Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News2 mins ago
University Challenge
33 Answers
I have persevered with watching the new styled University Challenge. I do like AR's style and him as a personality but there were a few issues he needed to deal with. One has been rectified but the other two have not (yet).
Speed of delivery now sensible not rushed.
Still pronounces the letter H incorrectly - two haitches last night.
The oversized screen cowling is still on the desk instead of being sunken, similar to newsreaders desks.
What do you think.
Speed of delivery now sensible not rushed.
Still pronounces the letter H incorrectly - two haitches last night.
The oversized screen cowling is still on the desk instead of being sunken, similar to newsreaders desks.
What do you think.
Answers
Some pronunciatio
12:55 Wed 02nd Aug 2023
//...but the latter implies a judgement//
Why are you so averse to judgement calls? In my judgement "haitch" makes the speaker sound naff. How Australians speak is hardly relevant. It's about the same (though not quite) as mentioning how Americans behave when they allegedly speak English. In my judgement.
Why are you so averse to judgement calls? In my judgement "haitch" makes the speaker sound naff. How Australians speak is hardly relevant. It's about the same (though not quite) as mentioning how Americans behave when they allegedly speak English. In my judgement.
You wouldn't catch me saying "haitch" either. But one of the things I tend to feel it's worth moving away from is using language as a means to judge people. Better to embrace the variety than to enforce some kind of gold standard that many people, for whatever reason, don't meet.
It's arbitrary anyway: as one of my links outlined, there is at least a plausible argument to be made that "haitch" was the original form. But we gradually dropped h's from the beginnings of words, and then only later started to restore them (eg to "hat", "hotel", "herb" etc); and, in that sense, haven't yet got around to restoring it at the font of "aitch".
There are times when it's helpful to have a universal standard that all people can refer to, for sure, especially in written language in formal documents that benefit from being as widely accessible as possible. But as long as it's clear what's meant, spoken language oughtn't be so tightly guarded. Everybody knows that "haitch" and "aitch" are the same letter (or, say, "skedyool" and "shedyool" both being the same word schedule, though I much prefer the second myself).
It's arbitrary anyway: as one of my links outlined, there is at least a plausible argument to be made that "haitch" was the original form. But we gradually dropped h's from the beginnings of words, and then only later started to restore them (eg to "hat", "hotel", "herb" etc); and, in that sense, haven't yet got around to restoring it at the font of "aitch".
There are times when it's helpful to have a universal standard that all people can refer to, for sure, especially in written language in formal documents that benefit from being as widely accessible as possible. But as long as it's clear what's meant, spoken language oughtn't be so tightly guarded. Everybody knows that "haitch" and "aitch" are the same letter (or, say, "skedyool" and "shedyool" both being the same word schedule, though I much prefer the second myself).
//Better to embrace the variety…//
“Embracing the variety” causes all sorts of problems and diversity is not all it’s cracked up to be. Allowing and/or encouraging diversity in language is always accompanied by “as long as it's clear what's meant.” The problem with that is, one step away from what’s meant is probably OK. A second step (compounding the variation made by the first) might be OK. A third and you’re possibly straying into the realms of ambiguity. A fourth….? Such changes are OK provided all users are on board, but invariably they are not. That’s when variety begins to cause problems. It’s why adults cannot understand what their children are talking about and why Londoners have to have the sub-titles on when watching “Auf Wiedersehen Pet”, “Taggart” or “Rab C. Nesbitt”.
The idea of language is that everybody using it understands what everybody else who uses it means when they speak or write. That’s why I chuckle when Americans insist they speak English.
“Embracing the variety” causes all sorts of problems and diversity is not all it’s cracked up to be. Allowing and/or encouraging diversity in language is always accompanied by “as long as it's clear what's meant.” The problem with that is, one step away from what’s meant is probably OK. A second step (compounding the variation made by the first) might be OK. A third and you’re possibly straying into the realms of ambiguity. A fourth….? Such changes are OK provided all users are on board, but invariably they are not. That’s when variety begins to cause problems. It’s why adults cannot understand what their children are talking about and why Londoners have to have the sub-titles on when watching “Auf Wiedersehen Pet”, “Taggart” or “Rab C. Nesbitt”.
The idea of language is that everybody using it understands what everybody else who uses it means when they speak or write. That’s why I chuckle when Americans insist they speak English.
// Allowing and/or encouraging diversity in language is always accompanied by “as long as it's clear what's meant.” The problem with that is, one step away from what’s meant is probably OK. A second step (compounding the variation made by the first) might be OK. A third and you’re possibly straying into the realms of ambiguity. A fourth….? Such changes are OK provided all users are on board, but invariably they are not.//
The thing is, you're literally describing how language evolves here.
The thing is, you're literally describing how language evolves here.
//NJ, would the programmes (programs?) you mentioned be "improved" if all the characters spoke using received pronunciation?//
No because one of their attractions is to demonstrate that there are large numbers of people in the UK, ostensibly speaking the same language, but who cannot understand each other.
//The thing is, you're literally describing how language evolves here.//
No, what I’m describing is how different versions of it come about. The “step changes” I described would not all take place at the same time (and some not at all) across the country. If it were evolutionary then everybody would understand the newly evolved version. But plainly they don’t and so the language loses its purpose. It’s fine if a community wants to keep their musings to themselves, but that’s not usually a very good idea because they may find it necessary to communicate with people outside that community from time to time.
I can understand difficulties arising with different languages. But everyone using the same language should be able to understand each other.
No because one of their attractions is to demonstrate that there are large numbers of people in the UK, ostensibly speaking the same language, but who cannot understand each other.
//The thing is, you're literally describing how language evolves here.//
No, what I’m describing is how different versions of it come about. The “step changes” I described would not all take place at the same time (and some not at all) across the country. If it were evolutionary then everybody would understand the newly evolved version. But plainly they don’t and so the language loses its purpose. It’s fine if a community wants to keep their musings to themselves, but that’s not usually a very good idea because they may find it necessary to communicate with people outside that community from time to time.
I can understand difficulties arising with different languages. But everyone using the same language should be able to understand each other.
Language evolution includes certain dialect words (or pronunciations) catching on, or spreading, over time. It's not like a change happens everywhere all at once.
As regards "haitch", as I pointed out earlier, it's increasingly prevalent amongst the younger generations, with around 25% of under-40s using it over "aitch". In time it might become the standard, which may or may not be to our liking but certainly isn't "naff".
As regards "haitch", as I pointed out earlier, it's increasingly prevalent amongst the younger generations, with around 25% of under-40s using it over "aitch". In time it might become the standard, which may or may not be to our liking but certainly isn't "naff".
At school in the 1930s and living in a somewhat better part of London than where we came from (Paddington), you were chastised for using haitch. I have always understood that it is Cockney-based. eg., I 'ad a happle for breakfast.
Having said that, it occurred to me recently that the surname Aitchison might be difficult for the haitchers?
Having said that, it occurred to me recently that the surname Aitchison might be difficult for the haitchers?
Thank you everyone for your, often strong, opinions. The bottom line is simple. To my ears, haitch - grates. It stops me enjoying the programme as I pick up on it all the time. I still watch it because I like it and Amol also. All I ask is that he speaks as 'most' people speak, and that in my opinion is aitch..........
