Erik Max Francis skreiv:
> Even if this is all true, it doesn't explain why it generated scoffing
> _at the time it came out_. "Official pronunciation" isn't very
> meaningful, outside of maybe France. (And even there, the "official
> pronunciation" surely is deliberately flaunted.)
True. Though countries with a high degree of respect for "Authorities"
tend to have people unquestionably accept that someone or something has
this authority -- to define what is "correct", even when that isn't
really the case.
For example, in Germany, you'll hear statements like;
Everyone says "gukken", but the correct pronounciation is really "kukken"
I've tried asking why, exactly, something is "wrong" german if it is
infact what most people who actually speak german actually say. Mostly I
get a blank stare, people don't even get the question. They're so used
to outside authority defining "right" and "wrong". In this particular
case, that imagined "authority" does not even exist! the closest you get
is something like 'whatever the publishers of Duden put in their books'.
In Norway, for example, it's explicitly the other way around; "Norges
språkråd" exists to DO***ENT what is norwegian, not to DEFINE it.
The language as such is defined by actual usage. They -do- sometimes
make *suggestions* such as pointing out that a certain usage would be
more consistent with other similar words and would thus perhaps be
preferable.
Eivind
|
