Zee PM or Zed PM, how do you pronounce it?

[skritsys]

I think I learned more in this thread about pronunciations then I ever did in school. and now my head hurts.

[srg]

I think I learned more in this thread about pronunciations then I ever did in school. and now my head hurts.

That's the beauty of the internet, and a global community not frightened to argue it out.

[walterIsTheMan]

You are basically contradicting yourself here. First you say that American English is more accurate, then you say that there are plenty of inconsistencies in American English. *sigh* If there are plenty of inconsistencies, then American English *isn't* more accurate, it's just *different*. You can't have it both ways.

I am not contradicting myself at all. Something can be more accurate and still have inconsistencies. Let's say you have two essays, one with 500 grammatical errors, and one with 600 gramatical errors. The first paper is more accurate than the second, however the first still has many errors.

Let's face it, there are different forms of English - Canadian, American, British, Australian, etc. Neither one is better or more accurate than the other - they are all simply *different*.

I'll freely admit that I like Canadian English, because that is the way I was brought up, and it makes sense to me. But I don't claim that it's better or more accurate than American or British English, simply that it is the way Canadians write and speak.

For instance, I like the fact that:

"Many homonyms are given different spellings to convey different meanings, including mould/mold, cheque/check and racquet/racket. A cheque, for example, is something you use to pay for a dipstick, which you can use to check your oil." (From http://www.cornerstoneword.com/misc/cdneng/cdneng.htm)

See and that's why I do not have a problem with what you say and why I do have a problem with what alyssa has been saying. She does think the form of English used throughout the commonwealth is better than that of the United States.

In essence, you just agreed with what I have been saying all along. Like you said, Canadian-English makes sense to you because it is the way Canadians speak. That is basically what I said in my first post, which is that our language was more accurate to the way we speak. I was not saying it was more accurate in general. For example, it is more accurate for us to spell certain words with a 'z' rather than a 's' because that is simply how we pronounce it. I'm not saying the difference is more accurate in general, but more accurate to the way we speak. This is another example of why people need to read all of an individual's posts prior to responding. When I have been referring to American-English being more accurate, to that post is what I was referring.

This whole thing about leftenant seems to have gotten us sidetracked. Many online sources will tell you that what I say about "ltenant" is correct. If it's not then I apologize, but don't pull the old "you weren't in the Royal Navy so how would you know" trick, because many individuals in this thread have been criticizing American-English without ever having taken an American-English class.

[skritsys]

*bangs head on computer screen* owww! my brain is really full!

[Chrysalis]

See and that's why I do not have a problem with what you say and why I do have a problem with what alyssa has been saying. She does think the form of English used throughout the commonwealth is better than that of the United States.

You want to get back to basics? Part of my original comment was that it's ridiculous to say that it's good to change spelling because it makes it easier for people to learn. I mean, really? How dumb do you think people are?

As I've said earlier, students in Commonwealth countries seem to do just fine learning English spelling. Your point was that 'color' is spelled as it's pronounced. Well if every country spelled that word the way it's pronounced, we'd be spelling it 'kulla' in Australia, and how stupid would that be? Really??

Also, if you really want to talk about spelling things the way they're pronounced why weren't names like Wesley and Lesley changed to be spelled Wezley and Lezley? Because that's the way they're pronounced in the UK.

You need to admit defeat on your 'l'tenant' business. You've been told by someone who knows. You also said that we pronounce it that way in Australia. That's a no, too.

[walterIsTheMan]

You want to get back to basics? Part of my original comment was that it's ridiculous to say that it's good to change spelling because it makes it easier for people to learn. I mean, really? How dumb do you think people are?

Easier does not mean people are stupid, it just means easier. English is a very complex language. As I stated before, if you ask any American, they will tell you how many immigrants here do not even speak English, or at least they barely speak it. So I personally do not think there is anything wrong with making it a little easier. Plus as I said before that is just part of it. The other part is to make the spelling and pronunciation closer. Are there still inconsistencies? Yes, but it's a little more accurate to how we speak over here than if we were still spelling things the British way.

BTW, your original comment was:

Nicely said! Is it crazy of me that I have an insane sense of pride every time I hear Rodney say "Zed-PM"??
I love that!
I cringe every time I see words like jewelry (it's jewellery!!) and if I hear one more person say "nook-you-lar" instead of nuclear, or "alooominum" instead of "aluminium", I'm going to scream!

In this original comment of yours you criticize three different words, all three of which are not acurate or not characteristic of all Americans. First, jewelry when said slowly is pronounced "jewellery" by Americans. However we tend to talk rather fast, and so it gets kind of slurred together into "jewelry". Second, as I pointed out before, ONLY BUSH says "nook-you-lar". You say I need to admit defeat on "l'tenant"? Well you need to admit defeat on nookyoular. Hardly anyone over here says it that way. Third, as I explained with Aluminium, only recently was it officially changed to that pronunciation. So up until that change, we were right and you guys were wrong. So relax, we just haven't adjusted to the new pronunciation yet.

As I've said earlier, students in Commonwealth countries seem to do just fine learning English spelling. Your point was that 'color' is spelled as it's pronounced. Well if every country spelled that word the way it's pronounced, we'd be spelling it 'kulla' in Australia, and how stupid would that be? Really??

It wouldn't be stupid at all depending on the circumstances. If everyone in Austrailia pronounces it that way, and if it's easier to remember and spell it that way, then there's nothing wrong with changing it. I mean do you honestly think that spelling should never ever be changed? If so we'd still be spelling and speaking Latin, or whatever languages came before Latin. As I stated before, languauge changes and evolves. Get over it.

Also, if you really want to talk about spelling things the way they're pronounced why weren't names like Wesley and Lesley changed to be spelled Wezley and Lezley? Because that's the way they're pronounced in the UK.

Well you'll just have to ask the people in the UK that. Here we pronounce them with an 's' sound, so the spelling is correct.

You need to admit defeat on your 'l'tenant' business. You've been told by someone who knows. You also said that we pronounce it that way in Australia. That's a no, too.

Many online sources will tell you that what I say about "ltenant" is correct. If it's not then I apologize

Glad to see that, as always, you're reading everything someone else says before replying.

Also I see that even after pointing out in my last reply to you that you ignored the bulk of my previous post, you not only continued to ignore it but ignored my reminder. Hmmm...

[Chrysalis]

Easier does not mean people are stupid, it just means easier. English is a very complex language. As I stated before, if you ask any American, they will tell you how many immigrants here do not even speak English, or at least they barely speak it. So I personally do not think there is anything wrong with making it a little easier. Plus as I said before that is just part of it. The other part is to make the spelling and pronunciation closer. Are there still inconsistencies? Yes, but it's a little more accurate to how we speak over here than if we were still spelling things the British way.


It wouldn't be stupid at all depending on the circumstances. If everyone in Austrailia pronounces it that way, and if it's easier to remember and spell it that way, then there's nothing wrong with changing it. I mean do you honestly think that spelling should never ever be changed? If so we'd still be spelling and speaking Latin, or whatever languages came before Latin. As I stated before, languauge changes and evolves. Get over it.
See this is where you lose credibility. No-one with half a brain would even suggest that it would be okay to spell a word that's seen as colour or color as kulla, just because that's how people pronounce it. You're using that to back up your argument despite the fact it's completely ridiculous.

Well you'll just have to ask the people in the UK that. Here we pronounce them with an 's' sound, so the spelling is correct.
I'm sure you pronounce it with an 's' because it's spelled with an 's'. Not because that's the way it was originally pronounced.


Glad to see that, as always, you're reading everything someone else says before replying.See, this is more attitude. Really. Cut the attitude, because I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticing it. all this 'sigh' and rolling of eyes. Please....

Seriously, your argument has more inconsistencies than anyone else's around here, but you keep on arguing it because you're stubborn. End of story.
You're a uni student, aren't you? (sorry, College.... wouldn't want you to think I was being 'pretentious' here..)

[walterIsTheMan]

Originally Posted by walterIsTheMan
Easier does not mean people are stupid, it just means easier. English is a very complex language. As I stated before, if you ask any American, they will tell you how many immigrants here do not even speak English, or at least they barely speak it. So I personally do not think there is anything wrong with making it a little easier. Plus as I said before that is just part of it. The other part is to make the spelling and pronunciation closer. Are there still inconsistencies? Yes, but it's a little more accurate to how we speak over here than if we were still spelling things the British way.


It wouldn't be stupid at all depending on the circumstances. If everyone in Austrailia pronounces it that way, and if it's easier to remember and spell it that way, then there's nothing wrong with changing it. I mean do you honestly think that spelling should never ever be changed? If so we'd still be spelling and speaking Latin, or whatever languages came before Latin. As I stated before, languauge changes and evolves. Get over it.
See this is where you lose credibility. No-one with half a brain would even suggest that it would be okay to spell a word that's seen as colour or color as kulla, just because that's how people pronounce it. You're using that to back up your argument despite the fact it's completely ridiculous.

Well you'll just have to ask the people in the UK that. Here we pronounce them with an 's' sound, so the spelling is correct.
I'm sure you pronounce it with an 's' because it's spelled with an 's'. Not because that's the way it was originally pronounced.


Glad to see that, as always, you're reading everything someone else says before replying.See, this is more attitude. Really. Cut the attitude, because I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticing it. all this 'sigh' and rolling of eyes. Please....
Seriously, your argument has more inconsistencies than anyone else's around here, but you keep on arguing it because you're stubborn. End of story.
You're a uni student, aren't you? (sorry, College.... wouldn't want you to think I was being 'pretentious' here..)

You want to talk about attitude? How about the fact that you gave me attitude about the college/university thing just there, or the attitude about me having half a brain? Yet again you set double standards.

For the record, yes I was giving you attitude. You were not reading what I posted and then making replies without all the information. No human being on Earth could not be frustrated by someone who blatantly ignores what they say.

As to these supposed inconsistencies of my argument, you have yet to point them out. Point out inconsistencies and then I will listen. The only somewhat of an inconsistency pointed out was the leftenant thing, which I apologized for. As you chose not to read that part of my post however, you probably are not aware of it.

Finally, to the thing about it being ridiculous that a language should be changed just because that's how people say it, you do know that that's how ALL languages got here, don't you?

Oh and yes, I go to a college, not a university. That's not me giving attitude, that is what its called, a college. If I went to a university then I would call it a university.

PS - Stop using "giving attitude" as a cop-out. If you think that's what I'm doing, fine, say that, but continue to reply to me instead of just ignoring what I said. I pointed out that you did not read what I said. You realized I was right, needed a cop-out, and decided just to yell at me about attitude. I've also received several positive remarks from my posts, including some from non-Americans, so who's attitude do you think they are noticing? I am the one who came in here defending American-English. You were the one who came in here attacking anyone who spoke differently than the Commonwealth.

[Chrysalis]

You want to talk about attitude? How about the fact that you gave me attitude about the college/university thing just there, or the attitude about me having half a brain? Yet again you set double standards.
If you look back, you're the one who attacked those of us who don't talk about "going to college" by saying you have issues with people talking about going to Uni without using a qualifier. You're the one who keeps saying that we should understand your language before criticising, yet you're also the one who had a go at us for saying "going to Uni" without understanding the system of schooling in our countries. THAT is what you call a double standard. We need to understand you, but you don't have to understand our system before you make a negative comment about it. I'm not talking about just Australia. I'm talking about the Canadians who also replied to that post.
For the record, yes I was giving you attitude. You were not reading what I posted and then making replies without all the information. No human being on Earth could not be frustrated by someone who blatantly ignores what they say.
Trust me. You're so 'in your face' it's not possible to ignore your posts, as much as I really want to be the grown up here and leave you to it.
As to these supposed inconsistencies of my argument, you have yet to point them out. Point out inconsistencies and then I will listen.
More to the point, for you to insist that in Australia and Britain we say 'l'tenant' when you've been told over and over by those who live in both countries that we don't, is really a sign of arrogance. I'm serious. You argue the point and then when someone in Canada comes back and tells you once and for all that you were wrong, you're suddenly all "we're not talking about lieutenant" and changing the subject.
Finally, to the thing about it being ridiculous that a language should be changed just because that's how people say it, you do know that that's how ALL languages got here, don't you?

Oh and for the record, I go to a college, not a university. That's not me giving attitude, that is what its called, a college. If I went to a university then I would call it a university.

Back to the basics of the thread, yes I say zed! That's the bottom line. Say what you want. I don't care. Just don't go telling the rest of us your version of the language is more consistent. The fact is we all have different accents, but the rest of us aren't so anal about things that we have to change spelling so that it looks the way it sounds. English is essentially one language. We should all be able to understand it when it's written down.
I'll always talk about cashing a cheque instead of a check. Tennis for me will always be played with a racquet, not a racket. That's a fact of life.

[walterIsTheMan]

Originally Posted by walterIsTheMan
You want to talk about attitude? How about the fact that you gave me attitude about the college/university thing just there, or the attitude about me having half a brain? Yet again you set double standards.
If you look back, you're the one who attacked those of us who don't talk about "going to college" by saying you have issues with people talking about going to Uni without using a qualifier. You're the one who keeps saying that we should understand your language before criticising, yet you're also the one who had a go at us for saying "going to Uni" without understanding the system of schooling in our countries. THAT is what you call a double standard. We need to understand you, but you don't have to understand our system before you make a negative comment about it. I'm not talking about just Australia. I'm talking about the Canadians who also replied to that post.
For the record, yes I was giving you attitude. You were not reading what I posted and then making replies without all the information. No human being on Earth could not be frustrated by someone who blatantly ignores what they say.
Trust me. You're so 'in your face' it's not possible to ignore your posts, as much as I really want to be the grown up here and leave you to it.
As to these supposed inconsistencies of my argument, you have yet to point them out. Point out inconsistencies and then I will listen.
More to the point, for you to insist that in Australia and Britain we say 'l'tenant' when you've been told over and over by those who live in both countries that we don't, is really a sign of arrogance. I'm serious. You argue the point and then when someone in Canada comes back and tells you once and for all that you were wrong, you're suddenly all "we're not talking about lieutenant" and changing the subject.
Finally, to the thing about it being ridiculous that a language should be changed just because that's how people say it, you do know that that's how ALL languages got here, don't you?

Oh and for the record, I go to a college, not a university. That's not me giving attitude, that is what its called, a college. If I went to a university then I would call it a university.

Back to the basics of the thread, yes I say zed! That's the bottom line. Say what you want. I don't care. Just don't go telling the rest of us your version of the language is more consistent. The fact is we all have different accents, but the rest of us aren't so anal about things that we have to change spelling so that it looks the way it sounds. English is essentially one language. We should all be able to understand it when it's written down.
I'll always talk about cashing a cheque instead of a check. Tennis for me will always be played with a racquet, not a racket. That's a fact of life.

I give up, you simply refuse to read anything I say. If you look back to that post about me not liking university, you will clearly see that the first time I referred to it all I said was that it made me cringe but that I wasn't going to complain about it. Then you made an issue out of it.

As to my supposed "in your face" attitude, give me an example of it? From the start I have been on defense defending the way my country speaks and the reasons why. You have been on offense attacking the way we speak.

Again you also have not read my original post, in which I make clear that our language is more consistent to the way we speak. Stop pulling things out of context and read.

Also, to the thing about lieutenant, will you give it a rest? You continue to insist that I think I am right and that I am arrogant, and have still not read where I said if the information I had was incorrect then I apologize. Plus I did not change the subject. While I did point out that we were digressing, I also said that many online sources confirmed what I said. So I responded to her. But as you did not read anything I said you would not know.

Finally, I never said I was anal about making spelling and pronunciation accurate. Do you think I'm the one that created American-English? I am merely defending it. You're the one that is anal about the way American's speak.

I also find it interesting that you still have not replied to many things that I have said...However, please don't bother to reply to me again if you're not going to read what I post. I am more than willing to listen to your point of view, but only if you read.

[Wass]

I just checked with hubby, who spent six months in the UK on a course (he's an engineering officer in the Canadian Forces - army, and spent six months at the UK military engineering school several years ago.)

According to his first-hand experience, with the military in the UK, both army and navy Lieutenants and called "Leftenants".

Do you have first-hand experience with the Royal Navy? My husband does, and he says that all the army, navy, and airforce personnel he dealt with in the UK pronounced it "Leftenant".

Although I am not army, navy or air force person I like to add my two cent and say you are correct I remember writing an English essay where I wrote Lieutenants, my English teacher corrected me and told me it’s Leftenants.

[Avatar28]

Third, as I explained with Aluminium, only recently was it officially changed to that pronunciation. So up until that change, we were right and you guys were wrong. So relax, we just haven't adjusted to the new pronunciation yet.

Actually, EITHER spelling is accepted as being correct. So neither one is right or wrong on that.

[walterIsTheMan]

Actually, EITHER spelling is accepted as being correct. So neither one is right or wrong on that.

Hmm I was pretty sure the IUPAC site approved Aluminium, but I couldn't find the article again. So yeah I guess both are officially approved, though alyssa might be interested to know that Aluminum came first.
http://www.world-aluminium.org/history/language.html

[walterIsTheMan]

I tell ya what, I will never ever complain about the British way of using 's' instead of 'z' again, because I just got a 35 point bingo bonus in literati by spelling "polarize" the British way of "polarise".

[Avatar28]

Hmm I was pretty sure the IUPAC site approved Aluminium, but I couldn't find the article again. So yeah I guess both are officially approved, though alyssa might be interested to know that Aluminum came first.
http://www.world-aluminium.org/history/language.html

Yeah, in 1990 the -ium spelling was adopted by IUPAC and then a couple years later they also recognized the -um ending as acceptable and even they tend to use both spellings.

And actually, according to wikipedia, alumium came first and he changed it to aluminum four years later. Then it became aluminium, even here in the states that version was predominant. Then the guy who discovered how to make it cheaply using electricity used the -um spelling in a handbill for his new process and it sorta stuck.