Speaking of “yer”, I just came across the entries for “your” and “yourself” in Webster’s Pocket Dictionary. The pronunciations suggested were “yer” and “yer-self”. They are just kidding aren’t they? Is this word no longer supposed to rhyme with bore “bōr”? Or have I just lived plum too far from where they’s all fixin’ to go down “chonder”?
Of course, that isn’t to deny that different pronunciations of words are acceptable in different parts of the country. We all have accents and no one is exempt from having them. But the range of somewhat acceptable possibilities should not replace the standard.
4 comments:
So, is a dictionary normative or empirical?
I believe that most dictionary-makers (and is there an official name for those, Dan?) recognize that they are often swimming upstream and that a dictionary is primarily a dictionary of actual standard usage. Nevertheless, they do make judgments as to what is "standard" usage. So, normative? Usually. Empirical? Most definitely. As to "your", I think that I would question whether it is even the usual to pronounce it "yer".
By the way, let us be reminded that anyone can use the name "Webster's" for his dictionary. The pocket one I quoted from is from a relatively unknown company.
Yes, "lexicographers" (Whoops! Did I just downplay their significance?) tout themselves as empirical practitioners of the art, yet so many of them are linguists of one persuasion or another, compelling them to recognize shifts in all sorts of vernacular. If you're not looking at a G & C Merriam or an OED, or a Random House, then you're liable to find just about anything that could attend to more normative mores of our ever fluid lexicon, and less of the "science" (there I go again) of lexicography. But, then, even the British linguists have had particular views of the language for several centuries, not necessarily ones that have been used since the inception of English. No practice is absolutely accurate. I guess you could say that it will forever be just that...practice.
Having wanted to be part of that highminded (and I use this in a positive mien) profession for quite some time, I would say that sticking to the more conservative side--that side that wishes to continue with consistent pronunciations and spellings--would be my preference, though I could see the use of adjusting one's work to the cultural changes of the times, say, maybe in some genres of writing. I would strongly encourage lexicographers of the latter to create some kind of forward, in their dictionaries, that explains from which persuasion they proceed. It could only help.
I think good (that is, scholarly) dictionaries do include a preface. The junk dictionaries are probably the only ones that don't. Their business model is to be cheap (apparently in both senses).
How often does a pocket dictionary actually disappoint even "armchair" logophiles by having no entry at all for a word in question?
Post a Comment