ILLUSTRATION BY ERIC SHANSBY
Gene Weingarten Below the Beltway
The pronounciation poleesh Gene thinks you talk funny
are like most Americans, you have been mispronouncing it your whole life; worse, by so doing, you have been blindly perpetuating an error likely begun eons ago by children who have trouble saying “s.” When you think about it, saying “lickerish” is no more justifiable, and no less infantile, than saying “pizghetti” or “hostipal” or “drownded.” If you doubt this, try to think of another word ending
H
in “ice” that is pronounced “ish.” We do not drive to the “offish” unless we are very, very drunk, in which case we might be arrested by the … poleesh? Now, I know what you are
going to say, so you needn’t bother. You were going to smugly inform me that you have just consulted a dictionary and discovered that “lickerish” is, in fact, the first pronunciation offered. And this would be a dandy argument were it not for the fact that dictionaries have finally proved they no longer can be relied on to offer reasonable assessments of proper pronunciation. There’s a vacuum of leadership in this area, one I am boldly stepping forward to fill today, with as much obnoxious pedantry as I can manage. You are most welcome. As pronunciation guides, dictionaries have long
been flirting with irrelevancy. That’s because they have been bending over backward to accommodate public ignorance, legitimizing linguistic lassitude such as ignoring the “r” in February. Dictionary editors defend themselves by arguing that a language is a living, breathing thing, and must remain supple enough to reflect changes in common usage. And I agree! Change is good! As custodians of the language — the innkeepers of the venerable Hotel English — dictionary editors should be open and hospitable and unafraid to modernize … so long as they don’t let barbarians trash the place. “Feb-you-erry” was tolerable, if annoying. But what
has happened recently is not tolerable, and beyond annoying. Dictionaries have not only begun recognizing
ow do you say the name of that black candy? Wrong. It is not pronounced “lickerish.” It is pronounced “lickoriss.” If you
even more wince-inducing formulations, but of late they have been uttering these unutterable pronunciations aloud, via online audio links. So it is now possible, with just two clicks of a mouse, to access Merriam-
Webster.com, and to hear the crystal-clear voice of an intelligent-sounding woman, speaking with authority in well-enunciated syllables, informing your impressionable children that it is just peachy to say … “liberry.” Also, “ek-setera.” Also, “ath-a-lete.” And not “sherbet,” but the appallingly ignorant
“sherbert,” as in Herbert.
Dictionary.com not only says aloud the idiot’s coffee-bar order of “expresso” but actually offers that as an alternate spelling of the real word.
And finally, ironically, in
what can only be seen as its ultimate abdication as a trusted authority, Merriam-Webster gives us, aloud, the following pronunciation: “Pronounciation.” In short, the dictionary is
dead to me — and, I hope, to you, too. It’s okay. You have me. So, listen up. • It’s “ma-choor,” not “ma- toor.” “Ma-toor” takes the sin
of ignorance — we do not look at pictoors or have adventoors, and the Christ’s second coming will not occur during raptoor — and compounds it with the sin of pomposity. People who say “ma-toor” think of themselves as more mature than the rest of us. I’ll bet George Will says “matoor.” • It’s “off-en,” not “off-ten.” Because I said so. • Depot is “dee-po,” not “deh-po.” • A tribute by example is an “oh-MAHZH,” not
“HOM-age,” because occasionally, if rarely, the French know what they are doing. And therefore the word carries the article “an,” not “a,” despite what your local newspaper might print. Do I have you convinced? Or are you going to stick
stubbornly to, say, “lickerish”? Well, if you do, here’s a little asterisk (or, as Merriam-
Webster permits, “asterik.”) There actually is an archaic word pronounced “lickerish.” It’s actually spelled that way. By all means, keep blithely using it in the presence of your little children, if you wish. It means “horny.”
E-mail Gene at
weingarten@washpost.com. 36 The WashingTon PosT Magazine | november 28, 2010
Chat with him Tuesday at noon at
washingtonpost.com/magazine.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158