Chris Croughton wrote:
> On 9 May 2005 16:52:06 -0700, credoquaabsurdum
> <credoquaabsurdum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It is now worth mentioning that stress on the first syllable is
simply
> > not listed in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate. Chris, I cannot
understand
> > where you got the idea that putting stress on the first syllable
might
> > be an American innovation.
>
> Americans put stress on all sorts of weird syllables. That might be
the
> only one they don't put stress on (or they might not have read M-W,
the
> same way Brits obviously haven't read the CsOED).
This is an opportune moment for a real discussion regarding this.
There are three major American dictionaries of record.
First comes Merriam-Webster's, which is the direct descendant of Noah
Webster's dictionary. By and large, everyone in the humanities uses it,
because an organization called the Modern Language Association (MLA)
endorses its use.
Next we have Random House Webster's Dictionary, which is the dictionary
of record among our scientists. By and large, everyone in the hard and
social sciences uses it, because an organization called the American
Psychological Association (APA) endorses its use.
Finally, we have Webster's New World Dictionary, beloved by the
journalism community.
The American Heritage Dictionary has a nice cover and a nice title and
fifth-rate definitions, but because of the aforementioned cover +
title, as well as its oh-so-competitive price, was moving up in the
world just before the Internet boom.
Thankfully, Merriam-Webster's, which in a brave move has made available
the contents of its Collegiate Dictionary (its most popular title) fo
free online, is currently pulverizing its upstart competitors, finally
bringing harmony to what was an unfair war between a serious,
scholastic organization and a bunch of wannabes.
>From the start, Noah Webster was committed to a more descriptive rather
than prescriptive understanding of lexical issues. M-W, therefore, has
been building now-voluminous files on the American version of English
for generations. There are certain battle lines that have been drawn
between American and British English for generations to which the
Dictionary adheres religiously (Webster was one of the first to call
the eighteenth-century innovative Mayfair pronunciation of the word
"dictionary" /'dik-sh&n-ri:/ for /dik-sh&n-'e-ri:/ foppish and effete),
but M-W believes in incorporating practically every significant
American variation in educated speech (in its definition, secondary
school graduates).
I could go on for days about this, but the long and short of it is
this: I know what I'm talking about, and if M-W doesn't list it, it
ain't American.
Then again, the OED Online does not list /'dai-rek-sh&n/ (you'll have
to take my word for it). So who do we blame for this one? What low
dastard moved the stress to the first syllable? I do not think the OP
is a native speaker: he was simply wondering which pronunciation, /dai/
or /d&/, was more correct, and perhaps he lives somewhere where the
loanword is used in other contexts.
> By "exposed to" I meant greater than usual exposure (having lived
there,
> having an American partner/spouse/whatever).
Hmm...It sounds kind of like the questions I have to answer every time
I give blood, except here, you've substituted "American" for "male
prostitute."
> > Pound down those cheeseburgers, boys! Mmm-mmm good!
> I prefer the ones we got in France[1], but they kilo them not pound
> them...
My ex-wife is French and I used to live in Paris, so I would very much
prefer not to think about France, meat, and pounding all at once,
thanks all the same.
> [1] There's a famous poem about the Burgers of Calais...
My favorite story in the world is about the Burgomaster of Riva. It's
famous enough to be on on-line, as I just discovered. Who knew?
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|