Talk:pronounciation

October 2008

Shouldn't we also list the pronunciation of this? I've heard it spoken several times and it is pronounced differently than its correct form pronunciation. — This unsigned comment was added by 69.144.44.83 (talk) at 00:27, 29 October 2008.

Misspellings get articles?

Should all common misspellings of words get articles, too? This seems ridiculous. Lsloan (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

See WT:CFI#Spellings and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Keeping common misspellings. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

not a misspelling

Pronunciation is an alternate spelling, not a misspelling. Pigginator1 (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Difficult question. Traditionally it's certainly considered incorrect, to which attests the fact that you won't find it in dictionaries. Now: that's a point, but not all there's to it. It could still be an alternative spelling (albeit a nonstandard one) if speakers used it deliberately in spite of their awareness of its nonstandard quality; for example, because they say: "I pronounce it that way and it also fits in better with the verb, so that's how I'm going to spell it!" If you can find sufficient evidence for such deliberate use, we could turn it into a nonstandard alternative spelling. 90.186.170.69 00:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

My edit was reverted, but the OED clearly states that "pronounciation" is a non-standard form. Not sure how to get this past the undo overlords... See “pronunciation, n.”, in OED Online ⁠, Oxford: Oxford University Press, March 2023. Danroa (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Nonstandard quite literally means it's a misspelling: see nonstandard in the glossary. Theknightwho (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s a misspelling. Why would it be an alternate spelling? Which English language variety uses this? Jordanekay (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ioaxxere: You've labeled this as a misspelling, but the citation you added also calls it a "mispronunciation" and there's a spoken example given, so how does that make sense? "Nonstandard form" is more generic, so it'd make more sense to use that, wouldn't it? — W.andrea (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@W.andrea: If there are many people who habitually say it as /pɹəˌnaʊn.siˈeɪ.ʃən/, then sure. The guy in the citation is a bit of an outlier. Ioaxxere (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Obsolete form

The quotation given does not provide evidence for this being an obsolete form rather than a simple misspelling. We should consider removing this entry. Jordanekay (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jordanekay The correct venue is WT:RFVE. Theknightwho (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

RFV discussion: July–December 2024

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

pronounciation

The first entry correctly notes this is a misspelling of “pronunciation.” However, an erroneously added “obsolete form” entry was added, with no evidence to back up this assertion. The corresponding quotation does not show an occurrence of this form. I am requesting we delete the second entry and only keep the first entry indicating this is a misspelled word—or better yet, delete this page entirely. — This unsigned comment was added by Jordanekay (talk • contribs) at 18:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC).

Regardless of whether the second sense is verified, I would keep the first entry, since this is a common misspelling – Google Ngram Viewer gives a frequency ratio of about 240 for pronunciation/pronounciation at the Google Books Ngram Viewer., less than, say, the ratio for conceive/concieve at the Google Books Ngram Viewer., which has a page. Fluffy8x (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the first entry. What is the justification for keeping the second? It is not an “obsolete form.” Jordanekay (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

When dealing with early modern English, the concept of "misspelling" is problematic, since modern standards of spelling were not clearly established.--Urszag (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There are 112+138 results in EEBO. These would include some duplicates, but I think this is enough to demonstrate that this form was in wide use in the 1500s and 1600s. Unless anyone is going to formally insist on two more cites actually in the entry, I propose to close this. This, that and the other (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• resolved adequatelyPratty sniper (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)