"processeez" --- a history of mispronunciation and a prognosis, please

Question

--

Usenet · Accepted Answer

--

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the plural of "process" has been around? For the last ... do you suppose it will take for the infection to spread? Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?[/nq]
I heard something like that about 10 years ago, from Ralph Nader's sister (can't remember her name), talking about 'little injusticeez'. I was tempted to hear it as 'injusticies', to make it less irritating.

john

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the plur=al of "process" has been around? For the last ... do you suppose it will take for the infection to spread? =Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?[/nq]
[nq:1]Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the plur=al of "process" has been around? For the last ... do you suppose it will take for the infection to spread? =Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?[/nq]
I have a *Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,* (C) 1981, which shows the "-eez" pronunciation as a standard one, just as the current Collegiate does. It would take some years for "-eez" to have become a standard pronunciation, so it would have to have first occurred several years before 1981.I now see that the *Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary* online shows the "-eez" pronunciations (it has two of them, with different pronunciations for the middle vowel) with an obelus (for which they use a division sign, ), a mark they use to label a controversial pronunciation used by standard speakers. If this is, as I suspect, the same pronunciations as those used in the *Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary,* Unabridged, then that would mean that the "-eez" pronunciations were in a transitional state in 1961, from not being used by standard speakers, to being used by standard speakers as a controversial usage, to being used by standard speakers as a usage recognized as standard by several American dictionaries, including, besides the Collegiate, the AHD4 and the RHUD at Infoplease.com .

The entry for "process" in that last dictionary is probably unchanged from 1993, because that was the last time the *Random House Unabridged Dictionary,* 2nd ed., upon which the Infoplease.com version is likely based, was last revised.

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA=20
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of ... spread? Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?[/nq]
[nq:1]I have a *Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,* (C) 1981, which shows the "-eez" pronunciation as a standard one, just as ... last time the *Random House Unabridged Dictionary,* 2nd ed., upon which the Infoplease.com version is likely based, was last revised.[/nq]
The Webster's Collegiate 5th Ed (1946) shows three ways to pronounce the ending of "processes." The e of end, the i of ill, and marked "Anat. occas." the e of eve.
The 1913 Webster's on-line doesn't show pronunciations, but I notice there that the "anatomical" meaning of "process" is a special one:
4. (Anat. & Zoöl.) Any marked prominence orprojecting part, especially of a bone; anapophysis.

That's in the later Websters, too.
The 1828 Webster's doesn't discuss the plural. I notice that it marks the "proc-" part to be pronounced in the current US way, not the "pro-" of "procedure." I also see that Noah indicates a preference for "procede" to match "precede" and "recede", but he didn't get his way on that one, did he.

Best Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Anyone got any idea how long that irritating mispronunciation of the plural of "process" has been around? For the last ... "thesis, theses" or "basis, bases". A friend of mine insists that he's been hearing it for at least 10 years.[/nq]
I remember it from the 1950s. I think it started among ignorant academics. I would not swear to the identification, but I seem to remember Robert M. Hutchins, of the University of Chicago, talking that way on a visit to Caltech about 1956. It sounded pompous & silly at the time.
The OED takes no note of it.
[nq:1]Also, how long do you suppose it will take for the infection to spread? Will we soon be hearing of mattresseez and actresseez?[/nq]
Says W. V. O. Quine in Quiddities (1987) s.v. Plurals:

Why in ***'s name? It is not something these people grew up with. (Actually, by that time it might have been.) Do they think they are being scholarly about a Greco-Latin plural, as in bases , crises , and probosces ? (Oy, Professor Quine! The Greek plural is "proboscides"; the OED calls "probosces" "Erron.". Beware the proboscides of the Anopheles!) Will they venture a singular processis ? Or will they move on to horsees and assees ?
Speaking of axes, chop off their heads.

Joe Fineman joe (Email Removed)

Usenet · Answer

I remember hearing it in the 1970s, from the same people why thought the plutal of "diocese" was "dioceez".

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I remember hearing it in the 1970s, from the same people why thought the plutal of "diocese" was "dioceez".[/nq]
UONYGAWURJV(HR).

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Says W. V. O. Quine in Quiddities (1987) s.v. Plurals:(snip) Will they venture a singular processis ? Or will they move on to horsees and assees ?[/nq]
I first heard "processeez" in a quality control course, maybe 10 years ago. Several instructors used it; I suspect they all picked it up from the head instructor. Occasionally one went so far as to use "processee" as the singular. It was a struggle not to laugh out loud.

Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I first heard "processeez" in a quality control course, maybe 10 years ago. Several instructors used it; I suspect they ... one went so far as to use "processee" as the singular. It was a struggle not to laugh out loud.[/nq]
Indeed...the singular should be "procex".

Usenet · Answer

Ray Heindl:
[nq:2]I first heard "processeez" in a quality control course, maybe ... singular. It was a struggle not to laugh out loud.[/nq]
Richard Fontana:
[nq:1]Indeed...the singular should be "procex".[/nq]
Wot, not "processis"?

Mark Brader, Toronto > This process can check if this value is zero, and if (Email Removed) > it is, it does something child-like. F. Burkowski

"processeez" --- a history of mispronunciation and a prognosis, please

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬