BBC new wrecking havoc daily

Question

e.g. newsreader (?) 15 April ("wrecking havoc"), and "Though for the Day" speaker yesterday ("wreck havoc").

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]e.g. newsreader (?) 15 April ("wrecking havoc"), and "Though for the Day" speaker yesterday ("wreck havoc").[/nq]
I do wish you had written a complete sentence. You must be talking about pronuniciation, right? Not spelling.
I quoted a dictionary a few days ago showing that "rek" is a legitimate pronunciation of "wreak".

Best wishes Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]e.g. newsreader (?) 15 April ("wrecking havoc"), and "Though for the Day" speaker yesterday ("wreck havoc").[/nq]
[nq:1]I do wish you had written a complete sentence. You must be talking about pronuniciation, right? Not spelling.It is very ... personnel employed by the British Broadcasting Corporation - or any other UK broadcaster - to employ the British English pronunciation.[/nq]
US citizens should feel free to mangle the language in any way they please, but not to seek to impose US variants on posters using .co.uk addresses.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I do wish you had written a complete sentence. You must be talking about pronuniciation, right? Not spelling.[/nq]
[nq:1]It is very difficult (he said, being careful as admonished to construct a complete sentence) to tell what spelling a ... and "Though" should have been "Thought", but these were typos - regrettable, but no more so than your own "pronuniciation".[/nq]
"Thought" I got. The "new" in the subject line I didn't understand at all.
[nq:2]I quoted a dictionary a few days ago showing that "rek" is a legitimate pronunciation of "wreak".[/nq]
[nq:1]IIRC, you quoted Merriam-Webster. This gives US pronunciations, whereas UK listeners quite reasonably expect personnel employed by the British Broadcasting ... the language in any way they please, but not to seek to impose US variants on posters using .co.uk addresses.[/nq]
Of course not. But, contrary to your impression, M-W does include more than US pronunciations only. Checking a few where the US & UK vary:

Main Entry: 1 clerk
Pronunciation: 'kl&rk, British usually 'klärk
Main Entry: 1 mis·sile
Pronunciation: 'mi-s&l, chiefly British -"sIl
Main Entry: lab·o·ra·to·ry
Pronunciation: 'la-b(&-)r&-"tOr-E, -"tor- sometimes 'la-b&(r)-" or l&-'bor-&-", British usually
l&-'bär-&-t(&-)rE
The "wreak" pronunciation did not say British, just "also".

If this bothers you, have you considered sending a note to the BBC?

Of course, there's a chance they'll say that "rek" is the time-honored ancient version, and "reek" is an ignorant modern upstart.

However, if you can stand to hear evidence from another American, the symbols in Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary suggest that it was pronounced then like "leak" and "weak," not like "break" and "steak," nor like "wreck." He did not try to show the pronunciation of every word, though.

Best wishes Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]....contrary to your impression, M-W does include more than US pronunciations only. Checking a few where the US & UK ... British -"sIl Main Entry: lab·o·ra·to·ry Pronunciation: 'la-b(&-)r&-"tOr-E, -"tor- sometimes 'la-b&(r)-" or l&-'bor-&-", British usually l&-'bär-&-t(&-)rE[/nq]
But we're discussing "wreak".
[nq:1]However, if you can stand to hear evidence from another American, the symbols in Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary suggest that ... not like "break" and "steak," nor like "wreck." He did not try to show the pronunciation of every word, though.[/nq]
I'm sure you're not suggesting that the BBC should use an American dictionary from 1828 as its authority on current UK pronunciation. The word "wreak" which started this off is a case in point: over here, it's been "reek" for as long as I can recall - certainly it's the pronunciation used by my teachers more than 50 years ago, and still used by the majority in UK (whatever their social/educational backgrounds) today.

UK broadcasters, newsreaders, commentators, pundits and politicians, seem to delight in introducing non-standard pronunciations which become current for a few weeks/months, then the pronunciation reverts to the established or "normal" again. A good example was Tutenkhamen, who a few years ago became "tu-TEN-ka-MOON" for a long time, maybe a year or more, but has now, apparently, reverted to the "TU-ten-KA-men" pronunciation we grew up with.
As for dropping a note to the BBC, I believe that pronunciation is by far the biggest single issue raised in all listener/viewer correspondence to the Corporation, and one more note on one single word is unlikely to change the current fad. The BBC is notorious for paying scant attention to complaints of a much more serious nature, though they, like T. Blair, always claim they "listen"! I'll just wait around till "wreck" drifts back to "reek".
Regards,
WS

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]....contrary to your impression, M-W does include more than US ... 'la-b(&-)r&-"tOr-E, -"tor- sometimes 'la-b&(r)-" or l&-'bor-&-", British usually l&-'bär-&-t(&-)rE[/nq]
[nq:1]But we're discussing "wreak".[/nq]
Yes, but you gave, as a reason for not being satisfied with my ealier reply to Mark Daniels (Email Removed):
[nq:2]IIRC, you quoted Merriam-Webster. This gives US pronunciations[/nq]
My point above was that if there had been a distinctive difference in general US and UK pronunciations, M-W would quite likely have indicated it. We may conclude that it is possible that "rek" is a longstanding, legitimate variant in the UK as well that you (and I)(and Mark Daniels) just don't happen to have noticed before. It's not sufficient proof. But just being in an American dictionary doesn't make it American.
[nq:2]However, if you can stand to hear evidence from another ... not try to show the pronunciation of every word, though.[/nq]
[nq:1]I'm sure you're not suggesting that the BBC should use an American dictionary from 1828 as its authority on current UK pronunciation.[/nq]
I'm glad you are sure. I spend very little time recommending that anybody use anything as an authority. (As "resources," yes.) I brought in Noah Webster after I raised the possibility that "rek" might be an old pronunciation. There are few sources we can turn to about the history of pronunciation, for evidence about the ways words used to be said. His 1828 dictionary, which is in print and on line, is one of the few.
[nq:1]The word "wreak" which started this off is a case in point: over here, it's been "reek" for as long ... my teachers more than 50 years ago, and still used by the majority in UK (whatever their social/educational backgrounds) today.[/nq]
I would say the same for the US. It's not an everyday word, however, in case that has any bearing on the matter; it's one of those encountered more often in print than in conversation with family and friends. I think words in that category are more likely to develop variant pronunciations.
[nq:1]UK broadcasters, newsreaders, commentators, pundits and politicians, seem to delight in introducing non-standard pronunciations which become current for a few ... nature, though they, like T. Blair, always claim they "listen"! I'll just wait around till "wreck" drifts back to "reek".[/nq]
Well, do as you think best. But deciding that protest won't do any good is always a strong justification for apathy. On the other hand, which is more likely to bring about change writing us here, or writing them?

Best - Donna Richoux
An American living in the Netherlands

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]e.g. newsreader (?) 15 April ("wrecking havoc"), and "Though for the Day" speaker yesterday ("wreck havoc").[/nq]
[nq:1]I do wish you had written a complete sentence. You must be talking about pronuniciation, right? Not spelling. I quoted a dictionary a few days ago showing that "rek" is a legitimate pronunciation of "wreak". Best wishes Donna Richoux[/nq]
Saw it, but you quoted Merriam Webster if I recall, an AmE dictionary (?)

BBC=BrE. Have NEVER heard "'reking' havoc'" in BrE.

Mark Daniels

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]e.g. newsreader (?) 15 April ("wrecking havoc"), and "Though for the Day" speaker yesterday ("wreck havoc").[/nq]
[nq:1]I do wish you had written a complete sentence. You must be talking about pronuniciation, right? Not spelling. I quoted a dictionary a few days ago showing that "rek" is a legitimate pronunciation of "wreak". Best wishes Donna Richoux[/nq]
Saw it, but you quoted Merriam Webster if I recall, an AmE dictionary (?)

BBC=BrE. Have NEVER heard "'reking' havoc'" in BrE.

Mark Daniels

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I do wish you had written a complete sentence. You ... legitimate pronunciation of "wreak". Best wishes Donna Richoux[/nq]
[nq:1]Saw it, but you quoted Merriam Webster if I recall, an AmE dictionary (?) BBC=BrE. Have NEVER heard "'reking' havoc'" in BrE.[/nq]
Mark, I have two substantial replies to "Shakeshaft" on the same issue, perhaps you'd be good enough to read those as well.

As I said, I never heard of "rek" either. But experience has taught me that variants I've never heard of, especially when uttered by reputable sources, are often in dictionaries and there it was.

Did you check any British dictionaries?
PS - I didn't recognize your name at first, but when Bob did, I remembered your posting from the middle of the Yugoslavian wars. It's good you can join us again.

Best Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Mark, I have two substantial replies to "Shakeshaft" on the same issue, perhaps you'd be good enough to read those ... when uttered by reputable sources, are often in dictionaries and there it was. Did you check any British dictionaries?[/nq]
Collins 21st Century gives only /ri:k/. And a jolly good thing, too.

Mike.

BBC new wrecking havoc daily

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions