OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 6, 2 October 1937, Page 9

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Random Notes

PRONUNCIATIONS IN QUESTION

(By Professor Arnold Wall.)

“Encyclical”: The pronunciation of this word with the long i sound as in “cycle” and “encyclopaedia” is very tempting, and is used by most people who are not familiar with.it as a spoken word. The true pronunciation is “ensikklical.” This is traditional, and the authorities of the eighteenth century offer no alternative to this. It is also the accepted pronunciation in the Roman Catholic Church, so that there can be no possible doubt about it. “Encyclopaedia” is equally well fixed with the long j sound, but there seems to be no very clear reason why these two . should be treated so differently, for one would have expected them to run in double harness.

“Ordeal”: The authorities, including the 8.8. C., prescribe “ordeeal,” with the stress on ee. as the correct pronunciation, but “ordeel,” with the same stress, is also permitted. The word has a curious and instructive history, for this “correct” pronunciation is quite artificial, and can only be explained by the fact that the word has a Latin look, suggested both by the “ord” and by the analogy with words like “ideal. It is really a purely English and very old word composed of an Anglo-Saxon prefix—“or”—meaning “out of” and our familiar “deal.” It happened that the prefix “or” fell out of use and became unrecognisable, with the result which we see (or hear). In the eighteenth century • it was actually pronounced not only as we have it now, but also as “orjeel,” which latter sound has entirely vanished.

(Week-end radio programmes on page 8 of second section.)

“Conversion”: My attention has been drawn to a peculiar and quite unorthodox pronunciation of this, and of “version,” with the sound of zh. as in

"measure.” instead of sh. It is indeed very frequently heard, and it is really very difficult to guess why people have fallen into this habit, for such a pronunciation has no warramt and does not seem to have been suggested by any other word or group of words. It is true that many people pronounce “Persia” and “Persian” with the same zh sound, but this is also quite unwarranted, and recognised by no authority. There is the same tendency in the case of “Asia” and “Asiatic.” “Administrative”: This is one of a fairly large group in which a small problem arises. The question Is whether the “strat” is to have the sound "ayt,” as in “strait,” or to be pronounced with the “obscure” vowel sound. Both are allowed, but the consensus of expert opinion is in favour of “strayt.” This decision is. I take it, a concession to those who find the obscure sound difficult in such a position. On abstract principles, if such principles can be recognised at all in such cases, the sound should rather be obscure. This applies to “authoritatively” and many other large mouthfuls.

"New Zealand”: It seems odd that there should be any variation in the sound of the name of our country itself, yet it is unfortunately so. I have already commented on the tendency to pronounce the “land” without any vowel, as if spelt “Ind.” There is also a strong tendency in some speakers to make the "Zea” much too short, in fact they pronounce the word as if spelt "Zillend.” Needless to say, this is a most irregular and reprehensible pronunciation and should be punished with the utmost rigour of the law. “Waltz”: I have been asked to comment on the pronunciation of this with a short o instead of the long sound “wawl'se.” The error is regrettably common, the word falling into line with “salt” and its group, in which the best authorities recommend the long “sawlt,” etc. "Waltz,” according to these authorities, is to be pronounced so as to rhyme perfectly with "false.” “Alcazar”: This is only one of the many names which have been frequently mentioned in the news during the last year, and have raised doubts and puzzled speakers. The name, when Anglicized, as it' often is, is pronounced with the sound of z and the stress on “caz,” but it seems desirable that something more closely approximating to the Spanish should at least be attempted, that is, with the z as th and the stress on the final syllable. As the name of a music-hall it can only have the English sound. “Bade”: The authorities agree that this should be pronounced as “bad.” It is most unfortunate that the misleading spelling with the final “e” has persisted, for the pronunciation as “bayd” is often heard as a result of it. The traditional pronunciation was neither “bad” nor “bayd,” but "bahd,” with the long “a” as in “father,” which continued in use well into the nineteenth century. A similar case is that of “decade,” whose spelling is a pitfail. Little Problems

J.P.’s or J.’sP. A correspondent who raises this question might be referred to a previous note of mine on the subject. But I may repeat that the plural forms J.P.’s and M.P.’s which he would condemn are well established and justifiable. as being plurals of the abbreviated terms pronounced Jaypee and Empee. This seems perfectly logical, and I should be the last to find fault with the newspapers for using these ' forms. The subjunctive. The following sentences are offered to me for comment; are they right or wrong, and "what is the reason?” “If I were you”; "that if i it were allowed to go back”; “we shall continue to look after the house as if it were our own.” The answer is that in all these examples the subjunctive form “were” is correctly used. As to the reason or reasons, they are pretty well covered by the usual grammatical rule that the subjunctive form is used after “if” in clauses which express a hypothesis that is not a fact It is not always as easy to decide this point as it is in these cases in all of which we only save to substitute “was” to see and feel that it would be grammatically indefensible. Of course, all speakers cannot be relied upon to see and feel correctly In such matters, but in the ease of “if I was you” at any rate there can be very little difference in usage or opinion. With the spread of education and the Increasing interest in good speech which is so remarkable a feature of our time, solecisms of this kind become rarer and rarer as the years (and even the days) go by. Such questions as the above usually arise in connection with the verb “to be” because the forms in that verb are so very distinct, and for that reason, too, the “rule” is better observed in those forms than in any others, yet, strictly epeaking, it applies universally.