patently obvious/blatantly obvious

[m***@yahoo.co.uk]

Hi

I used to think that the standard "correct" expression was "patently
obvious", and that "blatantly obvious" was an incorrect guess based on
mishearing/misunderstanding. However, "blatantly obvious" now seems to
be almost universal, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm wrong!

Any thoughts?

[Mark Barratt]

matt271829-***@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Hi
>
> I used to think that the standard "correct" expression
> was "patently obvious", and that "blatantly obvious" was
> an incorrect guess based on mishearing/misunderstanding.
> However, "blatantly obvious" now seems to be almost
> universal, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm wrong!
>
> Any thoughts?

'Patently obvious' is indeed a collocation of long standing, having
outlived the sense "readily visible" of the adjective 'patent'. It
wouldn't surprise me to hear that 'blatantly obvious' is supplanting
it, because the word 'blatant' is current, and the phrase is therefore
more understandable to those encountering it for the first time.

I can see no reason for objecting to 'blatantly obvious' - its meaning
is perfectly clear without reference to the other version. You may be
right that it arose as an alteration, but that doesn't make it wrong!

--
Mark Barratt
Angoltanár budapesten
http://www.geocities.com/nyelvmark

[Peasemarch.]

I agree that the meaning is clear, and that "blatantly obvious" is an
accepted idiom; but it has always sounded slightly wrong to me where
what is described has no volition.

"He made it blatantly obvious that he hated me" strikes me as fine,
therefore; whereas "it was blatantly obvious that the dress didn't suit
her" sounds off to me because neither dress nor wearer is unsuitable
deliberately.

Peasemarch.

[CDB]

"Peasemarch." <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I agree that the meaning is clear, and that "blatantly obvious" is an
> accepted idiom; but it has always sounded slightly wrong to me where
> what is described has no volition.
>
> "He made it blatantly obvious that he hated me" strikes me as fine,
> therefore; whereas "it was blatantly obvious that the dress didn't
> suit
> her" sounds off to me because neither dress nor wearer is unsuitable
> deliberately.

Perhaps "blatantly" works better when the obvious can be heard,
"patently" when it can be seen. CDB

[Charles Riggs]

On 6 Jun 2005 07:57:16 -0700, "Peasemarch." <***@aol.com> wrote:

>Peasemarch.

Hi, Al. Where you been?
--

Charles Riggs

[Robert Bannister]

Mark Barratt wrote:

>
> matt271829-***@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>>Hi
>>
>>I used to think that the standard "correct" expression
>>was "patently obvious", and that "blatantly obvious" was
>>an incorrect guess based on mishearing/misunderstanding.
>>However, "blatantly obvious" now seems to be almost
>>universal, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm wrong!
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>
>
> 'Patently obvious' is indeed a collocation of long standing, having
> outlived the sense "readily visible" of the adjective 'patent'. It
> wouldn't surprise me to hear that 'blatantly obvious' is supplanting
> it, because the word 'blatant' is current, and the phrase is therefore
> more understandable to those encountering it for the first time.
>
> I can see no reason for objecting to 'blatantly obvious' - its meaning
> is perfectly clear without reference to the other version. You may be
> right that it arose as an alteration, but that doesn't make it wrong!

Not wrong, but after "blatantly" I normally expect a negative adjective
like "blatantly wrong".

--
Rob Bannister

[Mark Brader]

"Matt" writes:
> I used to think that the standard "correct" expression was "patently
> obvious", and that "blatantly obvious" was an incorrect guess based on
> mishearing/misunderstanding.

As the two words don't sound at all similar, this is a surprising
suggestion. That is, of course, they don't *here*, because "patently"
has a short A. I am also surprised at the suggestion that there *is*
a "standard 'correct' expression"; there doesn't seem to be anything
like an idiom here, but just an adjective used with either of two
different adverbs.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "One thing that surprises you about this business
***@vex.net | is the surprises." -- Tim Baker

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Peasemarch.]

In the UK, "blatant" rhymes with "patent", usually.

[Areff]

Peasemarch. wrote:
> In the UK, "blatant" rhymes with "patent", usually.

That's not true of the (adjective-derived) noun 'patent' as in 'letters
patent', is it?

In AmE, I think the "blatant" pronunciation is more proper for the
adjective, but the 'pat' pronunciation is heard more commonly.

Let's hope that Erk's patents aren't patently obvious (= WolffE "lacking
inventive step"???).

[Paul Wolff]

In message <d820nq$9r4$***@news.wss.yale.edu>, Areff <***@privacy.net>
writes
>Peasemarch. wrote:
>> In the UK, "blatant" rhymes with "patent", usually.
>
>That's not true of the (adjective-derived) noun 'patent' as in 'letters
>patent', is it?
>
>In AmE, I think the "blatant" pronunciation is more proper for the
>adjective, but the 'pat' pronunciation is heard more commonly.
>
>Let's hope that Erk's patents aren't patently obvious (= WolffE "lacking
>inventive step"???).
>
I come, I come (slightly delayed by catching fly (no, not that one, an
insect of the Diptera) in one hand and reverentially placing it outside
the door to pursue its meagre existence).

Peasemarch is right. But in the business, 'patent' is become a
short-a'd word. A sign of globalarsation.

Before anyone complains, I liked 'is become', so there.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Paul Wolff <***@two.wolff.co.uk> writes:

> Peasemarch is right. But in the business, 'patent' is become a
> short-a'd word. A sign of globalarsation.
>
> Before anyone complains, I liked 'is become', so there.

You and Oppenheimer.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Society in every state is a blessing,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |but government, even in its best
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |state is but a necessary evil; in its
|worst state, an intolerable one.
***@hpl.hp.com | Thomas Paine
[phone]

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Paul Wolff]

In message <***@hpl.hp.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
<***@hpl.hp.com> writes
>Paul Wolff <***@two.wolff.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Peasemarch is right. But in the business, 'patent' is become a
>> short-a'd word. A sign of globalarsation.
>>
>> Before anyone complains, I liked 'is become', so there.
>
>You and Oppenheimer.
>
I was offered the chance of a job with Oppenheimer once. But it was
Harry, not Robert, and I didn't think it was me. Diamonds are so dull.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!

[Robert Bannister]

Areff wrote:

> Peasemarch. wrote:
>
>>In the UK, "blatant" rhymes with "patent", usually.
>
>
> That's not true of the (adjective-derived) noun 'patent' as in 'letters
> patent', is it?

Yes, but some Brits pronounce the noun "patent" with a short a.
>
> In AmE, I think the "blatant" pronunciation is more proper for the
> adjective, but the 'pat' pronunciation is heard more commonly.
>
> Let's hope that Erk's patents aren't patently obvious (= WolffE "lacking
> inventive step"???).
>
>


--
Rob Bannister

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Areff <***@privacy.net> writes:

> Peasemarch. wrote:
>> In the UK, "blatant" rhymes with "patent", usually.
>
> That's not true of the (adjective-derived) noun 'patent' as in 'letters
> patent', is it?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it is, as I've heard
British co-workers talk about "patents" with a long "a" (/eI/).

> In AmE, I think the "blatant" pronunciation is more proper for the
> adjective, but the 'pat' pronunciation is heard more commonly.

I'd guess that /&/ is both more common and more widely held to be
"correct".

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I need to get a new collander. My
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |old one has holes in it.
Palo Alto, CA 94304

***@hpl.hp.com
[phone]

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Steve Hayes]

On 6 Jun 2005 10:08:05 -0700, "Peasemarch." <***@aol.com> wrote:

>In the UK, "blatant" rhymes with "patent", usually.

And if they don't, perhaps some of the legal fundis here can tell us how they
say "latent and patent defects".


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Ross Howard]

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:47:48 -0000, ***@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrought:

>"Matt" writes:
>> I used to think that the standard "correct" expression was "patently
>> obvious", and that "blatantly obvious" was an incorrect guess based on
>> mishearing/misunderstanding.
>
>As the two words don't sound at all similar, this is a surprising
>suggestion. That is, of course, they don't *here*, because "patently"
>has a short A.

Why does this happen with "patent", does anyone know? After all,
nobody anywhere says "lattent" or "pashent", do they?

--
Ross Howard

[Donna Richoux]

Ross Howard <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:47:48 -0000, ***@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrought:
>
> >"Matt" writes:
> >> I used to think that the standard "correct" expression was "patently
> >> obvious", and that "blatantly obvious" was an incorrect guess based on
> >> mishearing/misunderstanding.
> >
> >As the two words don't sound at all similar, this is a surprising
> >suggestion. That is, of course, they don't *here*, because "patently"
> >has a short A.
>
> Why does this happen with "patent", does anyone know?

Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English shows that it was then
"pat-ent", not "pay-tent." "Latent," on the other hand, was then
"lay-tent," as it is for both US & UK today.

I don't think you guys had anybody back then making notes about
pronunciation on your side?

Etymology sheds no light. "Patent" derives from Latin patens, pateo and
"latent" from latens, lateo -- completely similar.

Anyway, I don't think there's ever an answer to "why" there's a pondal
difference in pronunciation. What sort of answer could there be?

--
Best -- Donna Richoux

[Mark Barratt]

Donna Richoux wrote:

> Anyway, I don't think there's ever an answer to "why"
> there's a pondal difference in pronunciation. What
> sort of answer could there be?

If we're being pedantic, there really isn't an answer to any question
beginning with 'why'. I think such a question in this context[1] needs
to be read as "How did such a difference come about?"

Not that I have an answer to that one, either.
How is it that the chicken came to cross the road?

[1] "patent" - US /'p&t @nt/ versus UK /'peIt @nt/

--
Mark Barratt
Angoltanár budapesten
http://www.geocities.com/nyelvmark

[Donna Richoux]

Mark Barratt <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Donna Richoux wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I don't think there's ever an answer to "why"
> > there's a pondal difference in pronunciation. What
> > sort of answer could there be?
>
> If we're being pedantic, there really isn't an answer to any question

Well, no, I wouldn't say that -- unless you're being extremely literal
and mean that at the instant a question is posed, its answer hasn't been
created yet. Questions don't arrive already answered. But questions can
be asked that can receive satisfactory answers, answers that satisfy the
questioner.

What I meant was, is there any sort of answer that can satisfy such a
question? Except to say "Some people say a word one way and some people
say it another?"

Can you think of any word that has two accepted pronunciations (probably
by geography, but not necessarily) where that can be *explained*? As in,
the historical origin of the difference? I'd be interested in seeing an
example.

> beginning with 'why'. I think such a question in this context[1] needs
> to be read as "How did such a difference come about?"
>
> Not that I have an answer to that one, either.

Exactly.

> How is it that the chicken came to cross the road?
>
> [1] "patent" - US /'p&t @nt/ versus UK /'peIt @nt/

Best -- Donna Richoux

[Ross Howard]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 13:47:32 +0200, ***@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
wrought:

>Mark Barratt <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Donna Richoux wrote:
>>
>> > Anyway, I don't think there's ever an answer to "why"
>> > there's a pondal difference in pronunciation. What
>> > sort of answer could there be?
>>
>> If we're being pedantic, there really isn't an answer to any question
>
>Well, no, I wouldn't say that -- unless you're being extremely literal
>and mean that at the instant a question is posed, its answer hasn't been
>created yet. Questions don't arrive already answered. But questions can
>be asked that can receive satisfactory answers, answers that satisfy the
>questioner.
>
>What I meant was, is there any sort of answer that can satisfy such a
>question? Except to say "Some people say a word one way and some people
>say it another?"
>
>Can you think of any word that has two accepted pronunciations (probably
>by geography, but not necessarily) where that can be *explained*? As in,
>the historical origin of the difference? I'd be interested in seeing an
>example.
>
>> beginning with 'why'. I think such a question in this context[1] needs
>> to be read as "How did such a difference come about?"
>>
>> Not that I have an answer to that one, either.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> How is it that the chicken came to cross the road?
>>
>> [1] "patent" - US /'p&t @nt/ versus UK /'peIt @nt/

My question was poorly phrased. Rather than why "patent" is pronounced
with /&/ in the US and /eI/ in the UK, it was why "latent" and
"patient" didn't get the same treatment in AmE.

--
Ross Howard

[Donna Richoux]

Ross Howard <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> My question was poorly phrased. Rather than why "patent" is pronounced
> with /&/ in the US and /eI/ in the UK, it was why "latent" and
> "patient" didn't get the same treatment in AmE.

Because spelling has nothing to do with it. You explain to me why "save"
doesn't rhyme with "have," or "to" with "no", or "how" with "show," or
any of hundreds of such pairs, and then I'll explain to you why "patent"
(as it happens to survive in the US) doesn't rhyme with "latent."

Your question assumes that words that look alike should rhyme. They
don't. It also appears to assume that the Americans changed things. We
don't know they did.

Did anyone ever end a rhyming couplet with "patent"?

By the way, M-W indicates that different meanings of the adjective
"patent" can be pronounced different ways. Those who wish to see that
should go to

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=patent&x=14&y=1
2

They show that the "long a" ("pay") sound is available for all the
meanings, and they mark several of the senses "chiefly British".


--
Best -- Donna Richoux

[Ross Howard]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:22:06 +0200, ***@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
wrought:

>Ross Howard <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> My question was poorly phrased. Rather than why "patent" is pronounced
>> with /&/ in the US and /eI/ in the UK, it was why "latent" and
>> "patient" didn't get the same treatment in AmE.
>
>Because spelling has nothing to do with it. You explain to me why "save"
>doesn't rhyme with "have," or "to" with "no", or "how" with "show," or
>any of hundreds of such pairs, and then I'll explain to you why "patent"
>(as it happens to survive in the US) doesn't rhyme with "latent."
>
>Your question assumes that words that look alike should rhyme.

No, it assumes that two words that are identical except for one letter
in all variants in all other languages along the etymological path
that led to English should be expected to be pronounced similarly, and
are at least worthy of puzzlement if they don't. (How and show are not
worthy of puzzlement, not least because they are different parts of
speech, and also because show used to be spelled "shew".)

I'm not telling anybody how to pronounce anything. But I can ask why
they pronounce it the way the do, can't I?


--
Ross Howard

[Mark Barratt]

Donna Richoux wrote:
> Mark Barratt <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Donna Richoux wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, I don't think there's ever an answer to "why"
> > > there's a pondal difference in pronunciation. What
> > > sort of answer could there be?
> >
> > If we're being pedantic, there really isn't an answer to
> > any question
>
> Well, no, I wouldn't say that -- unless you're being
> extremely literal and mean that at the instant a
> question is posed, its answer hasn't been created yet.
[...]

I'm not sure, but it appears from the way you snipped my statement that
you missed my point. That sentence concluded:

> > beginning with 'why'.

I was the thinking of the rather childish, but perfectly logical game
where the answer to a "why" question is responded to with another "why"
question:

- Why don't rabbits fly?
- Because they don't have wings.
- Why don't they have wings?
- Because they don't need them.
- Why don't they need them?
- Because they eat grass, and you can't find grass in the sky.
- Why do they eat grass?
- OK. Bedtime, you.

> Can you think of any word that has two accepted
> pronunciations (probably by geography, but not necessarily) > where that can be *explained*? As in, the historical origin
> of the difference? I'd be interested in seeing an example.

OK. How about the American pronunciation of 'herb' with the silent h? I
don't know if this is true, but it seems plausible that the American
pronunciation has been influenced in some way by French (where all 'h's
are silent).

I disagree, by the way, with your statement further down this thread
that "spelling has nothing to do with it". So, it appears, would Mark
Israel:
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwordsw.html

--
Mark Barratt
Angoltanár budapesten
http://www.geocities.com/nyelvmark

[Donna Richoux]

Mark Barratt <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Donna Richoux wrote:
> > Mark Barratt <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Donna Richoux wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anyway, I don't think there's ever an answer to "why"
> > > > there's a pondal difference in pronunciation. What
> > > > sort of answer could there be?
> > >
> > > If we're being pedantic, there really isn't an answer to
> > > any question
> >
> > Well, no, I wouldn't say that -- unless you're being
> > extremely literal and mean that at the instant a
> > question is posed, its answer hasn't been created yet.
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure, but it appears from the way you snipped my statement that
> you missed my point. That sentence concluded:
>
> > > beginning with 'why'.
>
> I was the thinking of the rather childish, but perfectly logical game
> where the answer to a "why" question is responded to with another "why"
> question:
>
> - Why don't rabbits fly?
> - Because they don't have wings.
> - Why don't they have wings?
> - Because they don't need them.
> - Why don't they need them?
> - Because they eat grass, and you can't find grass in the sky.
> - Why do they eat grass?
> - OK. Bedtime, you.

Well, sure, that happens. I remember not long ago observing a child
engage in just this sort of sing-song conversation with her mother, when
it seemed clear to me (from the artificial tone of her voice) that the
child didn't give a damn about (using your example) rabbits, wings,
needs, or grass, she was just hoping to keep some maternally-approved
noise going so she didn't have to get ready for bed. The mother fell for
it, too.

I can't connect that back to what Ross asked, though. I was talking
about something else together, people asking questions where they really
hope to find an answering answer, a satisfying answer, a real answer.
I'm not aware of any truly satifying answers regarding pronunciation
differences.

> > Can you think of any word that has two accepted pronunciations (probably
> > by geography, but not necessarily) > where that can be *explained*? As
> > in, the historical origin of the difference? I'd be interested in
> > seeing an example.
>
> OK. How about the American pronunciation of 'herb' with the silent h? I
> don't know if this is true, but it seems plausible that the American
> pronunciation has been influenced in some way by French (where all 'h's
> are silent).

All right, there's a glimmer of a start of a beginning. It's something
you can at least speculate on, some theoretical possibility you can
point to. Having gotten that far, is it possible to go any further? To
actually demonstrate that a French-American influence existed? Are you
thinking that the residents of Louisiana and Quebec affected the rest of
the Yankees? Or that the English colonists preserved an old French way,
but the Brits later adopted the "h"? Why this word, and not others?
Where would one look for supporting evidence, how could it be shown (not
just speculated)?



> I disagree, by the way, with your statement further down this thread
> that "spelling has nothing to do with it". So, it appears, would Mark
> Israel:
> http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwordsw.html

There's nothing there about "patent," "latent," and "patient." I didn't
say that spelling never has anything to do with anything, which is the
best I can conclude by your referring me to an article that shows that
sometimes it does.

My point is that people pronounce words the way they do, by and large,
because that's the way they hear them pronounced. Americans don't
pronounce "patent" the way they do because of its spelling, and they
don't pronounce "latent" the way they do because of its spelling.
Therefore, an answer to why they pronounce the words two different ways
is not going to be "their spelling." The question was raised because of
the similarity in their spellings, but the answer would have to be
somewhere else.

--
Best -- Donna Richoux

[Areff]

Donna Richoux wrote:
> My point is that people pronounce words the way they do, by and large,
> because that's the way they hear them pronounced. Americans don't
> pronounce "patent" the way they do because of its spelling, and they
> don't pronounce "latent" the way they do because of its spelling.
> Therefore, an answer to why they pronounce the words two different ways
> is not going to be "their spelling."

Here's a theory: the /&/ pronunciation got going in AmE because of the
commonly-seen abbreviation "Pat. Pending". Unless the abbreviation
reflected the pronunciation. (Is/was "pat. pending" used in the UK?)

[Paul Wolff]

In message <d86ngd$94f$***@news.wss.yale.edu>, Areff <***@privacy.net>
writes
>Donna Richoux wrote:
>> My point is that people pronounce words the way they do, by and large,
>> because that's the way they hear them pronounced. Americans don't
>> pronounce "patent" the way they do because of its spelling, and they
>> don't pronounce "latent" the way they do because of its spelling.
>> Therefore, an answer to why they pronounce the words two different ways
>> is not going to be "their spelling."
>
>Here's a theory: the /&/ pronunciation got going in AmE because of the
>commonly-seen abbreviation "Pat. Pending". Unless the abbreviation
>reflected the pronunciation. (Is/was "pat. pending" used in the UK?)

(Yes.)
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!

[Mark Barratt]

Donna Richoux wrote:
> Mark Barratt <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Donna Richoux wrote:
> > > Mark Barratt <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Donna Richoux wrote:

> > > Can you think of any word that has two accepted
> > > pronunciations (probably by geography, but not
> > > necessarily) where that can be *explained*? As
> > > in, the historical origin of the difference? I'd be
> > > interested in seeing an example.
> >
> > OK. How about the American pronunciation of 'herb' with
> > the silent h? I don't know if this is true, but it seems
> > plausible that the American pronunciation has been
> > influenced in some way by French (where all 'h's
> > are silent).
>
> All right, there's a glimmer of a start of a beginning.
> It's something you can at least speculate on, some
> theoretical possibility you can point to. Having gotten
> that far, is it possible to go any further? To
> actually demonstrate that a French-American influence
> existed? Are you thinking that the residents of Louisiana
> and Quebec affected the rest of the Yankees?

I was, actually, but...

> Or that the English colonists preserved an old French way,
> but the Brits later adopted the "h"?

This seems to be the explanation Michael Quinion prefers:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-her1.htm

> Why this word, and not others?

According to Bartelby (although not in my experience), it's also true
of 'humble', 'human' and 'humo(u)r':

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C007/099.html

> Where would one look for supporting evidence, how could it
> be shown (not just speculated)?

A tough one for this example, because an initial letter doesn't affect
rhymes, which are usually our strongest evidence of long-ago
pronunciations. Quinion doesn't give the basis on which he reached his
conclusion - perhaps he found early documents in which there are
discussions of these pronunciations.

> > I disagree, by the way, with your statement further
> > down this thread that "spelling has nothing to do with
> > it". So, it appears, would Mark Israel:
> > http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwordsw.html

> There's nothing there about "patent," "latent,"
> and "patient." I didn't say that spelling never has
> anything to do with anything, which is the best I can
> conclude by your referring me to an article that shows
> that sometimes it does.

But if you are conceding that pronunciation may be affected by
spelling, what are your grounds for ruling it out *in this instance*?

> My point is that people pronounce words the way they do, by
> and large, because that's the way they hear them pronounced.

Doesn't "by and large" here mean "not always"?

> Americans don't pronounce "patent" the way they do because
> of its spelling, and they don't pronounce "latent" the way
> they do because of its spelling.

But this is disingenuous. It answers the "why" question literally, it's
true, but not the intended question, which I already rephrased as "How
did this difference come about?"

> Therefore, an answer to why they pronounce the words two
> different ways is not going to be "their spelling."

But the answer to my rephrased version of the question might well be.

> The question was raised because of the similarity in their
> spellings, but the answer would have to be somewhere else.

But you've already answered the "why" question -- trivially but
accurately. The answer to the rephrased question might as well be
"their spelling" as anything else -- unless you have information you're
not sharing with us.

If we assume that it's the /'p&***@nt/ pronunciation which is the
original, then I've seen no grounds for eliminating the suggestion that
the /'***@nt/ pronunciation arose out of analogy with 'patient' and
'latent'.

Fond regards,
--
Mark Barratt
Angoltanár budapesten
http://www.geocities.com/nyelvmark

[Ross Howard]

On 8 Jun 2005 08:52:56 -0700, "Mark Barratt" <***@yahoo.com>
wrought:

>
>
>Donna Richoux wrote:
>> Mark Barratt <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Donna Richoux wrote:
>> > > Mark Barratt <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Donna Richoux wrote:
>
>> > > Can you think of any word that has two accepted
>> > > pronunciations (probably by geography, but not
>> > > necessarily) where that can be *explained*? As
>> > > in, the historical origin of the difference? I'd be
>> > > interested in seeing an example.
>> >
>> > OK. How about the American pronunciation of 'herb' with
>> > the silent h? I don't know if this is true, but it seems
>> > plausible that the American pronunciation has been
>> > influenced in some way by French (where all 'h's
>> > are silent).
>>
>> All right, there's a glimmer of a start of a beginning.
>> It's something you can at least speculate on, some
>> theoretical possibility you can point to. Having gotten
>> that far, is it possible to go any further? To
>> actually demonstrate that a French-American influence
>> existed? Are you thinking that the residents of Louisiana
>> and Quebec affected the rest of the Yankees?
>
>I was, actually, but...
>
>> Or that the English colonists preserved an old French way,
>> but the Brits later adopted the "h"?
>
>This seems to be the explanation Michael Quinion prefers:
>
>http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-her1.htm
>
>> Why this word, and not others?
>
>According to Bartelby (although not in my experience), it's also true
>of 'humble', 'human' and 'humo(u)r':
>
>http://www.bartleby.com/64/C007/099.html
>
>> Where would one look for supporting evidence, how could it
>> be shown (not just speculated)?
>
>A tough one for this example, because an initial letter doesn't affect
>rhymes, which are usually our strongest evidence of long-ago
>pronunciations. Quinion doesn't give the basis on which he reached his
>conclusion - perhaps he found early documents in which there are
>discussions of these pronunciations.
>
>> > I disagree, by the way, with your statement further
>> > down this thread that "spelling has nothing to do with
>> > it". So, it appears, would Mark Israel:
>> > http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwordsw.html
>
>> There's nothing there about "patent," "latent,"
>> and "patient." I didn't say that spelling never has
>> anything to do with anything, which is the best I can
>> conclude by your referring me to an article that shows
>> that sometimes it does.
>
>But if you are conceding that pronunciation may be affected by
>spelling, what are your grounds for ruling it out *in this instance*?
>
>> My point is that people pronounce words the way they do, by
>> and large, because that's the way they hear them pronounced.
>
>Doesn't "by and large" here mean "not always"?
>
>> Americans don't pronounce "patent" the way they do because
>> of its spelling, and they don't pronounce "latent" the way
>> they do because of its spelling.
>
>But this is disingenuous. It answers the "why" question literally, it's
>true, but not the intended question, which I already rephrased as "How
>did this difference come about?"
>
>> Therefore, an answer to why they pronounce the words two
>> different ways is not going to be "their spelling."
>
>But the answer to my rephrased version of the question might well be.
>
>> The question was raised because of the similarity in their
>> spellings, but the answer would have to be somewhere else.
>
>But you've already answered the "why" question -- trivially but
>accurately. The answer to the rephrased question might as well be
>"their spelling" as anything else -- unless you have information you're
>not sharing with us.
>
>If we assume that it's the /'p&***@nt/ pronunciation which is the
>original, then I've seen no grounds for eliminating the suggestion that
>the /'***@nt/ pronunciation arose out of analogy with 'patient' and
>'latent'.

Since the three words have identical etymological morphology --
*patens/patentis*, *latens/lantensis*, *patiens/patientis* -- they can
be expected to be pronounced with the same stressed vowel in all
modern versions, as indeed they are in their current versions in the
Romance languages. But, since one of the three -- patent -- is
pronounced with a different stressed vowel by speakers in just one
part of one of the language communities that have inherited the Latin
originals, the question surely is why it has come to be pronounced in
that way in that place.

The more I think about, the more I like Areff's suggestion of
back-formation (if you can use that term for pronunciation) from "Pat.
Pending".

--
Ross Howard

[Paul Wolff]

In message <***@4ax.com>, Ross Howard
<***@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Since the three words have identical etymological morphology --
>*patens/patentis*, *latens/lantensis*, *patiens/patientis* -- they can
>be expected to be pronounced with the same stressed vowel in all
>modern versions, as indeed they are in their current versions in the
>Romance languages. But, since one of the three -- patent -- is
>pronounced with a different stressed vowel

Is this a different vowel that is stressed, or a differently stressed
(lengthened) same vowel? Anyway, aren't stress and length two different
things?

>by speakers in just one
>part of one of the language communities that have inherited the Latin
>originals, the question surely is why it has come to be pronounced in
>that way in that place.

Whatever, the Latin pronunciation is generally held to have been a short
'a' as in English 'pat', or Latin 'patria'. Why don't we debate
'paytriot' too?.
>
>The more I think about, the more I like Areff's suggestion of
>back-formation (if you can use that term for pronunciation) from "Pat.
>Pending".
>
I don't think this idea is necessary. Besides, [boring stuff snipped
before being written].
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!

[Areff]

Paul Wolff wrote:
> Whatever, the Latin pronunciation is generally held to have been a short
> 'a' as in English 'pat', or Latin 'patria'. Why don't we debate
> 'paytriot' too?.

And say, how 'bout the two meaning-differentiated pronunciations of
"patronize"? Does BrE do that?

[Mark Barratt]

Areff wrote:
> Paul Wolff wrote:
> > Whatever, the Latin pronunciation is generally held to
> > have been a short 'a' as in English 'pat', or
> > Latin 'patria'. Why don't we debate 'paytriot' too?.

> And say, how 'bout the two meaning-differentiated
> pronunciations of "patronize"? Does BrE do that?

I do believe it does. In my own usage, at least. 'patron' is /'peI
***@n/, and if I patronise a restaurant (eat there), it's /'peI ***@n
aIz/ -- but if I talk to you in a sneering way, I'm being /'p& ***@n aIz
IN/

'patriot' and its derivatives go both ways in British English -- I'd
guess that there's about a 50-50 split between /'peIt ri: @t/ and /'p&t
ri: @t/

--
Mark Barratt
Angoltanár budapesten
http://www.geocities.com/nyelvmark

[Robert Lieblich]

dcw wrote:
>
> In article <d87vhf$nlo$***@news.wss.yale.edu>, Areff <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >Paul Wolff wrote:
> >> Whatever, the Latin pronunciation is generally held to have been a short
> >> 'a' as in English 'pat', or Latin 'patria'. Why don't we debate
> >> 'paytriot' too?.
>
> It's "p&triot" in BrE.
>
> >And say, how 'bout the two meaning-differentiated pronunciations of
> >"patronize"? Does BrE do that?
>
> Which is which? There's only "p&tronize" in BrE.

Apropos of which (sorta, kinda), there's a very British-sounding gent
who handles the early morning announcing chores on radio station WCPE
("The Classical Station"), to which I frequently listen via the
miracle of streaming audio. He pronounces the word "opus" so that the
first syllable sounds as it does in "opposite." TTBOMR, I've never
heard this from anyone else.

Comments?

--
Bob Mui

[dcw]

In article <***@verizon.net>,
Robert Lieblich <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>dcw wrote:

>> Which is which? There's only "p&tronize" in BrE.
>
>Apropos of which (sorta, kinda), there's a very British-sounding gent
>who handles the early morning announcing chores on radio station WCPE
>("The Classical Station"), to which I frequently listen via the
>miracle of streaming audio. He pronounces the word "opus" so that the
>first syllable sounds as it does in "opposite." TTBOMR, I've never
>heard this from anyone else.

INKNCWTM, but "opus" like "opposite" sounds normal to me, and has the
advantage of being consistent with "opera". But "opus" like "open" is
probably more frequent.

David

[Roland Hutchinson]

Robert Lieblich wrote:

> Apropos of which (sorta, kinda), there's a very British-sounding gent
> who handles the early morning announcing chores on radio station WCPE
> ("The Classical Station"), to which I frequently listen via the
> miracle of streaming audio. He pronounces the word "opus" so that the
> first syllable sounds as it does in "opposite." TTBOMR, I've never
> heard this from anyone else.
>
> Comments?

He's being pedantic. "Opus" has a short "o" in Latin.

--
Roland 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.

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:58:33 -0400, Robert Lieblich
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>Apropos of which (sorta, kinda), there's a very British-sounding gent
>who handles the early morning announcing chores on radio station WCPE
>("The Classical Station"), to which I frequently listen via the
>miracle of streaming audio. He pronounces the word "opus" so that the
>first syllable sounds as it does in "opposite." TTBOMR, I've never
>heard this from anyone else.
>
>Comments?

That's how I pronounce it too.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Roland Hutchinson]

Steve Hayes wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:58:33 -0400, Robert Lieblich
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Apropos of which (sorta, kinda), there's a very British-sounding gent
>>who handles the early morning announcing chores on radio station WCPE
>>("The Classical Station"), to which I frequently listen via the
>>miracle of streaming audio. He pronounces the word "opus" so that the
>>first syllable sounds as it does in "opposite." TTBOMR, I've never
>>heard this from anyone else.
>>
>>Comments?
>
> That's how I pronounce it too.

Maybe it's not pedantry then, but simply an old-fashioned pronunciation.

I wonder if it's relavant that "ops" (rhymes with "pops") used to be slang
for "longhair music" as witnesseth W. S. Gilbert's "Bach interwoven with
Spohr and Beethoven" in the Mikado's song.

I always thought "ops" derived from seeing the abbreviation "op." on
programs and sheet music, but "opus" with a short "o" sounds rathre
suspiciously close to "ops", doesn't it? -- though it's singular rather
than plural, which is admittedly an impediment to the hypothesis that the
one lead directly to the other via aural transmission.

ObWrongThread: Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, what did we do (or
leave undone) to deserve Radio 3 this week? I don't know about y'all, but
I'm sure-enough ready for some Bach to be interwoven (I know, Today on
Radio 4!). Not sure how much of a relief Spohr would be; too close to
Ludwig Van in style to do very much good, I should think.[1]

Oh, well. Spent the evening well and truly butchering Haydn, Coprario, Ward,
and Mozart in the company of enthuasitic amateur musicians. Not the least
bit Gilbertian (which would require "terrified amateurs"), but bravely
sailing into repertoire they had never played, and indeed also into
composers they had never heard of. Enjoyed that, I did, every bit! (even
the bit about me playing on a much larger viola than I am used to for half
of the evening. I should lay off typing now, to rest my joints, if I have
any sense at all.)

[1] Griping aside, go and get yourselves over to the right Listen Again page
and you can download yourself a free and legally licenced (to you; no fair
redistributing them!) set of the complete Beethoven Symphonies as MP3s (if
you go within a week of the broadcast of each one). No modern computer
should be without. Unmetered broadband connection recommended.

--
Roland 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.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:20:47 GMT, Roland Hutchinson <***@verizon.ent>
wrote:

>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 07:58:33 -0400, Robert Lieblich
>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Apropos of which (sorta, kinda), there's a very British-sounding gent
>>>who handles the early morning announcing chores on radio station WCPE
>>>("The Classical Station"), to which I frequently listen via the
>>>miracle of streaming audio. He pronounces the word "opus" so that the
>>>first syllable sounds as it does in "opposite." TTBOMR, I've never
>>>heard this from anyone else.
>>>
>>>Comments?
>>
>> That's how I pronounce it too.
>
>Maybe it's not pedantry then, but simply an old-fashioned pronunciation.
>
>I wonder if it's relavant that "ops" (rhymes with "pops") used to be slang
>for "longhair music" as witnesseth W. S. Gilbert's "Bach interwoven with
>Spohr and Beethoven" in the Mikado's song.

I thought that it not only rhymed with pops, it WAS pops.

(returns from checking vocal score)

It IS "At classical Monday Pops".


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

I ment to correct that thing about "ops", but had to reboot my computer so
many times between writing it and sending it that I forgot.

I'm sick of "Windows protection error. You must restart your computer".

Anyway, I think that in context "ops" means "opera".


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[R H Draney]

Steve Hayes filted:
>
>I'm sick of "Windows protection error. You must restart your computer".

I'm getting tired of the one that tells me to press "Enter" to return to Windows
or "Ctrl-Alt-Delete" to restart my machine, when in fact neither keypress does
anything whatsoever....

For those entertained by such things, the latest issue of PC Magazine (at my
office desk so I can't quote the particulars here) offers a method for forcing
the BSOD to appear...says it's useful for those who want to test their systems'
error-recovery....r

[Roland Hutchinson]

R H Draney wrote:

> For those entertained by such things, the latest issue of PC Magazine (at
> my office desk so I can't quote the particulars here) offers a method for
> forcing the BSOD to appear...

I thought the foolproof method of making the BSOD appear was to run a
Microsoft Windows(tm)-brand operating system.

Do you mean that they offer a method of forcing it to appear _faster_?

> says it's useful for those who want to test
> their systems' error-recovery....r

--
Roland 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.

[Iskandar Baharuddin]

"R H Draney" <***@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:***@drn.newsguy.com...
> Steve Hayes filted:
>>
>>I'm sick of "Windows protection error. You must restart your
>>computer".
>
> I'm getting tired of the one that tells me to press "Enter" to
> return to Windows
> or "Ctrl-Alt-Delete" to restart my machine, when in fact
> neither keypress does
> anything whatsoever....
>
> For those entertained by such things, the latest issue of PC
> Magazine (at my
> office desk so I can't quote the particulars here) offers a
> method for forcing
> the BSOD to appear...says it's useful for those who want to
> test their systems'
> error-recovery....r
>
Look, when you are dealing with bleeding edge technology you
have to expect a few problems.

For example, in Windows XP there is this fancy thing called a
Screen Saver. It is really great, and it works most of the time.
Once in a while it doesn't come on, but I am sure this will be
fixed in Longhorn.

Just wait until we get well and truly gored.

Izzy

[Robert Bannister]

Donna Richoux wrote:

>
> All right, there's a glimmer of a start of a beginning. It's something
> you can at least speculate on, some theoretical possibility you can
> point to. Having gotten that far, is it possible to go any further? To
> actually demonstrate that a French-American influence existed? Are you
> thinking that the residents of Louisiana and Quebec affected the rest of
> the Yankees? Or that the English colonists preserved an old French way,
> but the Brits later adopted the "h"? Why this word, and not others?
> Where would one look for supporting evidence, how could it be shown (not
> just speculated)?

I suspect the evidence could be found. Other examples are the way BrE
used to have "an hotel" and "an history", and as we know,
"historical/historian" are still in a state of flux.

--
Rob Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Mark Barratt wrote:

> Donna Richoux wrote:
>
>
>>Anyway, I don't think there's ever an answer to "why"
>>there's a pondal difference in pronunciation. What
>>sort of answer could there be?
>
>
> If we're being pedantic, there really isn't an answer to any question
> beginning with 'why'. I think such a question in this context[1] needs
> to be read as "How did such a difference come about?"
>
> Not that I have an answer to that one, either.
> How is it that the chicken came to cross the road?
>
> [1] "patent" - US /'p&t @nt/ versus UK /'peIt @nt/

Nevertheless, as has already been pointed out, those who work in the
patent field in England, prefer the US pronunciation. I have a friend
who works for a patent office in London, but I never checked to see
whether he kept this pronunciation for other meanings as in "patently".

--
Rob Bannister

[Areff]

Robert Bannister wrote:
> Nevertheless, as has already been pointed out, those who work in the
> patent field in England, prefer the US pronunciation.

So was there some known shift within recorded memory in which British
patent practitioners decided to switch from the British pronunciation to
the American pronunciation? And if so, for heavens' sake why?

[Paul Wolff]

In message <d85gl8$292$***@news.wss.yale.edu>, Areff <***@privacy.net>
writes
>Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Nevertheless, as has already been pointed out, those who work in the
>> patent field in England, prefer the US pronunciation.
>
>So was there some known shift within recorded memory in which British
>patent practitioners decided to switch from the British pronunciation to
>the American pronunciation? And if so, for heavens' sake why?
>
I don't know the answer to Q.1 offhand. I'm sure there have been
articles discussing it in the literature, but with no high degree of
scholarship that I recall. It's not a closed issue: some practitioners
make it a point of honour to affect the demotic.

It is often agreed that the 'ay' sound is somehow more authentic, but
that's probably not so, as however the Latin 'patens' was sounded, it
wasn't 'paytens'.

As for Q.2, the profession is very international, we lose no opportunity
to swan off to tax-deductible international conferences in the world's
better holiday resorts, and English being the common language,
pronunciation has coalesced.

German also has the short 'a', though it stresses the second syllable.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!

[Ross Howard]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 21:55:17 +0100, Paul Wolff
<***@two.wolff.co.uk> wrought:

>In message <d85gl8$292$***@news.wss.yale.edu>, Areff <***@privacy.net>
>writes
>>Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> Nevertheless, as has already been pointed out, those who work in the
>>> patent field in England, prefer the US pronunciation.
>>
>>So was there some known shift within recorded memory in which British
>>patent practitioners decided to switch from the British pronunciation to
>>the American pronunciation? And if so, for heavens' sake why?
>>
>I don't know the answer to Q.1 offhand. I'm sure there have been
>articles discussing it in the literature, but with no high degree of
>scholarship that I recall. It's not a closed issue: some practitioners
>make it a point of honour to affect the demotic.
>
>It is often agreed that the 'ay' sound is somehow more authentic, but
>that's probably not so, as however the Latin 'patens' was sounded, it
>wasn't 'paytens'.

Oh, no, it was almost certainly /a/ in *patens*, but also in *latens*
and *patiens*. My original question, which I keep hammering away at
because I still don't think we're addressing it head on, was why one
of the three should be pronounced differently from the other two in
modern American English. What caused that split-off and when did it
happen?


--
Ross Howard

[Areff]

Ross Howard wrote:
> Oh, no, it was almost certainly /a/ in *patens*, but also in *latens*
> and *patiens*. My original question, which I keep hammering away at
> because I still don't think we're addressing it head on, was why one
> of the three should be pronounced differently from the other two in
> modern American English. What caused that split-off and when did it
> happen?

This is not an answer, but it occurs to me that, in addition to "pat.
pending", another 'patent' usage that would have been householdy to
Americans of an earlier day was "patent medicine" (archaic AmE for 'soda',
wot?). And perhaps 'patent leather' as well.

[Robert Bannister]

Areff wrote:

> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>Nevertheless, as has already been pointed out, those who work in the
>>patent field in England, prefer the US pronunciation.
>
>
> So was there some known shift within recorded memory in which British
> patent practitioners decided to switch from the British pronunciation to
> the American pronunciation? And if so, for heavens' sake why?

That I can't tell you. All I know is that when my friend started in this
job way back in the 60s, he told he had had to learn to say "patent"
with the short vowel, because that was how is was said in the business.

--
Rob Bannister

[Paul Wolff]

In message <***@individual.net>, Robert Bannister
<***@it.net.au> writes
>Mark Barratt wrote:
>
>> Donna Richoux wrote:
>>
>>>Anyway, I don't think there's ever an answer to "why"
>>>there's a pondal difference in pronunciation. What
>>>sort of answer could there be?
>> If we're being pedantic, there really isn't an answer to any
>>question
>> beginning with 'why'. I think such a question in this context[1] needs
>> to be read as "How did such a difference come about?"
>> Not that I have an answer to that one, either.
>> How is it that the chicken came to cross the road?
>> [1] "patent" - US /'p&t @nt/ versus UK /'peIt @nt/
>
>Nevertheless, as has already been pointed out, those who work in the
>patent field in England, prefer the US pronunciation. I have a friend
>who works for a patent office in London, but I never checked to see
>whether he kept this pronunciation for other meanings as in "patently".
>
Usage-wise, "a" patent office is normally a national patent office (IrE
patents office); it should be either "The Patent Office in London" or "a
patent attorney" (or agent, either of which being optionally plural and
optionally possessive) "firm in London". On the other hand, "a" patent
office in Japan or Korea is indeed a patent attorney firm.

But in Australia the patent office is now IP Australia, and for all I
know your local firms are exploiting the market opportunity and bedding
down with the usage of your nearish neighbours.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!

[Mike Lyle]

matt271829-***@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Hi
>
> I used to think that the standard "correct" expression was
"patently
> obvious", and that "blatantly obvious" was an incorrect guess based
on
> mishearing/misunderstanding. However, "blatantly obvious" now seems
to
> be almost universal, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm wrong!
>
> Any thoughts?

You're not entirely wrong. But "blatant" is real English: it comes
from Spenser, who's usually good enough for me. I do, though,
deprecate its use instead of "very clear": it should be allowed to
retain its offensive sense. I'm not quite sure that it can, but if a
"blatantly obvious" thing can now be a good thing, that's a pity. I
have a feeling that, for once, sports commentators are getting it at
least partly right: "That was a blatant foul" comes from their lips
very easily, while "That was a blatant goal" seems not to. Thinking
on my feet, "Blatantly obvious" may refer to something good, but I
have the feeling that it still carries a pejorative implication in
certain ways: suggesting, perhaps, that the observer is or would be
to blame for not having noticed it. I'm not 100% sure about this, and
look forward to comments from others. Spenser certainly didn't mean
it that way, though.

I think there may indeed be a link to "patent", but also to "glaring"
through "blaring". I've at least once heard a British (Wiltshire)
speaker speak of the sun "blaring down": I noticed, because to me
"blare" refers only to sound, and thought it was rather a fine usage
if it wasn't just a mistake. I thought of that passage in David
Lean's _Lawrence of Arabia_ where the musical score parallelled the
merciless blows of the desert sun as they "impossibly" crossed the
Nefud.

--
Mike.

[Mark Brader]

Richard Fontana:
>> And say, how 'bout the two meaning-differentiated pronunciations of
>> "patronize"? Does BrE do that?

David Wood:
> Which is which? There's only "p&tronize" in BrE.

And for me it always has a long A (so this is a sort of converse of "patent").
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "...ordinarily, a 65-pound alligator in an apartment
***@vex.net | would be news." --James Barron, New York Times