It's "sodder", not "soLder", damnit! (for us USAians)

[Gyro]

Why is everyone trying to psychoanalyze me?

Either fucking participate in the thread because you have something to add, or just kindly STFU and stay out of it, for chrissakes!

As the whole premise of this thread is your psychological reaction to the pronunciation of 'solder' in the video, that would seem to wrap the thread up then!   

[Zero999]

This is an old, long worn out topic.

I even started a poll.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/pronunciation-of-the-word-solder/msg2044675/#msg2044675

That's nice, but what happened to the description of the choices?

(Attachment Link)

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my response to you.

#1 American is sodder.

#2 RP (Received Pronunciation is soLd er.

#3 London South East is with the L swallowed, sounding more like a W. sO wder. (O as in Optimum).

#3 Solder UK variant is so Lder.

The evidence is all on my side that the pronunciation "sodder" is "right" (see below for an explanation of that term).

But there is no evidence to suggest that sodder is the correct pronunciation and the same is also true for soLd er. It's just what happens when a language spreads from one region to another; it develops two distinct dialects.

Yes.
Let's drop the "correct/incorrect" distinction here.
My point is not really what the "correct" pronunciation of the word is.
I'm certainly not a linguist nor a philologist.
The point is that the commonly accepted pronunciation here in the U.S. happens to be "sodder" across the vast majority of English speakers here. Whether it's right or wrong.
That's what this guy is trying to buck by insisting that all those millions of speakers are "wrong" and that he is "correct". That's what bugs me here.

But you don't know that everyone in the US says sodder. For all you know, there's a remote town, where soLd er is the main pronunciation. Heck, I doubt I'm aware of all of the possible British pronunciations of the word. For all I know, there might be a town a couple of hundred or so miles away from me where they say sodder.

I've heard some really unusual pronunciations of many words before. I've heard wafer pronounced as waff er and my college workshop teacher pronounced taper the same as tapper.

Be honest if you find it difficult to understand his heavy accent.

Absolutely 0% difficulty ... he barely has any accent at all. Not a lot different to my grandfather and his brother, who though born in NZ in the 1910s I think spoke a lot like their father who came from a village between Leicester and Derby in the 1880s. I expect I could find old people in rural areas in NZ speaking much like him today.

If you want to have some fun understanding a few different UK accents try this:

Unfortunately that video doesn't load for me, but it's about Auf Wiedersehen, Pet. A TV comedy featuring construction workers from different parts of the UK sent to Germany.

What I do find interesting is the pronunciation of all of the u sounds in Northern English as well as some Irish, dialects i.e. buck sounds like book* didn't survive for long after travelling to the New World. I've not heard anyone from America or down under talk like that.

*In many dialects of Northern English, some Scottish and Irish, the double oo is always pronounced as oooh, so we get boo k and who k for book and hook respectively; this also doesn't appear to have caught on in New World English.

[Gyro]

Doh, did you have to? 

[Zero999]

Doh, did you have to? 

Did you?

I just find the topic interesting. No one is making you read it.

[Gyro]

Fine, I'll leave you and the Kid to debate it out. 

Oh, just one last thing. I spent most of my formative years in South East London and I never heard anyone pronounce it sO wder.

[tooki]

I still dispute that American English has changed less than British English. History is written by the winners after all, so it shouldn't be surprising it's what you've been taught, given the fact the USA is a dominant cultural power. I have also informatively studied some social science, although not linguistics and I take some of it with a grain of salt, because it isn't a matter of right or wrong as is the case for hard sciences such as engineering. It isn't as though there are recordings from 250 years ago to prove one way or the other.

I resent the insinuation that I’m only saying that because of patriotism: as I already explained, this is the conclusion of British historical linguists of the English language in England.

Where did I say anything about patriotism? It's what you've been taught. Nothing to do with where you're from.

If you did not intend it as “educated in the US” means “educated according to a nationalistic American interpretation of history”, then why do you keep bringing up where I studied linguistics? Are you implying that the location of my education makes its content untrustworthy? Why do you think that linguistics professors in USA, many of whom are not Americans, would teach a different history than anywhere else?

Honestly, I would expect linguistics to be one of the less nationally biased academic disciplines, precisely because people who are scholars of linguistics are people who are curious about languages and how human language functions, and thus curious about languages and places other than their own, too. In the case of my linguistics education, only about half of the professors were American to begin with, and all of the American ones had lived abroad. The heterogeneity of that faculty makes a specifically American bias rather unlikely.


Also, you keep just ignoring the fact that I have told you multiple times that British linguists have made these observations about American English. Nor are those observations even limited to modern British linguists:

One Language, Two Grammars?, a book published by Cambridge University Press,* states in chapter 1:  “As early as 1869, Ellis (1869–89: 19) remarked that American English (AmE) was more conservative than British English (BrE) in some pronunciation features”. That’s referring to John Alexander Ellis, an English scholar, in his work On Early English Pronunciation.

So this is truly not some peculiarly American interpretation of the history, nor a conclusion of my own making. Not to mention that it very much undermines your assertion of it being about “history being written by the winners” (since the US had not “won” yet).


*in England, not Massachusetts.

I just stated that I don't buy it. The idea that American English was the original is an old myth which has been pretty much debunked.

Well sure it has, because that is a myth! But that is also not what I said.

For reference, again, here is what I did say:

The best summary of the situation is this: since British English and American English “split”, both dialects have evolved away from the common ancestor, but British English evolved away more. So where the dialects differ, there is a greater chance that American English retains, or is closer to, the original form.

That in no way says “American is the original English”.

Since I evidently need to spell out how that is different, what I said means:
1. neither modern American English nor modern British English represents the English of 400 years ago from which they both developed
2. some things have stayed the same in both dialects
3. some things have changed in both dialects (such that both dialects have the same form today)
4. some things have changed in both dialects (such that the dialects have different forms from each other today)
5. some things changed in one dialect, but not the other.

It is the last two cases that I am talking about. When one dialect has changed and one has retained the old form (or stayed much closer to it), there is a greater tendency (but by no means a guarantee) for American English to retain or stay closer to the ancestral form. And “greater tendency” does not mean “high probability”, let alone “certainty”.

Regarding the rest of your post: yep, one of the things that is very, very frustrating in layperson discussions of “American vs British” English is that examples of nonstandard (i.e. regional or other specific dialect, but also simple examples of errors) American English get compared to RP, ignoring the cornucopia of regional dialects in the UK and Ireland, most of which are scarcely closer to RP than General American dialect is! Many of those dialects retain historical features that American English also preserved.

And some of them were brought to USA as well. I don’t know as much formal history about it, but it hasn’t escaped my notice that one of the two (modern) native dialects of Dublin sounds astoundingly close to (modern) American English. Given that the Irish came to USA in droves, later than the English, it stands to reason that their dialect(s) would have a palpable influence on American speech.

I think you've nailed it with you last paragraph: Irish English had more of an influence on American English, than what was spoken in South-East England. Heck, I would also bet that it was also true to some degree for the Bristol, Lancashire and Cheshire dialects, because they have big ports where people immigrated to the US.

Yep.

However, in the case of “solder”, the etymology is known, and the later immigration patterns are not relevant.

[IanB]

I think it is well recognized that RP was developed/invented as a separate and distinct accent in England to mark a class distinction from the unwashed masses. It therefore started as a major divergence from standard accents. Over time, RP has gradually been softened and diluted, and has influenced what is now known as "Standard Southern British", which is a kind of standard British accent today (what might be taught to ESL students). That accent for sure has diverged from typical American accents.

Other weird idiosyncrasies happened in Britain too, such as changing the spelling of "tire" to "tyre".

[tooki]

I think you've nailed it with you last paragraph: Irish English had more of an influence on American English, than what was spoken in South-East England. Heck, I would also bet that it was also true to some degree for the Bristol, Lancashire and Cheshire dialects, because they have big ports where people immigrated to the US.

I'm sure that the Irish had a tremendous influence on the English spoken in Boston, for instance, as they settled there in great numbers. That city is well known for its distinctive accent. I don't know the details but it seems to stand to reason that this comes at least in part from the influx of immigrants.

Except that the most distinctive features of Bostonian accent — the nonrhoticity and the “broad A” (“I pahked the cah in Hahvad Yahd”) — are very much not Irish! (So while Irish English definitely had some influence, the fundamental pronunciation skews more British.)

[tooki]

A single person pronounces it with a non-silent ‘L’? We may call it a mistake. Enough people do it that way to make evoke that emotional reaction in OP? It’s just a less common pronunciation. As “valid” or “correct” as any other.that.

You're missing the point, or more precisely half the point:

If the guy had just pronounced it "soLder" in his video and left it at that, this thread wouldn't exist.

Instead he went out his way to insist that this is the real, true pronunciation of the word.
Presumably in the United States, since that's where he lives. Which it is definitely not. We don't say that here.

That's what I'm reacting to here, his schoolmarmish, pedantic (and mistaken!) language-policing.
I don't do language policing. He's free to pronounce anything any fucking way he likes. That's not the point.

But where did he do that? I just watched the video, and only heard him say the word “solder”, but he never discussed it. I checked the video transcript to make sure I hadn’t missed it, but it also shows no discussion of pronunciation.

[Analog Kid]

If the guy had just pronounced it "soLder" in his video and left it at that, this thread wouldn't exist.

Instead he went out his way to insist that this is the real, true pronunciation of the word.
Presumably in the United States, since that's where he lives. Which it is definitely not. We don't say that here.

That's what I'm reacting to here, his schoolmarmish, pedantic (and mistaken!) language-policing.
I don't do language policing. He's free to pronounce anything any fucking way he likes. That's not the point.

But where did he do that? I just watched the video, and only heard him say the word “solder”, but he never discussed it. I checked the video transcript to make sure I hadn’t missed it, but it also shows no discussion of pronunciation.

Aaargh; I may have linked the wrong video up there.
There's definitely one in which he makes that claim.
Now I gotta go and find it. Ugh.

[IanB]

But where did he do that? I just watched the video, and only heard him say the word “solder”, but he never discussed it. I checked the video transcript to make sure I hadn’t missed it, but it also shows no discussion of pronunciation.

I think there is a note on the screen, but it's a blink and you'll miss it kind of thing, It is only there for a brief moment.

[Analog Kid]

But where did he do that? I just watched the video, and only heard him say the word “solder”, but he never discussed it. I checked the video transcript to make sure I hadn’t missed it, but it also shows no discussion of pronunciation.

I think there is a note on the screen, but it's a blink and you'll miss it kind of thing, It is only there for a brief moment.

Maybe that was it. I can't remember.

[negativ3]

[PlainName]

... such as changing the spelling of "tire" to "tyre".

Seems logical to me: vastly different meanings. There should be a rule that a particular spelling can only mean one thing 

Once we've exhausted this, how about starting on punctuation?

[tooki]

... such as changing the spelling of "tire" to "tyre".

Seems logical to me: vastly different meanings. There should be a rule that a particular spelling can only mean one thing 

Once we've exhausted this, how about starting on punctuation?

The point is that “tire” is not an American corruption of “tyre” (as the British often assume), but rather that the whole world originally spelled it “tire” and then the UK independently changed to “tyre”. One can argue whether that is a good or bad change, but the point is that it was the UK that changed its spelling, not USA.

[Zero999]

I still dispute that American English has changed less than British English. History is written by the winners after all, so it shouldn't be surprising it's what you've been taught, given the fact the USA is a dominant cultural power. I have also informatively studied some social science, although not linguistics and I take some of it with a grain of salt, because it isn't a matter of right or wrong as is the case for hard sciences such as engineering. It isn't as though there are recordings from 250 years ago to prove one way or the other.

I resent the insinuation that I’m only saying that because of patriotism: as I already explained, this is the conclusion of British historical linguists of the English language in England.

Where did I say anything about patriotism? It's what you've been taught. Nothing to do with where you're from.

If you did not intend it as “educated in the US” means “educated according to a nationalistic American interpretation of history”, then why do you keep bringing up where I studied linguistics? Are you implying that the location of my education makes its content untrustworthy? Why do you think that linguistics professors in USA, many of whom are not Americans, would teach a different history than anywhere else?

I said nothing of the kind. I merely stated that history is written by the winners, which is the USA. You could have studied in England, Australia, South Africa etc. and I would have said the same, because I see the US influence in many other areas of academia, but that's another topic.

Well sure it has, because that is a myth! But that is also not what I said.

You started this discussion when you said the British bastardised English more than the Americans.

For reference, again, here is what I did say:

The best summary of the situation is this: since British English and American English “split”, both dialects have evolved away from the common ancestor, but British English evolved away more. So where the dialects differ, there is a greater chance that American English retains, or is closer to, the original form.

That in no way says “American is the original English”.

Since I evidently need to spell out how that is different, what I said means:
1. neither modern American English nor modern British English represents the English of 400 years ago from which they both developed
2. some things have stayed the same in both dialects
3. some things have changed in both dialects (such that both dialects have the same form today)
4. some things have changed in both dialects (such that the dialects have different forms from each other today)
5. some things changed in one dialect, but not the other.

It is the last two cases that I am talking about. When one dialect has changed and one has retained the old form (or stayed much closer to it), there is a greater tendency (but by no means a guarantee) for American English to retain or stay closer to the ancestral form. And “greater tendency” does not mean “high probability”, let alone “certainty”.

Regarding the rest of your post: yep, one of the things that is very, very frustrating in layperson discussions of “American vs British” English is that examples of nonstandard (i.e. regional or other specific dialect, but also simple examples of errors) American English get compared to RP, ignoring the cornucopia of regional dialects in the UK and Ireland, most of which are scarcely closer to RP than General American dialect is! Many of those dialects retain historical features that American English also preserved.

And some of them were brought to USA as well. I don’t know as much formal history about it, but it hasn’t escaped my notice that one of the two (modern) native dialects of Dublin sounds astoundingly close to (modern) American English. Given that the Irish came to USA in droves, later than the English, it stands to reason that their dialect(s) would have a palpable influence on American speech.

I think you've nailed it with you last paragraph: Irish English had more of an influence on American English, than what was spoken in South-East England. Heck, I would also bet that it was also true to some degree for the Bristol, Lancashire and Cheshire dialects, because they have big ports where people immigrated to the US.

Yep.

Thanks for straightening that up.

However, in the case of “solder”, the etymology is known, and the later immigration patterns are not relevant.

The question is when did which pronunciation of the world solder become dominant?

Whilst it isn't impossible the L was silent before English travelled to America and the Brits started pronouncing it, it does seem unlikely because that's not what normally happens. The idea that both pronunciations were common 250 years ago makes more sense.

Fine, I'll leave you and the Kid to debate it out. 

Oh, just one last thing. I spent most of my formative years in South East London and I never heard anyone pronounce it sO wder.

Are you sure? Have you listened to pronunciation in the poll?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/pronunciation-of-the-word-solder/msg2044675/#msg2044675

[PlainName]

... such as changing the spelling of "tire" to "tyre".

Seems logical to me: vastly different meanings. There should be a rule that a particular spelling can only mean one thing 

Once we've exhausted this, how about starting on punctuation?

The point is that “tire” is not an American corruption of “tyre” (as the British often assume), but rather that the whole world originally spelled it “tire” and then the UK independently changed to “tyre”. One can argue whether that is a good or bad change, but the point is that it was the UK that changed its spelling, not USA.

You're seeing something that isn't there and then berating me for it! I don't care who originated the original word or who may or may not have had it corrupted. The only thing I was commenting on was the change to a different spelling.

[SteveThackery]

Are you sure? Have you listened to pronunciation in the poll?

Regarding pronouncing the letter 'l' (ell) as 'ooo', Londoners don't know they do it, but I can say for sure that they do - I have family from London.

It's hard for non-Londoners to mimic. Normally the letter 'l' (ell) is pronounced with the front upper surface of the tongue touching the roof of the mouth just behind the upper front teeth. In London the tongue remains down in the lower jaw, and the 'ooo' sound is made with the lips forming a small, roundish opening.

Three things to note:

1/ The 'ooo' sound is much tighter than the 'oo' in roof or pool. In fact, I've observed that quite often the lips are tightly pursed and pushed forwards into a kind of pout. It's fleeting and not easy to spot.

2/ The substitution of the letter 'l' with 'ooo' is not universal, and is mostly only when the word ends in an 'l' sound. For example, the river 'Wandle' and 'bottle' both finish with the 'ooo' sound, but 'clever' and 'wallet' keep their normal 'l' sound.

3/ There are exceptions to rule 2. For example, 'brilliant' is pronounced a bit like this: 'bri-ooo-yunt. So the 'ooo' in this case is in the middle of the word.

[andy3055]

How does one pronounce " older?" Now, add an "s" in front. 

[SteveThackery]

How does one pronounce " older?" Now, add an "s" in front. 

You are missing something. It isn't just whether the 'l' is silent - it's the first vowel sound that differs, too.

My American friends pronounce the word like this: "sodder". The 'o' is the short sound as in prodder, fodder, rodder.

In the UK we pronounce it "soulder". So the first syllable rhymes with soul, bowl, shoal, and the 'l' is pronounced.

Very occasionally someone will make the first syllable like the American pronunciation but still with the 'l' sound: "sollder", but this is much less common than "soulder".

I haven't listened to a Londoner pronounce "solder", so I don't know if the 'l' gets transmuted to 'ooo'. I think it probably doesn't.

[IanB]

Regarding pronouncing the letter 'l' (ell) as 'ooo', Londoners don't know they do it, but I can say for sure that they do - I have family from London.

What you are describing is seemingly called L-vocalisation. Normally the L in a word like milk is a "dark L", pronounced with the back of the tongue (unlike a "light L", pronounced with the front of the tongue). But in some accents, like Cockney, the dark L can get vocalized into a W or OO sound. This vocalization never happens with a light L. the word "light" never becomes wight.

"Shoulder" is a good word to compare with "solder", actually. When I say shoulder, I don't really say the L. The vowel sound just glides into the D, and the L sort of disappears. That is what a dark L means. Now replace the SH with an S and you get solder. They sound exactly the same in my accent, apart from the initial consonant.

[tooki]

... such as changing the spelling of "tire" to "tyre".

Seems logical to me: vastly different meanings. There should be a rule that a particular spelling can only mean one thing 

Once we've exhausted this, how about starting on punctuation?

The point is that “tire” is not an American corruption of “tyre” (as the British often assume), but rather that the whole world originally spelled it “tire” and then the UK independently changed to “tyre”. One can argue whether that is a good or bad change, but the point is that it was the UK that changed its spelling, not USA.

You're seeing something that isn't there and then berating me for it! I don't care who originated the original word or who may or may not have had it corrupted. The only thing I was commenting on was the change to a different spelling.

I don’t know what it is you think I’m seeing, and I didn’t berate you in any way, shape, or form! All I commented on was the evolution of the “tyre” spelling.

[Gyro]

Fine, I'll leave you and the Kid to debate it out. 

Oh, just one last thing. I spent most of my formative years in South East London and I never heard anyone pronounce it sO wder.

Are you sure? Have you listened to pronunciation in the poll?
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/pronunciation-of-the-word-solder/msg2044675/#msg2044675

Yes and yes, and no I don't recognize it, it sounds highly exaggerated - more like 'Eastenders' (TV soap), also exaggerated.

I suspect that for it to be representative, you would need to include parents' places of upbringing, social mobility, 'affluence' and maybe even post code in somewhere as artificially compressed as London, for it to to be a meaningful representation. To someone brought up in South East London between the  ages 4 and 18 with Yorkshire parents (of Coal mining families) and having my Yorkshire accent beaten out of me at school to be presumably replaced by a South East one. What qualifies as South East London has changed over the years too [Edit: it extends out to places like Sidcup and Bexley now. They were  in Kent in my day, huge range of accents].

I'm sure the same must apply to very many 'Londoners', drawn in by upwardly mobile employment prospects in the early '60s. My father pronounced solder as spelt too.


Later Edit: I've just been listening closely to Mark Steel on the radio. He was born in Swanley, technically Kent but more or less on the the South East London limit. Even though having a fairly strong South East accent, he very clearly pronounces his 'L's. I doubt there is some kind of sharp transition to 'O' at the border.

[PlainName]

... such as changing the spelling of "tire" to "tyre".

Seems logical to me: vastly different meanings. There should be a rule that a particular spelling can only mean one thing 

Once we've exhausted this, how about starting on punctuation?

The point is that “tire” is not an American corruption of “tyre” (as the British often assume), but rather that the whole world originally spelled it “tire” and then the UK independently changed to “tyre”. One can argue whether that is a good or bad change, but the point is that it was the UK that changed its spelling, not USA.

You're seeing something that isn't there and then berating me for it! I don't care who originated the original word or who may or may not have had it corrupted. The only thing I was commenting on was the change to a different spelling.

I don’t know what it is you think I’m seeing, and I didn’t berate you in any way, shape, or form! All I commented on was the evolution of the “tyre” spelling.

Then your comment was completely irrelevant to mine, and by attaching it you've confused the issues. Just show how you thought I was discussing who made up what word, or admit you commented to the wrong post, please.

[tooki]

I still dispute that American English has changed less than British English. History is written by the winners after all, so it shouldn't be surprising it's what you've been taught, given the fact the USA is a dominant cultural power. I have also informatively studied some social science, although not linguistics and I take some of it with a grain of salt, because it isn't a matter of right or wrong as is the case for hard sciences such as engineering. It isn't as though there are recordings from 250 years ago to prove one way or the other.

I resent the insinuation that I’m only saying that because of patriotism: as I already explained, this is the conclusion of British historical linguists of the English language in England.

Where did I say anything about patriotism? It's what you've been taught. Nothing to do with where you're from.

If you did not intend it as “educated in the US” means “educated according to a nationalistic American interpretation of history”, then why do you keep bringing up where I studied linguistics? Are you implying that the location of my education makes its content untrustworthy? Why do you think that linguistics professors in USA, many of whom are not Americans, would teach a different history than anywhere else?

I said nothing of the kind. I merely stated that history is written by the winners, which is the USA. You could have studied in England, Australia, South Africa etc. and I would have said the same, because I see the US influence in many other areas of academia, but that's another topic.

OK, I suppose. Though as I showed, the phenomenon has been observed since before the US had cultural dominance.

Well sure it has, because that is a myth! But that is also not what I said.

You started this discussion when you said the British bastardised English more than the Americans.

Right, after making clear in an obviously hyperbolic post that “bastardized” is me paraphrasing the British who love to trot that out when commenting on American English.

But also, once again, because we need to be very clear on this point: saying “the British bastardized it  more” DOES NOT mean “American English was the original”!! I did not say that, so stop insisting I did.

However, in the case of “solder”, the etymology is known, and the later immigration patterns are not relevant.

The question is when did which pronunciation of the world solder become dominant?

Whilst it isn't impossible the L was silent before English travelled to America and the Brits started pronouncing it, it does seem unlikely because that's not what normally happens. The idea that both pronunciations were common 250 years ago makes more sense.

As I already explained at least once, this word is documented as originating without it, and being relatinized later on in England.