Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

How would you pronounce "one"?

I pronounce it "wonn".
But my very posh primary school teacher pronounced (almost) like "wann". The northern variant on this was, as may be expected, "wunn".

"A Northern" variant, Alpie - the East Lancashire version is a (very un-posh) "wan" (as in "swan"): this is how I pronounce it even now, after living twice as many years out of Lancashire than I ever was in it.

[jean]

If I interpret your spelling wunn correctly, it's very close to RP - the OED gives /wʌn/, and the IPA symbol ʌ is the vowel in but.

Wonn isn't posh at all.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . a typical feature of idiomatic English pronunciation is just this assimilation or elision of consonants, especially in a cluster of three where the middle one, especially t, usually fades away e.g Christmas.

On the other hand, the word "crisps" - so simple for us - is fraught with danger for a Chinese youth.

[David-G]

As heard on the BBC this evening: the "train line" at Dawlish was destroyed by the storm. It is even worse than the "train station". I am astonished how quickly people seem to have forgotten that there was once such a thing as a railway.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

If I interpret your spelling wunn correctly, it's very close to RP - the OED gives /wʌn/, and the IPA symbol ʌ is the vowel in but.

Wonn isn't posh at all.

That's the way I was interpreting it. The posh teacher was saying "one" as if it rhymed with "fun", whereas I, and others were rhyming it with "gone".

[ahinton]

As heard on the BBC this evening: the "train line" at Dawlish was destroyed by the storm. It is even worse than the "train station". I am astonished how quickly people seem to have forgotten that there was once such a thing as a railway.

I don't see what's problematic with that one, meself; it's a line that trains run on (when storms don't fling stretches of it into mid-air or less severe weather conditions deposit the wrong kinds of leave on it), just as motorways are roads that motor vehicles are driven on. Alkan might have disagreed, though, having named what must surely be one of the first "train" pieces Chemin de fer; I'm reminded also of the middle movement of his Grand Duo for violin and piano (a greatly underappreciated work, even today), titled l'Enfer and am now given to wonder whether, had he witnessed the recent events at Dawlish, he might have thought to combine the ideas in them both into a new piece entitled Chemin d'Enfer...

[Sir Velo]

I don't see what's problematic with that one, meself; it's a line that trains run on (when storms don't fling stretches of it into mid-air or less severe weather conditions deposit the wrong kinds of leave on it), just as motorways are roads that motor vehicles are driven on. .

Strictly speaking that analogy doesn't hold: "motorways" are a specific kind of road from which all non-motorised traffic is banned, and hence do not encompass all metalled highways as the "railway" does for all rail locomotive infrastructure. "Train" refers to the string of locomotive(s) and/or carriages/wagons which comprises a railway service. There is no need for an ugly neologism when a perfectly good word already exists.

[jean]

That's the way I was interpreting it. The posh teacher was saying "one" as if it rhymed with "fun", whereas I, and others were rhyming it with "gone".

I see - but you gave the fun pronunciation as a Northern variant, and I don't think it is - it's just normal RP, of which wann might be an extreme variant.

(I've always said wonn myself.)

.

[jean]

Strictly speaking that analogy doesn't hold: "motorways" are a specific kind of road from which all non-motorised traffic is banned, and hence do not encompass all metalled highways as the "railway" does for all rail locomotive infrastructure. "Train" refers to the string of locomotive(s) and/or carriages/wagons which comprises a railway service. There is no need for an ugly neologism when a perfectly good word already exists.

Strictly speaking, the railway is the whole operation.

If you wanted to talk about the bit the trains actually ran on, you said railway line.

Remember tramlines?

Though we could also say track or of course permanent way.

(The word tramway/tramwaia in Polish popularly refers not to the track the tram runs on, but to the tramcar itself.)

[Don Petter]

Strictly speaking that analogy doesn't hold: "motorways" are a specific kind of road from which all non-motorised traffic is banned, and hence do not encompass all metalled highways as the "railway" does for all rail locomotive infrastructure. "Train" refers to the string of locomotive(s) and/or carriages/wagons which comprises a railway service. There is no need for an ugly neologism when a perfectly good word already exists.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments regarding that neologism, one of the words which sets my teeth on edge is 'comprise' used when 'compose' is meant.

[Bryn]

That's the way I was interpreting it. The posh teacher was saying "one" as if it rhymed with "fun", whereas I, and others were rhyming it with "gone".

All fine and good, so long as one knows how you pronounce "fun".

[jean]

It's perfectly OK to say that either that something comprises, or that it is comprised of, something else.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/comprise

But the estate-agentspeak which confuses the two and has accommodation (actively) comprising of various sorts of rooms is the one you should eschew.

[Don Petter]

It's perfectly OK to say that either that something comprises, or that it is comprised of, something else.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/comprise

But the estate-agentspeak which confuses the two and has accommodation (actively) comprising of various sorts of rooms is the one you should eschew.

I do not disagree with you or Oxford.

In my world, if D is made up of A, B and C, then 'D comprises A, B and C' or 'D is composed of A, B and C', or (though I personally eschew it) 'D is comprised of A, B and C'.

My light-hearted objection was to Sir Velo's observation that 'A, B and C comprise D', when, in fact, they compose D.

[Sir Velo]

While I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments regarding that neologism, one of the words which sets my teeth on edge is 'comprise' used when 'compose' is meant.

You're right of course, DP. At least I didn't say "comprises of".

Anyway, I thought there was a different thread for pedantry.

[Don Petter]

You're right of course, DP. At least I didn't say "comprises of".

Anyway, what is this: Pedants' Corner?

We pedants have a lot of trouble with our teeth.