Sherbet

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: George P Burdell
Both are OK, listen to audio:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sherbet

Yes, it is now a variant in some dictionaries, resulting from many people saying the word incorrectly. It is even harder for me to believe that people can actually spell it that way than to say it.

Many people say a word or two the wrong way. Sometimes an error catches on, for whatever reason.

So then "sherbert" is good English.

No. It's a corruption that has started to show up in some dictionaries due to extreme abuse by the untutored masses. It is also still a top way to point yourself out as a dumbass.

Yes, let's just forget the fact that the pronunciation is so ingrained in our vernacular that over 3/4 of the people who responded use it. Or ignore the acceptance of it by the foremost dictionaries. I mean, obviously something so pervasive can't possible be accepted English. If you're going to be so pretentious as to ignore the evolution of language then you might as well start complaining about how we no longer use the thorn.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: George P Burdell
Both are OK, listen to audio:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sherbet

Yes, it is now a variant in some dictionaries, resulting from many people saying the word incorrectly. It is even harder for me to believe that people can actually spell it that way than to say it.

Many people say a word or two the wrong way. Sometimes an error catches on, for whatever reason.

So then "sherbert" is good English.

No. It's a corruption that has started to show up in some dictionaries due to extreme abuse by the untutored masses. It is also still a top way to point yourself out as a dumbass.

Yes, let's just forget the fact that the pronunciation is so ingrained in our vernacular that over 3/4 of the people who responded use it. Or ignore the acceptance of it by the foremost dictionaries. I mean, obviously something so pervasive can't possible be accepted English. If you're going to be so pretentious as to ignore the evolution of language then you might as well start complaining about how we no longer use the thorn.

This is ATOT, where words such as "rediculous" and "definately" also pop up with some regularity. In answer to previous posters-- no, using the corruption "sherbert" is not good English. The appearance of a corruption in a dictionary is a mere note of its occurrence in usage by some people, not a note that it is good English.

Don't let me dissuade you, though. Paint yourself as a dumbass all you like.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: zoiks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbet

that confirmed what I always thought, at least the link to the sorbet wiki did:
in the US, sorbet is essentially a type of italian ice, using only flavorings and water
sherbet/sherbert (seen it spelled both ways on containers at the grocery store) is more closely related to ice cream, but uses more fruit juices than milk-based products, so it's not as creamy as ice cream.

+

 

[imported_Baloo]

Pop and Soda are both correct too. It's a sure sign of stupidity if one doesn't recognise different ways to pronounce the same word.

 

[technophile82]

how about...

"route"

*runs away*

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Baloo
Pop and Soda are both correct too. It's a sure sign of stupidity if one doesn't recognise different ways to pronounce the same word.

No, "pop" and "soda" are two entirely different words. What we have with "sherbert" is a corruption based on the illiteracy of some people, which has spread to the point of partial recognition in dictionaries.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Baloo
Pop and Soda are both correct too. It's a sure sign of stupidity if one doesn't recognise different ways to pronounce the same word.

No, "pop" and "soda" are two entirely different words. What we have with "sherbert" is a corruption based on the illiteracy of some people, which has spread to the point of partial recognition in dictionaries.

Since when did "variant" come to mean "partial recognition"? You ever thought that you're the one that is arbitrarily making up rules for English?

This is ATOT, where words such as "rediculous" and "definately" also pop up with some regularity. In answer to previous posters-- no, using the corruption "sherbert" is not good English. The appearance of a corruption in a dictionary is a mere note of its occurrence in usage by some people, not a note that it is good English.

Except they don't appear in the dictionary as valid spellings.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Baloo
Pop and Soda are both correct too. It's a sure sign of stupidity if one doesn't recognise different ways to pronounce the same word.

No, "pop" and "soda" are two entirely different words. What we have with "sherbert" is a corruption based on the illiteracy of some people, which has spread to the point of partial recognition in dictionaries.

Since when did "variant" come to mean "partial recognition"? You ever thought that you're the one that is arbitrarily making up rules for English?

Despite the fact that a dictionary notes a word as a variant, it does not automatically become good English. If you used this word in a magazine article, the editor would correct your mistake, and so on.

Again-- I don't want you to think I am somehow standing in the way of your linguistic abuse. Abuse away; you'll only make yourself look stupid. However, the fact that a dictionary, or two, or three notes a corruption as a "variant", and then you can point to ATOT posters of all people as in the majority if abusers, does not make a corruption good English.

Except they don't appear in the dictionary as valid spellings.

They are as valid as "sherbert". "Definately" is "so ingrained in our vernacular" that many ATOT posters use it as well-- and you were using this as an indicator of correctness.

 

[punchkin]

Here's another.

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: punchkin
In related news, nearly 5/6 of ATOT posters are borderline illiterate.

EDIT: Looks like it's closer to 4/5. Kudos, ATOT! Only 4/5 of you are retards.

This has been proven countless times before, such as one of the many plane-on-a-conveyor threads.

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Baloo
Pop and Soda are both correct too. It's a sure sign of stupidity if one doesn't recognise different ways to pronounce the same word.

No, "pop" and "soda" are two entirely different words. What we have with "sherbert" is a corruption based on the illiteracy of some people, which has spread to the point of partial recognition in dictionaries.

Since when did "variant" come to mean "partial recognition"? You ever thought that you're the one that is arbitrarily making up rules for English?

This is ATOT, where words such as "rediculous" and "definately" also pop up with some regularity. In answer to previous posters-- no, using the corruption "sherbert" is not good English. The appearance of a corruption in a dictionary is a mere note of its occurrence in usage by some people, not a note that it is good English.

Except they don't appear in the dictionary as valid spellings.

The variant is spelled differently. For the word sherbet, with one r, there is only one accepted pronunciation.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Baloo
Pop and Soda are both correct too. It's a sure sign of stupidity if one doesn't recognise different ways to pronounce the same word.

No, "pop" and "soda" are two entirely different words. What we have with "sherbert" is a corruption based on the illiteracy of some people, which has spread to the point of partial recognition in dictionaries.

Since when did "variant" come to mean "partial recognition"? You ever thought that you're the one that is arbitrarily making up rules for English?

Despite the fact that a dictionary notes a word as a variant, it does not automatically become good English. If you used this word in a magazine article, the editor would correct your mistake, and so on.

Again-- I don't want you to think I am somehow standing in the way of your linguistic abuse. Abuse away; you'll only make yourself look stupid. However, the fact that a dictionary, or two, or three notes a corruption as a "variant", and then you can point to ATOT posters of all people as in the majority if abusers, does not make a corruption good English.

Except they don't appear in the dictionary as valid spellings.

They are as valid as "sherbert". "Definately" is "so ingrained in our vernacular" that many ATOT posters use it as well-- and you were using this as an indicator of correctness.

It certainly makes it accepted English, and to tell you the truth if you're getting this bent out of shape over it then I'm more than happy over the fact that 3/4 of the people you meet will say sherbert.

 

[Drako]

The same people who pronounce sherbet with a second "r", are the same people that pronounce the "t" in often

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire
It certainly makes it accepted English, and to tell you the truth if you're getting this bent out of shape over it then I'm more than happy over the fact that 3/4 of the people you meet will say sherbert.

I'm not bent out of shape, just pointing out the obvious. There you go again, pointing to the results of ATOT survey as if it's indicative of the general public... moronic. (shrug)