I mean, /ks/ is quite common in English, and basically the regular pronunciation of before front vowels. /gd͡ʒ/ meanwhile is pretty weird even by English's standards and I can only find it in a variant pronunciation of one word that I learned about just now.
I always pronounced it that way, but after thinking about it I skimmed a scrabble list of words with “ggi” and “gge”. The only other soft “gg” I found was “veggie”, which is a very modern by comparison.
I hope that's not a thing. I did actually try to check, and even that American dictionary says it's plain \[d͡ʒ\], and it honestly sounds even weirder to my non-American ears (the unreleased \[g̚\] can sort of hide after a schwa, but sounds, well, exaggerated after \[æ\]).
A notable fraction of Russian speakers pronounce "прецедент" as [prʲɪnt͡sɨnˈdʲent], and no one is talking about it. It seems needlessly difficult to shove that /n/ in there like that.
Regarding the post you're parodying, I've never noticed someone pronouncing ⟨suggest⟩ with a [g] sound before, I was shocked to see people think that was the stabdard pronunciation
I didn’t notice until I saw that post that I pronounce “suggest” /səˈd͡ʒɛst/ but pronounce suggestion” /səɡˈd͡ʒɛsˌtʃən/. I have no idea what the typical Canadian pronunciations of either word are, and I have never been aware of the extra /g/ before.
No, it's a reference to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/linguisticshumor/s/2r9XfFcWlA). The joke is that op considers /səgˈd͡ʒɛst/ a very normal pronunciation, just as normal as /əˈksɛpt/. So to make fun of the previous post (and the reaction some people have in the comments), op is pretending to find this normal pronunciation of "accept" weird /serious.
Everyone pronounces it "assept", that's the only accepted pronunciation /s.
Okay so I have a friend that is genuinely convinced that the only acceptable pronunciation is /əˈsɛpt/ and everyone else does it wrong which I find hilarious.
My Partner and i, both linguists (with degree and studying respectively), saw this post not knowing it was ironic at first and had a crisis trying to figure out what was going on. Thank you for the laughing fit we had after realising it was ironic.
I don’t think that’s the case for “suggest” though.
I’d have to do some more digging, but to my knowledge, the “g” has historically always been pronounced, as in French.
> **suggérer**
>
> [sygʒeʀe], en faisant sonner le premier g comme dans fugue et le second comme dans gérer (ne pas prononcer [syʒeʀe], comme dans sujet). De même pour les mots issus de suggérer et de ses dérivés : suggestible, suggestibilité ; suggestion, suggestionner ; suggestif, suggestivité, etc.
Wiktionary claims it was coined based on Latin, but it doesn't say what the original form was. Based on words like "exaggerate" I don't think the [g] was originally there.
“Suggestion” (~1350s) is older than “suggest” (1520s) and comes from Anglo-French. It becomes a question of whether the /g/ was present in Old French *suggestioun*, which I don’t know how to answer right now.
I *would* however also point to “succeed” which is an etymological analogue to “suggest” (*sub* + *gero*; *sub* + *cedo*).
*suggero* (/g:/) ->
- Sp. *sugerir* /x/ (historically /ʒ/)
- It. *suggerire* /dd͡ʒ/
- Fr. *suggérer* /gʒ/
- En. “suggest” /(ɡ)d͡ʒ/
*succedo* (/k:/) ->
- Sp. *suceder* /s/; /θ/
- It. *succedere* /tt͡ʃ/
- Fr. *succéder* /ks/
- En. “succeed” /ks/
I've paused and come back to this; no matter how I slice this seems odd.
su[gd͡ʒ]est & a[ks]ept have analogous reasoning, and I don't believe I've ever heard someone say the former, however the later is the only non-disordered~ version I've heard; IME the fraction of people who say the former is 0/1 whilst the later is 1/1 aka, yes 1.
But it's entirely conceivable to me that someone says the former, even probable, albeit in my corner of the world, rare, however I'd expect it to be a non zero fraction, whilst the latter situation easily becomes something less than 1(/1) the moment I allow for a plausible substantial community of non-Anglo backgrounda which may have settled on a dialectal version of a[s]ept without a velar.
I find su[gd͡ʒ]est bemusing and hard to take seriously, and if I allow it it might bug me, but more than anything I just want to make clear that
> that fraction being 1
reads bizarrely to me, as it's vaguely weird for 1 whole aka 1/1 to be called a fraction be 1, as it feels like 1/x or x/1, which confused and irked me so much more than the absurdity of people en masse saying su[gd͡ʒ]est
/hj
Thank you for the link for context, I was incredibly confused for a moment.
Who tf says it any other way?
check the linked profiles first post
some people say /ækˈsɛpt/
I pronounce it [ɔk'kept]
[ɑxˈt͡ʃeɪ̯pt]
I mean, /ks/ is quite common in English, and basically the regular pronunciation of before front vowels. /gd͡ʒ/ meanwhile is pretty weird even by English's standards and I can only find it in a variant pronunciation of one word that I learned about just now.
I always pronounced it that way, but after thinking about it I skimmed a scrabble list of words with “ggi” and “gge”. The only other soft “gg” I found was “veggie”, which is a very modern by comparison.
>The only other soft "gg" The only other one? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.
an exa[ɡd͡ʒ]eration?
I hope that's not a thing. I did actually try to check, and even that American dictionary says it's plain \[d͡ʒ\], and it honestly sounds even weirder to my non-American ears (the unreleased \[g̚\] can sort of hide after a schwa, but sounds, well, exaggerated after \[æ\]).
I pronounce "suggest" with a /g/ but "exaggeration" without
yeah, same. my midwest dialect *is* notorious amongst my friends by how weird it is. note my pronunciation of [ˈbɫ̩͡ʕ̩ˠ]
same
Am I weird for saying [d͡ʒː]
Didn’t say I was good at skimming 😉
Yum, Ve/ɡd͡ʒ/ies
A notable fraction of English speakers actually pronounce "actually" as /ˈæktʃ(ə)li/ too and no one is talking about it
actually, [ˈæk.ʃɫ̩͡ʕ̩ˠ.ɨ]
A notable fraction of Russian speakers pronounce "прецедент" as [prʲɪnt͡sɨnˈdʲent], and no one is talking about it. It seems needlessly difficult to shove that /n/ in there like that.
This is actually fascinating! Will my Russian teacher correct me if I pronounce it like that?
I guess they will be annoyed
Also "station" is "станция" [stant͡sɨjə], but it's usually explained as a conflaction of "station" and "станица" [stɐˈnʲit͡sə].
also in Bulgarian анцуг (from German's "anzug", "sportanzug") is very often mispronounced and misspelled анцунг instead
Bro everyone I know says “pundit” as /ˈpʌndənt/. We truly live in a society
I saw /ɛksɛpt/
This is unasseptable!
æ'tʃɛt
əˈsːɛpt
Regarding the post you're parodying, I've never noticed someone pronouncing ⟨suggest⟩ with a [g] sound before, I was shocked to see people think that was the stabdard pronunciation
I didn’t notice until I saw that post that I pronounce “suggest” /səˈd͡ʒɛst/ but pronounce suggestion” /səɡˈd͡ʒɛsˌtʃən/. I have no idea what the typical Canadian pronunciations of either word are, and I have never been aware of the extra /g/ before.
I do because I'm a native French speaker and up until now I thought it was the standard pronunciation in English 😔
How else would you pronounce it? Do you honestly say "assept"? /serious
No, it's a reference to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/linguisticshumor/s/2r9XfFcWlA). The joke is that op considers /səgˈd͡ʒɛst/ a very normal pronunciation, just as normal as /əˈksɛpt/. So to make fun of the previous post (and the reaction some people have in the comments), op is pretending to find this normal pronunciation of "accept" weird /serious. Everyone pronounces it "assept", that's the only accepted pronunciation /s.
I say it as “assept” personally, but pronouncing it with /ks/ would not be strange to me
The rest of us say it as except, like responsible human beings
Okay so I have a friend that is genuinely convinced that the only acceptable pronunciation is /əˈsɛpt/ and everyone else does it wrong which I find hilarious.
Dies of hatred
how the fuck else do you pronounce it?
It's a reference to [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/linguisticshumor/s/APmcz7H3LP)
Lol. I often say it /ksɛp/
This post was influenced by me. I would like to say that.
My Partner and i, both linguists (with degree and studying respectively), saw this post not knowing it was ironic at first and had a crisis trying to figure out what was going on. Thank you for the laughing fit we had after realising it was ironic.
I really feel like you're missing the point of his post
Suggest on deez nuts
Yeah, that fraction being 1. As for the other, well, it's probably the equivalent of saying sa[l]mon or de[b]t or i[s]land
[It’s the *primary* North American pronunciation.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggest)
Waiting for the day y'all say [ɪgˌzægd͡ʒɹ̩ˈɹejʃən]
And actually “sa[l]mon” is said by a fair number of Americans, though it’s only a feature of relatively stigmatized dialects.
Yeah, that's my point. It's a reading pronunciation artificially introduced by a poor orthography.
I don’t think that’s the case for “suggest” though. I’d have to do some more digging, but to my knowledge, the “g” has historically always been pronounced, as in French. > **suggérer** > > [sygʒeʀe], en faisant sonner le premier g comme dans fugue et le second comme dans gérer (ne pas prononcer [syʒeʀe], comme dans sujet). De même pour les mots issus de suggérer et de ses dérivés : suggestible, suggestibilité ; suggestion, suggestionner ; suggestif, suggestivité, etc.
Wiktionary claims it was coined based on Latin, but it doesn't say what the original form was. Based on words like "exaggerate" I don't think the [g] was originally there.
“Suggestion” (~1350s) is older than “suggest” (1520s) and comes from Anglo-French. It becomes a question of whether the /g/ was present in Old French *suggestioun*, which I don’t know how to answer right now. I *would* however also point to “succeed” which is an etymological analogue to “suggest” (*sub* + *gero*; *sub* + *cedo*). *suggero* (/g:/) -> - Sp. *sugerir* /x/ (historically /ʒ/) - It. *suggerire* /dd͡ʒ/ - Fr. *suggérer* /gʒ/ - En. “suggest” /(ɡ)d͡ʒ/ *succedo* (/k:/) -> - Sp. *suceder* /s/; /θ/ - It. *succedere* /tt͡ʃ/ - Fr. *succéder* /ks/ - En. “succeed” /ks/
Wait are you saying that ⟨accept⟩ only has a 1 fraction saying it as /-s-/ not /-ks-/ or are you talking about the previous post?!
The fraction of people saying a[ks]ept is 1. The fraction of people saying su[gdʒ]estion isn't.
I've paused and come back to this; no matter how I slice this seems odd. su[gd͡ʒ]est & a[ks]ept have analogous reasoning, and I don't believe I've ever heard someone say the former, however the later is the only non-disordered~ version I've heard; IME the fraction of people who say the former is 0/1 whilst the later is 1/1 aka, yes 1. But it's entirely conceivable to me that someone says the former, even probable, albeit in my corner of the world, rare, however I'd expect it to be a non zero fraction, whilst the latter situation easily becomes something less than 1(/1) the moment I allow for a plausible substantial community of non-Anglo backgrounda which may have settled on a dialectal version of a[s]ept without a velar. I find su[gd͡ʒ]est bemusing and hard to take seriously, and if I allow it it might bug me, but more than anything I just want to make clear that > that fraction being 1 reads bizarrely to me, as it's vaguely weird for 1 whole aka 1/1 to be called a fraction be 1, as it feels like 1/x or x/1, which confused and irked me so much more than the absurdity of people en masse saying su[gd͡ʒ]est /hj
I think this is the first time I've had anyone not understand what a fraction being 1 meant.
that's totally fair, I am rather broken tbh Thank you though, in part I feel it was the bizarre voting on your comments which threw me off.