@world.std.com>...
> In article <50cth8$4...@news.inforamp.net>,
> tom collins <tcol...@inforamp.net> wrote:
> >Krista Claassen <kris...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
Chambers gives the accent on the first 'e' in both irrecovable and
irrevocably
Krista Claassen
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
>
> I'm fascinated by the assertion that "irrevocable" isn't in Webster's
> Third.
Ok, one more time, the word IS in the dictionary (Webster's Third), the
pronounciation is what I WAS (notice was, not am) looking for.
Krista
shelly...@empire.ca
> Okay, my husband and I are involved in a major argument!!! How do you
> pronounce irrevocable? I've always thought the accent was on the "o"
> and he accents the first "e." We looked in our "big" dictionary (the
> one with thousands of entries) and the word is there, but no
> pronunciation.
>
> Krista
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/irrevocable
Peter T. Daniels
> On Saturday, August 31, 1996 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Krista Claassen wrote:
> > Okay, my husband and I are involved in a major argument!!! How do you
> > pronounce irrevocable? I've always thought the accent was on the "o"
> > and he accents the first "e." We looked in our "big" dictionary (the
> > one with thousands of entries) and the word is there, but no
> > pronunciation.
>
Golly, has Krista been waiting almost 20 years for an answer?
If I'd been here back in 1996, I'd have suggested looking in her
"'big' dictionary" under "revocable."
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
http://www.forvo.com/word/irrevocable/#en
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mike L
tells us to stress the following syllable.
E.g., "irr'evocable" stresses the "e", while "irre'vocable" would
stress the "voc" ( which for most standard speakers would be wrong).
--
Mike.
Guy Barry
news:8346d693-7bdd-485a...@googlegroups.com...
but although the established pronunciation has the stress on the "e" (which
is the one I use), I'm starting to hear it with the stress on the "o" more
frequently. I still regard it as an error, but maybe it's beginning to take
over.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
news:c12e09f8-de6c-4b40...@googlegroups.com...
all.)
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
news:3kj2n9pgtfuhjl8ge...@4ax.com...
>On Mon, 12 May 2014 12:05:35 -0700 (PDT), shelly...@empire.ca
>wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, August 31, 1996 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Krista Claassen wrote:
>Just to be clear, Krista, that little vertical mark above the line
>tells us to stress the following syllable.
--
Guy Barry
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
> >"'big' dictionary" under "revocable."
>
> "Revocable" is not a word in common usage. (It's not in my dictionary at
> all.)
Jack Campin
>> dictionary at all.)
> Sounds like you need a new "your dictionary."
need to know to look under "revoke".
It's useful for a dictionary to prioritize word forms by frequency
of usage, in which case "revocable" would be a long way below
"irrevocable" in visibility. The Collins COBUILD dictionaries do
that, organizing definitions by the frequency in which derived
forms are used (as worked out by corpus analysis) rather than using
the same ordering for derived forms in every definition. COBUILD
is what I recommend to folks learning English as a foreign language
since it helps avoid unidiomatic overuse of rare forms.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Guy Barry
desired, but I think it contains most words that were in common usage at the
time, and "revocable" certainly hasn't made a comeback in the last thirty
years. The BNC has 16 matches for "revocable" against 134 for
"irrevocable", and most of the former are in technical legal contexts. It
may be slightly commoner than I thought though.
--
Guy Barry
Skitt
>>> "Revocable" is not a word in common usage. (It's not in my
>>> dictionary at all.)
>>
>> Sounds like you need a new "your dictionary."
>
> I doubt if "revocable" is a headword in anybody's dictionary - you
> need to know to look under "revoke".
>
"Revocable" is in both M-W Online and AHD Online.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
>On 5/13/2014 5:32 AM, Jack Campin wrote:
>
>>>> "Revocable" is not a word in common usage. (It's not in my
>>>> dictionary at all.)
>>>
>>> Sounds like you need a new "your dictionary."
>>
>> I doubt if "revocable" is a headword in anybody's dictionary - you
>> need to know to look under "revoke".
>>
><snip>
>
>"Revocable" is in both M-W Online and AHD Online.
The most recent quotes of "revocable" and "revocableness":
2002 R. Goldstein Attack Queers i. 2 The Supreme Court has yet
to recognize a constitutional right to be gay, and so our civil
rights are revocable to an alarming degree.
1924 Fisheries of Alaska (Hearings before U.S. House Merchant
Marine & Fisheries Comm., 68th Congr., 1st Sess.) 203 There is
no question about the revocableness. The Government..can wipe them
[sc. fishing permits] out in a minute.
The spelling "revokable" is only a few years younger than "revocable":
1584 / a1500.
2000 Miami Herald (Nexis) 23 May (Local) b1 The city issued the
30-day revokeable license.
2004 S. R. Finz Finz Multistate Method 519 A license to use
realty is revokable at will by the licensor or his successor.
Peter T. Daniels
quoting Guy Barry
and Peter T. Daniels:
> >> "Revocable" is not a word in common usage. (It's not in my
> >> dictionary at all.)
> > Sounds like you need a new "your dictionary."
>
> I doubt if "revocable" is a headword in anybody's dictionary - you
> need to know to look under "revoke".
lists "revocable" (variant spelling "revokable") just before
"revocation."
> It's useful for a dictionary to prioritize word forms by frequency
> of usage, in which case "revocable" would be a long way below
> "irrevocable" in visibility. The Collins COBUILD dictionaries do
> that, organizing definitions by the frequency in which derived
> forms are used (as worked out by corpus analysis) rather than using
> the same ordering for derived forms in every definition. COBUILD
> is what I recommend to folks learning English as a foreign language
> since it helps avoid unidiomatic overuse of rare forms.
a foreign language"?
Dictionaries for language-learners are not particularly useful for
typical speakers of a language, because those typical speakers are
typically looking for words that are _not_ part of their ordinary,
every-day vocabulary.
Jack Campin
>> of usage, in which case "revocable" would be a long way below
>> "irrevocable" in visibility. The Collins COBUILD dictionaries do
>> that, organizing definitions by the frequency in which derived
>> forms are used (as worked out by corpus analysis) rather than using
>> the same ordering for derived forms in every definition. COBUILD
>> is what I recommend to folks learning English as a foreign language
>> since it helps avoid unidiomatic overuse of rare forms.
> Who participating in this discussion is a "folk learning English as
> a foreign language"?
> Dictionaries for language-learners are not particularly useful for
> typical speakers of a language, because those typical speakers are
> typically looking for words that are _not_ part of their ordinary,
> every-day vocabulary.
about which forms are commonly used and which are formally correct
but weird-sounding rarities is a liability to a learner - ordinary
and everyday is exactly what they're looking for, but not easy to
achieve. We have whole comic genres parodying non-native speakers
for over-erudite speech (formerly Highlanders, now Indians).
Peter T. Daniels
quoting Peter T. Daniels,
> >> It's useful for a dictionary to prioritize word forms by frequency
> >> of usage, in which case "revocable" would be a long way below
> >> "irrevocable" in visibility. The Collins COBUILD dictionaries do
> >> that, organizing definitions by the frequency in which derived
> >> forms are used (as worked out by corpus analysis) rather than using
> >> the same ordering for derived forms in every definition. COBUILD
> >> is what I recommend to folks learning English as a foreign language
> >> since it helps avoid unidiomatic overuse of rare forms.
> > Who participating in this discussion is a "folk learning English as
> > a foreign language"?
>
> The posters who start most of the threads here (Navi, Marius...).
> > Dictionaries for language-learners are not particularly useful for
> > typical speakers of a language, because those typical speakers are
> > typically looking for words that are _not_ part of their ordinary,
> > every-day vocabulary.
>
> The converse is also true. A dictionary that gives no information
> about which forms are commonly used and which are formally correct
> but weird-sounding rarities is a liability to a learner - ordinary
> and everyday is exactly what they're looking for, but not easy to
> achieve. We have whole comic genres parodying non-native speakers
> for over-erudite speech (formerly Highlanders, now Indians).
count" -- any sizable corpus has thousands and thousands of words that
occur once or twice. There's no possibility of ordering them.
Guy Barry
>On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 8:32:07 AM UTC-4, someone of no importance wrote,
>quoting Guy Barry
>and Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> >> "Revocable" is not a word in common usage. (It's not in my
>> >> dictionary at all.)
>> > Sounds like you need a new "your dictionary."
>>
>> I doubt if "revocable" is a headword in anybody's dictionary - you
>> need to know to look under "revoke".
>
>This "anybody's dictionary," the Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate,
>lists "revocable" (variant spelling "revokable") just before
>"revocation."
coming from "revoke" + "-able", is presumably stressed on the second
syllable. The form "revocable" comes directly from either Old French
"revocable" or Latin "revocabilis". If they were just two different
spellings of the same word you'd expect them to be pronounced the same.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
news:bogus-D2CDD1....@four.schnuerpel.eu...
>[Some anonymous person wrote:]
>>[Some other anonymous person wrote:]
>>> It's useful for a dictionary to prioritize word forms by frequency
>>> of usage, in which case "revocable" would be a long way below
>>> "irrevocable" in visibility. The Collins COBUILD dictionaries do
>>> that, organizing definitions by the frequency in which derived
>>> forms are used (as worked out by corpus analysis) rather than using
>>> the same ordering for derived forms in every definition. COBUILD
>>> is what I recommend to folks learning English as a foreign language
>>> since it helps avoid unidiomatic overuse of rare forms.
>> Who participating in this discussion is a "folk learning English as
>> a foreign language"?
>
>The posters who start most of the threads here (Navi, Marius...).
--
Guy Barry
Peter T. Daniels
'vo:-k@-b@l\ _adj_ [ME, fr. AF, fr. L _revocabilis_, fr. _revocare_]
(15c) : capable of being revoked <a ~ privilege>
(colon for macron; *bold* _italic_)
Jack Campin
>> It's useful for a dictionary to prioritize word forms by frequency
>> of usage, in which case "revocable" would be a long way below
>> "irrevocable" in visibility. The Collins COBUILD dictionaries do
>> that, organizing definitions by the frequency in which derived
>> forms are used (as worked out by corpus analysis) rather than using
>> the same ordering for derived forms in every definition. COBUILD
>> is what I recommend to folks learning English as a foreign language
>> since it helps avoid unidiomatic overuse of rare forms.
> count" -- any sizable corpus has thousands and thousands of words that
> occur once or twice. There's no possibility of ordering them.
Ross
actual frequencies of several thousand.
www.wordfrequency.info/free.asp?s=y
Hell,even in the ancient Thorndike-Lorge frequency counts (1952), the top thousand all have counts in 3 figures.
Of course any such count will have a "tail" such as you are describing,
but the purpose of the dictionaries is not to tell you whether "Parsee"
is more frequent than "parsnip", but to distinguish among near-synonyms and
major senses of words. And there is plenty of room for this in any sizable
corpus.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> It's useful for a dictionary to prioritize word forms by frequency
> >> of usage, in which case "revocable" would be a long way below
> >> "irrevocable" in visibility. The Collins COBUILD dictionaries do
> >> that, organizing definitions by the frequency in which derived
> >> forms are used (as worked out by corpus analysis) rather than using
> >> the same ordering for derived forms in every definition. COBUILD
> >> is what I recommend to folks learning English as a foreign language
> >> since it helps avoid unidiomatic overuse of rare forms.
> > After the first few hundred words, there's no such thing as "frequency
> > count" -- any sizable corpus has thousands and thousands of words that
> > occur once or twice. There's no possibility of ordering them.
>
> You haven't ever actually looked at the COBUILD dictionary, have you?
suitable for the purposes being considered here.
The American Heritage Dictionary, which was edited in reaction to the
Merriam-Webster Third International, organizes its entries by "importance"
or "goodness" instead of by history, and that's why it's not considered
useful for anything but etymologies -- for which it assembled a laudable
team.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 3:19:41 PM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:30:38 PM UTC-4, someone of no importance wrote,
> > quoting Peter T. Daniels,
> > quoting that same person:
> > > > Dictionaries for language-learners are not particularly useful for
> > > > typical speakers of a language, because those typical speakers are
> > > > typically looking for words that are _not_ part of their ordinary,
> > > > every-day vocabulary.
> > > The converse is also true. A dictionary that gives no information
> > > about which forms are commonly used and which are formally correct
> > > but weird-sounding rarities is a liability to a learner - ordinary
> > > and everyday is exactly what they're looking for, but not easy to
> > > achieve. We have whole comic genres parodying non-native speakers
> > > for over-erudite speech (formerly Highlanders, now Indians).
> > After the first few hundred words, there's no such thing as "frequency
> > count" -- any sizable corpus has thousands and thousands of words that
> > occur once or twice. There's no possibility of ordering them.
>
> FSVO "few hundred". The bottom items in the COCA "top 5000" list still have
> actual frequencies of several thousand.
> www.wordfrequency.info/free.asp?s=y
> Hell,even in the ancient Thorndike-Lorge frequency counts (1952), the top thousand all have counts in 3 figures.
> Of course any such count will have a "tail" such as you are describing,
> but the purpose of the dictionaries is not to tell you whether "Parsee"
> is more frequent than "parsnip", but to distinguish among near-synonyms and
> major senses of words. And there is plenty of room for this in any sizable
> corpus.
computer applications ever done in linguistics.
Ross
> On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:51:10 PM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 3:19:41 PM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:30:38 PM UTC-4, someone of no importance wrote,
>
> > > quoting Peter T. Daniels,
> > > quoting that same person:
>
> > > > > Dictionaries for language-learners are not particularly useful for
> > > > > typical speakers of a language, because those typical speakers are
> > > > > typically looking for words that are _not_ part of their ordinary,
> > > > > every-day vocabulary.
>
> > > > The converse is also true. A dictionary that gives no information
> > > > about which forms are commonly used and which are formally correct
> > > > but weird-sounding rarities is a liability to a learner - ordinary
> > > > and everyday is exactly what they're looking for, but not easy to
> > > > achieve. We have whole comic genres parodying non-native speakers
> > > > for over-erudite speech (formerly Highlanders, now Indians).
> > > After the first few hundred words, there's no such thing as "frequency
> > > count" -- any sizable corpus has thousands and thousands of words that
> > > occur once or twice. There's no possibility of ordering them.
> >
> > FSVO "few hundred". The bottom items in the COCA "top 5000" list still have
> > actual frequencies of several thousand.
>
> > www.wordfrequency.info/free.asp?s=y
>
> > Hell,even in the ancient Thorndike-Lorge frequency counts (1952), the top thousand all have counts in 3 figures.
>
> HOW MANY WORDS UNDER EACH NUMBER, or under each decan?
endless series of demands for further information in order to avoid
admitting that your pronouncement was erroneous?
Peter T. Daniels
Have you ever actually _looked_ at
Hanna, Paul R., Jean S. Hanna, Richard E. Hodges, and Edwin H. Rudorf Jr. 1966.
Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences as Cues to Spelling Improvement. Washington,
D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office for Office of Education, Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
Ross
> On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:40:56 PM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 15, 2014 3:31:47 PM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:51:10 PM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 3:19:41 PM UTC+12, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:30:38 PM UTC-4, someone of no importance wrote, > > > > > quoting Peter T. Daniels,
> > > > > quoting that same person:
> > > > > > > Dictionaries for language-learners are not particularly useful for > > > > > > > typical speakers of a language, because those typical speakers are > > > > > > > typically looking for words that are _not_ part of their ordinary, > > > > > > > every-day vocabulary.
>
> > > > > > The converse is also true. A dictionary that gives no information
> > > > > > about which forms are commonly used and which are formally correct
> > > > > > but weird-sounding rarities is a liability to a learner - ordinary
> > > > > > and everyday is exactly what they're looking for, but not easy to
> > > > > > achieve. We have whole comic genres parodying non-native speakers
> > > > > > for over-erudite speech (formerly Highlanders, now Indians).
> > > > > After the first few hundred words, there's no such thing as "frequency > > > > > count" -- any sizable corpus has thousands and thousands of words that > > > > > occur once or twice. There's no possibility of ordering them.
>
> > > > FSVO "few hundred". The bottom items in the COCA "top 5000" list still
> > > > have actual frequencies of several thousand.
> > > > www.wordfrequency.info/free.asp?s=y
>
> > > > Hell,even in the ancient Thorndike-Lorge frequency counts (1952), the top thousand all have counts in 3 figures.
>
> > > HOW MANY WORDS UNDER EACH NUMBER, or under each decan?
>
> > Excuse me, what are you shouting about? Is this just going to be another
> > endless series of demands for further information in order to avoid
> > admitting that your pronouncement was erroneous?
>
> Why did you come over here and join the ranks of the nitpickers?
> Have you ever actually _looked_ at
> Hanna, Paul R., Jean S. Hanna, Richard E. Hodges, and Edwin H. Rudorf Jr. 1966.> Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondences as Cues to Spelling Improvement. Washington,> D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office for Office of Education, Department of> Health, Education, and Welfare.
Jack Campin
> Jack Campin wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> It's useful for a dictionary to prioritize word forms by frequency
>>>> of usage, in which case "revocable" would be a long way below
>>>> "irrevocable" in visibility. The Collins COBUILD dictionaries do
>>>> that, organizing definitions by the frequency in which derived
>>>> forms are used (as worked out by corpus analysis) rather than using
>>>> the same ordering for derived forms in every definition. COBUILD
>>>> is what I recommend to folks learning English as a foreign language
>>>> since it helps avoid unidiomatic overuse of rare forms.
>>> After the first few hundred words, there's no such thing as "frequency
>>> count" -- any sizable corpus has thousands and thousands of words that
>>> occur once or twice. There's no possibility of ordering them.
>> You haven't ever actually looked at the COBUILD dictionary, have you?
> As I said, I am not concerned with learners' dictionaries. They are not
> suitable for the purposes being considered here.
purposes are relevant.
You haven't either looked at the dictionary or at any of the research
behind it, have you? Despite the fact that it goes back 20 years?
James Hogg
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Jack Campin wrote:
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> It's useful for a dictionary to prioritize word forms by frequency
>>>>> of usage, in which case "revocable" would be a long way below
>>>>> "irrevocable" in visibility. The Collins COBUILD dictionaries do
>>>>> that, organizing definitions by the frequency in which derived
>>>>> forms are used (as worked out by corpus analysis) rather than using
>>>>> the same ordering for derived forms in every definition. COBUILD
>>>>> is what I recommend to folks learning English as a foreign language
>>>>> since it helps avoid unidiomatic overuse of rare forms.
>>>> After the first few hundred words, there's no such thing as "frequency
>>>> count" -- any sizable corpus has thousands and thousands of words that
>>>> occur once or twice. There's no possibility of ordering them.
>>> You haven't ever actually looked at the COBUILD dictionary, have you?
>> As I said, I am not concerned with learners' dictionaries. They are not
>> suitable for the purposes being considered here.
>
> I posted the article you chose to comment on, so I get to choose what
> purposes are relevant.
>
> You haven't either looked at the dictionary or at any of the research
> behind it, have you? Despite the fact that it goes back 20 years?
--
James
cdal...@gmail.com
The reason it does not look like there is a pronunciation guide for that word is because all syllables are pronounced with equal emphasis. There is no specific syllable to which a stroke would be shown for emphasizing that particular part of the word.
Sorry, I would love to stand in solidarity with another woman, but this time I have to go with the man.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
misleading information to readers who may not recognize for what it is.
> or if you've had a good explanation, but here is mine:
> The reason it does not look like there is a pronunciation guide for
> that word is because all syllables are pronounced with equal emphasis.
emphasis on the second syllable, the other four being very weak.
However, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear the third
syllable strongly stressed. If you were talking about the French word
"irrévocable" then saying "all syllables are pronounced with equal
emphasis" is not too grossly far from reality, but for the English
word, which I suppose you are referring to, it bears no relation to
reality.
> There is no specific syllable to which a stroke would be shown for
> emphasizing that particular part of the word.
> Sorry, I would love to stand in solidarity with another woman, but this
> time I have to go with the man.
athel
Richard Heathfield
> On 2016-06-26 16:41:30 +0000, cdal...@gmail.com said:
>
>> The reason it does not look like there is a pronunciation guide for
> That is complete nonsense. Most people I know pronounce it with strong
> emphasis on the second syllable, the other four being very weak.
> However, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear the third syllable
> strongly stressed.
I pronounce the word like this: ɪˈrɛvəkəb(ə)l
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Whiskers
> On 26/06/16 18:36, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2016-06-26 16:41:30 +0000, cdal...@gmail.com said:
>>
> <snip>
>
>>> The reason it does not look like there is a pronunciation guide for
>>> [irrevocable] is because all syllables are pronounced with equal
>>> emphasis.
>>
>> That is complete nonsense. Most people I know pronounce it with
>> strong emphasis on the second syllable, the other four being very
>> weak. However, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear the
>> third syllable strongly stressed.
>
> I concur. (And indeed I /have/ curred on occasion.)
>
> I pronounce the word like this: ɪˈrɛvəkəb(ə)l
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Whiskers
> Don't know how long ago you posted this,
> or if you've had a good explanation,
in 2014. Google tells you that too.
> but here is mine: The reason it does not look like there
> is a pronunciation guide for that word is because all syllables are
> pronounced with equal emphasis. There is no specific syllable to which
> a stroke would be shown for emphasizing that particular part of the
> word. Sorry, I would love to stand in solidarity with another woman,
> but this time I have to go with the man.
What I'm interested in knowing is, how did you find the usenet article
you replied to? What software were you using? What sort of hardware
(desktop computer in a public library, mobile phone on a bus, or what?).
What did you do to bring that article to your attention? Did you know
you were posting to a usenet newsgroup? Do you know what usenet is?
Will you ever see the replies to your article and respond to them?
Jerry Friedman
> On 2016-06-26, cdal...@gmail.com <cdal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Don't know how long ago you posted this,
>
> 1996-08-31. Or 31/08/1996. It says so right there in the Google interface.
>
>> or if you've had a good explanation,
>
> 56 posts prior to yours, from 25 authors. Some from a previous revival
> in 2014. Google tells you that too.
>
>> but here is mine: The reason it does not look like there
>> is a pronunciation guide for that word is because all syllables are
>> pronounced with equal emphasis. There is no specific syllable to which
>> a stroke would be shown for emphasizing that particular part of the
>> word. Sorry, I would love to stand in solidarity with another woman,
>> but this time I have to go with the man.
>
> Others can give you flack for that.
> What I'm interested in knowing is, how did you find the usenet article
> you replied to? What software were you using? What sort of hardware
> (desktop computer in a public library, mobile phone on a bus, or what?).
> What did you do to bring that article to your attention? Did you know
> you were posting to a usenet newsgroup? Do you know what usenet is?
> Will you ever see the replies to your article and respond to them?
--
Jerry Friedman
"No Trump" bridge-themed political shirts: cafepress.com/jerrysdesigns
Bumper stickers ditto: cafepress/jerrysstickers
Charles Bishop
--
charles
bill van
rec.music.opera, which has no traffic to speak of these days. He replied
that he had found the post he was replying to on Google Groups using a
web browser on a Windows computer, nothing exotic. He seemed to
understand that it was an old post, but did not appear to have thought
through the implications of that. What counted for him was the subject
material: commentary on an obscure tenor he had admired in his youth.
--
bill
Peter Moylan
couple of weeks before posting, in order to get a feel for the customs
of the group. There has never, however, been a rule that you have to
wait for 20 years.
You forgot to quote the relevant part of what you were responding to, so
it's not clear who you were answering. It's fairly unlikely, though,
that that person is still around.
In any case, I hope you've enjoyed the discussion that your article
triggered. Zombie threads are resurrected only occasionally, so we're
always curious to know what went wrong.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Dingbat
> Okay, my husband and I are involved in a major argument!!! How do you
> pronounce irrevocable? I've always thought the accent was on the "o"
> and he accents the first "e." We looked in our "big" dictionary (the
> one with thousands of entries) and the word is there, but no
> pronunciation.
>
> Thanks.
> Krista
The Cambridge dictionary's UK and US pronunciations both agree with your husband's.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/irrevocable
Whiskers
replying to articles more than about six weeks old. Or perhaps it was
Google taking over from DejaNews. Unless DejaNews was the error. The
first is revocable, the others now probably irrevocable.
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Whiskers
> On 28/06/16 16:24, Whiskers wrote:
> <snip>
>> The first is revocable, the others now probably irrevocable.
>
> Just for the sake of clarity, do you mean 'irrevocable' or 'irrevocable'?
Dr. HotSalt
> shelly...@empire.ca wrote in message
> news:8346d693-7bdd-485a...@googlegroups.com...
> >On Saturday, August 31, 1996 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Krista Claassen wrote:
> >> Okay, my husband and I are involved in a major argument!!! How do you
> >> pronounce irrevocable? I've always thought the accent was on the "o"
> >> and he accents the first "e." We looked in our "big" dictionary (the
> >> one with thousands of entries) and the word is there, but no
> >> pronunciation.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >> Krista
>
> I doubt whether the original poster is reading this eighteen years later,
> but although the established pronunciation has the stress on the "e" (which
> is the one I use), I'm starting to hear it with the stress on the "o" more
> frequently. I still regard it as an error, but maybe it's beginning to take
> over.
Yeesh. I didn't even notice this was a necropost until you mentioned it.
Checking the activity of the poster who dragged it out of its grave I see one, singular, post from that account.
Weird.
Dr. HotSalt