Down
this column a ways is a post from August 11th that has the
word “flaccid” in the title. Coincidentally, I read an article in
Harper's Magazine yesterday about the degeneration of the English
language. It was brought to my attention that we are all saying
flaccid wrong, or maybe our way is no longer wrong. Things are
changing so fast that it's hard to tell anymore.
I
have always understood the word to be “flasid,” and I have always
pronounced it “flasid.” I'm pretty sure that I have always heard
the word pronounced “flasid.” The writer of the article, however,
has a much greater license than me to have an opinion about the
proper pronunciation of English, and she said that the word is
actually, “flaksid.” Recall that this was in Harper's Magazine,
and they have a lot of credibility in such matters. She did allow
that “flasid” was becoming an acceptable alternative. You could
have knocked me over with a feather.
I
consulted my big-as-a-house Oxford Concise Dictionary. It's a good
one, with full etymological information. The Oxford is a United
Kingdom publication, but they are scrupulous about setting forth the
British and the American versions where there are differences. Sure
enough, the pronunciation guidance was given as, “flasid, flaksid.”
No geographical separation, just a simple pair of alternative
pronunciations. I don't think that I've ever heard it pronounced
“flaksid,” but I wouldn't be surprised if there were people in
England who would do it.
People
who had undergone the old-fashioned classical education in England,
especially. I took two years of Latin in high school, but honestly I
did not pay that much attention. Flaccid comes to us via the Latin
word flaccus, meaning flabby. The Romans applied the hard “c” to
Latin, but for all I know the double “cc” was pronounced “ks.”
That would explain “flaksid,” working backwards.
Even
so, “flasid” was the first suggested pronunciation ten years ago,
so I guess we're okay to say it that way. That's a relief.
No comments:
Post a Comment