"processeez" --- a history of mispronunciation and a prognosis, please

[Alan]

Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the plural of "process" has been around? For the last 5 years I've been hearing some folks pronounce it as if were spelled "processeez" (accent on the last syllable), misguidedly and hypercorrectively modeling it on some our Greek-based words such as "thesis, theses" or "basis, bases". A friend of mine insists that he's been hearing it for at least 10 years.
Also, how long do you suppose it will take for the infection to spread? Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?

[Sara Lorimer]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Please don't do that.

[John O'Flaherty]

Post by Alan
Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the plural of "process" has been around? For the last 5 years I've been hearing some folks pronounce it as if were spelled "processeez" (accent on the last syllable), misguidedly and hypercorrectively modeling it on some our Greek-based words such as "thesis, theses" or "basis, bases". A friend of mine insists that he's been hearing it for at least 10 years.
Also, how long do you suppose it will take for the infection to spread? Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?

I heard something like that about 10 years ago, from Ralph Nader's
sister (can't remember her name), talking about 'little injusticeez'. I
was tempted to hear it as 'injusticies', to make it less irritating.

--
john

[Raymond S. Wise]

Post by Alan
Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the plural of "process" has been around? For the last 5 years I've been hearing some folks pronounce it as if were spelled "processeez" (accent on the last syllable), misguidedly and hypercorrectively modeling it on some our Greek-based words such as "thesis, theses" or "basis, bases". A friend of mine insists that he's been hearing it for at least 10 years.
Also, how long do you suppose it will take for the infection to spread? Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?
Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the plural of "process" has been around? For the last 5 years I've been hearing some folks pronounce it as if were spelled "processeez" (accent on the last syllable), misguidedly and hypercorrectively modeling it on some our Greek-based words such as "thesis, theses" or "basis, bases". A friend of mine insists that he's been hearing it for at least 10 years.
Also, how long do you suppose it will take for the infection to spread? Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?

I have a *Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,* (C) 1981, which shows
the "-eez" pronunciation as a standard one, just as the current
Collegiate does. It would take some years for "-eez" to have become a
standard pronunciation, so it would have to have first occurred several
years before 1981.

I now see that the *Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary* online shows
the "-eez" pronunciations (it has two of them, with different
pronunciations for the middle vowel) with an obelus (for which they use
a division sign, <÷>), a mark they use to label a controversial
pronunciation used by standard speakers. If this is, as I suspect, the
same pronunciations as those used in the *Merriam-Webster's Third New
International Dictionary,* Unabridged, then that would mean that the
"-eez" pronunciations were in a transitional state in 1961, from not
being used by standard speakers, to being used by standard speakers as
a controversial usage, to being used by standard speakers as a usage
recognized as standard by several American dictionaries, including,
besides the Collegiate, the AHD4 and the RHUD at Infoplease.com . The
entry for "process" in that last dictionary is probably unchanged from
1993, because that was the last time the *Random House Unabridged
Dictionary,* 2nd ed., upon which the Infoplease.com version is likely
based, was last revised.


--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

[Donna Richoux]

Post by Raymond S. Wise

Post by Alan
Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the
plural of "process" has been around? For the last 5 years I've been
hearing some folks pronounce it as if were spelled "processeez"

(accent

Post by Raymond S. Wise

Post by Alan
on the last syllable), misguidedly and hypercorrectively modeling it

on

Post by Raymond S. Wise

Post by Alan
some our Greek-based words such as "thesis, theses" or "basis,

bases".

Post by Raymond S. Wise

Post by Alan
A friend of mine insists that he's been hearing it for at least 10
years.
Also, how long do you suppose it will take for the infection to spread?
Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?

I have a *Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,* (C) 1981, which shows
the "-eez" pronunciation as a standard one, just as the current
Collegiate does. It would take some years for "-eez" to have become a
standard pronunciation, so it would have to have first occurred several
years before 1981.
I now see that the *Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary* online shows
the "-eez" pronunciations (it has two of them, with different
pronunciations for the middle vowel) with an obelus (for which they use
a division sign, <÷>), a mark they use to label a controversial
pronunciation used by standard speakers. If this is, as I suspect, the
same pronunciations as those used in the *Merriam-Webster's Third New
International Dictionary,* Unabridged, then that would mean that the
"-eez" pronunciations were in a transitional state in 1961, from not
being used by standard speakers, to being used by standard speakers as
a controversial usage, to being used by standard speakers as a usage
recognized as standard by several American dictionaries, including,
besides the Collegiate, the AHD4 and the RHUD at Infoplease.com . The
entry for "process" in that last dictionary is probably unchanged from
1993, because that was the last time the *Random House Unabridged
Dictionary,* 2nd ed., upon which the Infoplease.com version is likely
based, was last revised.

The Webster's Collegiate 5th Ed (1946) shows three ways to pronounce the
ending of "processes." The e of end, the i of ill, and -- marked "Anat.
occas." -- the e of eve.

The 1913 Webster's on-line doesn't show pronunciations, but I notice
there that the "anatomical" meaning of "process" is a special one:

4. (Anat. & Zoöl.) Any marked prominence or
projecting part, especially of a bone; anapophysis.

That's in the later Websters, too.

The 1828 Webster's doesn't discuss the plural. I notice that it marks
the "proc-" part to be pronounced in the current US way, not the "pro-"
of "procedure." I also see that Noah indicates a preference for
"procede" to match "precede" and "recede", but he didn't get his way on
that one, did he.

[Raymond S. Wise]

Post by Alan

Post by Raymond S. Wise

Post by Alan
Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the
plural of "process" has been around? For the last 5 years I've been
hearing some folks pronounce it as if were spelled "processeez"

(accent

Post by Raymond S. Wise

Post by Alan
on the last syllable), misguidedly and hypercorrectively modeling it

on

Post by Raymond S. Wise

Post by Alan
some our Greek-based words such as "thesis, theses" or "basis,

bases".

Post by Raymond S. Wise

Post by Alan
A friend of mine insists that he's been hearing it for at least 10
years.
Also, how long do you suppose it will take for the infection to spread?
Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?

I have a *Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,* (C) 1981, which shows
the "-eez" pronunciation as a standard one, just as the current
Collegiate does. It would take some years for "-eez" to have become a
standard pronunciation, so it would have to have first occurred several
years before 1981.
I now see that the *Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary* online shows
the "-eez" pronunciations (it has two of them, with different
pronunciations for the middle vowel) with an obelus (for which they use
a division sign, <÷>), a mark they use to label a controversial
pronunciation used by standard speakers. If this is, as I suspect, the
same pronunciations as those used in the *Merriam-Webster's Third New
International Dictionary,* Unabridged, then that would mean that the
"-eez" pronunciations were in a transitional state in 1961, from not
being used by standard speakers, to being used by standard speakers as
a controversial usage, to being used by standard speakers as a usage
recognized as standard by several American dictionaries, including,
besides the Collegiate, the AHD4 and the RHUD at Infoplease.com . The
entry for "process" in that last dictionary is probably unchanged from
1993, because that was the last time the *Random House Unabridged
Dictionary,* 2nd ed., upon which the Infoplease.com version is likely
based, was last revised.

The Webster's Collegiate 5th Ed (1946) shows three ways to pronounce the
ending of "processes." The e of end, the i of ill, and -- marked "Anat.
occas." -- the e of eve.
The 1913 Webster's on-line doesn't show pronunciations, but I notice
4. (Anat. & Zoöl.) Any marked prominence or
projecting part, especially of a bone; anapophysis.
That's in the later Websters, too.
The 1828 Webster's doesn't discuss the plural. I notice that it marks
the "proc-" part to be pronounced in the current US way, not the "pro-"
of "procedure." I also see that Noah indicates a preference for
"procede" to match "precede" and "recede", but he didn't get his way on
that one, did he.

I looked up "process" in a print edition of Webster's Third, and it did
indeed represent the -[iz] pronunciation of "processes" as
controversial. I also looked up "process" in the 1934 Webster's Second.
It gave [iz] and [Iz] as the last syllable, and then added (I use ASCII
IPA instead of their pronunciation symbols), "_Anat. occas._ -[iz]".

This represents quite a rarity, then: Webster's Second represents as
standard (at least in a limited domain) a pronunciation which Webster's
Third shows to be controversial (although used by speakers of the
standard dialect).


--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

[R J Valentine]

On 22 Jun 2005 20:48:14 -0700 Raymond S. Wise <***@my-deja.com> wrote:
...
} I looked up "process" in a print edition of Webster's Third, and it did
} indeed represent the -[iz] pronunciation of "processes" as
} controversial. I also looked up "process" in the 1934 Webster's Second.
} It gave [iz] and [Iz] as the last syllable, and then added (I use ASCII
} IPA instead of their pronunciation symbols), "_Anat. occas._ -[iz]".
}
} This represents quite a rarity, then: Webster's Second represents as
} standard (at least in a limited domain) a pronunciation which Webster's
} Third shows to be controversial (although used by speakers of the
} standard dialect).

Rarity? There are all sorts of effects of TGDD.

My trusty old _American Heritage Dictionary_ (I) has for the plural:
['pra+,sEsIz], ['proU,cEsIz], ['pra+s@,siz], and ['proUs@,siz] with no
other hint of controversy.

[Joe Fineman]

Post by Alan
Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the
plural of "process" has been around? For the last 5 years I've been
hearing some folks pronounce it as if were spelled "processeez"
(accent on the last syllable), misguidedly and hypercorrectively
modeling it on some our Greek-based words such as "thesis, theses"
or "basis, bases". A friend of mine insists that he's been hearing
it for at least 10 years.

I remember it from the 1950s. I think it started among ignorant
academics. I would not swear to the identification, but I seem to
remember Robert M. Hutchins, of the University of Chicago, talking
that way on a visit to Caltech about 1956. It sounded pompous & silly
at the time.

The OED takes no note of it.

Post by Alan
Also, how long do you suppose it will take for the infection to
spread? Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?

Says W. V. O. Quine in _Quiddities_ (1987) s.v. Plurals:

Why in God's name? It is not something these people grew up with.
[Actually, by that time it might have been.] Do they think they
are being scholarly about a Greco-Latin plural, as in _bases_,
_crises_, and _probosces_? [Oy, Professor Quine! The Greek
plural is "proboscides"; the OED calls "probosces" "Erron.".
Beware the proboscides of the Anopheles!] Will they venture a
singular _processis_? Or will they move on to _horsees_ and
_assees_?

Speaking of axes, chop off their heads.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Joe Fineman

Post by Alan
Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the
plural of "process" has been around? For the last 5 years I've been
hearing some folks pronounce it as if were spelled "processeez"
(accent on the last syllable), misguidedly and hypercorrectively
modeling it on some our Greek-based words such as "thesis, theses"
or "basis, bases". A friend of mine insists that he's been hearing
it for at least 10 years.

I remember it from the 1950s. I think it started among ignorant
academics. I would not swear to the identification, but I seem to
remember Robert M. Hutchins, of the University of Chicago, talking
that way on a visit to Caltech about 1956. It sounded pompous & silly
at the time.
The OED takes no note of it.

Post by Alan
Also, how long do you suppose it will take for the infection to
spread? Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?

Why in God's name? It is not something these people grew up with.
[Actually, by that time it might have been.] Do they think they
are being scholarly about a Greco-Latin plural, as in _bases_,
_crises_, and _probosces_? [Oy, Professor Quine! The Greek
plural is "proboscides"; the OED calls "probosces" "Erron.".
Beware the proboscides of the Anopheles!] Will they venture a
singular _processis_? Or will they move on to _horsees_ and
_assees_?

I remember hearing it in the 1970s, from the same people why thought the
plutal of "diocese" was "dioceez".

[Areff]

Post by Steve Hayes
I remember hearing it in the 1970s, from the same people why thought the
plutal of "diocese" was "dioceez".

UONYGAWURJV[HR].

[Ray Heindl]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Areff]

Post by Ray Heindl
I first heard "processeez" in a quality control course, maybe 10 years
ago. Several instructors used it; I suspect they all picked it up from
the head instructor. Occasionally one went so far as to use
"processee" as the singular. It was a struggle not to laugh out loud.

Indeed...the singular should be "procex".

[Mark Brader]

Post by Areff

Post by Ray Heindl
I first heard "processeez" in a quality control course, maybe 10 years
ago. Several instructors used it; I suspect they all picked it up from
the head instructor. Occasionally one went so far as to use
"processee" as the singular. It was a struggle not to laugh out loud.

Indeed...the singular should be "procex".

Wot, not "processis"?

[R J Valentine]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:01:16 -0000 Mark Brader <***@vex.net> wrote:

} Ray Heindl:
}> > I first heard "processeez" in a quality control course, maybe 10 years
}> > ago. Several instructors used it; I suspect they all picked it up from
}> > the head instructor. Occasionally one went so far as to use
}> > "processee" as the singular. It was a struggle not to laugh out loud.
}
} Richard Fontana:
}> Indeed...the singular should be "procex".
}
} Wot, not "processis"?

No, the plural of that is "processides".

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Joe Fineman

Post by Alan
Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the
plural of "process" has been around? For the last 5 years I've been
hearing some folks pronounce it as if were spelled "processeez"
(accent on the last syllable), misguidedly and hypercorrectively
modeling it on some our Greek-based words such as "thesis, theses"
or "basis, bases". A friend of mine insists that he's been hearing
it for at least 10 years.

I remember it from the 1950s. I think it started among ignorant
academics. I would not swear to the identification, but I seem to
remember Robert M. Hutchins, of the University of Chicago, talking
that way on a visit to Caltech about 1956. It sounded pompous & silly
at the time.

I'm not convinced that this is hypercorrection. The only times I've
heard the pronunciation in question have been where the speaker has
had to be careful to distinguish between "processors" and "processes".
(Which sound alike in non-rhotic dialects.) This happens fairly
often in, for example, discussions of computer software. In such
cases you'll hear the speaker exaggerate both endings: -ORZ vs
-EEZ. Put the same speakers into a situation where it's not necessary
to make the distinction and they'll drop back to the conventional
pronunciation.

[Alan]

"Alan" wrote:>>

Post by Alan
Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the
plural of "process" has been around? For the last 5 years I've been
hearing some folks pronounce it as if were spelled "processeez"
(accent on the last syllable), misguidedly and hypercorrectively
modeling it on some our Greek-based words such as "thesis, theses"
or "basis, bases". A friend of mine insists that he's been hearing
it for at least 10 years.

Joe Fineman wrote:>>

I remember it from the 1950s. I think it started among ignorant
academics. I would not swear to the identification, but I seem to
remember Robert M. Hutchins, of the University of Chicago, talking
that way on a visit to Caltech about 1956. It sounded pompous & silly
at the time.

"Peter Moylan" wrote :>

I'm not convinced that this is hypercorrection. The only times I've
heard the pronunciation in question have been where the speaker has
had to be careful to distinguish between "processors" and "processes".
(Which sound alike in non-rhotic dialects.) This happens fairly
often in, for example, discussions of computer software. In such
cases you'll hear the speaker exaggerate both endings: -ORZ vs
-EEZ. Put the same speakers into a situation where it's not necessary
to make the distinction and they'll drop back to the conventional
pronunciation.

I think you're on to something there, Peter. Now that I think back on it,
the occasions on which I've heard that abominable mispronunciation have
ALWAYS involved a non-rhotic speaker intent on overcoming the idiosyncrasies
of his dialect and making a careful distinction between "processors" and
"processes" . . . :)

[Gerry]

"Alan" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:viIte.521$***@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the plural
of "process" has been around?

I had a parish priest who seemed to believe that "cry-seez" is the
intellectual way to pronounce C-R-I-S-I-S. ("...if this cry-seez is not
resolved...")

Fortunately, that inspection does not seem to have spread.

Gerry