Are the different pronunciations of “species” regional differences?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
As far as I know, the word "species" can pronounced either as spee-sheez or as spee-seez. I understand that neither of these is incorrect: they're just two different ways to say the same thing. I also know that the second one is pretty much only used in the US. Not being a speaker myself, I'd like to know: is this a regional variation, or is it just something that depends on the speaker?
pronunciation
edited Aug 16 '17 at 12:59
Dog Lover
4,92663266
asked May 23 '13 at 23:48
JavierJavier
191127
add a comment |
As far as I know, the word "species" can pronounced either as spee-sheez or as spee-seez. I understand that neither of these is incorrect: they're just two different ways to say the same thing. I also know that the second one is pretty much only used in the US. Not being a speaker myself, I'd like to know: is this a regional variation, or is it just something that depends on the speaker?
pronunciation
edited Aug 16 '17 at 12:59
Dog Lover
4,92663266
asked May 23 '13 at 23:48
JavierJavier
191127
5
It depends on the speaker. Those who have the most occasion to use the word (biologists, especially taxonomists) may well have their own in-group pronunciation, for all I know. Attend a biology conference and hang out in the bar with a tape recorder if you want to find out the truth.
– John Lawler
May 24 '13 at 2:31
2
As an Australian English speaker who has served time in a university biology department I can say that 'spee-seez' is far more common. British speakers may be more inclined to use the alternative, although with many bioligical terms (notably taxonomic nomenclature) it seems to be personal preference as to which of the numerous pronounciations to use. Having said all that, I would certainly pronounce specious as 'spee-shus', so there you go.
– Stuart Allen
Jun 5 '13 at 22:47
1
I say spee-seez, but I believe David Attenborough says spee-sheez. In fact, linguist David Crystal said in a video I watched one time that for a while he was annoyed by his child saying skeh-jool rather than sheh-jool for "schedule". For the record, I say skeh-jool.
– Dog Lover
May 24 '17 at 0:23
add a comment |
As far as I know, the word "species" can pronounced either as spee-sheez or as spee-seez. I understand that neither of these is incorrect: they're just two different ways to say the same thing. I also know that the second one is pretty much only used in the US. Not being a speaker myself, I'd like to know: is this a regional variation, or is it just something that depends on the speaker?
pronunciation
edited Aug 16 '17 at 12:59
Dog Lover
4,92663266
asked May 23 '13 at 23:48
JavierJavier
191127
As far as I know, the word "species" can pronounced either as spee-sheez or as spee-seez. I understand that neither of these is incorrect: they're just two different ways to say the same thing. I also know that the second one is pretty much only used in the US. Not being a speaker myself, I'd like to know: is this a regional variation, or is it just something that depends on the speaker?
pronunciation
pronunciation
edited Aug 16 '17 at 12:59
Dog Lover
4,92663266
asked May 23 '13 at 23:48
JavierJavier
191127
edited Aug 16 '17 at 12:59
Dog Lover
4,92663266
asked May 23 '13 at 23:48
JavierJavier
191127
edited Aug 16 '17 at 12:59
Dog Lover
4,92663266
edited Aug 16 '17 at 12:59
Dog Lover
4,92663266
edited Aug 16 '17 at 12:59
Dog Lover
4,92663266
4,92663266
asked May 23 '13 at 23:48
JavierJavier
191127
asked May 23 '13 at 23:48
JavierJavier
191127
asked May 23 '13 at 23:48
JavierJavier
191127
191127
5
It depends on the speaker. Those who have the most occasion to use the word (biologists, especially taxonomists) may well have their own in-group pronunciation, for all I know. Attend a biology conference and hang out in the bar with a tape recorder if you want to find out the truth.
– John Lawler
May 24 '13 at 2:31
2
As an Australian English speaker who has served time in a university biology department I can say that 'spee-seez' is far more common. British speakers may be more inclined to use the alternative, although with many bioligical terms (notably taxonomic nomenclature) it seems to be personal preference as to which of the numerous pronounciations to use. Having said all that, I would certainly pronounce specious as 'spee-shus', so there you go.
– Stuart Allen
Jun 5 '13 at 22:47
1
I say spee-seez, but I believe David Attenborough says spee-sheez. In fact, linguist David Crystal said in a video I watched one time that for a while he was annoyed by his child saying skeh-jool rather than sheh-jool for "schedule". For the record, I say skeh-jool.
– Dog Lover
May 24 '17 at 0:23
add a comment |
5
It depends on the speaker. Those who have the most occasion to use the word (biologists, especially taxonomists) may well have their own in-group pronunciation, for all I know. Attend a biology conference and hang out in the bar with a tape recorder if you want to find out the truth.
– John Lawler
May 24 '13 at 2:31
2
As an Australian English speaker who has served time in a university biology department I can say that 'spee-seez' is far more common. British speakers may be more inclined to use the alternative, although with many bioligical terms (notably taxonomic nomenclature) it seems to be personal preference as to which of the numerous pronounciations to use. Having said all that, I would certainly pronounce specious as 'spee-shus', so there you go.
– Stuart Allen
Jun 5 '13 at 22:47
1
I say spee-seez, but I believe David Attenborough says spee-sheez. In fact, linguist David Crystal said in a video I watched one time that for a while he was annoyed by his child saying skeh-jool rather than sheh-jool for "schedule". For the record, I say skeh-jool.
– Dog Lover
May 24 '17 at 0:23
5
5
It depends on the speaker. Those who have the most occasion to use the word (biologists, especially taxonomists) may well have their own in-group pronunciation, for all I know. Attend a biology conference and hang out in the bar with a tape recorder if you want to find out the truth.
– John Lawler
May 24 '13 at 2:31
It depends on the speaker. Those who have the most occasion to use the word (biologists, especially taxonomists) may well have their own in-group pronunciation, for all I know. Attend a biology conference and hang out in the bar with a tape recorder if you want to find out the truth.
– John Lawler
May 24 '13 at 2:31
2
2
As an Australian English speaker who has served time in a university biology department I can say that 'spee-seez' is far more common. British speakers may be more inclined to use the alternative, although with many bioligical terms (notably taxonomic nomenclature) it seems to be personal preference as to which of the numerous pronounciations to use. Having said all that, I would certainly pronounce specious as 'spee-shus', so there you go.
– Stuart Allen
Jun 5 '13 at 22:47
As an Australian English speaker who has served time in a university biology department I can say that 'spee-seez' is far more common. British speakers may be more inclined to use the alternative, although with many bioligical terms (notably taxonomic nomenclature) it seems to be personal preference as to which of the numerous pronounciations to use. Having said all that, I would certainly pronounce specious as 'spee-shus', so there you go.
– Stuart Allen
Jun 5 '13 at 22:47
1
1
I say spee-seez, but I believe David Attenborough says spee-sheez. In fact, linguist David Crystal said in a video I watched one time that for a while he was annoyed by his child saying skeh-jool rather than sheh-jool for "schedule". For the record, I say skeh-jool.
– Dog Lover
May 24 '17 at 0:23
I say spee-seez, but I believe David Attenborough says spee-sheez. In fact, linguist David Crystal said in a video I watched one time that for a while he was annoyed by his child saying skeh-jool rather than sheh-jool for "schedule". For the record, I say skeh-jool.
– Dog Lover
May 24 '17 at 0:23
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
The Received Pronunciation (which is the "British Standard", in a way, the one which is also exported) suggests the first one "spee-sheez". Source: Oxford English Dictionary
The US pronunciation accepts both. Source: Macmillan Dictionary
Probably the biologists would use the second one, as internationally there is more consensus on that variant. Also, it comes from ecclesiastical Latin, where the /spetʃies/ pronunciation was used.
There is more likely a professional/academical difference in pronunciation, than a geographical one, as the word is not everyday language.
answered Jun 4 '13 at 22:40
MatthaeusMatthaeus
4852815
1
The online OED (paywalled, unfortunately) lists FIVE different British pronunciations: (/ˈspiːʃɪz/, /ˈspiːʃiːz/, /ˈspiːsɪz/, /ˈspiːsiːz/, /ˈspiːʃɪiːz/); how are you determining which is RP?
– 1006a
Aug 16 '17 at 16:19
add a comment |
It pretty much depends on the speaker, aside from the general factors you already mentioned. An older pronunciation that I don't think is used anymore was /ˈspiːʃiiːz/ ("speeshy-eez"); this stems from the same variation in syllabification that affects words like fascia (which can be pronounced /ˈfeɪʃiə/, /ˈfeɪʃə/, /ˈfæʃiə/, /ˈfæʃə/).
The pronunciation ending in /siːz/ (or in British English, sometimes /sɪz/), is a bit irregular from an etymological standpoint, although it actually doesn't have anything to do with Ecclesiastical Latin.
"-ies" was originally pronounced with two separate vowel sounds
In Latin, -ies was pronounced as two syllables. It is pronounced with two syllables in some English words, such as sanies ("sayny-eez") and paries ("pairy-eez").
However, in other words, such as rabies, scabies, and series, it is pronounced with a single vowel /iː/ (in British English, sometimes /ɪ/). This is actually an irregular correspondence between Latin and English pronunciation: the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says that the N.E.D. (1903) listed a trisyllabic pronunciation for rabies, and the N.E.D. (1912) listed /ˈsɪərɪiːz/ ("seery-eez") for series.
The OED still lists a trisyllabic pronunciation for caries, but all the other dictionaries I've checked give the two-syllable pronunciation.
simplification to a single vowel sound might be due to analogy?
I suspect that the pronunciation of these words has been affected by analogy, either with plural words that end in monosyllabic -ies such as cities, or simply with words where "ie" is used as a digraph to represent /iː/ (e.g. field, belief, chief). A re-analysis of rabies and scabies as plural forms seems somewhat likely since there are a number of other disease names in English that are morphologically plural (such as measles). Series also seems similar to a plural in meaning (some people, although I think mostly non-native speakers, back-form a singular serie).
That said, in "RP" British English plurals like prophecies generally are transcribed with a lax vowel (/ɪz/), so in British English pronunciations of rabies, scabies and the like with a tense vowel (/iːz/) do not actually necessarily sound like the plural forms of hypothetical singular forms "raby", "scaby".
in "-cies" words, this reanalysis affects the consonant used
In words like species, facies, superficies, it's actually pretty regular for the i to not be pronounced as a separate syllable, but we would still expect it to palatalize the preceding consonant, resulting in /ʃiːz/, due to the phenomenon of "yod coalescence" that gives us /ʃəl/ in special (as opposed to, e.g., /ri.əl~rɪ.əl/ in material). The pronunciations with unpalatalized monosyllabic "-cies" /siːz/ are irregular and would have to stem from some process of reanalysis, like the pronunciations of rabies, scabies and series that were mentioned above.
answered Jul 14 '16 at 18:08
sumelicsumelic
50.5k8121227
add a comment |
As an American, I pronounce it similar to [spee-sheez]. However, the "sh" sound in species is different from how I pronounce the "sh" in most other words. I am not sure if this is normal or not for an American. I pronounce the "sh" in species with my tongue in the normal position for "s" with the back of my tongue near where it would be for saying the y sound.
I always pronounce the normal "sh" sound with my tongue between where it would be for saying an "s" and saying a "y".
answered Feb 26 '15 at 14:21
Brett YarberryBrett Yarberry
491
add a comment |
Oorah!
Got me!
I stumbled into a bit more uptight of a community than I knew. And that's okay. I get it. I'm the intruder.
My comments are based on the thoughts of a guy likely more experienced in the subject than the average bear - but who admittedly neither possesses nor cites a whit of officious authori-tay.
Rather than "new", I might better have said a recent acceleration in the popular use of the pronounciation 'Spee-Shees' - an upward kink in the slope of the usage curve - certainly not its first use. Folks are really going to struggle to prove the first use of pretty much anything - though I sense that kind of stuff is this group's thang.
So I'll change my tack ...
My thoughts are based on wisdom not authority. That is having experience and knowledge and showing the ability to make good judgments based on empiricism and a direct understanding of life.
Yeah, I think that sounds pompous too.
Let's say someone is addressing a group, perhaps a technical group, and is facing the terror of having to pronounce the word 'Species'. Not that it matters much, but I would advise him to say SpeeCees not SpeeShees. If the objective was to annoy the fewest number of colleagues - especially, in my experience, learned colleagues - that, I suggest, would be the way to go.
Can I prove it? Can I quote an authoritative authority?
Nope. (Citation: wisdom comment above)
I'll give you a ~sorta similar example... The infuriating misuse of the of the word 'myself'. People for some reason have decided that the word 'myself' is interchangeable with but way WAY more elevated than 'me' even when 'me' is clearly correct. Only the great unwashed say 'me' don't you know.
The reader may have gleaned that my charge is less in the proof of what pronunciation is correct than it is to rail against the BS of saying stuff in such-and-such a way for the main purpose of showing the world just how brilliant one is - only to epic-fail as a result.
Alas, I expect this type of dialogue is not particularly welcome.
SO ... A summary statement re: SpeeCees / SpeeShees:
You will NOT find agreement about which is correct because there is no agreement to find.
My comments were written to help that poor soul described above. The guy who has to make his lips sound out a word - and I'm on that guy's side.
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Please, just stop. Realize that writing like this is not the focus of this site, don't write more answers to elaborate the point.
– Javier
yesterday
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
– Davo
14 hours ago
add a comment |
I did write that I use Spee-Cees and the reason is that I was mimicking the pronunciation used by countless academics and industry professionals of every description that I've engaged with both in casual and in scholarly discussion.
The Spee-shees thing as a common pronunciation is new, relatively so, and sez me. Statistics aren't kept, so far as I know, and YMMV. I have heard Spee-Cees with my own ears - and faithfully repeated it that way - from grade school all through an entire technical career.
I am half joking, I hope you realized, about the spread of the plague. You will agree, I think, that we are endlessly bombarded by many Spee-Cees of Virtue Signaling these-a-days.
Until recently I would have described it this way ...
Professionals say Spee-Cees.
Civilians say and proliferate Spee-Shees.
But that's hardly iron clad and less so every day. The David Attenborough thing attests to that. <== One of my heros if that was also unclear.
Ahhh! But is Dave the exception that proves the rule???
This way to the Egress, Citizens!
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Please edit your previous answer rather than posting another one making the same point.
– JJJ
yesterday
add a comment |
My undergrad is in Biology and I have worked in science and engineering for more than 40 years. I travel extensively within the Americas, Europe and China.
Here's my take.
I NEVER EVER say Spee-shees and I never will. To me, that pronunciation is fingernails on a blackboard. Uncultured. Seriously, I can't stand hearing it.
Spee-cees is what I say and over the course of my life I've said it A LOT.
My thought - and I have thought about it...
Someone, somewhere about ten or fifteen years ago - perhaps a broadcast newsperson of some kind - said "Spee-shees". Some dip-sh*t person heard it and thought to themself "Say, here's a way for me to demonstrate how VERY SUPERIOR I am because Spee-Shees sounds soooo much smarter. And that's me ... I are smart!"
Fast forward. Now the pox is pandemic. Every moron say Spee-shees and increasingly I hear even life-sciences professionals saying it that ugly way too. Sad. Yet another example of the Decline of Human Civilization.
The final insult is that David Attenborough - that's SIR David Attenborough (and the guy I wish I was) now says Spee-shees. However, his vocalization is a slightly less horrific as he does not emphasize the repellent 'SHee' part.
Citing various dictionaries doesn't settle anything. Dictionaries are actually pretty quick to accept common mal-pronounciations. (Hmmm. Dictionary sales maybe???)
Do your part.
FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS SAY SPEE-SHEES !!!
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
So we know how you don't pronounce it but you don't say how you do and why.
– KillingTime
yesterday
@KillingTime well he says it's pronouncedSpee-cees, but I'm still not convinced by this answer that it can't be regional accent that changes the pronunciation a bit. The answer names Sir David Attenborough as an example and he probably has said the word lots of times as well, just like the author of this answer claims to have done to make an authoritative argument. @george, I suggest you try to add authoritative sources to support your answer otherwise we're none the wiser as to who is correct (if one pronunciation is actually more correct). ;)
– JJJ
yesterday
1
An 1828 dictionary says speeshees. As does an 1892 one. It's not a new pronunciation.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
add a comment |
protected by Laurel yesterday
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The Received Pronunciation (which is the "British Standard", in a way, the one which is also exported) suggests the first one "spee-sheez". Source: Oxford English Dictionary
The US pronunciation accepts both. Source: Macmillan Dictionary
Probably the biologists would use the second one, as internationally there is more consensus on that variant. Also, it comes from ecclesiastical Latin, where the /spetʃies/ pronunciation was used.
There is more likely a professional/academical difference in pronunciation, than a geographical one, as the word is not everyday language.
answered Jun 4 '13 at 22:40
MatthaeusMatthaeus
4852815
1
The online OED (paywalled, unfortunately) lists FIVE different British pronunciations: (/ˈspiːʃɪz/, /ˈspiːʃiːz/, /ˈspiːsɪz/, /ˈspiːsiːz/, /ˈspiːʃɪiːz/); how are you determining which is RP?
– 1006a
Aug 16 '17 at 16:19
add a comment |
The Received Pronunciation (which is the "British Standard", in a way, the one which is also exported) suggests the first one "spee-sheez". Source: Oxford English Dictionary
The US pronunciation accepts both. Source: Macmillan Dictionary
Probably the biologists would use the second one, as internationally there is more consensus on that variant. Also, it comes from ecclesiastical Latin, where the /spetʃies/ pronunciation was used.
There is more likely a professional/academical difference in pronunciation, than a geographical one, as the word is not everyday language.
answered Jun 4 '13 at 22:40
MatthaeusMatthaeus
4852815
1
The online OED (paywalled, unfortunately) lists FIVE different British pronunciations: (/ˈspiːʃɪz/, /ˈspiːʃiːz/, /ˈspiːsɪz/, /ˈspiːsiːz/, /ˈspiːʃɪiːz/); how are you determining which is RP?
– 1006a
Aug 16 '17 at 16:19
add a comment |
The Received Pronunciation (which is the "British Standard", in a way, the one which is also exported) suggests the first one "spee-sheez". Source: Oxford English Dictionary
The US pronunciation accepts both. Source: Macmillan Dictionary
Probably the biologists would use the second one, as internationally there is more consensus on that variant. Also, it comes from ecclesiastical Latin, where the /spetʃies/ pronunciation was used.
There is more likely a professional/academical difference in pronunciation, than a geographical one, as the word is not everyday language.
answered Jun 4 '13 at 22:40
MatthaeusMatthaeus
4852815
The Received Pronunciation (which is the "British Standard", in a way, the one which is also exported) suggests the first one "spee-sheez". Source: Oxford English Dictionary
The US pronunciation accepts both. Source: Macmillan Dictionary
Probably the biologists would use the second one, as internationally there is more consensus on that variant. Also, it comes from ecclesiastical Latin, where the /spetʃies/ pronunciation was used.
There is more likely a professional/academical difference in pronunciation, than a geographical one, as the word is not everyday language.
answered Jun 4 '13 at 22:40
MatthaeusMatthaeus
4852815
edited Dec 31 '15 at 1:14
answered Jun 4 '13 at 22:40
MatthaeusMatthaeus
4852815
answered Jun 4 '13 at 22:40
MatthaeusMatthaeus
4852815
answered Jun 4 '13 at 22:40
MatthaeusMatthaeus
4852815
4852815
1
The online OED (paywalled, unfortunately) lists FIVE different British pronunciations: (/ˈspiːʃɪz/, /ˈspiːʃiːz/, /ˈspiːsɪz/, /ˈspiːsiːz/, /ˈspiːʃɪiːz/); how are you determining which is RP?
– 1006a
Aug 16 '17 at 16:19
add a comment |
1
The online OED (paywalled, unfortunately) lists FIVE different British pronunciations: (/ˈspiːʃɪz/, /ˈspiːʃiːz/, /ˈspiːsɪz/, /ˈspiːsiːz/, /ˈspiːʃɪiːz/); how are you determining which is RP?
– 1006a
Aug 16 '17 at 16:19
1
1
The online OED (paywalled, unfortunately) lists FIVE different British pronunciations: (/ˈspiːʃɪz/, /ˈspiːʃiːz/, /ˈspiːsɪz/, /ˈspiːsiːz/, /ˈspiːʃɪiːz/); how are you determining which is RP?
– 1006a
Aug 16 '17 at 16:19
The online OED (paywalled, unfortunately) lists FIVE different British pronunciations: (/ˈspiːʃɪz/, /ˈspiːʃiːz/, /ˈspiːsɪz/, /ˈspiːsiːz/, /ˈspiːʃɪiːz/); how are you determining which is RP?
– 1006a
Aug 16 '17 at 16:19
add a comment |
It pretty much depends on the speaker, aside from the general factors you already mentioned. An older pronunciation that I don't think is used anymore was /ˈspiːʃiiːz/ ("speeshy-eez"); this stems from the same variation in syllabification that affects words like fascia (which can be pronounced /ˈfeɪʃiə/, /ˈfeɪʃə/, /ˈfæʃiə/, /ˈfæʃə/).
The pronunciation ending in /siːz/ (or in British English, sometimes /sɪz/), is a bit irregular from an etymological standpoint, although it actually doesn't have anything to do with Ecclesiastical Latin.
"-ies" was originally pronounced with two separate vowel sounds
In Latin, -ies was pronounced as two syllables. It is pronounced with two syllables in some English words, such as sanies ("sayny-eez") and paries ("pairy-eez").
However, in other words, such as rabies, scabies, and series, it is pronounced with a single vowel /iː/ (in British English, sometimes /ɪ/). This is actually an irregular correspondence between Latin and English pronunciation: the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says that the N.E.D. (1903) listed a trisyllabic pronunciation for rabies, and the N.E.D. (1912) listed /ˈsɪərɪiːz/ ("seery-eez") for series.
The OED still lists a trisyllabic pronunciation for caries, but all the other dictionaries I've checked give the two-syllable pronunciation.
simplification to a single vowel sound might be due to analogy?
I suspect that the pronunciation of these words has been affected by analogy, either with plural words that end in monosyllabic -ies such as cities, or simply with words where "ie" is used as a digraph to represent /iː/ (e.g. field, belief, chief). A re-analysis of rabies and scabies as plural forms seems somewhat likely since there are a number of other disease names in English that are morphologically plural (such as measles). Series also seems similar to a plural in meaning (some people, although I think mostly non-native speakers, back-form a singular serie).
That said, in "RP" British English plurals like prophecies generally are transcribed with a lax vowel (/ɪz/), so in British English pronunciations of rabies, scabies and the like with a tense vowel (/iːz/) do not actually necessarily sound like the plural forms of hypothetical singular forms "raby", "scaby".
in "-cies" words, this reanalysis affects the consonant used
In words like species, facies, superficies, it's actually pretty regular for the i to not be pronounced as a separate syllable, but we would still expect it to palatalize the preceding consonant, resulting in /ʃiːz/, due to the phenomenon of "yod coalescence" that gives us /ʃəl/ in special (as opposed to, e.g., /ri.əl~rɪ.əl/ in material). The pronunciations with unpalatalized monosyllabic "-cies" /siːz/ are irregular and would have to stem from some process of reanalysis, like the pronunciations of rabies, scabies and series that were mentioned above.
answered Jul 14 '16 at 18:08
sumelicsumelic
50.5k8121227
add a comment |
It pretty much depends on the speaker, aside from the general factors you already mentioned. An older pronunciation that I don't think is used anymore was /ˈspiːʃiiːz/ ("speeshy-eez"); this stems from the same variation in syllabification that affects words like fascia (which can be pronounced /ˈfeɪʃiə/, /ˈfeɪʃə/, /ˈfæʃiə/, /ˈfæʃə/).
The pronunciation ending in /siːz/ (or in British English, sometimes /sɪz/), is a bit irregular from an etymological standpoint, although it actually doesn't have anything to do with Ecclesiastical Latin.
"-ies" was originally pronounced with two separate vowel sounds
In Latin, -ies was pronounced as two syllables. It is pronounced with two syllables in some English words, such as sanies ("sayny-eez") and paries ("pairy-eez").
However, in other words, such as rabies, scabies, and series, it is pronounced with a single vowel /iː/ (in British English, sometimes /ɪ/). This is actually an irregular correspondence between Latin and English pronunciation: the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says that the N.E.D. (1903) listed a trisyllabic pronunciation for rabies, and the N.E.D. (1912) listed /ˈsɪərɪiːz/ ("seery-eez") for series.
The OED still lists a trisyllabic pronunciation for caries, but all the other dictionaries I've checked give the two-syllable pronunciation.
simplification to a single vowel sound might be due to analogy?
I suspect that the pronunciation of these words has been affected by analogy, either with plural words that end in monosyllabic -ies such as cities, or simply with words where "ie" is used as a digraph to represent /iː/ (e.g. field, belief, chief). A re-analysis of rabies and scabies as plural forms seems somewhat likely since there are a number of other disease names in English that are morphologically plural (such as measles). Series also seems similar to a plural in meaning (some people, although I think mostly non-native speakers, back-form a singular serie).
That said, in "RP" British English plurals like prophecies generally are transcribed with a lax vowel (/ɪz/), so in British English pronunciations of rabies, scabies and the like with a tense vowel (/iːz/) do not actually necessarily sound like the plural forms of hypothetical singular forms "raby", "scaby".
in "-cies" words, this reanalysis affects the consonant used
In words like species, facies, superficies, it's actually pretty regular for the i to not be pronounced as a separate syllable, but we would still expect it to palatalize the preceding consonant, resulting in /ʃiːz/, due to the phenomenon of "yod coalescence" that gives us /ʃəl/ in special (as opposed to, e.g., /ri.əl~rɪ.əl/ in material). The pronunciations with unpalatalized monosyllabic "-cies" /siːz/ are irregular and would have to stem from some process of reanalysis, like the pronunciations of rabies, scabies and series that were mentioned above.
answered Jul 14 '16 at 18:08
sumelicsumelic
50.5k8121227
add a comment |
It pretty much depends on the speaker, aside from the general factors you already mentioned. An older pronunciation that I don't think is used anymore was /ˈspiːʃiiːz/ ("speeshy-eez"); this stems from the same variation in syllabification that affects words like fascia (which can be pronounced /ˈfeɪʃiə/, /ˈfeɪʃə/, /ˈfæʃiə/, /ˈfæʃə/).
The pronunciation ending in /siːz/ (or in British English, sometimes /sɪz/), is a bit irregular from an etymological standpoint, although it actually doesn't have anything to do with Ecclesiastical Latin.
"-ies" was originally pronounced with two separate vowel sounds
In Latin, -ies was pronounced as two syllables. It is pronounced with two syllables in some English words, such as sanies ("sayny-eez") and paries ("pairy-eez").
However, in other words, such as rabies, scabies, and series, it is pronounced with a single vowel /iː/ (in British English, sometimes /ɪ/). This is actually an irregular correspondence between Latin and English pronunciation: the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says that the N.E.D. (1903) listed a trisyllabic pronunciation for rabies, and the N.E.D. (1912) listed /ˈsɪərɪiːz/ ("seery-eez") for series.
The OED still lists a trisyllabic pronunciation for caries, but all the other dictionaries I've checked give the two-syllable pronunciation.
simplification to a single vowel sound might be due to analogy?
I suspect that the pronunciation of these words has been affected by analogy, either with plural words that end in monosyllabic -ies such as cities, or simply with words where "ie" is used as a digraph to represent /iː/ (e.g. field, belief, chief). A re-analysis of rabies and scabies as plural forms seems somewhat likely since there are a number of other disease names in English that are morphologically plural (such as measles). Series also seems similar to a plural in meaning (some people, although I think mostly non-native speakers, back-form a singular serie).
That said, in "RP" British English plurals like prophecies generally are transcribed with a lax vowel (/ɪz/), so in British English pronunciations of rabies, scabies and the like with a tense vowel (/iːz/) do not actually necessarily sound like the plural forms of hypothetical singular forms "raby", "scaby".
in "-cies" words, this reanalysis affects the consonant used
In words like species, facies, superficies, it's actually pretty regular for the i to not be pronounced as a separate syllable, but we would still expect it to palatalize the preceding consonant, resulting in /ʃiːz/, due to the phenomenon of "yod coalescence" that gives us /ʃəl/ in special (as opposed to, e.g., /ri.əl~rɪ.əl/ in material). The pronunciations with unpalatalized monosyllabic "-cies" /siːz/ are irregular and would have to stem from some process of reanalysis, like the pronunciations of rabies, scabies and series that were mentioned above.
answered Jul 14 '16 at 18:08
sumelicsumelic
50.5k8121227
It pretty much depends on the speaker, aside from the general factors you already mentioned. An older pronunciation that I don't think is used anymore was /ˈspiːʃiiːz/ ("speeshy-eez"); this stems from the same variation in syllabification that affects words like fascia (which can be pronounced /ˈfeɪʃiə/, /ˈfeɪʃə/, /ˈfæʃiə/, /ˈfæʃə/).
The pronunciation ending in /siːz/ (or in British English, sometimes /sɪz/), is a bit irregular from an etymological standpoint, although it actually doesn't have anything to do with Ecclesiastical Latin.
"-ies" was originally pronounced with two separate vowel sounds
In Latin, -ies was pronounced as two syllables. It is pronounced with two syllables in some English words, such as sanies ("sayny-eez") and paries ("pairy-eez").
However, in other words, such as rabies, scabies, and series, it is pronounced with a single vowel /iː/ (in British English, sometimes /ɪ/). This is actually an irregular correspondence between Latin and English pronunciation: the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) says that the N.E.D. (1903) listed a trisyllabic pronunciation for rabies, and the N.E.D. (1912) listed /ˈsɪərɪiːz/ ("seery-eez") for series.
The OED still lists a trisyllabic pronunciation for caries, but all the other dictionaries I've checked give the two-syllable pronunciation.
simplification to a single vowel sound might be due to analogy?
I suspect that the pronunciation of these words has been affected by analogy, either with plural words that end in monosyllabic -ies such as cities, or simply with words where "ie" is used as a digraph to represent /iː/ (e.g. field, belief, chief). A re-analysis of rabies and scabies as plural forms seems somewhat likely since there are a number of other disease names in English that are morphologically plural (such as measles). Series also seems similar to a plural in meaning (some people, although I think mostly non-native speakers, back-form a singular serie).
That said, in "RP" British English plurals like prophecies generally are transcribed with a lax vowel (/ɪz/), so in British English pronunciations of rabies, scabies and the like with a tense vowel (/iːz/) do not actually necessarily sound like the plural forms of hypothetical singular forms "raby", "scaby".
in "-cies" words, this reanalysis affects the consonant used
In words like species, facies, superficies, it's actually pretty regular for the i to not be pronounced as a separate syllable, but we would still expect it to palatalize the preceding consonant, resulting in /ʃiːz/, due to the phenomenon of "yod coalescence" that gives us /ʃəl/ in special (as opposed to, e.g., /ri.əl~rɪ.əl/ in material). The pronunciations with unpalatalized monosyllabic "-cies" /siːz/ are irregular and would have to stem from some process of reanalysis, like the pronunciations of rabies, scabies and series that were mentioned above.
answered Jul 14 '16 at 18:08
sumelicsumelic
50.5k8121227
edited Aug 16 '17 at 15:50
answered Jul 14 '16 at 18:08
sumelicsumelic
50.5k8121227
answered Jul 14 '16 at 18:08
sumelicsumelic
50.5k8121227
answered Jul 14 '16 at 18:08
sumelicsumelic
50.5k8121227
50.5k8121227
add a comment |
add a comment |
As an American, I pronounce it similar to [spee-sheez]. However, the "sh" sound in species is different from how I pronounce the "sh" in most other words. I am not sure if this is normal or not for an American. I pronounce the "sh" in species with my tongue in the normal position for "s" with the back of my tongue near where it would be for saying the y sound.
I always pronounce the normal "sh" sound with my tongue between where it would be for saying an "s" and saying a "y".
answered Feb 26 '15 at 14:21
Brett YarberryBrett Yarberry
491
add a comment |
As an American, I pronounce it similar to [spee-sheez]. However, the "sh" sound in species is different from how I pronounce the "sh" in most other words. I am not sure if this is normal or not for an American. I pronounce the "sh" in species with my tongue in the normal position for "s" with the back of my tongue near where it would be for saying the y sound.
I always pronounce the normal "sh" sound with my tongue between where it would be for saying an "s" and saying a "y".
answered Feb 26 '15 at 14:21
Brett YarberryBrett Yarberry
491
add a comment |
As an American, I pronounce it similar to [spee-sheez]. However, the "sh" sound in species is different from how I pronounce the "sh" in most other words. I am not sure if this is normal or not for an American. I pronounce the "sh" in species with my tongue in the normal position for "s" with the back of my tongue near where it would be for saying the y sound.
I always pronounce the normal "sh" sound with my tongue between where it would be for saying an "s" and saying a "y".
answered Feb 26 '15 at 14:21
Brett YarberryBrett Yarberry
491
As an American, I pronounce it similar to [spee-sheez]. However, the "sh" sound in species is different from how I pronounce the "sh" in most other words. I am not sure if this is normal or not for an American. I pronounce the "sh" in species with my tongue in the normal position for "s" with the back of my tongue near where it would be for saying the y sound.
I always pronounce the normal "sh" sound with my tongue between where it would be for saying an "s" and saying a "y".
answered Feb 26 '15 at 14:21
Brett YarberryBrett Yarberry
491
edited Jul 14 '16 at 13:20
user140086
answered Feb 26 '15 at 14:21
Brett YarberryBrett Yarberry
491
answered Feb 26 '15 at 14:21
Brett YarberryBrett Yarberry
491
answered Feb 26 '15 at 14:21
Brett YarberryBrett Yarberry
491
491
add a comment |
add a comment |
Oorah!
Got me!
I stumbled into a bit more uptight of a community than I knew. And that's okay. I get it. I'm the intruder.
My comments are based on the thoughts of a guy likely more experienced in the subject than the average bear - but who admittedly neither possesses nor cites a whit of officious authori-tay.
Rather than "new", I might better have said a recent acceleration in the popular use of the pronounciation 'Spee-Shees' - an upward kink in the slope of the usage curve - certainly not its first use. Folks are really going to struggle to prove the first use of pretty much anything - though I sense that kind of stuff is this group's thang.
So I'll change my tack ...
My thoughts are based on wisdom not authority. That is having experience and knowledge and showing the ability to make good judgments based on empiricism and a direct understanding of life.
Yeah, I think that sounds pompous too.
Let's say someone is addressing a group, perhaps a technical group, and is facing the terror of having to pronounce the word 'Species'. Not that it matters much, but I would advise him to say SpeeCees not SpeeShees. If the objective was to annoy the fewest number of colleagues - especially, in my experience, learned colleagues - that, I suggest, would be the way to go.
Can I prove it? Can I quote an authoritative authority?
Nope. (Citation: wisdom comment above)
I'll give you a ~sorta similar example... The infuriating misuse of the of the word 'myself'. People for some reason have decided that the word 'myself' is interchangeable with but way WAY more elevated than 'me' even when 'me' is clearly correct. Only the great unwashed say 'me' don't you know.
The reader may have gleaned that my charge is less in the proof of what pronunciation is correct than it is to rail against the BS of saying stuff in such-and-such a way for the main purpose of showing the world just how brilliant one is - only to epic-fail as a result.
Alas, I expect this type of dialogue is not particularly welcome.
SO ... A summary statement re: SpeeCees / SpeeShees:
You will NOT find agreement about which is correct because there is no agreement to find.
My comments were written to help that poor soul described above. The guy who has to make his lips sound out a word - and I'm on that guy's side.
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Please, just stop. Realize that writing like this is not the focus of this site, don't write more answers to elaborate the point.
– Javier
yesterday
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
– Davo
14 hours ago
add a comment |
Oorah!
Got me!
I stumbled into a bit more uptight of a community than I knew. And that's okay. I get it. I'm the intruder.
My comments are based on the thoughts of a guy likely more experienced in the subject than the average bear - but who admittedly neither possesses nor cites a whit of officious authori-tay.
Rather than "new", I might better have said a recent acceleration in the popular use of the pronounciation 'Spee-Shees' - an upward kink in the slope of the usage curve - certainly not its first use. Folks are really going to struggle to prove the first use of pretty much anything - though I sense that kind of stuff is this group's thang.
So I'll change my tack ...
My thoughts are based on wisdom not authority. That is having experience and knowledge and showing the ability to make good judgments based on empiricism and a direct understanding of life.
Yeah, I think that sounds pompous too.
Let's say someone is addressing a group, perhaps a technical group, and is facing the terror of having to pronounce the word 'Species'. Not that it matters much, but I would advise him to say SpeeCees not SpeeShees. If the objective was to annoy the fewest number of colleagues - especially, in my experience, learned colleagues - that, I suggest, would be the way to go.
Can I prove it? Can I quote an authoritative authority?
Nope. (Citation: wisdom comment above)
I'll give you a ~sorta similar example... The infuriating misuse of the of the word 'myself'. People for some reason have decided that the word 'myself' is interchangeable with but way WAY more elevated than 'me' even when 'me' is clearly correct. Only the great unwashed say 'me' don't you know.
The reader may have gleaned that my charge is less in the proof of what pronunciation is correct than it is to rail against the BS of saying stuff in such-and-such a way for the main purpose of showing the world just how brilliant one is - only to epic-fail as a result.
Alas, I expect this type of dialogue is not particularly welcome.
SO ... A summary statement re: SpeeCees / SpeeShees:
You will NOT find agreement about which is correct because there is no agreement to find.
My comments were written to help that poor soul described above. The guy who has to make his lips sound out a word - and I'm on that guy's side.
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Please, just stop. Realize that writing like this is not the focus of this site, don't write more answers to elaborate the point.
– Javier
yesterday
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
– Davo
14 hours ago
add a comment |
Oorah!
Got me!
I stumbled into a bit more uptight of a community than I knew. And that's okay. I get it. I'm the intruder.
My comments are based on the thoughts of a guy likely more experienced in the subject than the average bear - but who admittedly neither possesses nor cites a whit of officious authori-tay.
Rather than "new", I might better have said a recent acceleration in the popular use of the pronounciation 'Spee-Shees' - an upward kink in the slope of the usage curve - certainly not its first use. Folks are really going to struggle to prove the first use of pretty much anything - though I sense that kind of stuff is this group's thang.
So I'll change my tack ...
My thoughts are based on wisdom not authority. That is having experience and knowledge and showing the ability to make good judgments based on empiricism and a direct understanding of life.
Yeah, I think that sounds pompous too.
Let's say someone is addressing a group, perhaps a technical group, and is facing the terror of having to pronounce the word 'Species'. Not that it matters much, but I would advise him to say SpeeCees not SpeeShees. If the objective was to annoy the fewest number of colleagues - especially, in my experience, learned colleagues - that, I suggest, would be the way to go.
Can I prove it? Can I quote an authoritative authority?
Nope. (Citation: wisdom comment above)
I'll give you a ~sorta similar example... The infuriating misuse of the of the word 'myself'. People for some reason have decided that the word 'myself' is interchangeable with but way WAY more elevated than 'me' even when 'me' is clearly correct. Only the great unwashed say 'me' don't you know.
The reader may have gleaned that my charge is less in the proof of what pronunciation is correct than it is to rail against the BS of saying stuff in such-and-such a way for the main purpose of showing the world just how brilliant one is - only to epic-fail as a result.
Alas, I expect this type of dialogue is not particularly welcome.
SO ... A summary statement re: SpeeCees / SpeeShees:
You will NOT find agreement about which is correct because there is no agreement to find.
My comments were written to help that poor soul described above. The guy who has to make his lips sound out a word - and I'm on that guy's side.
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Oorah!
Got me!
I stumbled into a bit more uptight of a community than I knew. And that's okay. I get it. I'm the intruder.
My comments are based on the thoughts of a guy likely more experienced in the subject than the average bear - but who admittedly neither possesses nor cites a whit of officious authori-tay.
Rather than "new", I might better have said a recent acceleration in the popular use of the pronounciation 'Spee-Shees' - an upward kink in the slope of the usage curve - certainly not its first use. Folks are really going to struggle to prove the first use of pretty much anything - though I sense that kind of stuff is this group's thang.
So I'll change my tack ...
My thoughts are based on wisdom not authority. That is having experience and knowledge and showing the ability to make good judgments based on empiricism and a direct understanding of life.
Yeah, I think that sounds pompous too.
Let's say someone is addressing a group, perhaps a technical group, and is facing the terror of having to pronounce the word 'Species'. Not that it matters much, but I would advise him to say SpeeCees not SpeeShees. If the objective was to annoy the fewest number of colleagues - especially, in my experience, learned colleagues - that, I suggest, would be the way to go.
Can I prove it? Can I quote an authoritative authority?
Nope. (Citation: wisdom comment above)
I'll give you a ~sorta similar example... The infuriating misuse of the of the word 'myself'. People for some reason have decided that the word 'myself' is interchangeable with but way WAY more elevated than 'me' even when 'me' is clearly correct. Only the great unwashed say 'me' don't you know.
The reader may have gleaned that my charge is less in the proof of what pronunciation is correct than it is to rail against the BS of saying stuff in such-and-such a way for the main purpose of showing the world just how brilliant one is - only to epic-fail as a result.
Alas, I expect this type of dialogue is not particularly welcome.
SO ... A summary statement re: SpeeCees / SpeeShees:
You will NOT find agreement about which is correct because there is no agreement to find.
My comments were written to help that poor soul described above. The guy who has to make his lips sound out a word - and I'm on that guy's side.
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Please, just stop. Realize that writing like this is not the focus of this site, don't write more answers to elaborate the point.
– Javier
yesterday
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
– Davo
14 hours ago
add a comment |
Please, just stop. Realize that writing like this is not the focus of this site, don't write more answers to elaborate the point.
– Javier
yesterday
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
– Davo
14 hours ago
Please, just stop. Realize that writing like this is not the focus of this site, don't write more answers to elaborate the point.
– Javier
yesterday
Please, just stop. Realize that writing like this is not the focus of this site, don't write more answers to elaborate the point.
– Javier
yesterday
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
– Davo
14 hours ago
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
– Davo
14 hours ago
add a comment |
I did write that I use Spee-Cees and the reason is that I was mimicking the pronunciation used by countless academics and industry professionals of every description that I've engaged with both in casual and in scholarly discussion.
The Spee-shees thing as a common pronunciation is new, relatively so, and sez me. Statistics aren't kept, so far as I know, and YMMV. I have heard Spee-Cees with my own ears - and faithfully repeated it that way - from grade school all through an entire technical career.
I am half joking, I hope you realized, about the spread of the plague. You will agree, I think, that we are endlessly bombarded by many Spee-Cees of Virtue Signaling these-a-days.
Until recently I would have described it this way ...
Professionals say Spee-Cees.
Civilians say and proliferate Spee-Shees.
But that's hardly iron clad and less so every day. The David Attenborough thing attests to that. <== One of my heros if that was also unclear.
Ahhh! But is Dave the exception that proves the rule???
This way to the Egress, Citizens!
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Please edit your previous answer rather than posting another one making the same point.
– JJJ
yesterday
add a comment |
I did write that I use Spee-Cees and the reason is that I was mimicking the pronunciation used by countless academics and industry professionals of every description that I've engaged with both in casual and in scholarly discussion.
The Spee-shees thing as a common pronunciation is new, relatively so, and sez me. Statistics aren't kept, so far as I know, and YMMV. I have heard Spee-Cees with my own ears - and faithfully repeated it that way - from grade school all through an entire technical career.
I am half joking, I hope you realized, about the spread of the plague. You will agree, I think, that we are endlessly bombarded by many Spee-Cees of Virtue Signaling these-a-days.
Until recently I would have described it this way ...
Professionals say Spee-Cees.
Civilians say and proliferate Spee-Shees.
But that's hardly iron clad and less so every day. The David Attenborough thing attests to that. <== One of my heros if that was also unclear.
Ahhh! But is Dave the exception that proves the rule???
This way to the Egress, Citizens!
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Please edit your previous answer rather than posting another one making the same point.
– JJJ
yesterday
add a comment |
I did write that I use Spee-Cees and the reason is that I was mimicking the pronunciation used by countless academics and industry professionals of every description that I've engaged with both in casual and in scholarly discussion.
The Spee-shees thing as a common pronunciation is new, relatively so, and sez me. Statistics aren't kept, so far as I know, and YMMV. I have heard Spee-Cees with my own ears - and faithfully repeated it that way - from grade school all through an entire technical career.
I am half joking, I hope you realized, about the spread of the plague. You will agree, I think, that we are endlessly bombarded by many Spee-Cees of Virtue Signaling these-a-days.
Until recently I would have described it this way ...
Professionals say Spee-Cees.
Civilians say and proliferate Spee-Shees.
But that's hardly iron clad and less so every day. The David Attenborough thing attests to that. <== One of my heros if that was also unclear.
Ahhh! But is Dave the exception that proves the rule???
This way to the Egress, Citizens!
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I did write that I use Spee-Cees and the reason is that I was mimicking the pronunciation used by countless academics and industry professionals of every description that I've engaged with both in casual and in scholarly discussion.
The Spee-shees thing as a common pronunciation is new, relatively so, and sez me. Statistics aren't kept, so far as I know, and YMMV. I have heard Spee-Cees with my own ears - and faithfully repeated it that way - from grade school all through an entire technical career.
I am half joking, I hope you realized, about the spread of the plague. You will agree, I think, that we are endlessly bombarded by many Spee-Cees of Virtue Signaling these-a-days.
Until recently I would have described it this way ...
Professionals say Spee-Cees.
Civilians say and proliferate Spee-Shees.
But that's hardly iron clad and less so every day. The David Attenborough thing attests to that. <== One of my heros if that was also unclear.
Ahhh! But is Dave the exception that proves the rule???
This way to the Egress, Citizens!
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Please edit your previous answer rather than posting another one making the same point.
– JJJ
yesterday
add a comment |
1
Please edit your previous answer rather than posting another one making the same point.
– JJJ
yesterday
1
1
Please edit your previous answer rather than posting another one making the same point.
– JJJ
yesterday
Please edit your previous answer rather than posting another one making the same point.
– JJJ
yesterday
add a comment |
My undergrad is in Biology and I have worked in science and engineering for more than 40 years. I travel extensively within the Americas, Europe and China.
Here's my take.
I NEVER EVER say Spee-shees and I never will. To me, that pronunciation is fingernails on a blackboard. Uncultured. Seriously, I can't stand hearing it.
Spee-cees is what I say and over the course of my life I've said it A LOT.
My thought - and I have thought about it...
Someone, somewhere about ten or fifteen years ago - perhaps a broadcast newsperson of some kind - said "Spee-shees". Some dip-sh*t person heard it and thought to themself "Say, here's a way for me to demonstrate how VERY SUPERIOR I am because Spee-Shees sounds soooo much smarter. And that's me ... I are smart!"
Fast forward. Now the pox is pandemic. Every moron say Spee-shees and increasingly I hear even life-sciences professionals saying it that ugly way too. Sad. Yet another example of the Decline of Human Civilization.
The final insult is that David Attenborough - that's SIR David Attenborough (and the guy I wish I was) now says Spee-shees. However, his vocalization is a slightly less horrific as he does not emphasize the repellent 'SHee' part.
Citing various dictionaries doesn't settle anything. Dictionaries are actually pretty quick to accept common mal-pronounciations. (Hmmm. Dictionary sales maybe???)
Do your part.
FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS SAY SPEE-SHEES !!!
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
So we know how you don't pronounce it but you don't say how you do and why.
– KillingTime
yesterday
@KillingTime well he says it's pronouncedSpee-cees, but I'm still not convinced by this answer that it can't be regional accent that changes the pronunciation a bit. The answer names Sir David Attenborough as an example and he probably has said the word lots of times as well, just like the author of this answer claims to have done to make an authoritative argument. @george, I suggest you try to add authoritative sources to support your answer otherwise we're none the wiser as to who is correct (if one pronunciation is actually more correct). ;)
– JJJ
yesterday
1
An 1828 dictionary says speeshees. As does an 1892 one. It's not a new pronunciation.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
add a comment |
My undergrad is in Biology and I have worked in science and engineering for more than 40 years. I travel extensively within the Americas, Europe and China.
Here's my take.
I NEVER EVER say Spee-shees and I never will. To me, that pronunciation is fingernails on a blackboard. Uncultured. Seriously, I can't stand hearing it.
Spee-cees is what I say and over the course of my life I've said it A LOT.
My thought - and I have thought about it...
Someone, somewhere about ten or fifteen years ago - perhaps a broadcast newsperson of some kind - said "Spee-shees". Some dip-sh*t person heard it and thought to themself "Say, here's a way for me to demonstrate how VERY SUPERIOR I am because Spee-Shees sounds soooo much smarter. And that's me ... I are smart!"
Fast forward. Now the pox is pandemic. Every moron say Spee-shees and increasingly I hear even life-sciences professionals saying it that ugly way too. Sad. Yet another example of the Decline of Human Civilization.
The final insult is that David Attenborough - that's SIR David Attenborough (and the guy I wish I was) now says Spee-shees. However, his vocalization is a slightly less horrific as he does not emphasize the repellent 'SHee' part.
Citing various dictionaries doesn't settle anything. Dictionaries are actually pretty quick to accept common mal-pronounciations. (Hmmm. Dictionary sales maybe???)
Do your part.
FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS SAY SPEE-SHEES !!!
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
So we know how you don't pronounce it but you don't say how you do and why.
– KillingTime
yesterday
@KillingTime well he says it's pronouncedSpee-cees, but I'm still not convinced by this answer that it can't be regional accent that changes the pronunciation a bit. The answer names Sir David Attenborough as an example and he probably has said the word lots of times as well, just like the author of this answer claims to have done to make an authoritative argument. @george, I suggest you try to add authoritative sources to support your answer otherwise we're none the wiser as to who is correct (if one pronunciation is actually more correct). ;)
– JJJ
yesterday
1
An 1828 dictionary says speeshees. As does an 1892 one. It's not a new pronunciation.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
add a comment |
My undergrad is in Biology and I have worked in science and engineering for more than 40 years. I travel extensively within the Americas, Europe and China.
Here's my take.
I NEVER EVER say Spee-shees and I never will. To me, that pronunciation is fingernails on a blackboard. Uncultured. Seriously, I can't stand hearing it.
Spee-cees is what I say and over the course of my life I've said it A LOT.
My thought - and I have thought about it...
Someone, somewhere about ten or fifteen years ago - perhaps a broadcast newsperson of some kind - said "Spee-shees". Some dip-sh*t person heard it and thought to themself "Say, here's a way for me to demonstrate how VERY SUPERIOR I am because Spee-Shees sounds soooo much smarter. And that's me ... I are smart!"
Fast forward. Now the pox is pandemic. Every moron say Spee-shees and increasingly I hear even life-sciences professionals saying it that ugly way too. Sad. Yet another example of the Decline of Human Civilization.
The final insult is that David Attenborough - that's SIR David Attenborough (and the guy I wish I was) now says Spee-shees. However, his vocalization is a slightly less horrific as he does not emphasize the repellent 'SHee' part.
Citing various dictionaries doesn't settle anything. Dictionaries are actually pretty quick to accept common mal-pronounciations. (Hmmm. Dictionary sales maybe???)
Do your part.
FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS SAY SPEE-SHEES !!!
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
My undergrad is in Biology and I have worked in science and engineering for more than 40 years. I travel extensively within the Americas, Europe and China.
Here's my take.
I NEVER EVER say Spee-shees and I never will. To me, that pronunciation is fingernails on a blackboard. Uncultured. Seriously, I can't stand hearing it.
Spee-cees is what I say and over the course of my life I've said it A LOT.
My thought - and I have thought about it...
Someone, somewhere about ten or fifteen years ago - perhaps a broadcast newsperson of some kind - said "Spee-shees". Some dip-sh*t person heard it and thought to themself "Say, here's a way for me to demonstrate how VERY SUPERIOR I am because Spee-Shees sounds soooo much smarter. And that's me ... I are smart!"
Fast forward. Now the pox is pandemic. Every moron say Spee-shees and increasingly I hear even life-sciences professionals saying it that ugly way too. Sad. Yet another example of the Decline of Human Civilization.
The final insult is that David Attenborough - that's SIR David Attenborough (and the guy I wish I was) now says Spee-shees. However, his vocalization is a slightly less horrific as he does not emphasize the repellent 'SHee' part.
Citing various dictionaries doesn't settle anything. Dictionaries are actually pretty quick to accept common mal-pronounciations. (Hmmm. Dictionary sales maybe???)
Do your part.
FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS SAY SPEE-SHEES !!!
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
answered yesterday
george dankergeorge danker
1
1
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
george danker is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
So we know how you don't pronounce it but you don't say how you do and why.
– KillingTime
yesterday
@KillingTime well he says it's pronouncedSpee-cees, but I'm still not convinced by this answer that it can't be regional accent that changes the pronunciation a bit. The answer names Sir David Attenborough as an example and he probably has said the word lots of times as well, just like the author of this answer claims to have done to make an authoritative argument. @george, I suggest you try to add authoritative sources to support your answer otherwise we're none the wiser as to who is correct (if one pronunciation is actually more correct). ;)
– JJJ
yesterday
1
An 1828 dictionary says speeshees. As does an 1892 one. It's not a new pronunciation.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
add a comment |
1
So we know how you don't pronounce it but you don't say how you do and why.
– KillingTime
yesterday
@KillingTime well he says it's pronouncedSpee-cees, but I'm still not convinced by this answer that it can't be regional accent that changes the pronunciation a bit. The answer names Sir David Attenborough as an example and he probably has said the word lots of times as well, just like the author of this answer claims to have done to make an authoritative argument. @george, I suggest you try to add authoritative sources to support your answer otherwise we're none the wiser as to who is correct (if one pronunciation is actually more correct). ;)
– JJJ
yesterday
1
An 1828 dictionary says speeshees. As does an 1892 one. It's not a new pronunciation.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
1
1
So we know how you don't pronounce it but you don't say how you do and why.
– KillingTime
yesterday
So we know how you don't pronounce it but you don't say how you do and why.
– KillingTime
yesterday
@KillingTime well he says it's pronounced
Spee-cees, but I'm still not convinced by this answer that it can't be regional accent that changes the pronunciation a bit. The answer names Sir David Attenborough as an example and he probably has said the word lots of times as well, just like the author of this answer claims to have done to make an authoritative argument. @george, I suggest you try to add authoritative sources to support your answer otherwise we're none the wiser as to who is correct (if one pronunciation is actually more correct). ;)– JJJ
yesterday
@KillingTime well he says it's pronounced
Spee-cees, but I'm still not convinced by this answer that it can't be regional accent that changes the pronunciation a bit. The answer names Sir David Attenborough as an example and he probably has said the word lots of times as well, just like the author of this answer claims to have done to make an authoritative argument. @george, I suggest you try to add authoritative sources to support your answer otherwise we're none the wiser as to who is correct (if one pronunciation is actually more correct). ;)– JJJ
yesterday
1
1
An 1828 dictionary says speeshees. As does an 1892 one. It's not a new pronunciation.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
An 1828 dictionary says speeshees. As does an 1892 one. It's not a new pronunciation.
– Peter Shor
yesterday
add a comment |
protected by Laurel yesterday
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
5
It depends on the speaker. Those who have the most occasion to use the word (biologists, especially taxonomists) may well have their own in-group pronunciation, for all I know. Attend a biology conference and hang out in the bar with a tape recorder if you want to find out the truth.
– John Lawler
May 24 '13 at 2:31
2
As an Australian English speaker who has served time in a university biology department I can say that 'spee-seez' is far more common. British speakers may be more inclined to use the alternative, although with many bioligical terms (notably taxonomic nomenclature) it seems to be personal preference as to which of the numerous pronounciations to use. Having said all that, I would certainly pronounce specious as 'spee-shus', so there you go.
– Stuart Allen
Jun 5 '13 at 22:47
1
I say spee-seez, but I believe David Attenborough says spee-sheez. In fact, linguist David Crystal said in a video I watched one time that for a while he was annoyed by his child saying skeh-jool rather than sheh-jool for "schedule". For the record, I say skeh-jool.
– Dog Lover
May 24 '17 at 0:23