Pronunciation watch

[Lat-Literal]

... different editors / publishing houses will have different style books. Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press Oxford advises :

'Single marks are to be used for a first quotation; then double for a quotation within a quotation. If there should be yet another quotation within the second quotation it is necessary to revert to single quotation marks.'

Thanks vinteuil.

Does that suggest:

(i) Variations are acceptable from individual to individual as there are variations in the rules

and

(ii) The rules don't distinguish between actual quotes, ie He said "I think I will join FoR3", and other things like titles, ie "Late Junction"?

Also, do you have a rule on the pronunciation of the word "says"? It sounds completely wrong to me when it isn't pronounced as "sez".

I don't like the modern pronunciation of "Barclays" either, irrespective of region. I feel it should be a "liz" or "lees" and never a "laze".

[vinteuil]

3. Choosing to be wrong as an individual "style":

If one prefers to have one or two aspects of writing that are in principle absolutely wrong, can this ever be acceptable on the grounds that it is an individual's chosen style? For example, can one ever really put forward convincingly the "I know that in strict terms it is wrong - but it never had an adverse impact on ee cummings etc" sort of argument?

... but what might you mean by 'wrong'?

'Wrong' according to whom?

Who do you judge might have any authority to determine what is 'wrong'?

We do not have an equivalent to the Académie française here. And if we did, why should we adhere to their prescriptions?

[Lat-Literal]

... but what might you mean by 'wrong'?

'Wrong' according to whom?

Who do you judge might have any authority to determine what is 'wrong'?

We do not have an equivalent to the Académie française here. And if we did, why should we adhere to their prescriptions?

Well, I suppose it is possible to write "ain't" in a knowing way as emphasis - "That ain't right!" - but if someone says "ain't" on every occasion he could have been saying "isn't" that wouldn't be right, would it, and consequently it would be wrong. Or am I wrong? Incidentally, I've chosen an "american cockneyism" as an example to show this isn't an 'anti-north'.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... different editors / publishers will have different house style guides. Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press Oxford advises :

'Single marks are to be used for a first quotation; then double for a quotation within a quotation. If there should be yet another quotation within the second quotation it is necessary to revert to single quotation marks.'

Almost the exact wording used by Cambridge Unniversity Press, too - save that they use the recommendation "should be used" rather than the instruction "are to be used".

As may be inferred from that statement, I prefer the other way round.

[Lat-Literal]

Almost the exact wording used by Cambridge Unniversity Press, too - save that they use the recommendation "should be used" rather than the instruction "are to be used".

As may be inferred from that statement, I prefer the other way round.

Although I use two for both. A part of it is stylistic. Another part is the ridiculous layout of a standard keyboard in which ""......."" and "'......'" are in very different places!

......on a different note but similarly in the area of writing-meets-speech, is it a reasonable assumption to consider that someone who is writing in capitals is "shouting"?

[french frank]

......on a different note but similarly in the area of writing-meets-speech, is it a reasonable assumption to consider that someone who is writing in capitals is "shouting"?

Yes, but possibly not always with the same intention: are they shouting at you, or are they indicating that someone else was shouting on some other occasion?

Also, on the BBC [sic] messageboards there was a member who wrote all his posts in capitals and other members did indicate their annoyance/difficulty in reading them. But it turned out he was completely blind and using a special software to read and write.

[Lat-Literal]

Yes, but possibly not always with the same intention: are they shouting at you, or are they indicating that someone else was shouting on some other occasion?

Also, on the BBC [sic] messageboards there was a member who wrote all his posts in capitals and other members did indicate their annoyance/difficulty in reading them. But it turned out he was completely blind and using a special software to read and write.

Yes.

Good points.

Do you have a view on "Saze" and "Barclaze"?

[subcontrabass]

Yes.

Good points.

Do you have a view on "Saze" and "Barclaze"?

How do you pronounce the name "Barclay"? The bank is named after the members of the Barclay family who developed one of the banks that merged into the larger organisation.

[Lat-Literal]

How do you pronounce the name "Barclay"? The bank is named after the members of the Barclay family who developed one of the banks that merged into the larger organisation.

Bark Lee.

It sounds like Bark Liz in the plural.

[french frank]

Do you have a view on "Saze" and "Barclaze"?

Sez and Loydz.

[Lat-Literal]

Sez and Loydz.

Thanks.

It sounds like a hip-hop duo in a pharmacy.

But you are quite right!

[Pabmusic]

Thanks vinteuil.

Does that suggest:

(i) Variations are acceptable from individual to individual as there are variations in the rules

and

(ii) The rules don't distinguish between actual quotes, ie He said "I think I will join FoR3", and other things like titles, ie "Late Junction"?

Also, do you have a rule on the pronunciation of the word "says"? It sounds completely wrong to me when it isn't pronounced as "sez".

I don't like the modern pronunciation of "Barclays" either, irrespective of region. I feel it should be a "liz" or "lees" and never a "laze".

As far as (i) is concerned, you are a little too concerned about rules. Many, even most, matters of pronunciation have nothing to do with rules, but everything to do with convention. An example I've given before is that we all pronounce Edward Elgar 'wrongly'. It was (for most of Elgar's life, at least) ed-WARD EL-guh. The 'ward' rhymed with 'hard'. The Edwardian age was pronounced similarly. Why? Well, that's how it was (Edward is a Germanic name and the pronunciation followed the German Eduard). It changed after WW1 (perhaps the mix of accents in the trenches, and anti-German feelings, had something to do with it) and by the end of his life, Elgar must have heard our modern pronunciation quite regularly.

On a similar point, it seems that Sir George Everest, after whom the mountain is named, pronounced his name Ee-vrist, or something like it.

As for (ii), I posted this yesterday on a different thread:

Without the constraint of a house style, I use " for quotations* and direct speech, and ' for quotes within quotes and for 'tentative' or 'so-called' usages.

* Though, if it's a long quote, it's probably better as an indented paragraph with no inverted commas.

[Lat-Literal]

As far as (i) is concerned, you are a little too concerned about rules. Many, even most, matters of pronunciation have nothing to do with rules, but everything to do with convention. An example I've given before is that we all pronounce Edward Elgar 'wrongly'. It was (for most of Elgar's life, at least) ed-WARD EL-guh. The 'ward' rhymed with 'hard'. The Edwardian age was pronounced similarly. Why? Well, that's how it was (Edward is a Germanic name and the pronunciation followed the German Eduard). It changed after WW1 (perhaps the mix of accents in the trenches, and anti-German feelings, had something to do with it) and by the end of his life, Elgar must have heard our modern pronunciation quite regularly.

On a similar point, it seems that Sir George Everest, after whom the mountain is named, pronounced his name Ee-vrist, or something like it.

As for (ii), I posted this yesterday on a different thread:

Without the constraint of a house style, I use " for quotations* and direct speech, and ' for quotes within quotes and for 'tentative' or 'so-called' usages.

* Though, if it's a long quote, it's probably better as an indented paragraph with no inverted commas.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to reply to my post. In regard to (ii), I sense that you are right. I will probably keep to a double for everything as it is easier to type. As for your first points - very interesting - and I am not wholly surprised as the pronunciations you cite remind me a little of speech heard in early newsreel etc. Surely, though, if one's name is constantly being pronounced differently it must be rather irksome. When I "went north", it was only in one area where I consciously altered how I said things and that was in terms of names. Place names. To this day, I make sure that I pronounce "Doncaster" in a northern way and I try my utmost to do the same with "Newcastle" although I don't think I have ever comfortably achieved the latter without sounding as if I am making a conscious effort! The difference there is that it also requires an "Elgar" shift of emphasis.

[Lat-Literal]

According to a new study, the one place in Britain where pronunciation has changed at a much slower pace so as to be barely noticeable is Glasgow. The report on R4 commenced with a reference to the modern trend for "upwards inflection" - ie Kylie and Jason Syndrome - and comment to the effect that the media are also in Glasgow. Hence, the marked difference there is a little strange. An "expert" was permitted to explain. She confirmed in a very modern way of speaking that would not have been well received on R3 that the conclusion was based on tapes of soldiers from Glasgow. In a very old interview they had spoken about how they had been imprisoned during fighting in WW1. But beforehand, the woman in charge of the study provided an introduction of fewer than a dozen words in which she used the upwards inflection twice. Was it being done ironically? Apparently not!

[french frank]

Is this 'upward inflection' as used by Australians notable because of the frequency with which it's used, or is it that it's used without any hint of the 'normal' (over here!) element of querying?