Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Three different words with three different meanings that should be easy to distinguish by what had been three different pronunciations are now merged into one pronunciation which does not distinguish between them. The next step will be widespread misspelling which will further confuse the issue.
Can anyone point out a benefit to this lack of attention to detail?
There's no need to worry. It's not new, it's been going on for a long time. Early signs of the Mary-merry-marry merger have been found in the speech of individuals born as early as 1895. By 1930, there were distinct regions in which two or all three of the vowels were already merged. I myself am over 50 years old, and they were all pronounced alike in my local dialect (Southern California). Yet, no one seems particularly confused over the spelling. "They got merried" and "Marry Christmas" are not common spelling errors.
Actually, the spelling of English homophones (words pronounced alike, but spelled differently) tells us that mergers have been going on for a very long time. For example, "I, eye, aye" all once had distinct pronunciations, as did "so/sew," "loan/lone," "eight/ate," and all such pairs.
Unfortunately, what doesn't work is to try to convince people to change their dialect. My dialect, for instance, doesn't have the vowel of "cat" before an R (as in "marry'). It would sound as unnatural for me to attempt that pronunciation as it would be for an Australian speaker to distinguish between "sauce" and "source" (which are perfect homonyms in Australian as well as many UK dialects.)
There's no need to worry. It's not new, it's been going on for a long time. Early signs of the Mary-merry-marry merger have been found in the speech of individuals born as early as 1895. By 1930, there were distinct regions in which two or all three of the vowels were already merged. I myself am over 50 years old, and they were all pronounced alike in my local dialect (Southern California). Yet, no one seems particularly confused over the spelling. "They got merried" and "Marry Christmas" are not common spelling errors.
Actually, the spelling of English homophones (words pronounced alike, but spelled differently) tells us that mergers have been going on for a very long time. For example, "I, eye, aye" all once had distinct pronunciations, as did "so/sew," "loan/lone," "eight/ate," and all such pairs.
Unfortunately, what doesn't work is to try to convince people to change their dialect. My dialect, for instance, doesn't have the vowel of "cat" before an R (as in "marry'). It would sound as unnatural for me to attempt that pronunciation as it would be for an Australian speaker to distinguish between "sauce" and "source" (which are perfect homonyms in Australian as well as many UK dialects.)
^Great post, and it drives home the most important point of all: The object of language is communication, and as long as we know what one another are saying, that's all that really matters, right?
^Great post, and it drives home the most important point of all: The object of language is communication, and as long as we know what one another are saying, that's all that really matters, right?
Except these mergers do not assist communications, they hinder it.
The language has evolved so there is a reason the spelling exists today even if we don't know what that reason is. Letters do more than provide a guide to pronunciation and they most certainly do not provide the information on where to place stress in English words and even in sentences. You have to speak the language to know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
Spanish spelling has inconsistencies, too--in fact almost all languages with an alphabetic script do. Of all languages, Finnish is said to come about the closest to true one-to-one correspondence between spelling and speech.
One difference between Castilian and Latin American Spanish is the pronunciation of the letters C and Z when they come before E and I (ce, ci, ze, zi). In some dialects, they are identical to S. In others, they are pronounced like English TH in "thing."
In the dialects that pronounce them like S, therefore, these letters are superfluous and it would make sense to respell the word "cinco" as "sinco" and "pez" as "pes." This would eliminate the problem of having to learn which words have a C/Z and which have an S.
But if you do that, then you create a problem for the speakers who need those letters to differentiate between sounds. How would you pick which dialect gets the preferential treatment?
Granted, English is vastly more irregular overall and there are a lot of silent letters that could be eliminated because they are not pronounced anywhere. It is a fact, though, that all fluent readers recognize words instantly by sight; they are not sounding them out every time they see them. Having distinct spellings for homonyms (right/write/rite, to/too/two) therefore makes reading faster and more efficient, once the spellings have been learned. And English has a lot more homonyms than most languages and these different spellings are more helpful than they would be in, say, Italian.
English is not as irregular as it has been made to seem.
For a non-English speaker? Yes, the spelling is horrendous. Our spelling system is not meant to tell a non-English speaker how to pronounce a word. It is meant for a person who knows and uses our language.
It has spelling conventions. Which silent letters should be eliminated? The <o> in people is there because the word is related to population. The <g> in sign is there because the word is related to signature. The final <e> in many words has different functions other than telling a reader to use the "long" sound of the vowel. For example, the <e> in dense allows the reader to know that it is not plural "dens". So if a writer wants to change density to dense, they need to add that silent <e>.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
Three different words with three different meanings that should be easy to distinguish by what had been three different pronunciations are now merged into one pronunciation which does not distinguish between them. The next step will be widespread misspelling which will further confuse the issue.
Can anyone point out a benefit to this lack of attention to detail?
The reason why these different ways of spelling are a problem is because of the overreaction to the misspelling. Any person reading "Mary Christmas" knows exactly what the person was trying to say. Chances are the person who spells merry as Mary has not used "merry" outside of this context.
Knowing where to place the stress in English words is not easy as well. You basically need somebody to tell you. Overreaction to mispronunciation is also a problem especially when the listener knows exactly what the person was trying to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
Except these mergers do not assist communications, they hinder it.
All languages have homonyms and homophones and they have conventions on how they handle those words.
Except these mergers do not assist communications, they hinder it.
This is the bottom line: As MQ pointed out, the purpose of language is communication. If a change in language hindered communication, it would not happen, or it would quickly be replaced by an alternative method of expressing the same thing.
For example, Old English had both singular and plural forms of the word "you," just as most other Western European languages still do today. Eventually we dropped the plural form ("ye") and got by with just one word, but the lack of it was felt, not so much in written English, but in conversation. So colloquially we have all kinds of ways of communicating that by "you," we mean more than one person: y'all, you guys, youse.
But no harm is done to communication by merging the pronunciations of Mary, marry, merry. They are all different parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective), and it's almost impossible to create sentences in which a listener could genuinely be confused as to which meaning is intended. It would be like uttering a sentence in which your hearer wasn't sure whether you meant "ate" or "eight." You can't do it.
This is the bottom line: As MQ pointed out, the purpose of language is communication. If a change in language hindered communication, it would not happen, or it would quickly be replaced by an alternative method of expressing the same thing.
For example, Old English had both singular and plural forms of the word "you," just as most other Western European languages still do today. Eventually we dropped the plural form ("ye") and got by with just one word, but the lack of it was felt, not so much in written English, but in conversation. So colloquially we have all kinds of ways of communicating that by "you," we mean more than one person: y'all, you guys, youse.
But no harm is done to communication by merging the pronunciations of Mary, marry, merry. They are all different parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective), and it's almost impossible to create sentences in which a listener could genuinely be confused as to which meaning is intended. It would be like uttering a sentence in which your hearer wasn't sure whether you meant "ate" or "eight." You can't do it.
The "bottom line" is an opinion, mine differs. Precision in language is important. And I'll never wait on a bus if I'm waiting for a bus.
This is the bottom line: As MQ pointed out, the purpose of language is communication. If a change in language hindered communication, it would not happen, or it would quickly be replaced by an alternative method of expressing the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
The "bottom line" is an opinion, mine differs. Precision in language is important.
Saying that the primary purpose of language is communication in no way implies that precision is unimportant. You seemed very perturbed about the existence of the Mary-merry-marry merger. Are you equally distressed about changes that took place before your time, such as the loss of "thou" (the familiar form of "you") and its corresponding verb endings? Surely that was a loss in precision, as in English we can no longer distinguish, in a single word, second-person familiar from second-person formal.
Saying that the primary purpose of language is communication in no way implies that precision is unimportant. You seemed very perturbed about the existence of the Mary-merry-marry merger. Are you equally distressed about changes that took place before your time, such as the loss of "thou" (the familiar form of "you") and its corresponding verb endings? Surely that was a loss in precision, as in English we can no longer distinguish, in a single word, second-person familiar from second-person formal.
People stopped using the words "thou" and "thee" because of the class distinctions implied by the use of these pronouns. The word "you" was in use during the same time period, but "you" was used in reference to those of a higher class. When the Quakers insisted on the continued use of the humble "thou" and "thee" pronouns, they were beaten for refusing to address their "betters" as "you." Click here for more information: "Why did we stop using 'thou'?"
Saying that the primary purpose of language is communication in no way implies that precision is unimportant. You seemed very perturbed about the existence of the Mary-merry-marry merger. Are you equally distressed about changes that took place before your time, such as the loss of "thou" (the familiar form of "you") and its corresponding verb endings? Surely that was a loss in precision, as in English we can no longer distinguish, in a single word, second-person familiar from second-person formal.
I have observed that those who are distressed by linguistic change are only bothered by that change that has occurred since they popped into the world. All the change prior to their appearance is fine but subsequent change is bad.
The English language as it exists in any particular point in time is the culmination of endless change. That won't stop. And people won't stop ascribing all manner of deleterious results that will surely ensue as a result.
People stopped using the words "thou" and "thee" because of the class distinctions implied by the use of these pronouns.
Great point. The "you/thou" distinction was lost not because people were too lazy or uneducated to be precise, but because it was no longer relevant to communication.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
