English language question

[jacob navia]

The english word "Initialize d" exists. (Cambridge dictionary finds it).
The word "Uninitiali zed" doesn't seem to exist, and no dictionary
has it. I am using that word very often in my tutorial of the C language
with

"uninitiali zed memory".

Word flags this as a spelling error and tells me that the correct spelling
is

"uninitiali sed" with s
and NOT
"uninitiali zed" with z.

Can anyone here tell me what word should be used in correct english?

Thanks in advance

jacob

[J. J. Farrell]

Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> wrote in message news:<js******* *************** **********@4ax. com>...

On 21 Jun 2004 20:58:39 -0700, jj*@bcs.org.uk (J. J. Farrell) wrote:

[It's ironic that American English seems to suffer much more from
French corruption these days. It always tickles me when I hear
Americans pronounce words such as 'valet', 'fillet' and 'herb' as
if they were modern French -
I'm not sure what you mean.

It's ironic that the spelling of English English got corrupted by
French some time ago while American English preserved the original
spellings, but then later on (I assume) the pronunciation of American
English got corrupted by French.
I (and everyone I know) pronounce these
words as if they were American English, which they are, regardless of
their origin.
I take your word for it that they are now (is it widespread across
the USA?) but it would be interesting to know when they changed and
why. My guess is pretention that caught on, but I'd be interested
to know if anyone has researched it. There are no hard divisions on
the road from "wrong" through "slang" to "correct".
Nobody who uses valet service, or orders a fillet of fish, is under
the illusion that they're speaking French.

That's not so. I've been told more than once in the USA that these
words are pronounced that way "because they are French".

[J. J. Farrell]

Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.hel sinki.fi> wrote in message news:<cb******* ***@oravannahka .helsinki.fi>.. .

I am unaware of the difference between ancient and modern French
pronunciations

To the first order (which is the limit of my knowledge) read
written French by following the common English pronunciation
rules. I understand it more or less gives you the earlier
pronunciation, for trailing consonants at least. French
spelling was mostly standardized before the French speakers
started eliding lots of consonants. Words like "fillet" came
into English hundreds of years before that.

[J. J. Farrell]

Rich Gibbs <rg****@REMOVEa lumni.CAPSprinc eton.edu> wrote in message news:<40******@ news101.his.com >...

Having lived and worked in Britain for a number of years, I have to say
that I was also amused by the insistence of Britons (even the BBC
presenters, who should have known better) on pronouncing the name of the
large city in eastern Missouri, on the Mississippi River, as "St.
Louie". Anyone who lives there will tell you the name of the place is
pronounced "Saint Lewis". :-)

Yep, sheer ignorance - you'd think we never got to see "Meet me in
St. Louis". Mind you, it makes the use of "fillay" and "erb" seem
all the stranger when you use the old pronunciation for St. Louis.
The Scots got round this one pragmatically by spelling it "Lewis".

[J. J. Farrell]

CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.com> wrote in message news:<40******* ********@yahoo. com>...

Rich Gibbs wrote:

... snip ...

Having lived and worked in Britain for a number of years, I have
to say that I was also amused by the insistence of Britons (even
the BBC presenters, who should have known better) on pronouncing
the name of the large city in eastern Missouri, on the Mississippi
River, as "St. Louie". Anyone who lives there will tell you the
name of the place is pronounced "Saint Lewis". :-) I will not

... snip ...

I think you will find that is a relatively recent affectation. I
recall a musical, circa 1945, (I think it was 'State Fair') where
some of the principle songs were 'The Trolley Song' and 'Meet me
in St Louis, Louie'. From which I conclude that the Lewis
prononciation was not in effect, or at least not universal, then.

It was "Meet me in St. Louis", named after the popular song
from the time that the film was set. Right at the beginning,
the small female character sings a chorus of it to the milkman
then says something like "It's a silly song, though, because
everybody knows that it's called St. Lewis really".

[Richard Bos]

jj*@bcs.org.uk (J. J. Farrell) wrote:

Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> wrote in message news:<js******* *************** **********@4ax. com>...

On 21 Jun 2004 20:58:39 -0700, jj*@bcs.org.uk (J. J. Farrell) wrote:

[It's ironic that American English seems to suffer much more from
French corruption these days. It always tickles me when I hear
Americans pronounce words such as 'valet', 'fillet' and 'herb' as
if they were modern French -
I'm not sure what you mean.

It's ironic that the spelling of English English got corrupted by
French some time ago while American English preserved the original
spellings,

*cough* History, history... AFAIK, and IICR Chaucer himself bears this
out, English inherited any such words directly from the French. There
were no original spellings to preserve.
For example, "exercise" should not be spelled "exercize" is you want to
be historically accurate, since English got this word from French, not
from Greek. In fact, it's a Latin word, and while I'm not sure how the
Romans spelled the verb, I'd be surprised if they used a 'z'. Thus, it
is the USAnian spelling which is a corruption, not a correction.
but then later on (I assume) the pronunciation of American
English got corrupted by French.

Hardly. "Urb" is even further from the French pronunciation than "hurb"
(and the French word is, at least today, written "herbe").

Richard

[Richard Bos]

Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:32:30 GMT, rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
Bos) wrote:

21st century is primarily American English.

How do you explain, then, that I learned English, not USAnian?

Perhaps you learned it before the 21st century?

Yeah, well. This far into the 20th century, the UK was still Top Nation,
and history had not yet come to a .

Richard

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Richard Bos wrote:

jj*@bcs.org.uk (J. J. Farrell) wrote:

Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> wrote:

On 21 Jun 2004 20:58:39 -0700, jj*@bcs.org.uk (J. J. Farrell) wrote:
>[It's ironic that American English seems to suffer much more from
>French corruption these days. It always tickles me when I hear
>Americans pronounce words such as 'valet', 'fillet' and 'herb' as
>if they were modern French -

I'm not sure what you mean.

It's ironic that the spelling of English English got corrupted by
French some time ago while American English preserved the original
spellings,

*cough* History, history... AFAIK, and IICR Chaucer himself bears this
out, English inherited any such words directly from the French. There
were no original spellings to preserve.
For example, "exercise" should not be spelled "exercize" is you want to
be historically accurate, since English got this word from French, not
from Greek. In fact, it's a Latin word, and while I'm not sure how the
Romans spelled the verb, I'd be surprised if they used a 'z'. Thus, it
is the USAnian spelling which is a corruption, not a correction.

I have no idea about its history, but the USAnian spelling is, and
AFAIK has always been (modulo crazy spelling-reform movements)
"exercise." Ditto "excise," "improvise, " "circumcise ." I think it's
because "cize" just looks ugly.

but then later on (I assume) the pronunciation of American
English got corrupted by French.

Hardly. "Urb" is even further from the French pronunciation than "hurb"
(and the French word is, at least today, written "herbe").

Would I be correct in assuming it's pronounced "airb" in French?
That seems closer to "urb" than to "hurb" to me. But regardless,
see
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=herb
The explanatory paragraph squares with what I know of the matter
(though while I've heard "when in the course of yoomun events,"
I've never heard anyone called "a yumble man," and I thought the
pronunciation "'umble" was just routine H-dropping... still, I
agree with their analysis of "herb/'erb").

-Arthur,
pardon my French

[Richard Bos]

"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <aj*@nospam.and rew.cmu.edu> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Richard Bos wrote:

jj*@bcs.org.uk (J. J. Farrell) wrote:

It's ironic that the spelling of English English got corrupted by
French some time ago while American English preserved the original
spellings,

For example, "exercise" should not be spelled "exercize" is you want to
be historically accurate, since English got this word from French, not
from Greek. In fact, it's a Latin word, and while I'm not sure how the
Romans spelled the verb, I'd be surprised if they used a 'z'. Thus, it
is the USAnian spelling which is a corruption, not a correction.

I have no idea about its history, but the USAnian spelling is, and
AFAIK has always been (modulo crazy spelling-reform movements)
"exercise."

'twas just an example. The same is true of all words ending in -ise; I
don't think you'll find any in Chaucer ending in -ize.
but then later on (I assume) the pronunciation of American
English got corrupted by French.

Hardly. "Urb" is even further from the French pronunciation than "hurb"
(and the French word is, at least today, written "herbe").

Would I be correct in assuming it's pronounced "airb" in French?

You would, and it seems I remembered incorrectly; I thought it was
pronounced [herb(@)], but my dictionary agrees with you.

Richard

[Alan Balmer]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:00:19 GMT, rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
Bos) wrote:

"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <aj*@nospam.and rew.cmu.edu> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Richard Bos wrote:

>
> jj*@bcs.org.uk (J. J. Farrell) wrote:
> > It's ironic that the spelling of English English got corrupted by
> > French some time ago while American English preserved the original
> > spellings, > For example, "exercise" should not be spelled "exercize" is you want to
> be historically accurate, since English got this word from French, not
> from Greek. In fact, it's a Latin word, and while I'm not sure how the
> Romans spelled the verb, I'd be surprised if they used a 'z'. Thus, it
> is the USAnian spelling which is a corruption, not a correction.

I have no idea about its history, but the USAnian spelling is, and
AFAIK has always been (modulo crazy spelling-reform movements)
"exercise."

'twas just an example. The same is true of all words ending in -ise; I
don't think you'll find any in Chaucer ending in -ize.

> > but then later on (I assume) the pronunciation of American
> > English got corrupted by French.
>
> Hardly. "Urb" is even further from the French pronunciation than "hurb"
> (and the French word is, at least today, written "herbe").

Would I be correct in assuming it's pronounced "airb" in French?

You would, and it seems I remembered incorrectly; I thought it was
pronounced [herb(@)], but my dictionary agrees with you.

I worked for a while with a fellow from Louisiana. He came in one day
talking about the marvelous science fiction writer he had just
discovered, name of Ayebear. Took me half the morning to realize he
was talking about Frank Herbert.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************* ***********@att .net

[Dan Pop]

In <95************ *************** *****@4ax.com> Alan Balmer <al******@att.n et> writes:

I worked for a while with a fellow from Louisiana. He came in one day
talking about the marvelous science fiction writer he had just
discovered, name of Ayebear. Took me half the morning to realize he
was talking about Frank Herbert.

I worked for a while with a fellow from Los Alamos. It was a real
challenge to figure out even the most common English words, as
pronounced by him...

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de