 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Pronunciations: codified and bucolic
We watched a programme this evening about late 1960s/early 1970s music in California (CSN&Y/Mitchell/Taylor/Brown). Two pronunciations leapt out at me: "codified" with the first vowel matching the fish ("codd-i-fied"); and "bucolic" with the first vowel as "boo" ("boo-col-ick"). They were, I'm fairly certain, said by different people. Are these just idiosyncratic pronunciations, or are they common in that there rarified part of the world?  SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > We watched a programme this evening about late 1960s/early 1970s > music in California (CSN&Y/Mitchell/Taylor/Brown). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Are these just idiosyncratic pronunciations, or are they common > in that there rarified part of the world? I haven't heard boo-colic, but in this part of the world (Virginia, USA), which is thousands of miles from California as the Eagles fly, "codify" is more likely to be pronounced with a fishy first syllable than not. Of course, I used to work for a publisher of legal codes, so maybe it's jargon, but the Random House Webster's Unabridged I checked in gives it as the first pronunciation, so it's not unique to the law-book trade, either. Signaturerzed >We watched a programme this evening about late 1960s/early 1970s >music in California (CSN&Y/Mitchell/Taylor/Brown). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Are these just idiosyncratic pronunciations, or are they common in >that there rarified part of the world? I think codd-ified (as in fish) would be the normal pronunciation here - indeed code-ified would hit me as definitely wrong. And bucolic I would expect to hear has byoo-colic. I don't think I've ever heard boo-colic. Jitze In alt.usage.english, Jitze Couperus wrote: >I think codd-ified (as in fish) would be the normal pronunciation >here - indeed code-ified would hit me as definitely wrong. Whereas here it's exactly the other way round. ISTM that "code-ify" parallels "code" and "codd-ify" parallels "modify". I know which makes more sense to me. NSOED doesn't show the "codd-ify" pronunciation, presumably because no-one nott-ified them. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >In alt.usage.english, Jitze Couperus wrote: >>I think codd-ified (as in fish) would be the normal pronunciation [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >NSOED doesn't show the "codd-ify" pronunciation, presumably because no-one >nott-ified them. In BrE one meaning of "cod" (noun and verb) is "hoax", which brings a new twist to the "Da Vinci Code" if "code" is pronounced fishily. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > In BrE one meaning of "cod" (noun and verb) is "hoax", which brings a > new twist to the "Da Vinci Code" if "code" is pronounced fishily. In AusE "The Da Vinci Code" is codswallop, although I've never learnt what part of the fish the wallop might be. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >> In BrE one meaning of "cod" (noun and verb) is "hoax", which brings a >> new twist to the "Da Vinci Code" if "code" is pronounced fishily. > > In AusE "The Da Vinci Code" is codswallop, although I've never learnt what > part of the fish the wallop might be. That's the part that hits upside your head, no doubt. --Jeff SignatureThe shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. --Stendhal >>> In BrE one meaning of "cod" (noun and verb) is "hoax", which brings a >>> new twist to the "Da Vinci Code" if "code" is pronounced fishily. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's the part that hits upside your head, no doubt. My thrifty and impecunious New England forebears learned to make use of every part of the cod, not excluding the swallop. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > :-) That brought a warm smile to my face. Wow this group is great for humor. Thanks. [Ya can wallop cods, but ya can't beat steak] >> My thrifty and impecunious New England forebears learned to make >> use of every part of the cod, not excluding the swallop. >> > :-) > That brought a warm smile to my face. Wow this group is great for > humor. Thanks. Well, sure it is. You have to study up to post here, y'know ;)* There's a big FAQ, which Donna regularly posts a link to (most lately today, the 13th) and which is useful, as well as fun, to read. *The FAQ would tell me not to do the smiley thing; but I beg exception from the rule here, for the sake of clarity. > [Ya can wallop cods, but ya can't beat steak] That has to be one of the most diplomatic references to a tasteless joke that I've ever seen. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >> [Ya can wallop cods, but ya can't beat steak] > > That has to be one of the most diplomatic references to a tasteless joke > that I've ever seen. Oh. Oops. Duh. Silly me. Its been a while. >> [Ya can wallop cods, but ya can't beat steak] > > That has to be one of the most diplomatic references to a tasteless joke > that I've ever seen. You don't like beetroot? SignatureRob Bannister The Robert Bannister entity posted thusly: >>> [Ya can wallop cods, but ya can't beat steak] >> >> That has to be one of the most diplomatic references to a tasteless joke >> that I've ever seen. > >You don't like beetroot? Borscht, borscht, borscht; ya can't beat soup. >> [Ya can wallop cods, but ya can't beat steak] > > That has to be one of the most diplomatic references to a tasteless > joke that I've ever seen. The temptation to look wise and shut up is almost overwhelming. I don't think I know that joke, but. I intended to have the line indicate that the snipped material had consisted of jokes about codswallop by making a small derivative one of my own, while also suggesting my suspicion of the fishy origins of "cod" in that word. "You can't beat steak" is a common enough sentiment, my other association for which is a fragmentary memory of a light novel, almost certainly British, in which someone says that to the narrator and he muses about "beating the steak: cruel sports of our ancestors". >>> [Ya can wallop cods, but ya can't beat steak] >> That has to be one of the most diplomatic references to a tasteless >> joke that I've ever seen. > > The temptation to look wise and shut up is almost overwhelming. I > don't think I know that joke, but. In that case I'll compromise, by giving the question but not the answer. Which is the odd one out: egg, wife, meat, blow job? SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >[Ya can wallop cods, but ya can't beat steak] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >*The FAQ would tell me not to do the smiley thing; but I beg exception >from the rule here, for the sake of clarity. Looks like your smiley has a cold sore. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >> [Ya can wallop cods, but ya can't beat steak] >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> > Looks like your smiley has a cold sore. Would you believe, an assymetric pompon? Eye askew. In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote: >The FAQ would tell me not to do the smiley thing Really? SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote: >> The FAQ would tell me not to do the smiley thing > > Really? Well, sort of really. If you use the search function on the FAQ site to find "smiley", you are referred to Michael Quinion's report of the group's experience of them: "There has been a slightly acerbic discussion on alt.usage.english about that almost ubiquitous and distinguishing marker of online communications, the smiley. A number of the regular participants swear they never use them, never feel the need to use them, and would wish never to see one in the group. Their belief is that smileys are ugly and unnecessary, that there is nothing which cannot be communicated in words alone, and that using them is a sign of an uneducated writer. [comments] [historical account] They have since become (depending on your point of view) either an essential part of the online messaging process, a minor irritation, or a confounded nuisance that pollutes the world's communications channels. Alt.usage.english tends towards the latter end of the spectrum, as you will have gathered, and the smiley count in that newsgroup is well below average." http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/smiley.htm He goes on to register some approval of them. Perhaps I meant "would" as in "in a better world". In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote: >> In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote: >>> The FAQ would tell me not to do the smiley thing [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/smiley.htm "Page created 6 August 1996" Things have settled down a lot in the last ten and a bit years. AFAICS your smiley elicited no condemnation or acerbic discussion. Nor is that initialism likely to, whereas in 1996... >He goes on to register some approval of them. Perhaps I meant "would" >as in "in a better world". So you would prefer your smiley to have been illicit? Fair enough. If you want to proceed in that direction, bear in mind that anyone is welcome to propose additions or alterations to the FAQ. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >>>>In BrE one meaning of "cod" (noun and verb) is "hoax", which brings a >>>>new twist to the "Da Vinci Code" if "code" is pronounced fishily. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My thrifty and impecunious New England forebears learned to make use of > every part of the cod, not excluding the swallop. At my school in England, occasionally the small, undercooked servings of fish would contain little plastic tags marked "COD". We assumed this meant "cash on delivery", since other indications suggested there was no connection between school dinner and real food. However, the prefects were pretty good at walloping. SignatureRob Bannister >In alt.usage.english, Jitze Couperus wrote: >>I think codd-ified (as in fish) would be the normal pronunciation [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >NSOED doesn't show the "codd-ify" pronunciation, presumably because no-one >nott-ified them. Yea - and when mode changes to modify it is clearly pronounced mode-ify. I wish those chaps at NSOED would be consistent! Jitze > >In alt.usage.english, Jitze Couperus wrote: > >>I think codd-ified (as in fish) would be the normal pronunciation [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yea - and when mode changes to modify it is clearly pronounced > mode-ify. I wish those chaps at NSOED would be consistent! Then there's the conflict between "rate" and "ratify", both from Latin _ratus_. Another exemple: Why don't we say "examplify"? And if we gratify someone's desire, shouldn't they be grattful, or might they be an ingratt? > Two pronunciations leapt out at me: "codified" with the first vowel > matching the fish ("codd-i-fied"); and "bucolic" with the first vowel > as "boo" ("boo-col-ick"). They were, I'm fairly certain, said by > different people. MWC10 gives both short- and long-o pronunciations of codify, in that order. For classically derived words in which a single consonant letter is followed by a suffix, the suffix usually determines the preceding vowel (unless it's a u or double). Using that criterion, the cod pronunciation has ratify, modify, vivify, specify on its side; but the licentious can cite "notify" & observe that, like it, "codify" contains a recognizable English noun whose relation to the verb is somewhat obscured by the vowel shift. "Boocolic" may fairly be called a blunder. I have never heard it, it is not in MWC10, and it would be irregular -- cf. putrescent, bureaucracy, mutation. (It might not always have been so, however; in Elizabethan times, IIRC, the u lost its glide in "reputation" etc.; and that style survived until recently, in some dialects, for "figure" & a few other words with unstressed u. Note also "minute".) Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Make the program complicated enough to feel pain; then :|| ||: punish it until it does what you want it to. :|| > "Boocolic" may fairly be called a blunder. I have never heard it, it > is not in MWC10, and it would be irregular -- cf. putrescent, > bureaucracy, mutation. (It might not always have been so, however; in > Elizabethan times, IIRC, the u lost its glide in "reputation" etc.;... These are Elizabethan times, and have been since 1952. njg >> "Boocolic" may fairly be called a blunder. I have never heard it, it >> is not in MWC10, and it would be irregular -- cf. putrescent, >> bureaucracy, mutation. (It might not always have been so, however; in >> Elizabethan times, IIRC, the u lost its glide in "reputation" etc.;... > > These are Elizabethan times, and have been since 1952. The original New Age, innit. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > We watched a programme this evening about late 1960s/early 1970s > music in California (CSN&Y/Mitchell/Taylor/Brown). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Are these just idiosyncratic pronunciations, or are they common in > that there rarified part of the world? "Codd-i-fied" (rhymes with "modified") is my normal pronunciation. I can't remember ever hearing "cou-di-fied". "Byu-col-ick" is my norm. I don't say "poo-bic hair" either. -- Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "Not only are we [USA Americans] convinced that economic liberalization goes hand in hand with democratization, our engagement policy is premised on the false notion that once nations get to know us, they will happily choose to be like us." GREGORY RODRIGUEZ, Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation. grodriguez@latimescolumnists.com. http://tinyurl.com/yfccby [Free registration for the LA Times required] The CyberCypher entity posted thusly: >> We watched a programme this evening about late 1960s/early 1970s >> music in California (CSN&Y/Mitchell/Taylor/Brown). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >"Codd-i-fied" (rhymes with "modified") is my normal pronunciation. I >can't remember ever hearing "cou-di-fied". Me neither. What about 'code-ified'? >"Byu-col-ick" is my norm. I don't say "poo-bic hair" either. I say 'bew' and 'pew'. > We watched a programme this evening about late 1960s/early 1970s > music in California (CSN&Y/Mitchell/Taylor/Brown). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Are these just idiosyncratic pronunciations, or are they common in > that there rarified part of the world? "Codd-ified" is the standard AmE pronunciation, IME. "Boo-colic" I'd consider an error. SignatureSalvatore Volatile The Salvatore Volatile entity posted thusly: >> We watched a programme this evening about late 1960s/early 1970s >> music in California (CSN&Y/Mitchell/Taylor/Brown). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >"Codd-ified" is the standard AmE pronunciation, IME. I think it must be an uncommon word on TV or radio, since I have never heard it pronounced that way. I think it's probably 'code-ified' in Canada. >"Boo-colic" I'd consider an error. Reading this thread, I initially envisioned everyone denigrating the 'boo-colic' pronunciation as pronouncing it with a short 'u', or perhaps a schwa. To my surprise, it turns out they were pronouncing it with the 'you' sound. I have always pronounced it with 'boo' or 'bew', never with 'byoo'. > We watched a programme this evening about late 1960s/early 1970s > music in California (CSN&Y/Mitchell/Taylor/Brown). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Are these just idiosyncratic pronunciations, or are they common in > that there rarified part of the world? I've only ever heard "CODD-i-fied" (first syllable as in the fish). But I've also only ever heard "byoo-COLL-ick"; never "boo-COLL-ick". SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.