[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.19.31. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
December 5, 1980

Incorrect Pronunciation

Author Affiliations

Wilmington Medical Center Wilmington, Del

JAMA. 1980;244(22):2520-2521. doi:10.1001/jama.1980.03310220022013

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor.—  I am aware that a language needs to evolve to remain healthy. I applaud the introduction of new slang and the development of new twists and meanings for words through usage. I do not side with the purists who regard all such evolution as contamination of the mother tongue, but I do deplore changes that come about through ignorance and that corrupt and diminish the language.One of these is the currently widespread pronunciation of the word "processes" so that it rhymes with "sees" and as if it were the plural form for a singular word ending in "is." There is absolutely no excuse for "pro-cess-sees." The word does not exist, and I refuse to be dragged into a world where it becomes the norm just because many people say it that way and where pronouncing it correctly will be viewed with suspicion. I refuse to accept

×