Pronunciation question -- quixotic

[MerakSpielman]

Yeah, but this isn't one of them.

It's loosely based on a previous word. That doesn't mean it follows any rules.

 

[Tewligan]

I pronounce it "kwicksahtic", because that's how pretty much every dictionary says it should be pronounced. Whether or not you think it should be pronounced that way, it's the correct pronunciation.

 

[Desdichado]

I pronounce it "kwicksahtic", because that's how pretty much every dictionary says it should be pronounced. Whether or not you think it should be pronounced that way, it's the correct pronunciation.

You do realize that you're not saying anything that I didn't already point out in the very first post of the thread, right? The conversation has very long ago moved on from what the dictionary says.

 

[Desdichado]

There's a very simple thing that folks seem to be missing - language does not have to "make sense". While shifts in pronounciation and grammar tend to follow guidelines, it is only a tendency. On occasion, you'll get a made-up word with a made-up pronounciation.

Oh, that's absolute rubbish. Language change, believe it or not, is typically quite regular, predictable and systematic. Otherwise, we wouldn't even have a field of study relative to historic or comparative linguistics.

 

[jgbrowning]

quixotic=tomahto



joe b.

 

[Gez]

I'd say keeshotic, because I pronounce the Spanish x as the English sh.

Did you know that chocolat is derived from the Aztec word Xocoatl, which is written in Spanish spelling? The X then became ch, as it became chocolatl, and eventually chocolat.

 

[Umbran]

Oh, that's absolute rubbish. Language change, believe it or not, is typically quite regular, predictable and systematic.

Reread what I said - I already admitted a tendency to follow the rules. But the fact that you put the qualifier "typically" admits the existance of cases that don't follow the patterns.

I will allow that the change is systematic. I deny that it is predictable. Being able to follow a logical train backwards to the origin does not mean you can similarly follow it forwards. Going forwards, there are choices along the path, such that the final end state cannot be foreseen. A tree is a decent analogy - you can follow a branch back to the trunk, but starting at the trunk, you don't know which branch the squirrel is going to end up upon.

 

[fusangite]

I'd say keeshotic, because I pronounce the Spanish x as the English sh.

Did you know that chocolat is derived from the Aztec word Xocoatl, which is written in Spanish spelling? The X then became ch, as it became chocolatl, and eventually chocolat.

I would argue that Quixote is from peninsular Spanish; the x=sh cases are all in Nahua or Mayan areas, just as z=s there instead of z=th in peninsular Spanish.

 

[Algolei]

I wonder, without any peevishness at all, if the subset of people who use a word like quixotic in spoken speech might also include a lot of people who think they know how it should be pronounced, when, in fact, they don't.

"Too smart for their own good," kinds of folks.

Hello! *waves*

I use the word on occasion because I know what it means. But I didn't know how to pronounce it until now because I've never heard it spoken--and why would I look it up in the dictionary to find out the pronunciation when it seems so obvious?

(I had the same problem with the word "abyss." Although it didn't help when the first time I heard it used [on the tv news!] it was mispronounced.)

I think we purposefully pronounce it wrong because it would otherwise sound too much like "chaotic". Red dragons are quixotic-evil.

I actually believe you are correct. I have mispronounced the word "quixotic" as key-HOT-ik in the past, and every time I did, someone thought I was saying "chaotic." Which I wasn't. Because I'm an ultra-geek-wannabe who likes to use words I've read but never heard. *Glee!* Love me, LOVE MEEEE!

 

[Desdichado]

I will allow that the change is systematic. I deny that it is predictable. Being able to follow a logical train backwards to the origin does not mean you can similarly follow it forwards. Going forwards, there are choices along the path, such that the final end state cannot be foreseen. A tree is a decent analogy - you can follow a branch back to the trunk, but starting at the trunk, you don't know which branch the squirrel is going to end up upon.

It's mostly unpredictable because the systems are too complex. Also, because we'd have to predict history -- spread of population groups, fads, and other things, that we will never be able to predict.