Processeez (was: Pronounciation of "Data")
Mark Eckenwiler
began pronouncing "processes" with a terminal "eez"?
I can only speculate that this abomination arose by false analogy to
"basis/bases" and similar borrowings from Latin/Greek.
--
For he hath killed the ichneumon rat, very pernicious by land
Mark Eckenwiler e...@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
John Flanagan
>On a related note, can anyone pinpoint when the majority of Americans
>began pronouncing "processes" with a terminal "eez"?
>I can only speculate that this abomination arose by false analogy to
>"basis/bases" and similar borrowings from Latin/Greek.
As one who uses this pronunciation, I can attest that this
"abomination" comes not from any kind of analogy to classical
borrowings, but simply to keep all of the "s" sounds at the end
of the word from slurring together. I find it physically more
difficult to say "process-<schwa>-s" than to say "process-eez."
And you know how lazy we Americans are.
--
John Flanagan Center for EUV Astrophysics
jo...@ssl.berkeley.edu University of California
(...!ucbvax!soc1.ssl!johnf) Berkeley, CA 94720
"This may be stupid, but that's what we believe."
Herschel Browne
(John Flanagan) says:
>
>In article <1991Sep7.0...@panix.com> e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
>writes:
>>On a related note, can anyone pinpoint when the majority of Americans
>>began pronouncing "processes" with a terminal "eez"?
>
Could you please stop using it? Thanks!
H.
John Flanagan
Oh, OK.
>Thanks!
No problem.
>H.
J.
Raymond Michiels
>On a related note, can anyone pinpoint when the majority of Americans
>began pronouncing "processes" with a terminal "eez"?
When someone is giving a lecture about distributed computing, for instance,
it might be kinda difficult to distinguish "processors" for "processes."
I think that "processeez" might have been invented to be able to stress
"processes" in "We have 24 processors each running multiple processes."
-Raymond.
Robert Mollitor
No. You're welcome.
robt
--
Robert Mollitor rob...@visix.com
Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!robert
Natalie Maynor
>>>began pronouncing "processes" with a terminal "eez"?
As the >>> may show, I haven't been reading much of usenet lately and thus
missed the original (which I really didn't miss since I see it reposted
here). Do the majority of Americans pronounce "processes" with a terminal
"eez"??? Although I have heard it occasionally, it has always struck me
as strange. The majority of people I've heard use the word do not use the
"eez" ending. It's [prasEsIz].
--
--Natalie (n...@ra.msstate.edu)
Kathleen Much
>Do the majority of Americans pronounce "processes" with a terminal
>"eez"??? Although I have heard it occasionally, it has always struck me
>as strange. The majority of people I've heard use the word do not use the
>"eez" ending. It's [prasEsIz].
It sounds strange to me, too, although I have heard it from time to
time. I'd understand it but never use it. It seems to be a sort of
hypercorrection, used by people who think it sounds more scientific
than plain old ordinary processes. They probably wouldn't use the -eez
pronunciation out of a scientific context.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Much, Editor |E-mail: kath...@casbs.stanford.EDU
CASBS, 202 Junipero Serra Blvd. |Phone: (415) 321-2052
Stanford, CA 94305 |Fax: (415) 321-1192
David A. Johns
# In article <1991Sep7.0...@panix.com> e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
# >On a related note, can anyone pinpoint when the majority of Americans
# >began pronouncing "processes" with a terminal "eez"?
#
# >I can only speculate that this abomination arose by false analogy to
# >"basis/bases" and similar borrowings from Latin/Greek.
#
# As one who uses this pronunciation, I can attest that this
# "abomination" comes not from any kind of analogy to classical
# borrowings, but simply to keep all of the "s" sounds at the end
# of the word from slurring together. I find it physically more
# difficult to say "process-<schwa>-s" than to say "process-eez."
# And you know how lazy we Americans are.
#
I take it, then, that you would say "The Post Office process-eez
10 billion letters a day"?
And how would you explain the same plural on bias, premise, purpose,
promise, and several more I've heard from "naive native speakers"?
David Johns
John Haxby
|> In article <JOHNF.91S...@gualala.ssl.berkeley.edu> jo...@ssl.berkeley.edu (John Flanagan) writes:
|> # In article <1991Sep7.0...@panix.com> e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
|> # >On a related note, can anyone pinpoint when the majority of Americans
|> # >began pronouncing "processes" with a terminal "eez"?
|> #
|> # >I can only speculate that this abomination arose by false analogy to
|> # >"basis/bases" and similar borrowings from Latin/Greek.
Well, I use `process-eez' instead of the usual pronunciation to distinguish
processes from processors in speech: you've no idea the confusion that
can be caused when talking about computers with more than one processor
running more than one process.
--
John Haxby, Definitively Wrong.
Digital <j...@wessex.rdg.dec.com>
Reading, England <...!ukc!wessex!jch>
----------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed herein are my own, not my employers.
John Flanagan
>In article <JOHNF.91S...@gualala.ssl.berkeley.edu> jo...@ssl.berkeley.edu (John Flanagan) writes:
># In article <1991Sep7.0...@panix.com> e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
># >On a related note, can anyone pinpoint when the majority of Americans
># >began pronouncing "processes" with a terminal "eez"?
>#
># >I can only speculate that this abomination arose by false analogy to
># >"basis/bases" and similar borrowings from Latin/Greek.
>#
># As one who uses this pronunciation, I can attest that this
># "abomination" comes not from any kind of analogy to classical
># borrowings, but simply to keep all of the "s" sounds at the end
># of the word from slurring together. I find it physically more
># difficult to say "process-<schwa>-s" than to say "process-eez."
># And you know how lazy we Americans are.
>#
>
>I take it, then, that you would say "The Post Office process-eez
>10 billion letters a day"?
Good question.
No. The stresses in the word "processes" are different when it is
used as a verb than when it is used as a noun. Something like:
v: pro' ces'' ses
n: pro' ces ses''
(' denotes primary stress, '' denotes secondary stress)
When the secondary stress is on the third syllable instead of on the
second, I find that if I don't lengthen the "e" sound, I tend to slip
an "r" sound after the schwa -- which would risk confusion with
"processors" (pro' ces sors''), as someone else has mentioned.
>And how would you explain the same plural on bias, premise, purpose,
>promise, and several more I've heard from "naive native speakers"?
I wouldn't. Since I don't use the "eez" plural on these words,
I don't presume to explain why others might do so.
>David Johns
gordon e. banks
>began pronouncing "processes" with a terminal "eez"?
>
as "sawntimeter". Only those who think it makes them sound more
educated or who don't know any better. I don't think it is the
majority. Common people would never say processeez. It really
grates on my ear.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks N3JXP | "When in danger, or in doubt
g...@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu | Run in circles, scream and shout" --Heinlein
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Eckenwiler
>In article <nm1.68...@Ra.MsState.Edu> n...@ra.MsState.Edu (Natalie Maynor) writes:
>>Do the majority of Americans pronounce "processes" with a terminal
>>"eez"??? Although I have heard it occasionally, it has always struck me
>>as strange. The majority of people I've heard use the word do not use the
>>"eez" ending. It's [prasEsIz].
>
>It sounds strange to me, too, although I have heard it from time to
>time. I'd understand it but never use it. It seems to be a sort of
>hypercorrection, used by people who think it sounds more scientific
>than plain old ordinary processes. They probably wouldn't use the -eez
>pronunciation out of a scientific context.
I would have thought this until recently, when my fellow law clerk (a
poli-sci major and future ass't US atty) used it in an entirely non-
scientific context.
It's true, though, that I heard it much more frequently in the
software companies I worked for.
Robert Mollitor
># In article <1991Sep7.0...@panix.com> e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
># >On a related note, can anyone pinpoint when the majority of Americans
># >began pronouncing "processes" with a terminal "eez"?
>#
># >I can only speculate that this abomination arose by false analogy to
># >"basis/bases" and similar borrowings from Latin/Greek.
>I take it, then, that you would say "The Post Office process-eez
>10 billion letters a day"?
No. I use the 'prahseseez' pronunciation for the plural noun
but not for the inflected verb. I would guess that this has something
to do with false analogy mentioned above. While I agree that the analogy
is strictly improper, I think it is an easy one to make. Probably
because of the two 's' sounds. I am sure I have accidentally used
an 'akseseez' pronunciation for the plural of "axis" because my
derivational engine outpaced my memory engine. However, I do not
view my pronunciation of "processes" (the plural noun) as a mistake:
it feels natural. Nor do I feel that the 'prahses' pronunciation of
"process" is inferior (or superior) to the 'proeses' one: they are
just different.
>And how would you explain the same plural on bias, premise, purpose,
>promise, and several more I've heard from "naive native speakers"?
Are you saying you have heard a 'biaseez' pronunciation of "biases", etc.
I do not recall ever hearing any of these. Anyway, they do not have
two 's' sounds in their singular forms. I use an 'akseseez' pronunciation
for the plural of "access", but maybe not consistently.
Robert Mollitor
>In article <1991Sep7.0...@panix.com> e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>On a related note, can anyone pinpoint when the majority of Americans
>>began pronouncing "processes" with a terminal "eez"?
>About the same time the same people started pronouncing centimeter
>as "sawntimeter".
I use the 'prahseseez' pronunciation of "processes" but not the
'sawntimeter' pronunciation of "centimeter". I see neither the
connection nor the analogy at all.
>Only those who think it makes them sound more
>educated or who don't know any better.
I did not choose this pronunciation consciously. I have never evaluated
how it makes me sound to others. I am certainly not going to change
so that you think I sound more educated. You might say I didn't know
better because I never really thought it was a problem for other people.
But I think "better" is a stupid word to use here.
>I don't think it is the majority.
Maybe it's part of a dialect, then. Maybe someday I can giggle at your
dialect.
>Common people would never say processeez.
You are wrong simply because you say "never". Are people who need to use
the plural noun "processes" a lot exempt from being "common people"?
Are you a common person?
>It really grates on my ear.
As I said, I never knew it grated on anyone's ear. It sounds perfectly
natural to me.
John Flanagan
>>On a related note, can anyone pinpoint when the majority of Americans
>>began pronouncing "processes" with a terminal "eez"?
>>
>About the same time the same people started pronouncing centimeter
>as "sawntimeter". Only those who think it makes them sound more
>educated or who don't know any better. I don't think it is the
>majority. Common people would never say processeez. It really
>grates on my ear.
Yeah, right, I do it to sound more educated. Why must you make
the most uncharitable assumption?
And I've never heard anyone say "sawntimeter."
William F Phillips
:About the same time the same people started pronouncing centimeter
:as "sawntimeter". Only those who think it makes them sound more
:educated or who don't know any better. I don't think it is the
This bizarreness seems to have originated with obstetricians, who,
for unfathomable reasons, pronounce "centimeter" half in French and
half in English. In French it's something like:
sawn-tee-MET<gargle>
(Note that it's spelled as in British, "centimetre", which I wouldn't
mind seeing used here (US). Of course, it's a French word to begin
with.)
There are times when a clear distinction between "meter" (as in
parking meter) and "metre" (as in 39.37 inches) would be useful, IMHO.
--
___ ___ _ | Bill Phillips,
(/__) . /) /) (/__) /_ . /) /) . _ _ | Friend Of A Friend
/__) (__(__(___ / / )_(__(__(__(_ /_)_/_)_ |
( ( ( | w...@world.std.com
Charlie Sorsby
=And I've never heard anyone say "sawntimeter."
=
I have and it confused the hell out of me until I figured out what
she was saying from the context. I thought that she was talking
about some sort of sonic instrument. As I recall, this particular
person put little if any emphasis on the first "t" so it sounded
(to me) more like "sawnimeter" but it's been more than fifteen
years... Incidentally, this was in a medical context if that's a
clue to anything.
My assumption was (probably wrong--they frequently are) that it
derives from the French pronunciation of the prefix "cent-". And,
before everyone gets on my case, no, I don't speak French and what
little knowledge I have of the language is spotty and largely
inaccurate.
Best,
Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby "I'm the NRA!"
c...@lanl.gov
Charlie Sorsby
=(Note that it's spelled as in British, "centimetre", which I wouldn't
=mind seeing used here (US). Of course, it's a French word to begin
=with.)
Actually, I think it *should* be. I believe that "metre" and
"litre" are the International Standard (SI) spellings of those
units (see ASTM Metric Practice Guide, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, 1973).
Charlie
de...@twg.com
>>About the same time the same people started pronouncing centimeter
>>as "sawntimeter". Only those who think it makes them sound more
>>educated or who don't know any better. I don't think it is the
Are you putting them both in the same category? ;-)
>
>Yeah, right, I do it to sound more educated. Why must you make
>the most uncharitable assumption?
I think Mr. Banks may be correct. Some time ago I heard
an interview of John (?) Chancellor (sp?), a TV personality
at one of the major TV networks in the US. The interviewer
pointed out that Mr. Chancellor had actually changed the pronunciation
of his name as he came into prominence (so that now he pronounces
his name with an 'o' in his last name- probably rhyming with the word
'lore,' whereas earlier he said it more like 'chanceller').
Someone please correct me on this if I am wrong (and I know you would :) I don't know whether this is done with names only and not with words.
Someone from Japan, or someone who knows about the Japanese
culture could confirm this - I remember vaguely that Japanese
people change their names (or the pronunciation of their names,
don't know which) when they attain some stature. [If this is
of no interest, just ignore it. No flames about this not
belonging here and so on. And if you just cannot resist hitting
the 'f'***ing key (flaming, that is ;-), then please send "kinder,
gentler" flames, preferably by e-mail.]
Deven
--
Robert Mollitor
>In article <JOHNF.91S...@gualala.ssl.berkeley.edu> jo...@ssl.berkeley.edu (John Flanagan) writes:
>>In article <11...@pitt.UUCP> g...@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:
>>>About the same time the same people started pronouncing centimeter
>>>as "sawntimeter". Only those who think it makes them sound more
>>>educated or who don't know any better. I don't think it is the
>>
>>the most uncharitable assumption?
>
> I think Mr. Banks may be correct. Some time ago I heard
> an interview of John (?) Chancellor (sp?), a TV personality
> at one of the major TV networks in the US. The interviewer
> pointed out that Mr. Chancellor had actually changed the pronunciation
> of his name as he came into prominence (so that now he pronounces
> his name with an 'o' in his last name- probably rhyming with the word
> 'lore,' whereas earlier he said it more like 'chanceller').
> Someone please correct me on this if I am wrong (and I know you would :) I don't know whether this is done with names only and not with words.
>
> Someone from Japan, or someone who knows about the Japanese
> culture could confirm this - I remember vaguely that Japanese
> people change their names (or the pronunciation of their names,
> don't know which) when they attain some stature.
You jump from saying that some people change pronunciations for reasons
of appearance to saying that a particular variation of pronunciation
(that of "processes", not of "sawntimeter", which no one has yet defended
for English speakers) is because of appearance. I accept the first
part but not the second. People do change pronunciations as their
circle of acquaintances changes, but I think the majority of these
changes are unconscious.
If you could document people being mocked for using the 'prahseses' or
'prahsesiz' pronunciations, that would be a different and compelling
argument. This thread documents people being mocked for using the
'prahseseez' pronunciation, so one could say that people might change
from this pronunciation in order to seem more educated.
David A. Johns
#
# Well, I use `process-eez' instead of the usual pronunciation to distinguish
# processes from processors in speech: you've no idea the confusion that
# can be caused when talking about computers with more than one processor
# running more than one process.
#
Actually, I had a British instructor once who tried to tell a joke that
depended on the homonymy of 'processors' and 'processes', not realizing
that in this neck of the woods no one would ever confuse them. The
audience was totally baffled.
David Johns
David A. Johns
#
# If you could document people being mocked for using the 'prahseses' or
# 'prahsesiz' pronunciations, that would be a different and compelling
# argument. This thread documents people being mocked for using the
# 'prahseseez' pronunciation, so one could say that people might change
# from this pronunciation in order to seem more educated.
#
Well, I hear both the pronunciations and the mockery thereof all the
time, but most of my friends are linguists, and they can't help it.
They love to mock the 'eez' plurals by backforming new singulars:
"We are dealing with a totally new processee here ...." This
parallels such computerese barbarisms (hey, I some of my best friends
are barbarians) as "open parenthesee" and 'mnemonic' pronounced like
'pneumonic'.
A related phenomena (slap!) is the attempt by newscasters (CNN's in
particular, I think) to pronounce foreign (oops! international) names
with some sort of foreign phonology, whether it's correct for the
language in question or not. Most similar to the current thread is
the common pronunciation of Spanish 'Enrique' as 'Awnrique', as if
it were half French. Strongly rolled 'r's are another example; I
recently heard CNN's Reid Collins refer to Juan Perron, which I'm
sure wouldn't have amused the late dictator. He's even more
hilarious pronouncing Japanese or French words this way. Another
example is the habit of some British announcers to transform Russian
into German, pronouncing Stalin's name as 'ShtalEEN'.
A little knowledge makes the world much more entertaining.
David Johns
gordon e. banks
I was just trying to make a joke about "sounding more educated".
Seriously, I first noticed this pronunciation when I got to college.
The "common" people that I grew up with would say "processuz" and
then all of a sudden I noticed the "processeez". My assumption was
that it was done that way because people learned a little about
Greek plurals in their science courses and then overgeneralized it to
this word. It seemed to be mostly scientists that did it. I noticed
that after a while, my fellow students were doing it too. The
same thing happened when I got to medical school. Here it was
"sawntimeter". Soon, some of the medical students were also
saying "sawntimeter" because some professor used that Frenchified
pronunciation in class. I think the problem comes from hearing
someone we think is better educated than us using a term a certain
way, and so we change our pronunciation to match, but in these
two cases, (I think), it sounds worse. Yes, I know, both of them
are listed as secondary acceptible pronunciations in Webster, so
go ahead and use them if you want, but to my ear, they both sound
somewhat phoney.
Jane Philcox
>I had a British instructor once who tried to tell a joke that
>depended on the homonymy of 'processors' and 'processes', not realizing
>that in this neck of the woods no one would ever confuse them. The
>audience was totally baffled.
Reminds me of a joke I heard when I was a kid that bewildered me entirely. The
hand in the circus comes to the owner's wife and tells her that the boss is
sending a packet of lion's tails. Not unnaturally, she's surprised, and
questions this. The hand says "Well, he phoned, and said he'd bought three
lovely lions, and was sending the tails by mail."
Of course, it was a racist joke, the hand being black, the dialect given in
the spelling that was considered correct for blacks way back then (and I think
the book I found it in was actually pre-war), and the whole thing turned on
the word "details" being pronounced with the accent on the second syllable.
But here in Australia, we pronounce it with the accent on the first syllable...
Regards, Jane.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF HUMAN STUPIDITY
______________________________________________________________________________