Where I grew up, some folks would pronounce the title of a married woman as "miz-riz" with more or less equal stress. "Are you in Mizriz Smith's class?"
Not everybody did, but some folks. I tried to argue another kid out of her pronunciation, and she pointed out that their was an "r" in Mrs. Of course, it should be pronounced! I just couldn't even argue with that.
I am interested in specific places (cities, parts of states) that people have heard this pronunciation from, say, more than one person. I have a hypothesis, and I want to see how it holds up.
Do you pronounce the "r" in Mrs.?
-
- Junior Lexiterian
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:15 pm
I grew up in southern California and never heard Mrs. pronounced "miz-riz" until I moved to Georgia. I hear it used mostly by (for lack of a better term) more educated people, including one english teacher I had in college. At first I thought she just a hard time pronouncing it the proper way. Then I heard someone else say it the same way. The next time you try arguing it with someone and they point out there is an "r" in the word and one should pronounce it that way, just tell them there are no vowels in the spelling of the word either so why are they pronouncing it with an "I"?(for the sake of argument) The American Heritage Dictionary reads it should be pronounced "mĭs'ĭz". No "R" sound in it.
"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compaired to what lies inside us." R.W.E.
-
- Grand Panjandrum
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:58 pm
- Location: Carolinia Agrestícia: The Forest Primeval
Actually there is an R in the original word it's an abbreviation for: etymology: abbreviation of mistress (-Merriam-Webster). Used in just the right circumstance, that could reroute some conversations...The next time you try arguing it with someone and they point out there is an "r" in the word and one should pronounce it that way, just tell them there are no vowels in the spelling of the word either so why are they pronouncing it with an "I"?(for the sake of argument) The American Heritage Dictionary reads it should be pronounced "mĭs'ĭz". No "R" sound in it.
Beckee Lynn (welcome a-board!), maybe your hypothesis needs to know whether any of the miz-rizzers are aware of that derivation. I've never heard anyone insert the R (without the tress of it), in the South or elsewhere, but 'miz-riz' does come out purty close to the root. Accident, or coincidence?
Stop! Murder us not, tonsured rumpots! Knife no one, fink!
- Dr. Goodword
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7607
- Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:28 am
- Location: Lewisburg, PA
- Contact:
Why accents are important.
Here is a wonderful example of how accents (dialects) can impact the dominant dialect (often called the "standard" language). Since Mrs. is the abbreviation of mistress, the correct pronunciation should be "mistress". However, because this word was reduced to missus dialectally, Mrs.--even in the standard dictionaries--now is the abbreviation of "missus", an otherwise nonexistent word.
This is why the rise of yall as a pronoun, not noun phrase, is so interesting. It is spreading across the US and stands a good chance of filling that important gap in English, the absence of a plural pronoun for you.
This is why the rise of yall as a pronoun, not noun phrase, is so interesting. It is spreading across the US and stands a good chance of filling that important gap in English, the absence of a plural pronoun for you.
• The Good Dr. Goodword
I read the linked article and was interested to note that the apostrophe was conspicuous by its absence. I always thought the yall is written y'all to signify the 'missing' ou.
Also, I would go for writting you'uns instead of yuns, but for a different reason. Two counties over (in Mitchell and Yancy counties) the you of you'ns is fully pronounced.
I suppose that it 'might could be' written either way, until the grammer is completely levelled, I just ain't sure. Or amn't sure, for those that haven't read Ain't Isn't a Four-Letter Word.
Also, I would go for writting you'uns instead of yuns, but for a different reason. Two counties over (in Mitchell and Yancy counties) the you of you'ns is fully pronounced.
I suppose that it 'might could be' written either way, until the grammer is completely levelled, I just ain't sure. Or amn't sure, for those that haven't read Ain't Isn't a Four-Letter Word.
"Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening all at once. Lately it hasn't been working."
Anonymous
Anonymous
My grandma R would have said we dasn't [variant of 'do not dare'] use that type of language...Or amn't sure, for those that haven't read Ain't Isn't a Four-Letter Word.
-gailr
-
- Grand Panjandrum
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:58 pm
- Location: Carolinia Agrestícia: The Forest Primeval
Hasn't dasn't been invoked some three times today? Bailey, BD and now Gail, of those that I saw...
{edit: oops, AAtime clock says Gail was first }
It looks like the Dr. replied to Perry's apostrophic inquiry in another thread -I had wondered what it was answering and more or less asked the same thing. Having read the linked article though, I noticed:
Some time ago, English distinguished between "thou (art)" and "you (are)." "Thou" was second person singular and "you" was second person plural. Somewhere in the shuffle of history that crucial distinction was lost.
-- but were not thou and you also the 'familiar' and 'formal' 2nd person singular, also fallen into disuse after 17th century? Was this then a package deal, losing both singular-familiar and 1st-person-plural distinctions? And why would our four bears have done that, since other Euro languages* did not?
*excepting maybe Swedish?
{edit: oops, AAtime clock says Gail was first }
It looks like the Dr. replied to Perry's apostrophic inquiry in another thread -I had wondered what it was answering and more or less asked the same thing. Having read the linked article though, I noticed:
Some time ago, English distinguished between "thou (art)" and "you (are)." "Thou" was second person singular and "you" was second person plural. Somewhere in the shuffle of history that crucial distinction was lost.
-- but were not thou and you also the 'familiar' and 'formal' 2nd person singular, also fallen into disuse after 17th century? Was this then a package deal, losing both singular-familiar and 1st-person-plural distinctions? And why would our four bears have done that, since other Euro languages* did not?
*excepting maybe Swedish?
Stop! Murder us not, tonsured rumpots! Knife no one, fink!
Another funny thing happened in English. Although thou started its career as the familiar form, its extensive use in many English translations of the Bible has given it the connotation of being the formal form; especially as the King James version uses thou for both possible situations.
"Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening all at once. Lately it hasn't been working."
Anonymous
Anonymous
-
- Grand Panjandrum
- Posts: 1464
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Botucatu - SP Brazil
You mean grizzly, right? Or if they've even been rejected by the four bears, perhaps gristly.Those puns are grisly...as is this.
And who were the four bear's forebears?
Hmmm, this should greatly reassure those who want nothing to do with monkey's uncles.The precursors to the group that became bears split off into the Amphicyonidae (Bear Dogs) and the Procyonidae (Raccon Family) groups, leaving the Cephalogale group. The Cephalogale group split into the Ursavus group and the group that would soon evolve into the sealions and walruses, some 30 million years ago.
-gailr
it's all baby can stand that goldi locks the door on all his antecedants. But that was three not fore, what shall we say for fore bears, cinnamon, black,brown, kodiak? these before Papa, Mama, and Santa Maria? oops mixed my sillinesses.
mark
mark
Today is the first day of the rest of your life, Make the most of it...
kb
-
- Grand Panjandrum
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:58 pm
- Location: Carolinia Agrestícia: The Forest Primeval
OK all, let's don't polarise the situation..
My revelation on which was which between thou and you came upon reading the Bible in French where God was addressed as "tu" -up to then I'd presumed thou had been the English formal (on the assumption from reading the same in English that if you use the familiar for the Creator, who could rate the formal?).
Perry, wanna be a cub reporter (ursamthing like that) and post some Biblicals where Thou dost do double duty as both formal and familiar?
My revelation on which was which between thou and you came upon reading the Bible in French where God was addressed as "tu" -up to then I'd presumed thou had been the English formal (on the assumption from reading the same in English that if you use the familiar for the Creator, who could rate the formal?).
Perry, wanna be a cub reporter (ursamthing like that) and post some Biblicals where Thou dost do double duty as both formal and familiar?
Stop! Murder us not, tonsured rumpots! Knife no one, fink!
Return to “The Rebel-Yankee Test”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests