Talk:Mispronunciation

Untitled
Heh, sorry Tarquin, I knew that really... But I'm sure there must be more wrong with the article than that! I'll have to set Tannin loose on it, to see what he thinks... -- Oliver P. 04:05 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
 * Oh, but Stephen C. Carlson, the bit you changed was precisely the point I was trying to make! (I am referring to the change from "which is incorrect" to "which is considered to be incorrect".) The prefix mis- is used to mean that something is wrong - not merely that some people consider it to be wrong. If mispronunciation were just pronunciation which is considered to be incorrect, then I would have no problem in saying that lots of words are mispronounced, because all it would mean would be that they are disputed. The matter of what is or is not mispronunciation would not then be a contentious one at all... The point is that people who speak of mispronunciation mean that the pronunciation is just plain wrong, end of story. At least, that's what I think they're saying... -- Oliver P. 04:24 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
 * I wanted to clarify that the term is a prescriptive term, not a descriptive term. If you don't want to imply "merely that some people consider it be to wrong" (and I don't want to imply that either), then one could say something like ... "which is considered incorrect by prestigious speakers" or "by most speakers in a particular social situation" or some such language.  Kind of difficult and I'm not completely happy with either.  I'm not sure, however, that an absolute opening statement that does not distinguish between prescription and description is the most helpful.  SCCarlson 04:38, 11 March 2003 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean. You're quite right that it was a bad opening! I'll have to come back to it later and fiddle with it some more. -- Oliver P. 04:53 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
 * Don't forget (rough rule of thumb) that US dictionaries are at the prescriptive end of a spectrum, British ones at the descriptive end, and Australian ones somewhat nearer the British than the US end - and none of these are focussing on the same dialect anyway. It means there's a risk of a descriptive error in saying "dictionaries are this much prescriptive", because you may make an accurate description of one particular lot of dictionaries that is not true in general. PML. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.5.75 (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2003 (UTC)
 * Surely one cannot classify malapropisms as examples of mispronunciation, something which is done implicitly by this article; people whose speech is characterized by them do not mispronunce the words in question but mistake their meaning. If they were writing, they would make the same mistakes. KBry 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

suppressed part
I noticed that a huge, interesting part of the article was removed between Revision as of 04:32, 28 May 2006 and Revision as of 15:18, 9 June 2006. This part stays just before "Mispronunciation terms" and is announced in the line before: "We start by discussing two distinct standpoints from which pronunciation standards can be viewed.". Maybe this happened because of the rule "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."? Maybe someone could try to reintegrate this material by quoting sources? See the change there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mispronunciation&action=historysubmit&diff=57714039&oldid=55522314 Iwnit (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (who seems to have disappeared in 2017) probably was assuming more good faith than necessary. The three contributions of the IP making this massive removal consists of this removal and two obvious blahblah type vandalisms. Thus, this falls into the class of 'major, fairly obviously vandalous, but for a very long time undetected, article amputations'. As for the ground for the removed sections, see the earlier discussions on this page.


 * I'll restore this 13 years old vandalism in toto. Whowever wants to go on, tagging for sources and so forth (our standards are somewhat higher now than they were in 2006), please do that based on the restored version! JoergenB (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Restored material; Revision or deletion recommended
Despite the most recent talk page apart from this one, the material reverted to being present in June 1 of 2019 appears to largely be in the form of a (Mediocre) personal essay, often presenting unclear or even erroneous claims, and with personally oriented and non-encyclopedic language. As has already been tagged on the article itself, substantial revision of this material, or a second deletion of it, would be best. Zusty001 (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete
There's no obvious page or redirect for mispronunciations based on reading a word (eg reading Lao Tzu as though it rhymed with Sue). Needs to be added to the list of classes. — Llywelyn II   06:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Found it. Y'all were just mislabeling and misexplaining the thing you had linked. — Llywelyn II   06:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)