Plural of "process"

[Charles Doyle]

Well, possibly--except (as far as I am aware) no one
pluralizes "recess" as /ri s@ siz/.  Perhaps a significant
difference from "process" lies in the existence of the
competing pronounciation of the noun "recess" with the
second syllable stressed.

Charlie


---- Original message ----

>Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 23:34:52 -0400
>From: "Mark A. Mandel" <mamandel at LDC.UPENN.EDU>
>Subject:      Re: Fake Latin plural . . .
>------------------------------------------------------------

>Charles Doyle <cdoyle at UGA.EDU> writes:
>
>And then there's the plural of "process" pronounced
>/pro s@ siz/ (with secondary stress on the final syllable),
>which I used to associate with the speech of pretentious
>pseudo-intellectuals, but now it sounds almost normal (maybe
>I am becoming one of those!).
>
> <<<<<
>
>That one at least has something of an excuse: three
sibilants in a row separated only by lax front vowels tend
to blur into a barely modulated hiss. Tensing the vowel of
the last syllable makes it much more pronounceable, in my
opinion (and mouth).
>
>-- Mark

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org