Why do so many people pronounce Valentine's Day as ValenTIMES Day?
February 10, 2005 2:37 AM Subscribe
Please help me understand why so many people pronounce Valentine's Day as ValenTIMES Day? I'm noticing this more and more and it's driving me crazy. Are these the same people who say 'libary' and 'supposibly', because those two I can almost tolerate, but Valentines Day with an M?!?! Please explain! Thanks and I hope I haven't offended anyone with my first post on here. :)
In the old days (pre-nukular age) these folks would of had a proper edacation. But they've teached themselves off their own back. And if that's how they think it should be said, they've got another thing coming.
posted by skylar at 3:19 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by skylar at 3:19 AM on February 10, 2005
Curiously enough I found this reference earlier to "hone in on" vs "home in on" which suggests it is a weakening of the 'n' sound. Pompom vs Pompon was the other example given on the site. Or it may be lazy enunciation?
posted by squeak at 3:28 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by squeak at 3:28 AM on February 10, 2005
does it have anything to do with an oral language learning as opposed to a written language learning?
posted by busboy789 at 3:42 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by busboy789 at 3:42 AM on February 10, 2005
Irregardless of how they say it
Irony; irregardless isn't a word.
I think it's just the slipping of standards in education.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:16 AM on February 10, 2005
Irony; irregardless isn't a word.
I think it's just the slipping of standards in education.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:16 AM on February 10, 2005
wasn't fixedgear being pacifically (and consciously) ironic? confused...
posted by andrew cooke at 4:18 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by andrew cooke at 4:18 AM on February 10, 2005
I've never heard it, but it sounds like a problem with oral learning (not enough reading and writing). No one who has seen and written Valentine a number of times will get it wrong.
Irony; irregardless isn't a word.
I'm sure that (with "pacifically" instead of specifically) was a joke.
(BUT: the spelling checker let's "irregardless" go!)
posted by pracowity at 4:19 AM on February 10, 2005
Irony; irregardless isn't a word.
I'm sure that (with "pacifically" instead of specifically) was a joke.
(BUT: the spelling checker let's "irregardless" go!)
posted by pracowity at 4:19 AM on February 10, 2005
As someone who likes to say "vigenar" instead of "vinegar", I'd also like to propose that people may do it because it sounds funnier and is more twee than the original word.
Also, look at famous people who may say the word wrong. The "Nuklear" thing, although irratating to pedants is a great example of how language can be changed by powerful people. I was talking to a freind of mine the other day, and he put forward the supposition that the reason a lot of Spanish sounds the way it does is because of the inbred jawlines and lisping of the early Spanish monarchy.
posted by seanyboy at 4:40 AM on February 10, 2005
Also, look at famous people who may say the word wrong. The "Nuklear" thing, although irratating to pedants is a great example of how language can be changed by powerful people. I was talking to a freind of mine the other day, and he put forward the supposition that the reason a lot of Spanish sounds the way it does is because of the inbred jawlines and lisping of the early Spanish monarchy.
posted by seanyboy at 4:40 AM on February 10, 2005
Well played, fvw. Very well played indeed.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:40 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:40 AM on February 10, 2005
Yeah, don't you read "intornet" or "internets" or "intarweb" or "teh intorwebs" here on MeFi about a million times a day?
Very twee.
posted by breath at 4:59 AM on February 10, 2005
Very twee.
posted by breath at 4:59 AM on February 10, 2005
Admittedly, sometimes it is an accent thing. For example, Irish people sometimes say "tree" or "tlee" instead of three. This ties in with Seanyboy's claim about inbred Spanish lisping, though I have no idea whether his claim has any basis in fact.
posted by skylar at 5:31 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by skylar at 5:31 AM on February 10, 2005
As a little kid, I thought it was supposed to be Valen-time, just like Christmas time. When I learned to read it, I was confused.
"hone in on" vs "home in on" ? Which is 'correct'? A missle homes in on its target, hence it is called a homing missle. Since you say this is about a weakening of the 'n' sound, you must mean hone, so it becomes unclear what exactly is being whinned about here!
posted by Goofyy at 5:31 AM on February 10, 2005
"hone in on" vs "home in on" ? Which is 'correct'? A missle homes in on its target, hence it is called a homing missle. Since you say this is about a weakening of the 'n' sound, you must mean hone, so it becomes unclear what exactly is being whinned about here!
posted by Goofyy at 5:31 AM on February 10, 2005
Are perception can be vary sloppy.
posted by Smart Dalek at 5:34 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by Smart Dalek at 5:34 AM on February 10, 2005
My best friend in high school drove me nuts by referring to it as Valentime's Day. When she told me that she was going to major in Ed in college to become an elementary school teacher, my very first thought was about all of the poor kids that were going to be seeing the word Valentine but hearing the word Valentime. Ugh.
My now best friend also calls it Valentime's Day. She also refers to LL Bean as LL Beam.
posted by iconomy at 6:11 AM on February 10, 2005
My now best friend also calls it Valentime's Day. She also refers to LL Bean as LL Beam.
posted by iconomy at 6:11 AM on February 10, 2005
Valentimes is a perfectly cromulent word.
It doesn't drive me as crazy as saying "wash" like "warsh," though. And apparently, that's an acceptable regional dialect.
posted by Kellydamnit at 6:15 AM on February 10, 2005
It doesn't drive me as crazy as saying "wash" like "warsh," though. And apparently, that's an acceptable regional dialect.
posted by Kellydamnit at 6:15 AM on February 10, 2005
In 2nd grade I lived in a Valentime heavy area. I thought people said it like that because they were confused, and thought that the "time/tine" was referring to a temporal aspect of the holiday, not a historical figure.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 6:23 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by Jack Karaoke at 6:23 AM on February 10, 2005
It has a lot to do with the formation of the phonemes in the mouth. We have a tendency toward certain phonemic combinations that are easier to pronounce when speaking quickly. When you say, "Valentimes", the progression through your mouth (pay attention to your tongue), is fron back to front. If you say, "Valentines", there is a break in that pattern where your tongue must slip backwards to pronounce the "-ines" portion of the word. Our mouths and tongues like easy, and will seek that out when possible. It is linguistic laziness.
posted by xorowo at 6:27 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by xorowo at 6:27 AM on February 10, 2005
A lot of people can't be bothered to correct themselves when they do discover that they're incorrect in their pronunciation or word usage. Some people think proper grammar / spelling / pronunciation pedants are using it as a way to prove that they're somehow better than their less careful or less educated peers. (Perhaps because there are those people that do act like that.)
Some people are satisfied to correct themselves and some people feel the need to correct everyone else all the time and are disdainful of those that can't or don't know any better. It can just be a different way to be elitist.
I try to be correct whenever possible and I'm very consious of my shortcomings in this regard. There are a lot of words I learned from reading and as a result I am never sure how to pronounce them - so I avoid using them verbally in company that would know the difference. Am I the only one that does this? (Probably not.) There are also certain words that I've never properly learned to spell, so I will alter my sentence construction in situations like MeFi to avoid showing my ignorance. How superficial is that? But I do know there are an awful lot of educated people on here, and I care what they think about me, and there are certain people in the crowd that have made it plain that they care.
Later, I might regret my candor on this matter. What's the point of hiding a weakness I'm embarrased about if I admit to it later? Heh. *runs away to hide for a bit*
posted by raedyn at 6:29 AM on February 10, 2005
Some people are satisfied to correct themselves and some people feel the need to correct everyone else all the time and are disdainful of those that can't or don't know any better. It can just be a different way to be elitist.
I try to be correct whenever possible and I'm very consious of my shortcomings in this regard. There are a lot of words I learned from reading and as a result I am never sure how to pronounce them - so I avoid using them verbally in company that would know the difference. Am I the only one that does this? (Probably not.) There are also certain words that I've never properly learned to spell, so I will alter my sentence construction in situations like MeFi to avoid showing my ignorance. How superficial is that? But I do know there are an awful lot of educated people on here, and I care what they think about me, and there are certain people in the crowd that have made it plain that they care.
Later, I might regret my candor on this matter. What's the point of hiding a weakness I'm embarrased about if I admit to it later? Heh. *runs away to hide for a bit*
posted by raedyn at 6:29 AM on February 10, 2005
Assimilation of front component of articulation of [t] onto [n] would be my phonological guess, given that [m] is more frontal than [n].
posted by joeclark at 6:41 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by joeclark at 6:41 AM on February 10, 2005
It seems that this minority variant is used in at least a few places (although, from perusing a few links, I would guess that at least some of these are for "twee", or even simply mistyping). Maybe it's an eggcorn (more).
posted by casu marzu at 6:44 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by casu marzu at 6:44 AM on February 10, 2005
These people, they're not dumb, just indigent.
Strange pronounciation variant: My girlfriend's mother twists "wash" into "wush" and CANNOT hear the difference between the two pronunciations.
Also, "chicken" becomes, "chk-un"
posted by leotrotsky at 6:55 AM on February 10, 2005
Strange pronounciation variant: My girlfriend's mother twists "wash" into "wush" and CANNOT hear the difference between the two pronunciations.
Also, "chicken" becomes, "chk-un"
posted by leotrotsky at 6:55 AM on February 10, 2005
The only person I know that says Valentimes Day is my 5 year old daughter.
posted by internal at 7:19 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by internal at 7:19 AM on February 10, 2005
indigent = impoverished
indolent = averse to activity, effort, or movement
Do you really mean they say "Valentimes" because they are poor, or is this another of those intentional mistakes?
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 7:25 AM on February 10, 2005
indolent = averse to activity, effort, or movement
Do you really mean they say "Valentimes" because they are poor, or is this another of those intentional mistakes?
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 7:25 AM on February 10, 2005
Everything falls apart. Language is no exception.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 7:31 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 7:31 AM on February 10, 2005
Valentine's Day is in February.
Valentime's Day is in Febuary.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:51 AM on February 10, 2005
Valentime's Day is in Febuary.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:51 AM on February 10, 2005
This ties in with Seanyboy's claim about inbred Spanish lisping, though I have no idea whether his claim has any basis in fact.
It doesn't. It's one of the many, many urban legends about language. (There's a discussion of the popular idea that certain speech variants trickle down from particular powerful people in this LH entry.)
I try to be correct whenever possible and I'm very consious of my shortcomings in this regard.
I really hate the fact that the bullshit "rules" that get smugly propagated by people who know no actual facts about language produce this kind of self-consciousness. If more people studied linguistics for even one semester and learned how language works, they'd know what's a real error ("slip of the tongue") and what's normal linguistic change or dialectal variation, with no moral implications either way. (Note: I am not saying that all forms are equally "good" for all purposes; clearly some are socially favored over others, and it makes sense to learn the distinctions. It does not make sense to confuse this, which is the equivalent of learning to wear suits to job interviews and jeans for hiking, with some kind of inherent "good/bad" distinction. Suits are not "better" than jeans.)
Kudos to xorowo and joeclark for actually answering the question (which is a perfectly good one, camfys).
posted by languagehat at 8:10 AM on February 10, 2005
It doesn't. It's one of the many, many urban legends about language. (There's a discussion of the popular idea that certain speech variants trickle down from particular powerful people in this LH entry.)
I try to be correct whenever possible and I'm very consious of my shortcomings in this regard.
I really hate the fact that the bullshit "rules" that get smugly propagated by people who know no actual facts about language produce this kind of self-consciousness. If more people studied linguistics for even one semester and learned how language works, they'd know what's a real error ("slip of the tongue") and what's normal linguistic change or dialectal variation, with no moral implications either way. (Note: I am not saying that all forms are equally "good" for all purposes; clearly some are socially favored over others, and it makes sense to learn the distinctions. It does not make sense to confuse this, which is the equivalent of learning to wear suits to job interviews and jeans for hiking, with some kind of inherent "good/bad" distinction. Suits are not "better" than jeans.)
Kudos to xorowo and joeclark for actually answering the question (which is a perfectly good one, camfys).
posted by languagehat at 8:10 AM on February 10, 2005
My father says 'cushin' instead of 'cushion'. Funny.
posted by wackybrit at 8:29 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by wackybrit at 8:29 AM on February 10, 2005
Languagehat. re the Spanish Impediment. You Rock!
There are a lot of words I learned from reading and as a result I am never sure how to pronounce them
Had a friend who'd only ever read the word "banal" until some time late in her life when she mispronounced in front of about 20 people. How we laughed.
posted by seanyboy at 9:04 AM on February 10, 2005
There are a lot of words I learned from reading and as a result I am never sure how to pronounce them
Had a friend who'd only ever read the word "banal" until some time late in her life when she mispronounced in front of about 20 people. How we laughed.
posted by seanyboy at 9:04 AM on February 10, 2005
My mother in law (bless her heart!) calls Dinosaurs "Dinozaurs," which drives me nuts. I have lived in a lot of places in Canada (from Nanaimo to Winnipeg, and all places in between), but the particular area that I live in (Southern Alberta) has a strange dialect where they pluralize almost everything. Ex. Safeway becomes "Safeways," or "I need to go to the Safeways later and pick up a loaf of bread."
posted by Quartermass at 9:10 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by Quartermass at 9:10 AM on February 10, 2005
There are also certain words that I've never properly learned to spell, so I will alter my sentence construction in situations like MeFi to avoid showing my ignorance.
i post more typos (and genuine errors) than most, but if you're worried about this there's always the "spell check" button - it works pretty well.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:16 AM on February 10, 2005
i post more typos (and genuine errors) than most, but if you're worried about this there's always the "spell check" button - it works pretty well.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:16 AM on February 10, 2005
Another common few - "Westminister" rather than "Westminster". And "prostrate" instead of "prostate". It's rude to correct people, so what can you do...
posted by orange swan at 9:29 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by orange swan at 9:29 AM on February 10, 2005
It doesn't drive me as crazy as saying "wash" like "warsh," though. And apparently, that's an acceptable regional dialect.
In New England, I think. But I'm with odinsdream:
I have never, ever heard anyone call it Valentimes Day.
So I'm wondering, is this also a regional thing? Or perhaps
ethnic? On the other hand,
My father says 'cushin' instead of 'cushion'.
(scratching head) How else does one pronounce this word? (FYI, my origin is US East Coast, Mid-Atlantic). Another example: Mary, merry and marry. Some people can make these words sound differently, at least they can tell the difference; but I can't hear any.
posted by Rash at 9:46 AM on February 10, 2005
In New England, I think. But I'm with odinsdream:
I have never, ever heard anyone call it Valentimes Day.
So I'm wondering, is this also a regional thing? Or perhaps
ethnic? On the other hand,
My father says 'cushin' instead of 'cushion'.
(scratching head) How else does one pronounce this word? (FYI, my origin is US East Coast, Mid-Atlantic). Another example: Mary, merry and marry. Some people can make these words sound differently, at least they can tell the difference; but I can't hear any.
posted by Rash at 9:46 AM on February 10, 2005
How else does one pronounce this word?
Good question.
Mary, merry and marry.
In many New England accents you would definitely be able to hear this difference. Mary uses the 'a' sound from "air"; merry the 'e' from "men"; marry the 'a' from "map".
posted by jjg at 9:56 AM on February 10, 2005
Good question.
Mary, merry and marry.
In many New England accents you would definitely be able to hear this difference. Mary uses the 'a' sound from "air"; merry the 'e' from "men"; marry the 'a' from "map".
posted by jjg at 9:56 AM on February 10, 2005
My father says 'cushin' instead of 'cushion'.
"(scratching head) How else does one pronounce this word?"
I had the same question, Rash. I'm guessing (perhaps incorrectly) this is a other side of the pond difference, since it was wackybrit that made the original comment. WackyBrit - Everyone I know (I live on the Canadian prairies) pronounces it "kush-on". How do you say it?
marry the 'a' from "map"
Really? *shudders*
posted by raedyn at 9:58 AM on February 10, 2005
"(scratching head) How else does one pronounce this word?"
I had the same question, Rash. I'm guessing (perhaps incorrectly) this is a other side of the pond difference, since it was wackybrit that made the original comment. WackyBrit - Everyone I know (I live on the Canadian prairies) pronounces it "kush-on". How do you say it?
marry the 'a' from "map"
Really? *shudders*
posted by raedyn at 9:58 AM on February 10, 2005
Hmm. I'm trying to phonetically spell the way I pronounce "cushion" and am having a hard time. It's not "kooshin" but it's not "kushin" either. The way I say it, it rhymes with "push".
My father says 'cushin' instead of 'cushion'. Funny.
Do you mean to say he rhymes it with "slush"?
posted by Specklet at 10:09 AM on February 10, 2005
My father says 'cushin' instead of 'cushion'. Funny.
Do you mean to say he rhymes it with "slush"?
posted by Specklet at 10:09 AM on February 10, 2005
I have never, ever heard anyone call it Valentimes Day.
So I'm wondering, is this also a regional thing?
Add one more to the never heard it pronounced that way column. So where exactly are people saying this?
posted by probablysteve at 10:27 AM on February 10, 2005
So I'm wondering, is this also a regional thing?
Add one more to the never heard it pronounced that way column. So where exactly are people saying this?
posted by probablysteve at 10:27 AM on February 10, 2005
I have nothing new to add re: Valentime's, but I have a friend who pronounces it "breftast" (breakfast), and my dad says "pogam" (program). My friend is an elementary school teacher, and my father builds helicopters for the military.
Be very, very scared for the future.
posted by AlisonM at 10:30 AM on February 10, 2005
Be very, very scared for the future.
posted by AlisonM at 10:30 AM on February 10, 2005
Be very, very scared for the future.
i am terrified. i never thought the day would come when people would speak in a way that annoys AlisonM. civilisation is doomed and we're all going to die.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:36 AM on February 10, 2005 [1 favorite]
i am terrified. i never thought the day would come when people would speak in a way that annoys AlisonM. civilisation is doomed and we're all going to die.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:36 AM on February 10, 2005 [1 favorite]
A little off topic but in the same vein...another one i really don't get is antibiotic. I was brought up to say anti (with the 'i' sounding like ee) bi (sounding like eye) otic....but here in the states I hear it being called Anti (eye) botic (dropping the eye sound in bio). How come?
posted by ramix at 10:41 AM on February 10, 2005
posted by ramix at 10:41 AM on February 10, 2005
here in the states I hear it being called Anti (eye) botic (dropping the eye sound in bio). How come?
I've never heard this. It's anti-bye-otic here.
posted by kindall at 10:58 AM on February 10, 2005
I've never heard this. It's anti-bye-otic here.
posted by kindall at 10:58 AM on February 10, 2005
civilisation is doomed and we're all going to die
Well, yeah, we already knew that -- why let it spoil our fun?
Mary uses the 'a' sound from "air"; merry the 'e' from
"men"; marry the 'a' from "map".
The first two I can handle, and even emulate; but
the "r" in the last one creates a dipthong with the
preceeding "a" which I can't make sound anything
like "map." Maybe because of my broad American "a"?
posted by Rash at 11:53 AM on February 10, 2005
Well, yeah, we already knew that -- why let it spoil our fun?
Mary uses the 'a' sound from "air"; merry the 'e' from
"men"; marry the 'a' from "map".
The first two I can handle, and even emulate; but
the "r" in the last one creates a dipthong with the
preceeding "a" which I can't make sound anything
like "map." Maybe because of my broad American "a"?
posted by Rash at 11:53 AM on February 10, 2005
I am very far from being a linguist, but:
Ramix, are you sure people aren't just slurring the i-o? When I say it, I am saying "biotic," but the "i" is definitely soft and kind of folded in. I do say "anti" with the long "i," which seems to lead to more slurring. And yeah, "anti" with the long "i" is pretty common in the states.
Rash, say the "a" like "air," then drop the back of your tongue. At least I think that's how I'm making the difference in those noises.
posted by dame at 12:58 PM on February 10, 2005
Ramix, are you sure people aren't just slurring the i-o? When I say it, I am saying "biotic," but the "i" is definitely soft and kind of folded in. I do say "anti" with the long "i," which seems to lead to more slurring. And yeah, "anti" with the long "i" is pretty common in the states.
Rash, say the "a" like "air," then drop the back of your tongue. At least I think that's how I'm making the difference in those noises.
posted by dame at 12:58 PM on February 10, 2005
joeclark: Assimilation of front component of articulation of [t] onto [n] would be my phonological guess, given that [m] is more frontal than [n].
xorowo: If you say, "Valentines", there is a break in that pattern where your tongue must slip backwards to pronounce the "-ines" portion of the word.
languagehat: Kudos to xorowo and joeclark for actually answering the question
Though I shudder to disagree with languagehat... According to the IPA, both [t] and [n] are in the same place (alveolar), as is the [z] of "ines". Why would the brain find it easier to throw a labial between two alveolar sounds? If place assimilation were happening at all, I would expect the "ines" ending to be the result, not the "imes" ending.
Not to mention that if [t] were influencing the [n] of "ines" forward, it would surely do the same thing to the [n] of "valent", would it not? Yet it doesn't, which is why we end up with words like "intolerable" and "impossible," where the [p] brings the [n] forward to become an [m], but the [t] loves it just as it is.
posted by heatherann at 1:37 PM on February 10, 2005
xorowo: If you say, "Valentines", there is a break in that pattern where your tongue must slip backwards to pronounce the "-ines" portion of the word.
languagehat: Kudos to xorowo and joeclark for actually answering the question
Though I shudder to disagree with languagehat... According to the IPA, both [t] and [n] are in the same place (alveolar), as is the [z] of "ines". Why would the brain find it easier to throw a labial between two alveolar sounds? If place assimilation were happening at all, I would expect the "ines" ending to be the result, not the "imes" ending.
Not to mention that if [t] were influencing the [n] of "ines" forward, it would surely do the same thing to the [n] of "valent", would it not? Yet it doesn't, which is why we end up with words like "intolerable" and "impossible," where the [p] brings the [n] forward to become an [m], but the [t] loves it just as it is.
posted by heatherann at 1:37 PM on February 10, 2005
Regarding the s-ing of all stores:
Quartermass, I don't think that it's a regional thing. I keep hearing people say that it's a regional thing...identifying it as Midwestern US, Southern US, and Midatlantic US, and more. I don't know where the heck it comes from. I always thought they were making it possessive, though, not plural. Not that it makes much difference in pronunciation, in this case.
People do this all the time in Philadelphia, where I live, and it drives me nuts. It's not even just the most familiar stores, but names of restaurants and the like where adding the "s" makes even less sense.
posted by desuetude at 1:37 PM on February 10, 2005
Quartermass, I don't think that it's a regional thing. I keep hearing people say that it's a regional thing...identifying it as Midwestern US, Southern US, and Midatlantic US, and more. I don't know where the heck it comes from. I always thought they were making it possessive, though, not plural. Not that it makes much difference in pronunciation, in this case.
People do this all the time in Philadelphia, where I live, and it drives me nuts. It's not even just the most familiar stores, but names of restaurants and the like where adding the "s" makes even less sense.
posted by desuetude at 1:37 PM on February 10, 2005
(I like the hypothesis that "Valentimes" is like "Christmastime," by the way. Probably a regional mispronounciation spread by people who remember the way that they heard it more strongly than how they read it.)
posted by heatherann at 1:38 PM on February 10, 2005
posted by heatherann at 1:38 PM on February 10, 2005
Yes, the adding-s-to-store-names thing is possessive. If you were going to your friend Bob's place, you might say "I'm going to Bob's." And if you're going to your friend Wal-Mart's place, you might say "I'm going to Wal-Mart's."
posted by kindall at 2:00 PM on February 10, 2005
posted by kindall at 2:00 PM on February 10, 2005
Why would the brain find it easier to throw a labial between two alveolar sounds? If place assimilation were happening at all, I would expect the "ines" ending to be the result, not the "imes" ending.
You're right about this. It doesn't happen. Good call on the disagreeing with languagehat, though I think he was more thanking those two for trying to be helpful instead of making fun of people who pronounce things differently.
If you say, "Valentines", there is a break in that pattern where your tongue must slip backwards to pronounce the "-ines" portion of the word.
This is not an unreasonable hypothesis, but as far as I know (and I have a Master's in linguistics) the front to back pattern created in the mouth is not a reason for phonetic change.
Since the phonology is not obvious, my theory leans toward suggesting that [m] is just considered easier to pronounce than [n]. Though I can't find any evidence for it right now, I'm basing that on remembering from typology that if a language has an [n] sound, it will also have an [m] sound, but not vice versa. This generally (in at least some schools of thought) translates to easier to articulate. In addition, the end of a syllable in a cluster is a VERY weak position, and so the idea that [n] would turn to [m] is this particular position is fairly sound.
posted by purtek at 2:02 PM on February 10, 2005
You're right about this. It doesn't happen. Good call on the disagreeing with languagehat, though I think he was more thanking those two for trying to be helpful instead of making fun of people who pronounce things differently.
If you say, "Valentines", there is a break in that pattern where your tongue must slip backwards to pronounce the "-ines" portion of the word.
This is not an unreasonable hypothesis, but as far as I know (and I have a Master's in linguistics) the front to back pattern created in the mouth is not a reason for phonetic change.
Since the phonology is not obvious, my theory leans toward suggesting that [m] is just considered easier to pronounce than [n]. Though I can't find any evidence for it right now, I'm basing that on remembering from typology that if a language has an [n] sound, it will also have an [m] sound, but not vice versa. This generally (in at least some schools of thought) translates to easier to articulate. In addition, the end of a syllable in a cluster is a VERY weak position, and so the idea that [n] would turn to [m] is this particular position is fairly sound.
posted by purtek at 2:02 PM on February 10, 2005
Though I shudder to disagree with languagehat
Actually, I wasn't agreeing with their answers, just congratulating them for providing answers rather than going off on "pronunciations that drive me crazy," which seems to be par for the course in these discussions. My phonetics classes are way, way behind me, so I don't feel qualified to weigh in on the details of the articulation, though I had similar doubts to yours. And since I don't recall hearing the -times version either, I can't address its origin and distribution.
posted by languagehat at 2:05 PM on February 10, 2005
Actually, I wasn't agreeing with their answers, just congratulating them for providing answers rather than going off on "pronunciations that drive me crazy," which seems to be par for the course in these discussions. My phonetics classes are way, way behind me, so I don't feel qualified to weigh in on the details of the articulation, though I had similar doubts to yours. And since I don't recall hearing the -times version either, I can't address its origin and distribution.
posted by languagehat at 2:05 PM on February 10, 2005
Camfys, my daughter adopts this pronunciation in my presence for the simple joy of irritating the hell out of me. YMMV.
posted by Space Kitty at 2:16 PM on February 10, 2005
posted by Space Kitty at 2:16 PM on February 10, 2005
Kudos to those who spotted the irony way above. Yes, Valentime's is a Philadelphia thing. You also might hear people talking about a small stream-like water feature called a 'crick' or even say 'keller' for 'color.' Since it was Ash Wednesday yesterday, one of my coworkers told me that she was 'Lenting ' on chocolate, i.e. giving up chocolate for Lent. My South Philly co-workers say 'pallor' for 'parlor' which you and I know as a living room. Don't get me started on my in-laws on Lawn Guyland, who like to do stuff on Sad-day. Oh yeah, some of us say 'youse' but in Western PA (we say Pee-Aaay) they say 'yinz.'
posted by fixedgear at 2:17 PM on February 10, 2005
posted by fixedgear at 2:17 PM on February 10, 2005
Another linguist friend (with far more knowledge of phonetics than I) is weighing in to tell me that while [m] is acquired earlier, "easier to articulate" is a very difficult argument to make.
He suggests possibly dissimilation (too many alveolar sounds), or the earlier suggested "time" connection. Short answer though, is that there's no simple linguistic reason.
posted by purtek at 2:22 PM on February 10, 2005
He suggests possibly dissimilation (too many alveolar sounds), or the earlier suggested "time" connection. Short answer though, is that there's no simple linguistic reason.
posted by purtek at 2:22 PM on February 10, 2005
IANAL, but it seems "-times" could be just as much effort to pronounce as "-tines" since your jaw and lower lip have to travel all the way up to meet the upper lip to form the "m" sound. And that moves much more mass than the tongue. What gives?
I hate, hate alliteration.
posted by casarkos at 2:26 PM on February 10, 2005
I hate, hate alliteration.
posted by casarkos at 2:26 PM on February 10, 2005
is weighing in to tell me that while [m] is acquired earlier, "easier to articulate" is a very difficult argument to make.
huh. But all academics aside, would anyone disagree with that assumption? Mmm just feels like the easiest sound to make. You don't really have to move your mouth at all. To get Nnn you have to place your tongue in a certain spot...
posted by mdn at 2:32 PM on February 10, 2005
huh. But all academics aside, would anyone disagree with that assumption? Mmm just feels like the easiest sound to make. You don't really have to move your mouth at all. To get Nnn you have to place your tongue in a certain spot...
posted by mdn at 2:32 PM on February 10, 2005
Response by poster: So am I seriously the only person here who has heard grown men and women pronounce it that way? (Great, now I look like the idiot.) I have literally heard it 3 times in the last month (twice on television, and once from someone I didn't know well enough to embarrass.)
Oh and by the way, I live in Las Vegas. Thanks for your input everyone!
posted by camfys at 2:44 PM on February 10, 2005
Oh and by the way, I live in Las Vegas. Thanks for your input everyone!
posted by camfys at 2:44 PM on February 10, 2005
huh. But all academics aside, would anyone disagree with that assumption? Mmm just feels like the easiest sound to make. You don't really have to move your mouth at all. To get Nnn you have to place your tongue in a certain spot...
I think the key point there is "all academics aside". I'd agree with you, and it seems every child too young to pronounce the [n] sound would too, but it's a big leap from there to any academic conclusions.
posted by purtek at 2:55 PM on February 10, 2005
I think the key point there is "all academics aside". I'd agree with you, and it seems every child too young to pronounce the [n] sound would too, but it's a big leap from there to any academic conclusions.
posted by purtek at 2:55 PM on February 10, 2005
People do this all the time in Philadelphia, where I live, and it drives me nuts. It's not even just the most familiar stores, but names of restaurants and the like where adding the "s" makes even less sense.
Holy cow. I thought only people in Hawaii did this. It's not just stores, though, it's any place. So not only does Tower Records become Tower's, and Subway become Subway's, but Sandy Beach becomes Sandy's (this is quite common with surf spots, come to think of it).
On the business side, it's especially weird 'cause people will write out checks to these places incorrectly... but the banks will accept them anyway.
posted by pzarquon at 4:41 PM on February 10, 2005
Holy cow. I thought only people in Hawaii did this. It's not just stores, though, it's any place. So not only does Tower Records become Tower's, and Subway become Subway's, but Sandy Beach becomes Sandy's (this is quite common with surf spots, come to think of it).
On the business side, it's especially weird 'cause people will write out checks to these places incorrectly... but the banks will accept them anyway.
posted by pzarquon at 4:41 PM on February 10, 2005
Rash, start out like you're going to say "magazine" and switch to "ree" after the first syllable. Don't blend into the 'r'.
posted by jjg at 6:01 PM on February 10, 2005
posted by jjg at 6:01 PM on February 10, 2005
"so many people pronounce Valentine's Day as ValenTIMES Day?"
This has got to be regional. I've never heard it before in my (American west coast-centric) life, across the many social, economic, and ethnic strata I've immersed myself in over the years.
posted by majick at 7:47 PM on February 10, 2005
This has got to be regional. I've never heard it before in my (American west coast-centric) life, across the many social, economic, and ethnic strata I've immersed myself in over the years.
posted by majick at 7:47 PM on February 10, 2005
i've never heard anybody else say it either. although my italian coworker does say 'OldTimers' in place of 'Alzheimers'. Say it in an italian accent and it sorta makes sense.
anyhoo, my vote is laziness.
posted by freudianslipper at 10:41 PM on February 10, 2005
anyhoo, my vote is laziness.
posted by freudianslipper at 10:41 PM on February 10, 2005
I've heard it here in the midwest quite a bit, specifically in Kansas, then adapted it to tease a dear boy who insist that Valentine's Day was a pure product of the Hallmark card mafia, because if you're going to be that annoying to your girlfriend you deserve to have the entire first part of the month of February dubbed Valentimes, and to be given candy and red hearts and serenaded etc. If you also happen to be horrified by heedless language abuse, that is a tasty chocolate-covered fringe benefit of the whole thing.
Ie, some of us are just trying to provoke you. If you kiss us, we'll probably shut up.
posted by melissa may at 11:06 PM on February 10, 2005
Ie, some of us are just trying to provoke you. If you kiss us, we'll probably shut up.
posted by melissa may at 11:06 PM on February 10, 2005
"OldTimers" for "Alzheimers" is very common here, too (Philadelphia).
posted by fixedgear at 2:50 AM on February 11, 2005
posted by fixedgear at 2:50 AM on February 11, 2005
excettera... drives me nuts!
posted by LouReedsSon at 4:48 AM on February 11, 2005
posted by LouReedsSon at 4:48 AM on February 11, 2005
Holy cow. I thought only people in Hawaii did this. It's not just stores, though, it's any place. So not only does Tower Records become Tower's, and Subway become Subway's, but Sandy Beach becomes Sandy's (this is quite common with surf spots, come to think of it).
The surf spots thing almost makes sense, in a nickname-y way? The possessive 's' for businesses is some kind of disease though. Home Depot's. Marshalls's. I'm not kidding. Harder to articulate? Doesn't matter. I blithely accept all kinds of (to me) strange mispronunciations after seven years living in South Philly, but the extra 's' is the thing that's gonna make me start hurling cannolis from Isgros's at passerby.
posted by desuetude at 9:39 AM on February 11, 2005
The surf spots thing almost makes sense, in a nickname-y way? The possessive 's' for businesses is some kind of disease though. Home Depot's. Marshalls's. I'm not kidding. Harder to articulate? Doesn't matter. I blithely accept all kinds of (to me) strange mispronunciations after seven years living in South Philly, but the extra 's' is the thing that's gonna make me start hurling cannolis from Isgros's at passerby.
posted by desuetude at 9:39 AM on February 11, 2005
The pluralization of words in Hawaii isn't limited to place names. For instance, "shoot" becomes "shoots" and "later" becomes "laters." The local pidgin borrows from Japanese, Chinese, Tagalog, Illocano, Portugese, etc. This may be an artifact of one of those langagues.
posted by zanni at 12:06 PM on February 11, 2005
posted by zanni at 12:06 PM on February 11, 2005
"hone in on" vs "home in on" ? Which is 'correct'? A missle homes in on its target, hence it is called a homing missle. Since you say this is about a weakening of the 'n' sound, you must mean hone, so it becomes unclear what exactly is being whinned about here!
"whinned"? Do you mean "whined"? If so - nope no whining going on. One of those kismet events, I was looking up some information earlier (on home vs. hone) and then saw this thread. The question reminded me of the previous information gathering (mostly the part about the weakening of the 'n' sound) and I thought may have relevance to the question asked, but IANAL. As for 'home in on' vs 'hone in on' it all depends on the source of the expertise (oxford/webster/etc) relied upon.
/derail
posted by squeak at 1:21 AM on February 13, 2005
"whinned"? Do you mean "whined"? If so - nope no whining going on. One of those kismet events, I was looking up some information earlier (on home vs. hone) and then saw this thread. The question reminded me of the previous information gathering (mostly the part about the weakening of the 'n' sound) and I thought may have relevance to the question asked, but IANAL. As for 'home in on' vs 'hone in on' it all depends on the source of the expertise (oxford/webster/etc) relied upon.
/derail
posted by squeak at 1:21 AM on February 13, 2005
I should probably be a bit more detailed! :-)
"(scratching head) How else does one pronounce this word?" I had the same question, Rash. I'm guessing (perhaps incorrectly) this is a other side of the pond difference, since it was wackybrit that made the original comment. WackyBrit - Everyone I know (I live on the Canadian prairies) pronounces it "kush-on". How do you say it?
When I said my father says 'cushin' rather than 'cushion', the key difference is in the last sound.
He says cush-in (where 'in' is just like the word 'in').. whereas I would say cooshun (almost rhyming with motion, but not quite). This latter pronunciation is more popular in the south of England.
posted by wackybrit at 8:33 PM on February 15, 2005
"(scratching head) How else does one pronounce this word?" I had the same question, Rash. I'm guessing (perhaps incorrectly) this is a other side of the pond difference, since it was wackybrit that made the original comment. WackyBrit - Everyone I know (I live on the Canadian prairies) pronounces it "kush-on". How do you say it?
When I said my father says 'cushin' rather than 'cushion', the key difference is in the last sound.
He says cush-in (where 'in' is just like the word 'in').. whereas I would say cooshun (almost rhyming with motion, but not quite). This latter pronunciation is more popular in the south of England.
posted by wackybrit at 8:33 PM on February 15, 2005
Yeah, I think my phonology is wrong. I like the dissimilation theory, which we never took in phonology class.
Could it be interference from the common word times vs. the very uncommon word tines (of a fork)? "Valentimes" speakers could be subconsciously viewing it as a compound word, Valen+times. Obviously that's more correct than Valen+tines, because "tines" isn't even a word, is it?
BTW, the phenomenon with "Westminister" is epenthesis and is quite common ("athuhlete," "nukeyeler").
posted by joeclark at 12:26 PM on March 6, 2005
Could it be interference from the common word times vs. the very uncommon word tines (of a fork)? "Valentimes" speakers could be subconsciously viewing it as a compound word, Valen+times. Obviously that's more correct than Valen+tines, because "tines" isn't even a word, is it?
BTW, the phenomenon with "Westminister" is epenthesis and is quite common ("athuhlete," "nukeyeler").
posted by joeclark at 12:26 PM on March 6, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by fixedgear at 2:49 AM on February 10, 2005 [2 favorites]