I suppose this is extreme pedantry on my part, and definitely goes under the heading of trivial concerns in the face of the devastation wrought by Katrina (the one with the storm surge, not to be confused with the one with the "Waves"), but something has been bugging me the last couple of days: The persistent mispronunciation of "Biloxi."
I wasn’t going to say anything, but NPR just woke me up with yet another such offense. Rather than explain it myself, I’ll refer you to this blog entry. I’m assuming the "Gray Ghost" knows whereof he speaks — or maybe I just think so because this is the way I have always said it. If someone knows differently, and has authoritative proof that the way we usually hear it via broadcast media is correct, I’m all ears.
Oh, and by the way, it’s not that I frequent the site where I found that item. It appears to be a bit out there on the libertarian fringe for my tastes. I found the above-referenced posting by Googling "pronounce Biloxi." I was unable to find anything authoritative-looking — such as, say, a ruling from the Biloxi Chamber of Commerce or something like that. About the only sites that even brought up the subject were the sort that concern themselves with "Biscuits, grits and such." That’s the vaunted Information Superhighway for you. When I run into brick walls such as this one, I wonder why Al Gore bothered to invent the blamed thing to begin with.
Michael Daly has a great column about a Big Apple / Biloxi connection in today’s NY Daily News.
It sounds like a great idea.
RE: Katrina. What aobut this headline:
“What’s Wrong With Looting?” Personally, I don’t see a reason on earth why struggling people who have lost everything shouldn’t help themselves in Walgreen’s, etc. The store will never able to use or sell that merchandise. If someone can use the diapers, T-shirts, or whatever, why not? Why don’t the retailers just invite folks to help themselves?
What do you think?
Jackie Perrone jacper@juno.com
If you try one search, and it doesn’t work, and then you don’t try a different search or approach and instead complain about how the Internet didn’t yield the information you wanted, maybe the problem isn’t with the Internet. Maybe the problem is that you’re stupid.
If there were only some sort of document (paper or online) that presented words along with their pronunciations. It could include definitions as well! I wonder why someone hasn’t invented a document like that.
Or maybe they have. . .
Oh, come on — dictionaries are SO 18th century. And I have to use one all day at my real work, so it would be such a drag to haul it out while blogging.
Besides, mine — Webster’s New World College Dictionary, which is the official one we use for style purposes here at the paper — wimps out and gives BOTH pronunciations. Although it does give the right one first, indicating that is the preferred one, it still allows as how both are allowable.
And when I’m being pedantic, I tend not to settle for that. Stupid me, and all that.
“Although it does give the right one first, indicating that is the preferred one, it still allows as how both are allowable.”
Well, that should have taken care of it, then. If a dictionary lists both pronunciations as acceptable, how is it an “offense” to use one instead of another?
“I wasn’t going to say anything,”
Yeah, you should have followed your first impulse.