Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Well, I think we have all heard the pretentious bungling of the plural of process pronounced as if it were the plural of *processy. This morning, I heard a new addition to the family: aupices.
I notice that both American Heritage and Merriam-Webster list these pronunciations of the plural, sadly without note. Are there other catastrophes (this one really does have a long E), misbegotten offspring of this infernal family, lurking out there for me to discover?
[edit: added the following]
I learned that auspice comes from a derivative of auspex, which, like vertex, matrix, index can form a plural with -ices pronounced with a long E. However, people are not forming the plural of auspex, but of auspice. The two words have distinct meanings in English. So I think the point still stands.
I don't know that it's pretentious bungling so much as who you hang out with. Processeez is the way I learned it, and I think it was nearly universal in my early world. It must have just worn away from me over the years, because I don't say it that way any more and have no recollection of being corrected, nor of looking it up until now. It's too late to ask my parents if I got it from them (probably did), but it's hard for me to imagine anyone describing them a pretentious.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)