this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
1846 points (98.1% liked)
Comic Strips
12568 readers
4065 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've never had the problem of not being understood. And regardless of how long the time period was, there was a time when one guy spoke aloud the word when he invented it. You can use the new pronunciation if you like, but I use the original, as I have for 30+ years, and I will continue to do so because both are acceptable. If you don't like it, that's a you problem.
You are either a uniquely spectacular communicator or a liar. It's not for me to say which. Regardless that's not the point. If you use the soft g sound and are not understood then, by your own explanation you are saying it wrong. That's something you need to contend with.
So no time requirement on archaic then?
As is true of every word and yet I'm sure there are words you say differently than the first person. I'll bet you don't say the name of the element with the atomic number 13 the same way the man who discovered it does. Not to mention who knows how many words England took from France, mangled, and then got adjusted again in America. Who is the correct first person there, or does the first person only matter with this specific issue?
I will as well many others.
Me too! Still doesn't make yours right and mine wrong no matter how hard you try to deride it as "new" when it's barely newer than the format.
I can't stop you. I can think you ridiculous for doing so but my suspicion that this would be the only reason I would think that of you diminishes with each response you send.
Perhaps, but one seems to be falling out of favor. Just like a double space after a period or writing out words greater than ten but less than one hundred.
I could call it a moving picture and not be wrong, doesn't mean people wouldn't think me weird for doing so. I would have to deal with that the way you need to deal with what your choices cause people to think of you.
Sure, but it won't stop me from making my own conclusions just like any other thing. The same is true for all of humanity to varying degrees.
You're still not listening. I'm not deriding anything, and I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. There are two pronunciations that are both in use, and it's objectively true that one is the original and the other is the new one. Arguing anything else is dishonest. One is not archaic, because it's still being used.
As for what you think of me, I really don't care. You're trying to convince me to pronounce a product name differently than I have done my entire life when I was told by the creator of the product how to pronounce it. I've heard your arguments, and the only linguistically relevant argument is that everyone just started doing it. That will be a compelling argument 100 years from now, but it's not a compelling argument to change.
You are deriding it. Is calling the chess piece a queen instead of a Vizir new? There's a much bigger gap between that change than this one? Or is it not new because that's what you know it as?
You can hide behind whatever you want, but your "told by the creator" rhetoric exposes you, even if you can't admit it to yourself.
It's not a compelling argument for you to change, again, because you've decided your way is the better one. Language, much like any other form of knowledge, has been changing, evolving, and updating with increasing speed for as long as this format has been around. I bet if you think you can figure out the connection.
It may be objectively true that one is the way the creator pronounced it but, as stated, it's also objectively true that originations don't dictate the pronunciations of words. I've given you plenty of ways that English does operate and how that lends itself to the hard g pronunciation as well as the fact that the so-called "new" pronunciation has been around nearly as long as the other one. Of course you could call that the "old" one, which is a more common counterpoint to new, yet you consistently choose "original". But I guess neither of us is listening, hmm?
Whatever. Take your ball and go home and keep telling yourself you don't care while telling everyone else you do with your own choices.
You sound really upset about this. Originations, at the time of origination, is the only thing that dictates the pronunciation of a new word. We have all been "told by the creator" because he wrote it down for everyone to avoid confusion. Confusion followed anyway, in part due to the absurd lies people shared online (including yourself) about non-existent rules of English linguistics. Yes, I find that annoying, but that's lingguistics. Things change, sometimes for stupid reasons, but that doesn't mean they haven't changed. Pointing out that the reasons are stupid is accurate, and we shouldn't pretend that they aren't stupid.
Maybe tomorrow people will start saying "gife" and then that will be the new pronunciation. New and old are not value judgements, they are just the reality of the passage of time and the evolution of language. If they started saying "gife" because they think the promunciation of acronyms is required to change every 15 years, then that would also be a stupid reason to change. It's still a new pronunciation, and then there would be three acceptable pronunciations of the word.
I am listening to you, you just aren't saying anything of value. You're attacking me because you don't like that I haven't adopted your preferred pronunciation of a word. You don't like me because I haven't changed to fit your preference. I don't care about you, because you're the sort of person who makes value judgements about a person based on their pronunciations of a word. Your entire argument is that I should change because you don't like the way I talk. I'm not asking you to change the way you talk. I'm pointing out the flaw in your thinking, and asking you to think for yourself. Don't listen to internet experts who make shit up. That's a path to ruin, and while we're talking about something silly and inconsequential, your attitude towards reality and dissent is alarming.
If you're reading tone into my text, that's a you problem. I doubt I can to anything to affect that, but text doesn't carry tone, we add it ourselves based on ourselves.
Sure. But if one is new the other is old. The fact that, for you, one is always new and the other is never old, says something. Perhaps you consider this reading tone in as I just talked about.
I thought understanding dictated pronunciation. If I make up a word on the spot it means nothing because you don't know my definition. If I write it here you will use the rules of English as you understand them to work out a pronunciation. If I had a different one this brand new word with only two people who know it has two distinct pronunciations. If you tell another person it now has three with two of them understanding the "new" pronunciation. Your own rules don't agree.
Is that because he wrote it down and the rules indicate a different pronunciation as sensible, or because there are no rules and writing it was a futile exercise?
Just because they are inconvenient for you, as well as inconsistent, does not make them non-existent or lies. The rule of law, so to speak, is inconstant but still exists. Breaking the law and getting caught at it comes with repercussions, except when it doesn't. English has rules that are not always followed. In some cases the exceptions may even outweigh the rule, but we still consider it when entering unknown territory. I will again point to the logic we use when sounding out a word we have only seen written and add looking up a word we have only heard spoken. G makes a sound as in go, except when it doesn't. This is a rule and an exception.
Correct, but new and original, used consistently, when it's been repeatedly pointed out that "new" is functionally the same age yet that's not been acknowledged, are.
Something of value and something you value are not necessarily equivalent. Referring to someone else's statements as lies because you don't agree with them demonstrates a personal lack of value in their statements, but not an objective one. I hope you can see that difference.
My "attacking you", which I'll wager is far more limited than you believe, is because you're doing the verbose equivalent of "nu uh, I'm right" and it's exhausting.
No. I think you're odd because you pronounce a word in a counterintuitive way and refuse to change. I don't like you because you appear to have a penchant for acting superior and say that's not what you're doing.
Then you've spent an absurd amount of time here for a person and a topic you don't care about.
Everybody in the world makes value judgements about others for something others think is ridiculous. We are all flawed humans. Many of us seek to do better than we did before.
And here you prove that you haven't listened. In all this time and all these words that hasn't been my argument at any point.
No, you're just giving the impression that my way is the inferior way because yours was first and handed to us by the creator. Mine is based on lies. You're not asking me to change, you just want me to feel bad if I don't so you can tell yourself that you're enlightened.
It's funny how often people who don't want to say they want people to agree with them say they want others to think for themselves. I couldn't have come to the place I am by thinking for myself? Which places can I get by doing so?
You also have a difficult time getting someone to accept flaws in their thinking by using visibly flawed thinking.
Like you, who says English has no rules? Or the creator of the gif, who made up a word spelled gif and pronounced jif? Does it matter if they're not on the Internet because all the way through high school they spent a lot of time on English rules.
Seems a bit hyperbolic. Will the way I choose to pronounce words just be my downfall, all of society's, or something in between?
I know I cut off a couple words here, but I needed to highlight that anyone who says someone's attitude toward reality is inconsequential perhaps needs to consider some introspection before continuing a conversation.
This is all an exercise in futility. You can't even agree with yourself on basic things (there's no rules, the only rule is being understood, the creator decides pronunciation) so there is no hope you'll care enough time try and understand someone you have decided is lying and not thinking for themselves. I hope the people who deal with you day to day get a better version of you than the one you present here, and that at some point you can really dig in to yourself and see the parts of you that are on display in this exchange but you insist aren't there. I'm sure they extend to other parts of your personality and that you'd be better off without them.