BROADCASTING AND PRONUNCIATION

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 290, 7 September 1928, Page 12

BROADCASTING AND PRONUNCIATION

Sir,—Never having had by direct tuition, any education beyond that furnished by a very small and obscure village school at Warcop, Westmorland, England, may I say to my worthy fellows in this discussion, that a desire to learn, rather than to pose as an oracle, prompted my entry thereinto. They will recall that I suggested merely, aud did not dogmatise. As a student amenable to superior knowledge, I now agree with “Femina” and Mr. Edmanson that “goverraent” cannot be justified or palliated. My authorities for saying “Goss” is correct, are Collins’ Graphic, and Chambers’ Twentieth Century dictionaries. Any criticism of radio announcers must always allow for the mechanical element, and common fairness dictates the exercise of care that static and our own im-. agination have, not played us false. I submit, therefore, Mr. Editor, subject to your willingness to permit continuance of a discussion, that interests me, that attention might be directed towards bigger windmills at which to tilt. My immediate task is again to join issue with both Mr. Edmanson and “Better English.” It must be borne in mind that many of our words, especially in pronunciation, do not meet with identical treatment by all lexicographers, hence it becomes obviously impossible to arrive at any definite or definitive issue concerning them. In a sense, then, it is futile to cite for argument some of those quoted by my two friends. Permit me to name two or three, only, which appear to have bunkered them. The “You” and “I” pronouns are a shade too banal for consideration, while "Bas relief” smacks slightly of the highbrow (pardon the slang), but Mr. Edmankon must be made aware that the sibilant may be pronounced according to some authorities, whilst the alternative spelling “Bass Relief” seems imperatively to enjoin the use of the sibilant. “Better English” lapses egregiously in prelude, as prel-ude when a noun is meant is indubitably correct. Mr. Announcer thus scores off my friends. Mr. Edmanson’s condonation of the Education Minister's solecism surprises me, but beyond refusing retraction, I permit it to drop. A choice anthology of malapropisms could easily be compiled from the political speeches one hears. One candidate, whq is also a big-wig in educational circles, is wont to jar the tympanum with aleen-i-ate, and another gentleman equally pretentious, grates on our susceptibilities with rej-i-me for regime. But, after all, where is the perfect man? The übiquitous split infinitive is a Press institution, and the chances are, that if despatched entire, by the cable man, it is served up delightfully bifurcated, to us, out here. In literary and journalistic domains, there seems to be at Home a finer regard for the niceties of phraseology and kindred sciences than in New Zealand. I wonder often, why Home papers still always discriminately spell licence thus when a noun, and license when a verb. May I ask someone to pass judgment on the following sentence, which has always intrigued me, “A house of prayer within the walls of which the world will be shut out.”—l am, etc., “DOTARD.” Hastings, August 30.