|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
I've noticed that, unlike most boards, there seems to be a fair representation of English/British people here, so perhaps my comment/question will make more sense.
It concerns the French importation - chaise longue - which literally means 'long chair', and refers to a sofa with only one arm rest. Every American I know refers to it as a chaise lounge. This changes spelling, pronunciation and literal meaning. Serendipitously, of course, it evokes the image of someone lounging in this sofa, which is quite apposite, given the use to which it is put.
My questions, such as they are, are these:
1. Has anyone else noticed this tendency, and not just amongst people from the USA?
2. Does anyone have an opinion on whether or not this form will eventually predominate?
3. Do any of the language mavens here have strong normative opinions regarding this phrase? Being English and mildly traditional myself, when it comes to language, I usually deplore the apparent corruption of a good phrase, but I find the 'lounge' idea quite fascinating.
cheer
the sunshine warrior
Postscript: One of the best (in normative terms) users of English I know, is a Professor of Philosophy in Los Angeles, and she was surprised when I pointed out to her that she used the lounge, rather than the original longue, version of this phrase, since she had never thought about it before.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1 |
This has annoyed me since adolescence, when I became aware of it. As an American, I have noticed this phrase used almost universally (as opposed to "longue") in speech, and the majority of the time, in writing as well. High quality journalism sources (NY Times, etc.) or good quality (Time, Newsweek) almost always get it right.
As to your question about whether it will predominate, your guess is as good as anyone's. Keep up the good fight if you want, but you may lose in the end.
The "lounge" association seems so tempting, that no doubt you're correct about the origin of the mispronunciation and misspelling, but I don't know that for sure. As to what one can do about it, I think the answer is, not much. Normative efforts don't get you very far (not, for me, "don't get one very far") since the language will simply gallop on ahead and leave you in the dust. On the other hand, your use of the language may have just as much weight insofar as which way the word will be described in future dictionaries, so if you prefer "chaise longue" (as I do), by all means support it, by using it!
The topic of your comment could be generalized (not "-ised" as in the U.K.) to foreign loanwords and how English (or any language) deals with them. While the word stills seems "foreign" we tend to keep a semblance of the original pronunciation (to the extent that the sounds can be matched by a similar English phoneme), and sometimes put it in italics or in quotes. E.g., "laissez faire" is pronounced around here quite similarly to its pronunciation in French--no "z" sound, for example. On the other hand, "flamboyant" has been around a long time and we accept it as English, so it is pronounced "like an English word", 't' pronounced, emphasis no longer on the last syllable.
It would be interesting to look at a list of loanwords from French (or any other language) sorted in decreasing frequency from the common to the obscure, and see how we Anglophones would pronounce them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
Yes I'd find this irritating too.
To make a small concession to those across the pond my US friend (we've been arguing along these lines for ten years) points out a few cases where we Brits are less pure:
(i) Pasta - she insists that the long "a" is much more like the original italian than the north British short "a".
(ii) Van Gogh - (questionable) - I'm not sure that Van "Go" is any better than our Van "Goff" but I'm open to debate. I think the Dutch finishes with a noise a bit like a gargle.
(iii) herbs - we say "h"erb not "erb" - an interesting divergence.
My concern is not that we are right and the USA is wrong (but it amuses me in the same way that supporting a football team does others) but in the globalisation of culture we may lose the right to say things in our own way.
Lounge could well prevail.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
Perhaps the reason there are more Uk people here is:
(i) Its easier to communicate in a chat room if you are on the same meridian. We pay for our local calls here, so dialing in during the daytime, except at weekends is a lot more expensive. We're five hours ahead of the East Coast and eight ahead of the West Coast and around 10 hours behind Sydney, Australia so it would be hard (but not impossible) to find a good time to chat.
(ii) The boards that I've seem to mention tend to revolve around predominantly US providers, like AOL. In the UK its cheaper to use a free ISP like Freeserve.
(iii) I think a word-a-day has been wold-wide since its inception so has attracted people from all over the world since the beginning.
There is a discussion on the "Miscellany board" about the relative merits of chat rooms versus boards if anyone is interested.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Peter
That's an interesting idea - checking to see contemporary pronunciations of loan words. I find the French words most fascinating, but I also find irritating inconsistencies in English (UK) use of other 'foreign' words too. Also, some US English usages that rub me up the wrong way. This, while not a comprehensive compendium, lists some of the words whose pronunciation gets my goat.
Ibiza - The Spanish holiday resort. My contention is that, since it is a relatively new term to English, we shouldn't be anglicising it, and it should be pronounced (approximately) ee BEE tha. Yet, half the English holiday-makers I know of pronounce it in the bastard fashion eye BEE tha. I feel that if you must 'anglicise' the first syllable, then go the whole hog - eye BEE za. But no, we stick to our English half-and-half that makes me want to go @&^%^$%£"$$%%^&^&*.
Fillet - It's from the old French (Norman) and was anglicised a long time ago. It should be pronounced FIL it. But no. In our typically half-and-half way, so many of us say fil ay. If we were really attempting a French pronunciation then surely we should accord the 'll' a French form as well?
Valet - Same considerations as fillet. Should be pronounced val it.
Niche - Has been 'nitch' for ages. Except the 'new' anglophones have started to pronounce it 'neesh'.
Penchant - Long established as PEN chunt, but bless 'em, the PC but illiterate (is my ire showing?) have decided to pronounce it paw[n] shaw[n].
Quay - not a UK issue, but in Florida (Tampa Bay area?) it's pronounced kway. Aaargh.
Ah well... Rant over.
Are there any others that particularly incense you?
cheer
the sunshine warrior
ps. My rough rule of thumb is that if a loan word is more than a hundred or so years old, then it 'should' be anglicised. If newer, then we should attempt to replicate the pronunciation of the original language. Do you have any 'rules' for this kind of thing?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81 |
My particular rant is about the various attempts to standardise english spellings, pronunciations and grammar. I like the great diversity that english has, it makes it a language full of potential word play, great colour and richness and immense flexibility and usefulness. The only issue that should ever concern anyone is the comprehensibilty of the language. Shakespear had no regularity of spelling and he used many terms which would now be consider americanism by UK english speakers. This did not make him a lesser user of English, and modern english speakers need not, in my opinion, feel any more obliged to stick to spelling rules than he did.
Language is a vibrant living thing, and like living things it changes and grows. I find the new disregard of capital letters, exhibited by many usenet users, a little disconcerting as I am unused to it. However, it is a fine example of how language changes.
The english which I find most interesting is West Indian, with it's rich rhyming tones and african grammatical conventions. Long may english maintain it's richness and diversity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
ee BEE tha is a place
but
eye BEE za is a way of life
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Philip
I suppose my rant and yours are in some ways opposed to each other. Ah well, it wouldn't be fun if we all agreed on everything...
Actually, I agree with you that influences like African forms on West Indian English, and similar influences on English versions in other places, lend a great deal of richness to the language. And I tend to agree that comprehension is probably the best test of whether or not the language is being used well.
I just thought I'd point out, however, that Shakespeare was not necessarily as free and easy about English usage as some might think. The entire satire on Don Armado in Love's Labours Lost shows some of the linguistic snobbery that Shakespeare himself, and presumably the English court or intelligentsia of the time, had.
cheer
the sunshine warrior
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81 |
I'm not sure about the concept of using language well. I'd consider the use of language to be effective if it performs it's function. This function can be very varied, from the imparting of data to the communication of emotion.
I'm vary aware that much discussion on language use is not about helping to improve comprehension but is about putting down certain language forms used by certain social groups. This is most clear when discussing the, so called, taboo words but is also shown in many other examples of 'criticism' of english use.
I'm not familial with Love's Labours Lost but I wonder if Shakespeare was making a point about linguistic snobbery rather than being guilty of it?
I wholly agree with you that diversity is fun, it's also rich, enlivening and often frightening. I wish that people would face the fear of difference and embrace the excitement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Phillip, I read with great interest your and the sunshine
warrior (neat name, sw!)'s "rants". The right and left
sides of my own brain are in conflict with each other over
this! My "a place for everything and everything in its place" side is all for having ONE correct spelling and usage. My "wow, check this out" side wants to continue finding new things. For ex., favourite/favorite, and standardize/standardise, words from your eloquent and elegant 'rant'. If I had to choose one side, however, I
must say that, as my house demonstrates, my 'everything in its place' side would be the loser! Jackie
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,317
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
596
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
