Evening star., 1946-11-09
Letters to The Star
DepIores the Mispronunciation
Of Common Words

VI AOlAHiOIA w VI No
To the Editor OF The Star:
Reader comment elected by your
recent editorial on penmanship should
not obscure the fact that our mechanical
way of life has not withdrawn all
incentives to proficiency or closed all
doors to the gainful marketing of many
old-time personal skillS. 1t Is true, Of
course, that business courses stressing
typewriting instruction in our schools
attest the obsolescence Of about all forms
of calligraphic exercise.
However, when we link that fact with
offsetting facts stemming, for instance.
from the radio industry, things do not
look so bad.
The end-product Of radio, as we all
know, is not some marvellous gadget
service, but rather the many, human
voices we welcome into our homes. So it
is that the common gift Of speech,
with this and that qualification added,
finds profitable broadcasting employ
ment no-end.
However, the spotty pronunciation
performance Of too many of these
| sponsored male voices (the girls are not
guilty. now ranks with illegible PEN
manship as an irritating, inexcusable
nuisance. This down-grading in our
speech standards should be exposed and
steps taken. This letter is intended to
help in that effort.
The Yale professor who stated that:
Men like Churchill, and not rules in
lexicography, make the English Lam
guage." was right. You will recall that
the reference was to choice of words
the that's me" remark of the Prime
Minister. But no one can advance a
similar claim that men like our upper
bracket commentators, and not die
tionary rulings, determine correct pro-
nunciation.
Our language, as to words, is going
concern. New things and new thoughts
require new words. Such words gradually
evolve from slang or colloquial speech
and finally win acceptance ON merit.
But the correct pronunciation Of our
vital common words never has changed
within my memory. Word pronunciation
by educated radio speakers, presumably
by men who have aptitude for their
assignments, has no zone of usage con-
doning the mutilation of our language.
This bad practice is now so general
as to warrant the notion that these men
one day met and formally pledged them
selves to pronounce all words having
the first syllable prefix pre- or pro as
though spelled with the prefix per. So
1t is that an early morning chap starts
our day by giving us what he calls per-
cision" watch time. The evening COM
mentator bravely handles the atom
bomb and "pre diets better days,
economically. II We can only increase
per -duction." One evening recently 7
scored II such errors during.a quarter
hour time period.
No listener, and have checked with
many. could be mistaken. The mutila-
tions are made in clear voice and follow
the standard phoney pattern. Thus it is
that the words predict, presume, pro-
posal, production, presumably, produce,
prevail, preliminary, protested, presents,
etc, etc, are all mouthed into such nom
existent words as perdict. persume, per-
posal, perduction, ETC.. ETC.
Why do they do it? These speakers
know how to spell. They are not
illiterate or presenting zany or double
talk program. The copy from which
they read is correct. but for some reason
they take their eyes off the play, so to
speak, and neglect to call 'em as they
| see EN-
OF course, listeners know the words
| the speakers mean. The shock is but
momentary, but the puzzling thing is
why in blazes didn't the speakers pro-
nounce the word correctly?
To be sure, the "groundlings" will not
notice, but the defect is not trivial or
winning friends for either personalities
| or products
My conclusion is that the mess is
| possibly caused by some laziness in
blocking the speech organs. 1t is easy
slightly to break open the lips and
| pronounce the per" sound The cigarette
will not be disturbed. But enunciating
"pre" or pro" with syllables following
requires more coverage on the playing
field within the mouth and the speaker
simply balks at the exertion.
One thing is sure, ie., that opportunity
knocks for any speaker who will pro-
nounce words correctly. 1t is as simple
as that.
Young people listen to the sound of
words nowadays to determine their cor
rect spelling. Certain radio programs
are re-broadcast for current events dis
cussion in many high schools.
Why permit the voices, doing most of
the talking to young people in many
homes, to defeat what little foundation
spelling and speech instruction they
receive in our schools?
Shoot if you must this old gray head,
but spare your country's speech.
w. A, WILLIAMSON