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

[originalhalf]

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." 

*is smug that she is a yankee that speaks correct southern*

[rufio]

Missed this:

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.

I would say it is, or at least it's a secondary stress (speaking of "initiative").  That is, the fourth syllable is stressed compared to the third syllable; stress isn't about is-it versus isn't-it, but about which syllables are more stressed than others.

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.

Apparently there is also a place in England called Cholmondeley which is pronounced Chumly.

[rohina]

*is smug that she is a yankee that speaks correct southern*

Just as well you have something to be smug and correct about, because your pronouns are anything but correct.

[originalhalf]

You don't always get perfection from 457 year olds.  I finna work on dat fo sho.

[Simsample]

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.

I live quite close to the original Worcester, and unfortunately there are quite a few other odd names around here too. Gloucester (pronounced gloster), Cirencester (pronounced Siren-ses-ter), Leominster (pronounced Lemster) and Tewkesbury (pronounced by the locals as Chooks-burry) are just a few that spring to mind. It's always quite interesting to hear how these names are pronounced in the states, where many of the same place names exist.

[Roflganger]

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.

I live quite close to the original Worcester, and unfortunately there are quite a few other odd names around here too. Gloucester (pronounced gloster), Cirencester (pronounced Siren-ses-ter), Leominster (pronounced Lemster) and Tewkesbury (pronounced by the locals as Chooks-burry) are just a few that spring to mind. It's always quite interesting to hear how these names are pronounced in the states, where many of the same place names exist.

Funnily enough, they're all towns (well, except for Cirencester, I think) in Massachussets.  I am not aware of Tewkesbury being pronounced Chooksburry but the other pronunciations remain.    

ETA: Actually, Leominster is "Lemminster", now that I think about it.

[DrNerd]

Leominster, Mass, is indeed "Lemminster."  I would correct the pronounciation of "Worcester" as "WOO-ster," though.  It's generally either "WIS-tah" or "WUSS-tah" in Massachusetts  Sort of like how "Holyoke" isn't "HO-lee-oak," it's "WHOLE-yoke" or "HOeyoak," with the 'l' hinted at and "Holy" being as close to one syllable as it can get.  The "h" in "Amherst" is likewise silent: New Yorkers pronounce it "AM-herst" while the Mass types say "AMurst."

CheritaChen:
Houston, TX, was named after Samuel Houston, who did indeed pronounce it "HYEW-st'n."  My point was that "HYEW-st'n" and "HOWS-tun" are both valid pronounciations of "Houston" and that whether one pronunciation was "right" or "wrong" at any given time is dependent on context.  Saying "HYEW-st'n" Street in NYC is just as wrong as going to "HOWS-tun" Texas, but the pronounciations are not wrong in and of themselves.

[FerDeLance]

Your rite.  Evrywon shuld lern to spel propaly like me and yoos propper grama.  Its not ard you no I lernd it and look at me now.  A yer ago i cudent even spel prugremer and now i are won.

[maxon]

Apparently there is also a place in England called Cholmondeley which is pronounced Chumly.

Cholmondley is more commonly known as a name though there is a place called Cholmondley.  How about Beaulieu and Colquhoon?  They usually give the colonists trouble too.  Actually, there are gazillions of weird English pronunciations.  I think we do it just to annoy people.

[rosess]

It takes a long time to find Hurkin, Utah, on a map, given that Hurkin is spelled "Hurricane."  The pronunciation isn't indicative of a local drawl; it's a one-name anomaly.  

[CheritaChen]

I would correct the pronounciation of "Worcester" as "WOO-ster," though.  It's generally either "WIS-tah" or "WUSS-tah" in Massachusetts

You're right. I didn't spell it in the correct local accent.

Saying "HYEW-st'n" Street in NYC is just as wrong as going to "HOWS-tun" Texas, but the pronounciations are not wrong in and of themselves.

I was agreeing with you, but saying it probably was due to the "Houston" in NYC having been named after someone else, someone whose name had the "HOWS-tun" pronunciation, and not just a...random choice on the part of New Yorkers to say the word "Houston" differently. Though that is also entirely possible, too.

[Audrey]

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.

I could not agree with you more CC.  However, I do think ignorance does play a part in it.  If you are a child and your first and subsequent hearing of laboratory is labratory then you will continue to say it like that ad infinitum and noone will be able to tell you anything different.

BTW, it is 'spelt' not 'spelled', and you appear to be qualifying moronic with the extra 'al'.  It should simply be moronic like ironic which frequently gets another 'al' added incorrectly to it.

Jelendra,  I was not digging at the Americans per se.  I just hear more American-speak on TV than any other, so they are the easiest to pick on for the aberrations I hear.  

As far as name places are concerned, I really can understand mispronunciations of these.  I mean really Cholmondeley pronounced Chumley - three syllables have been left out in expressing it. That is just madness. 

What concerns me more is

[rufio]

BTW, it is 'spelt' not 'spelled'.

I believe both are considered correct.

Jelendra,  I was not digging at the Americans per se.  I just hear more American-speak on TV than any other, so they are the easiest to pick on for the aberrations I hear.

Ah, so you are just "digging" at anyone who pronounces things differently from you.  I see.

[Audrey]

Hi Rufio

No, I grew up learning what I believe was a high standard of English.  I say that because good novels are usually written in the 'Queen's English' and having read copious amounts of those, I have reason to believe that I speak, write and spell according to those norms. 

Pronunciation is not my bugbear, it is incorrect forms of grammar and spelling. 

BTW, where did you Americans learn to spell?  When you read an 'English' novel, you must wonder about why Shakespeare added a 'u' to Love's Labours Lost.  What happened to all the 'u's in the words ending in 'our'?

'Considered correct' - now there's the rub.  For me it has always been 'spelt'.

[chaos]

AFAIK, "spelt" is correct as a past participle, but only non-Americans seem to use it. Americans always use "spelled" whether it's past tense, or past participle.

[Roflganger]

BTW, where did you Americans learn to spell?  When you read an 'English' novel, you must wonder about why Shakespeare added a 'u' to Love's Labours Lost.  What happened to all the 'u's in the words ending in 'our'?

Just as with pronunciation, how can anyone call regional variations in spelling or grammar incorrect?  American English is not subject to UK English rules.  Regardless of the reasons for the deviations, the deviations are there, they're real, they're official, and they're right.

And no one wonders why there's a U in labour/flavour/colour or why it's centre instead of center beyond about the 3rd grade, because we Americans learn pretty early that American English is different from UK English.

[Audrey]

BTW, where did you Americans learn to spell?  When you read an 'English' novel, you must wonder about why Shakespeare added a 'u' to Love's Labours Lost.  What happened to all the 'u's in the words ending in 'our'?

Just as with pronunciation, how can anyone call regional variations in spelling or grammar incorrect?  American English is not subject to UK English rules.  Regardless of the reasons for the deviations, the deviations are there, they're real, they're official, and they're right.

And no one wonders why there's a U in labour/flavour/colour or why it's centre instead of center beyond about the 3rd grade, because we Americans learn pretty early that American English is different from UK English.

Why have the Americans changed the English language? What was wrong with the original English?  Do the Americans think that their version is the correct one or are they aware that it is a deviation from the standard of spelling used around the world EXCEPT in America?  I find this a little arrogant of the US, no offence to any American on here as you did not make the changes. 

[chaos]

It's supposed to be more efficient.

[Roflganger]

Languages evolve.  Is it arrogance that Mexican Spanish differs from the language spoken in Spain?  Or, closer to home, that Afrikaans differs from Dutch?  Americans, in general, are not trying to foist their spellings on everyone else.  On the contrary, as seems to be the case here, there's this frequent insistence that American English is somehow wrong, just because it's different.  Many languages share a common starting ground but have all developed and changed beyond them.  

[rufio]

BTW, where did you Americans learn to spell?  When you read an 'English' novel, you must wonder about why Shakespeare added a 'u' to Love's Labours Lost.  What happened to all the 'u's in the words ending in 'our'?

So, are you Brits seriously confused as to why so many American authors leave out the u in those words?  Do they not teach you that the "Queen's English" is not a universal phenomenon, or even that English is not spoken everywhere else?

Why have the Americans changed the English language? What was wrong with the original English?  Do the Americans think that their version is the correct one or are they aware that it is a deviation from the standard of spelling used around the world EXCEPT in America?  I find this a little arrogant of the US, no offence to any American on here as you did not make the changes.

This is like asking why the Romans decided to stop speaking Latin and start speaking Italian (was there something wrong with Latin?!!!!1111)  Language change happens.  Brits these days are not speaking the same English as Shakespeare did either.

As for spelling reform, there has been (and still is) a school of thought that English should be phonemic, or something, and that we should just get rid of silent letters or ridiculous spellings from French, and so forth.  I don't particularly sympathize with them, not because I like the French spellings and silent letters, but because if you change the way English is spelled then everyone has to re-learn how to read.  Changing ou to o is not a drastic change like that, though (it's a bit like how you now see "thru" instead of "through" (e.g. "Drive-Thru") or "donut" instead of "doughnut", which is practically standard).  I don't think it really accomplished anything, but it didn't hurt anything either.

[CheritaChen]

BTW, it is 'spelt' not 'spelled',

It's American, not British.

and you appear to be qualifying moronic with the extra 'al'.  It should simply be moronic like ironic which frequently gets another 'al' added incorrectly to it.

It had a funnier, more rant-y sound than "moronic," so I went with it. It is, in fact, incorrect, but

What concerns me more is

I see.

BTW, where did you Americans learn to spell?

Um...America? Look, I never argued that American alterations to British English were superior, but in our language, they are correct. And in fact, some of them are simpler, like the dropped Us and the transposed ending "er" for "re."

None of this has anything to do with poor grammar that is poor no matter which flavo(u)r of English one speaks. Or careless punctuation, or txt spk. People are (supposedly) being taught proper English, but not using it, and using alternative forms in completely inappropriate places. That's what I'm bitching about.

[Simsample]

Why have the Americans changed the English language? What was wrong with the original English?  Do the Americans think that their version is the correct one or are they aware that it is a deviation from the standard of spelling used around the world EXCEPT in America?  I find this a little arrogant of the US, no offence to any American on here as you did not make the changes. 

Well, I'm English and I think the Americans have a good point. Any language that will pronounce Tewkesbury as Chooksburry, Cholmondeley as Chumley and Beaulieu as Bewley needs something done to it. I remember an English teacher telling me that 'Ghoti' could be pronounced 'Fish'- gh as in enough, o as in women and ti as in fiction. Also, there are a fair few caollquial pronunciation differences, too- the rest of the UK pronounces Tewkesbury as 'Tukesburry', and it only seems to be Gloucestershire people that pronounce it 'chooksburry' (and even then, not all of them). My grandmother pronounced 'saucepan' as 'sospan', so it's easy to see how spelling differences would have arisen. I like the diversity, and the fact that I can chat to my butties (mates) in local slang- confusing my neighbours, who come from the north.

[toad]

You idiots, stop feeding the troll, or else feed it in a funny way.  Maybe wear a hat like Inge, or use hilarious sporks - this crabby defense of your ability to be Amurrikan is really boring.

[maxon]

STFU Audrey - you're making me embarassed to be English.

[CheritaChen]

Well, I'm English and I think the Americans have a good point. Any language that will pronounce Tewkesbury as Chooksburry, Cholmondeley as Chumley and Beaulieu as Bewley needs something done to it. I remember an English teacher telling me that 'Ghoti' could be pronounced 'Fish'- gh as in enough, o as in women and ti as in fiction.

Ah, you make me want to dust off my Eddie Izzard DVDs! I don't even remember which concert the language bit was from...Dressed to Kill, maybe. maxon, as long as there are brilliant Brits like Eddie Izzard in this world, you have no reason to be embarrassed.

We Americans still haven't quite gotten over the shame of Dubya.