Important notice from the GRAMMAR POLICE. Plz read. This means you.

[Roflganger]

Heh, I don't have a legal version either   I are pirate cat.  If I get around to getting a retail version, though, I'll let you know.

And labratory is better to my Yankee ears than "labore-a-tree" (don't even get me started on the way "innovative" is pronounced here). But differences in pronunciation aside, yes, the general level of grammar in this country is atrocious.  I know of English teachers and school principals whose grasp of the language could make you cry.  And they're teaching the next generation!

[PirateFaafy]

I know of English teachers and school principals whose grasp of the language could make you cry.  And they're teaching the next generation!

My English teacher in Grade 10 tried to teach us "would of". Go ahead, it's okay. You can cry.

[rohina]

I know of English teachers and school principals whose grasp of the language could make you cry.  And they're teaching the next generation!

My English teacher in Grade 10 tried to teach us "would of". Go ahead, it's okay. You can cry.

I would, but I am out of tissues.

[Jelenedra]

Is "labratory" a southern thing? That's how I hear it here. (Yes, including me. I always that it was a schedule/SHED-JU-EL thing)

[rufio]

I've always heard "labratory" and I've never lived in the south.  La-bor-a-tory sounds funny and British to me.  It's the same thing that happens with op(e)ra.

[Liz]

My English teacher in Grade 10 tried to teach us "would of". Go ahead, it's okay. You can cry.

Weeping will come later. I'm far too busy being utterly and completely horrified.

[Jelenedra]

I've always heard "labratory" and I've never lived in the south.  La-bor-a-tory sounds funny and British to me.  It's the same thing that happens with op(e)ra.

*shrugs* I dunno, it just sounds like the way someone who says "shed-ju-el" and "warsh" would say "labratory" saying "laboratory" sounds too much like "lavatory" which is not the same at all.

[Roflganger]

Is "labratory" a southern thing? That's how I hear it here. (Yes, including me. I always that it was a schedule/SHED-JU-EL thing)

I've always heard "labratory" and I've never lived in the south.  La-bor-a-tory sounds funny and British to me.  It's the same thing that happens with op(e)ra.

I'm pretty sure that labratory is an American thing - I've never heard an American pronounce it differently.  And here (South Africa), it isn't even la-bor-a-tory, it's la-BOR-a-tree.  I believe I've heard Brits pronounce it that way as well.  They still call it "lab" for short, so I say you can't have it both ways.

My English teacher in Grade 10 tried to teach us "would of". Go ahead, it's okay. You can cry.

This is one of my single greatest pet peeves.  It's such a perfect demonstration of how little attention  people pay to what the words they are saying actually mean.  

[CheritaChen]

Some of these differences (lab'-ruh-tohr-ee vs. luh-bor'-uh-tree) I never perceived as poor usage but regional evolutions in pronunciation. Of course, I could be wrong. Most Americans do seem terribly lazy in all things requiring active thought.

I still occasionally hear a newscaster or statesman of some type on air say "noo-kyoo-lar" instead of nook-lee-er. Or "in-trig-al" instead of in-ti-gruhl. I want to punch them in the head.

[Audrey]

I know of English teachers and school principals whose grasp of the language could make you cry.  And they're teaching the next generation!

My English teacher in Grade 10 tried to teach us "would of". Go ahead, it's okay. You can cry.

I'm glad you had the sense to know better, but yes, it is worth a good weep.   'Would of' and 'could of' are also becoming world standards because they are so widely used colloquially.  It is so sad the language is being bastardised.  

Another thing I hear a lot is if someone happens to be in a car 'Get out the car' instead of 'get out of the car'.  To me, the first sentence means 'Get the car out of the garage' or whereever it happens to be.  It is just plain laziness, IMO.

Sometimes the preposition 'to' is omitted in an injunction such as 'write to me' - it becomes 'write me'.  

How often have I heard someone singing 'don' chew' instead of 'don't you'.   Laziness again.  Bad, bad, bad.  

CheritaChen, those mispronunciations are so annoying and are very American as is the, IMO, mispronunciation of laboratory.

Rufio, are you SA or from somewhere else and living here? 

[Jelenedra]

Some of these differences (lab'-ruh-tohr-ee vs. luh-bor'-uh-tree) I never perceived as poor usage but regional evolutions in pronunciation. Of course, I could be wrong. Most Americans do seem terribly lazy in all things requiring active thought.

I still occasionally hear a newscaster or statesman of some type on air say "noo-kyoo-lar" instead of nook-lee-er. Or "in-trig-al" instead of in-ti-gruhl. I want to punch them in the head.

Not going to argue the lazy Americans aspect, but we didn't we purposely change up a bunch of pronounciations and spellings of schtick to distance ourselves from the British? It would make sense that we would change the way to say a word without taking into consideration that "OR" in the middle of labortory. Or was that just us being lazy Americans and just like how we just dropped the extra "u" out of words so that we wouldn't have to remember to write them?

[rufio]

Some of these differences (lab'-ruh-tohr-ee vs. luh-bor'-uh-tree) I never perceived as poor usage but regional evolutions in pronunciation.

It has to do with the timing - it sounds better in English to have two-syllable feet, syllables sometimes drop out of three- and five-syllable words to make trochaic feet ala OP-ra or LAB-ra-TOR-y.  la-BOR-a-TREE is iambic, so it's probably just a regional difference in preference for timing.  The extra syllable is still dropped, though.

I still occasionally hear a newscaster or statesman of some type on air say "noo-kyoo-lar" instead of nook-lee-er. Or "in-trig-al" instead of in-ti-gruhl. I want to punch them in the head.

I've only ever heard Dubya say "nukyuler", but it's standard (more or less) metathesis = /nu.kli.er/ -> /nu.ki.ler/ with the onset cluster simplifying from /kl/, and the /i/ getting palatalized to be /kji/.  IIRC, we also had /thrid/ -> /third/ and /hros/ -> /hors/ in the past in English.  /in.ti.gral/ -> /in.tri.gal/ doesn't really simplify anything, but it might just be more natural to have to more complex syllables closer to the front of the word.  Then again, I've never actually heard anyone use that before.

It's interesting which changes people see as "regional evolutions in pronunciation" and which they see as laziness.

I'm glad you had the sense to know better, but yes, it is worth a good weep.    'Would of' and 'could of' are also becoming world standards because they are so widely used colloquially.  It is so sad the language is being bastardised.

If you're talking about speech (and not writing) I don't think it's laziness - it's just another timing/stress-related effect.  It'd be more correct to spell it "would've" and "could've" though they're pronounced the same way.  In writing, though, most of that looks bad, even to me.

Another thing I hear a lot is if someone happens to be in a car 'Get out the car' instead of 'get out of the car'.  To me, the first sentence means 'Get the car out of the garage' or whereever it happens to be.

In speech, my "of"s often get abbreviated to "uh" so "get out of the car" turns into "get outta the car".  Again, I think it just has to do with timing.

Sometimes the preposition 'to' is omitted in an injunction such as 'write to me' - it becomes 'write me'.

Now, that sounds really old-fashioned.  Maybe just because no one uses snail mail anymore? 

How often have I heard someone singing 'don' chew' instead of 'don't you'.

t + y regularly becomes ch in American speech, as well as d + y becoming j.  In fact, you also get tr -> chr and dr -> jr, at least in my 'lect.

Rufio, are you SA or from somewhere else and living here?

I'm not the person who's from South Africa, if that's what you're asking.  I grew up in Arizona, and am currently living elsewhere in the states.

[Roflganger]

I have to protest against differences in punctuation being attributed to laziness.  After all, laboratree is no less "lazy" than labratory is.  Pronunciations differ between countries, and even within countries, and despite age-old arguments to the contrary, there isn't one way that is more correct than another. 

Just out of spite, though, I will now P&L at the South African pronunciation of "innovative".  In-IV-uh-tiv.  Not inno-vay-tiv.  It makes me bonkers whenever I hear it, because I can't help but argue with the voices in my head about why it is so very wrong, especially since the word "innovate" is pronounced the same way as it is in the States (aside from accents, etc.). 

[Jelenedra]

I don't think it was a general beef with language laziness as it was a rib at Americans in general. =p

[rufio]

Just out of spite, though, I will now P&L at the South African pronunciation of "innovative".  In-IV-uh-tiv.  Not inno-vay-tiv.  It makes me bonkers whenever I hear it, because I can't help but argue with the voices in my head about why it is so very wrong, especially since the word "innovate" is pronounced the same way as it is in the States (aside from accents, etc.).

Interesting - in-IV-a-TIV is also iambic, contrasted to trochaic IN-a-VAY-tiv.

[CheritaChen]

didn't we purposely change up a bunch of pronounciations and spellings of schtick to distance ourselves from the British? It would make sense that we would change the way to say a word without taking into consideration that "OR" in the middle of labortory. Or was that just us being lazy Americans and just like how we just dropped the extra "u" out of words so that we wouldn't have to remember to write them?

I have heard this before, and never actually researched it directly myself, but it does sound credible, considering other aspects of our history. Stupid and contrary and myopic, but credible. I think the dropping of the U was probably a bit of both (contrariness and laziness).

I've only ever heard Dubya say "nukyuler", but it's standard (more or less) metathesis = /nu.kli.er/ -> /nu.ki.ler/ with the onset cluster simplifying from /kl/, and the /i/ getting palatalized to be /kji/.

But that doesn't make it correct.

/in.ti.gral/ -> /in.tri.gal/ doesn't really simplify anything, but it might just be more natural to have to more complex syllables closer to the front of the word.  Then again, I've never actually heard anyone use that before.

I guarantee that you have, but didn't notice it. Lucky you. Of course, now that I've pointed it out here, you won't be so lucky.

It's interesting which changes people see as "regional evolutions in pronunciation" and which they see as laziness.

Well, I don't discount that the origin of the change was due to laziness. But those who never heard it correctly pronounced, and were taught their local pronunciation, can hardly be blamed for the laziness of their ancestors, can they?

I'm glad you had the sense to know better, but yes, it is worth a good weep.    'Would of' and 'could of' are also becoming world standards because they are so widely used colloquially.  It is so sad the language is being bastardised.

If you're talking about speech (and not writing) I don't think it's laziness - it's just another timing/stress-related effect.  It'd be more correct to spell it "would've" and "could've" though they're pronounced the same way.  In writing, though, most of that looks bad, even to me.

No, it's fucking laziness. How many other things in (American) English are spelled in a completely counterintuitive way, like phlegm or through? That doesn't make it okay to just spell them the way you'd prefer. Likewise, just because "would've" sounds more like "would of" instead of the full "would have" does NOT make it okay to use the former instead. It doesn't mean the same fucking thing, at all. It's no wonder people can't learn our goddamn stupid language, when this kind of "shortcut" excuse is being accepted even by otherwise intelligent communicators.

[Roflganger]

Interesting - in-IV-a-TIV is also iambic, contrasted to trochaic IN-a-VAY-tiv.

I'm debating with myself as to whether the 4th syllable is stressed; my guess is that it is not, unless "initiative" is also iambic, as they have the same pattern of emphasis.

If you're talking about speech (and not writing) I don't think it's laziness - it's just another timing/stress-related effect.  It'd be more correct to spell it "would've" and "could've" though they're pronounced the same way.  In writing, though, most of that looks bad, even to me.

No, it's fucking laziness. How many other things in (American) English are spelled in a completely counterintuitive way, like phlegm or through? That doesn't make it okay to just spell them the way you'd prefer. Likewise, just because "would've" sounds more like "would of" instead of the full "would have" does NOT make it okay to use the former instead. It doesn't mean the same fucking thing, at all. It's no wonder people can't learn our goddamn stupid language, when this kind of "shortcut" excuse is being accepted even by otherwise intelligent communicators.

Most people I've seen (and corrected) using "would of" simply didn't know it was incorrect, which makes it ignorance, not laziness.  Like I said before, I attribute this to a lack of awareness to what words mean - people making this mistake aren't paying enough attention to realize that what they are actually saying is "would have".  I have a suspicion that this is also the reason some idiots can't keep they're/their/there straight.

[rufio]

/in.ti.gral/ -> /in.tri.gal/ doesn't really simplify anything, but it might just be more natural to have to more complex syllables closer to the front of the word.  Then again, I've never actually heard anyone use that before.

I guarantee that you have, but didn't notice it. Lucky you. Of course, now that I've pointed it out here, you won't be so lucky.

Well, if you say so.  I do tend to notice things like that because I am interested in it, so I really doubt anything will change.

Well, I don't discount that the origin of the change was due to laziness. But those who never heard it correctly pronounced, and were taught their local pronunciation, can hardly be blamed for the laziness of their ancestors, can they?

Every instance of language change is due to "laziness" i.e. what it is easier for human speech organs to pronounce.  If we weren't "lazy" we'd probably all be speaking PIE or something, and language would be very boring.

No, it's fucking laziness. How many other things in (American) English are spelled in a completely counterintuitive way, like phlegm or through? That doesn't make it okay to just spell them the way you'd prefer. Likewise, just because "would've" sounds more like "would of" instead of the full "would have" does NOT make it okay to use the former instead. It doesn't mean the same fucking thing, at all. It's no wonder people can't learn our goddamn stupid language, when this kind of "shortcut" excuse is being accepted even by otherwise intelligent communicators.

Well, like I said, if you are talking about writing, I have nothing to add here.

[DrNerd]

I wouldn't say that "labratory" is a mispronounciation.  It's just the AMERICAN pronounciation.  In Texas, "Houston" is pronounced "HYEW-st'n."  In New York City, "Houston" is pronounced "HOWS-tun."  One of those pronounciations isn't "right" and the other "wrong."  They're both "right."  It's just context-dependent.

[CheritaChen]

Most people I've seen (and corrected) using "would of" simply didn't know it was incorrect, which makes it ignorance, not laziness.  Like I said before, I attribute this to a lack of awareness to what words mean - people making this mistake aren't paying enough attention to realize that what they are actually saying is "would have".  I have a suspicion that this is also the reason some idiots can't keep they're/their/there straight.

I consider "not paying enough attention to realize what one is actually saying" to be a pretty fair example of laziness, though. Mental laziness, which is what we're really talking about, I think.

In Texas, "Houston" is pronounced "HYEW-st'n."  In New York City, "Houston" is pronounced "HOWS-tun."  One of those pronounciations isn't "right" and the other "wrong."  They're both "right."  It's just context-dependent.

If I really gave a shit, I could probably look this up and find out, but it's possible that the Houston after whom the Texan city was named pronounced his surname differently than the Houston after whom the New York street was named. Also, it doesn't rule out the possibility that one of them was a dumb fuck who was doing it wrong the whole time. But yes, to locals, saying "Hyew-st'n" for the street name is "wrong." I learned this remotely from my seat at a previous job, in a call center in a state nowhere near New York.

However....

I don't care how many New Englanders want to debate it: saying "sehl-tik" for Celtic is just moronical. Where did the name come from, if not the historic early European tribes? If whoever it was that named that dumbass basketball team thought it was such a cool name, they could have taken the effort to learn how it was most commonly pronounced. And if that pronunciation was deemed just too confusing for the rabble, then maybe they should have chosen another name.

Come to think of it, perhaps there was some dude/ette named "sehl-tik" involved, considering that the proper usage in this case (if it were supposed to be the tribal people) would have been Celts.

[rufio]

Heh - there is a street in Tucson called Goethe street, which the automated bus message ("Next Stop: Goethe street") apparently pronounces go-ee-thee street, though I've never actually taken the bus down there, so I wouldn't know first-hand.

[Lorelei]

I wouldn't say that "labratory" is a mispronounciation.  It's just the AMERICAN pronounciation.  In Texas, "Houston" is pronounced "HYEW-st'n."  In New York City, "Houston" is pronounced "HOWS-tun."  One of those pronounciations isn't "right" and the other "wrong."  They're both "right."  It's just context-dependent.

ATL has a number of these "traps" for the unwary, notably "Ponce de Leon" street. Say a form approximating "pawhnz del ee OHN" and you're wrong. It's "pahnce DEE LEE on". "LaVista" is not "luh VIST-uh" it is "LAH VEE-stur."

Add to that the conflict between the educated and uneducated in ATL, and you get natives saying something wrong due to ignorance or accent, and other natives eye-rolling. It's not "SMEAR-neh" it is "SMUR-nah." It's not "Kenner-SAW" it's "KEN-eh-saw." And, "MAY-retta" is REALLY wrong, it is "MAHR-ee-et-uh." You can tell, after hearing a paragraph spoken out loud, approximately where in the area the speaker lives, their annual income, their degree of interest in pro sports and beer, likelihood of the speaker having unfortunate hair, and take a good stab at guessing their actual neck color. The "dropped -LY suffix" is yet another excellent indicator. You can also tell a lot from whether the speaker clearly enunciates "you all" and "all of you"--it is rare to see anyone in ATL who hasn't given up and adopted some form of "y'all"--or if the speaker chooses to use "yawl" and "allyawl." Other tell-tale words that are more "mountain folk" than true Southern, but have been adopted widely, sometimes knowingly, sometimes not: "critter," "Bubba," "varmint" and "idjit" for creature, brother, vermin and idiot.

New Orleans has a number of these verbal traps for the non-native, and not all are due to French language pronunciations slipping in, but I'll let a Louisiana native discuss that.

You can also become a laughingstock in England if you don't figure out there are language traps like "Cholmondeley," "Leicester" and "St. John" which sound roughly like "Chumley," "Lester" and "S'n j'n." Again, will let a Brit discuss that. I'm sure s/he'd have a lot of cringe-worthy errors to report.

The winner has to be Bexar County in Texas. It's not "BECKS ar". It's "bear." IIRC, the X comes from an old cattle brand design. At any rate, it's silent. If you don't live there or happen to know, you get outed as being "not from around these parts" instantly.

[CheritaChen]

Heh - there is a street in Tucson called Goethe street, which the automated bus message ("Next Stop: Goethe street") apparently pronounces go-ee-thee street, though I've never actually taken the bus down there, so I wouldn't know first-hand.

Is it supposed to be named for Johann Wolfgang von Goethe? Or is it for some Arizonan whose family has never set foot in Germany? I mean, like I said above, I hate to just presume someone is being an idiot, you know? Also, if it's a synthesized voice, it may not have been programmed to handle non-American words or pronunciations, and if the machine's operator simply input the proper spelling, it's definitely funny but not the little computer-voice's fault. If that's the case, someone should have entered the street name phonetically. Again, though, that would presume that they actually cared about the pronunciation to begin with.

[rufio]

Well, I'm not actually interested in poo-pooing anyone's pronunciation, computerized or not.  I just thought it was funny.

[CheritaChen]

You can tell, after hearing a paragraph spoken out loud, approximately where in the area the speaker lives, their annual income, their degree of interest in pro sports and beer, likelihood of the speaker having unfortunate hair, and take a good stab at guessing their actual neck color. The "dropped -LY suffix" is yet another excellent indicator. You can also tell a lot from whether the speaker clearly enunciates "you all" and "all of you"--it is rare to see anyone in ATL who hasn't given up and adopted some form of "y'all"--or if the speaker chooses to use "yawl" and "allyawl." Other tell-tale words that are more "mountain folk" than true Southern, but have been adopted widely, sometimes knowingly, sometimes not: "critter," "Bubba," "varmint" and "idjit" for creature, brother, vermin and idiot.

Having just visited good friends in an Atlanta suburb last month, I can testify to just about all of the above. My best friend was originally from Connecticut but lived in South Florida for a number of years before he went to college in Atlanta, where he met his wife. While they're both college graduates and smart people, she, as a native of a more quaint rural neighborhood, says "y'all" and "critter" regularly. He still sounds like a Yankee.

New Orleans has a number of these verbal traps for the non-native, and not all are due to French language pronunciations slipping in, but I'll let a Louisiana native discuss that.

Beginning with the name of the city itself. It's not "New Or-leenz" or "New Or-lee-anz," it's "N'Ohlinz." At least that was my experience in my brief visits there. But they're forgiven because the place is (or at least, was  ) so damn cool.

You can also become a laughingstock in England if you don't figure out there are language traps like "Cholmondeley," "Leicester" and "St. John" which sound roughly like "Chumley," "Lester" and "S'n j'n." Again, will let a Brit discuss that. I'm sure s/he'd have a lot of cringe-worthy errors to report.

Unfortunately we have inherited some of that, thanks to New England. Worcester, Massachusetts has to be the fault of the colonists. "Woo-ster"? Really? Come on.