"Sickth"

ColinM

"Now, you might say I'm a ranter, but I'm not the only one" - John Lennon (nearly).

Anyway, in my crusade to point out other people's language deficiencies, I would like to bring to your attention somthing else that makes me want to reach out and asphyxiate someone.

I was watching the Formula One today on ITV. Martin Brundle was there again with his infuriating pronunciation of "sixth". Whenever someone is in sixth place, he says "sickth place". I have a feeling that this is not a speech impediment, but actually a colloquial prononciation from some area of England. I once caught a previous (English) girlfriend saying sickth. Needless to say, I dumped her right away. I now notice some Irish people beginning to pronounce the word this way aswell.

Anyone else care to get as irrationally worked up about this as I am?

simu

Yes, I also find this very irritating.
Another example of what I consider to be sloppy pronunciation is saying "ack-shully" for actually.

I think that many people don't make any attempt to enunciate when they speak - in shops, cafés etc, I often find myself getting incomprehensible, mumbled replies which I assume to imply boredom or grumpiness on the part of the speaker.

CuLT

Originally posted by ColinM
I once caught a previous (English) girlfriend saying sickth. Needless to say, I dumped her right away.

rofl. this is gold, move it to humour .

Praetorian

It's easy to notice poor pronunciation and poor grammar when listening to British commentators. I think it’s because they make different mistakes than we do. I try not to be overly critical. However, British people pronouncing Irish names incorrectly annoys me a lot. Take for example the name Doherty, somehow 99% of British people exchange the h for a k, and say Dokerty.

I believe it’s wise to improve ones own spelling, grammar and pronunciation before giving out about others!

Talliesin

Originally posted by ColinM
I have a feeling that this is not a speech impediment, but actually a colloquial prononciation from some area of England.

So then it is in fact a perfectly valid language variance.

While you may talk in accent-less "B.B.C. English" the rest of us have every right not to (though in my case saying "sickth" is a hang-over from my childhood speech impediment).

It probably drives you mad that most people in this country pronounce the name of "H" "Haich" rather than "Aitch" but you know what?

Haich! Haich! Haich! Haich! Haich! Aitch neener-neener-neener Haich! Haich! Haich!

There, I wrote the sickth one aitch just for you

ColinM

Originally posted by simu
Yes, I also find this very irritating.

Great, I am delighted to know that I am not the only one!

Originally posted by simu
Another example of what I consider to be sloppy pronunciation is saying "ack-shully" for actually.

I will have to admit to to saying "ack-shully" instead of "act-you-alley". I have found over the years that it helps grease the wheels if you make some compromises in your diction, depending on who you're talking to. (That notion could be an idea for another thread?) At least I don't "axe" any questions though.

Originally posted by ColinM
I once caught a previous (English) girlfriend saying sickth. Needless to say, I dumped her right away.
Originally posted by CuLT
rofl. this is gold, move it to humour .

I fail to see why you should find this amusing. (I was exaggerating slightly though for effect. If I'm honest about it, I will have to admit to employing the "three strikes and you're out" rule.)

Originally posted by Praetorian
However, British people pronouncing Irish names incorrectly annoys me a lot. Take for example the name Doherty, somehow 99% of British people exchange the h for a k, and say Dokerty.

Yes, but the reason for their pronunciation of this is because the name is more correctly spelt "Docherty" (I know some people might get mad that I am telling them they can't spell their own name, but Doherty is a further anglicisation of the name to aid pronunciation. Same goes for the name Gallagher/Gallaher). An average English person would have no concept of things like consonants being silent when preceeding an "h", unless they took an interest in the study of languages. Scots who know some Gaelic would, and probably the Welsh aswell.

Originally posted by Praetorian
I believe it’s wise to improve ones own spelling, grammar and pronunciation before giving out about others!

Well, naturally! And I did make sure that I was without sin before I cast the first stone!

By the way, it shouldn't need to be pointed out, but just to preclude any English/Irish feuding - this definitely isn't a thread about mistakes that English people make when speaking. I'd like this thread to continue to be about mistakes that anybody makes when speaking.

Just to even the scales here, I should mention the "turty-tree and a turd" phenomenon. That is what English people hear when we say "thirty-three and a third"! Irish people have a tendency to aspirate consonants when they shouldn't be.

It should be carefully noted though, that this thread is primarily about Martin Brundle and the fact that for every time he says "sickth", I shall kill him.

*May not have been failing at all actually somewhere above!

ColinM

Originally posted by Talliesin
So then it is in fact a perfectly valid language variance.

If it is a colloquialism then it is valid. I say that grudgingly though. I mean, think about what makes something a colloquialism - basically enough people saying something a certain way, even if it is wrong!

Originally posted by Talliesin
It probably drives you mad that most people in this country pronounce the name of "H" "Haich" rather than "Aitch" but you know what?

The correct pronunciation of "H" is "Heych".

Talliesin

Originally posted by ColinM
The correct pronunciation of "H" is "Heych".

Until 1066. At that time many English dialects stopped using the Germanic practice of beginning the name of "H" with a h sound and adopted to Romance practice of beginning it with a vowel sound (as Romance languages tend to drop its sound altogether).

It since grew in popularity throughout England and "aitch" became more common than "haitch". However the Irish practice is generally to pronounce it "haitch" and it is found elsewhere as well (notably Australia). In Ireland it is often seen as a marker or ancestry and/or relio-political allegiance (it appears in Hiberno-English, but not in Anglo-Irish, and it is famously a way to tell "which foot you kick with" in the North).

Generally dictionaries give the pronunciation as "aitch". The OED lists "aitch" as a word, meaning the letter H, but not "haitch", "heych" or similar. The Oxford Companion gives "aitch" but notes that it is "sometimes" pronounced "haitch" in Ireland and Australia.

seamus

Originally posted by Talliesin
It probably drives you mad that most people in this country pronounce the name of "H" "Haich" rather than "Aitch" but you know what?

Which leads us to another interesting little conundrum - Should we speak the way we write, write the way we speak, or speak coloquially, and write properly?

For example, I'd always say "an hour" and "a hotel". As such I'd always write the same. To write "an hotel", confuses me, and forces me to adopt a cockney accent. As such, this kind of thing is widely accepted. Officially, as you say, there should be no 'huh' sound at the start of a(n) "h", but it's now widely accepted (and often overlooked) if someone uses an "a" before a word beginning with "h".

As such, I write the way I speak, and would always use "an" before abbreviations beginning with "s", for example, "He's an SAS paratrooper", as if I was writing "He's an ess-aye-ess paratrooper".

So I ask again - Should we speak the way we write, write the way we speak, or speak coloquially, and write properly?

simu

My answer to your questions Séamus:

You would be surprised how much speech differs from the written language. I have just spent the past week transcribing CDs and was amazed (when forced to play close attention)at the structural differences between the two - when people talk, they hesitate, change ideas in the middle of a sentence and don't always respect the most basic of grammatical rules necessary for writing the language. Writing like you speak would be very confusing, in short.

Of course, there are always exceptions - you might write in a colloquial manner to be funny, or if you were writing a play or some such thing.

Aditionally, given that we have standardised spelling, this should be adhered to as well.

As for your example - whether to put an or a before words beginning with h - I don't think anybody would fault "a hotel", that rule seems to be disappearing from the language.

For pronunciation, I know that this is constantly changing and people are free to pronounce words as they like but you should always consider the fact that some pronunciations are more desirable than others in a given situation. Saying "sikth" in a job interview would, for example, create a bad impression as people would expect an educated person to pronounce it "properly".

Basically, you should use your "social intelligence" to know what sort of language to use in any situation - When I find myself in the company of "skangers" as they're called, I try to use simpler words and roughen my accent a bit - I think it's normal, otherwise you'd alienate the people you're talking to and in the case of skangers, probably get a punch in the face for being "posh".:)

Talliesin

Originally posted by seamus
For example, I'd always say "an hour" and "a hotel". As such I'd always write the same. To write "an hotel", confuses me, and forces me to adopt a cockney accent.

The received pronounciation of hotel used to be O-tel (since it came from the French), hence "an hotel". It's now generally pronounced hO-tel. I would use "a hotel".

As such, this kind of thing is widely accepted. Officially, as you say, there should be no 'huh' sound at the start of a(n) "h", but it's now widely accepted (and often overlooked) if someone uses an "a" before a word beginning with "h".

Well I was talking about the specific case of the word for the letter, rather than all words beginning with it. The history of how these words are pronounced is rather convoluted.

As such, I write the way I speak, and would always use "an" before abbreviations beginning with "s", for example, "He's an SAS paratrooper", as if I was writing "He's an ess-aye-ess paratrooper".

Yes. Indeed I would often have to write "a HTML document" or "an HTTP connection". Generally I use the former and label whatever I've written en-IE, but if it's intended for general readership and there's no way of labelling the dialect I use the latter.

ColinM

Originally posted by Talliesin
Until 1066.

So was this what The Battle of Hastings was about then?

At that time many English dialects stopped using the Germanic practice of beginning the name of "H" with a h sound and adopted to Romance practice of beginning it with a vowel sound (as Romance languages tend to drop its sound altogether).

It since grew in popularity throughout England and "aitch" became more common than "haitch". However the Irish practice is generally to pronounce it "haitch" and it is found elsewhere as well (notably Australia). In Ireland it is often seen as a marker or ancestry and/or relio-political allegiance (it appears in Hiberno-English, but not in Anglo-Irish, and it is famously a way to tell "which foot you kick with" in the North).

Generally dictionaries give the pronunciation as "aitch". The OED lists "aitch" as a word, meaning the letter H, but not "haitch", "heych" or similar. The Oxford Companion gives "aitch" but notes that it is "sometimes" pronounced "haitch" in Ireland and Australia.

Well you brought out the big guns there, Talliesin! Still though, it's only a word because enough people say it. It's not the phonetic pronunciation key for the letter H though, is it? I don't have a subscription to OED online, but other dictionaries have the pronunciation as "a-ch", OED would probably be the same. Still though, I am arrogant enough to say that they're wrong and I'm right (although I reserve the right to quote them in the future if it helps my case!). I say this because of the reason you mentioned earlier - basically that everybody used to say "Haitch" previously (I prefer "Heytch" though because the way the other is spelt might imply you have to say it with a Cockney accent) and conciously set out to train themselves and their offspring to say "aitch" in order to differentiate themselves from the lower-orders/Irish etc.

Here's a post from a thread about the letter H in general. I think it's interesting, because it is from the other perspective:

RE: The Letter H
Posted by: Kath (astrokath@hotmail.com) on Mon, Mar 3, 03 at 22:38

I write 'a' or 'an' as I would speak it, which as others have said, depends on whether the initial 'h' of the following word is aspirated or not.
With regards to 'a' as in 'a history' being 'ay' or 'uh', I think I always say 'uh'.
I did think this was going to be a discussion of how to pronounce the letter 'H'. I was taught to say 'aitch', and my mother always impressed on me that to say 'haitch' was just not on. However, the 'haitch' pronunciation is quite prevalent, in South Australia at least, and I have heard a theory that it is an Irish usage, and that it is used by people who were educated in Catholic schools.

(sorry but I didn't see a way to link to the actual post).

Seamus - interesting conundrum alright. I'm glad Simu answered it though, cos my brain is too tired now to get going at that one. At first impression, I would guess that there is no right answer because it would sometimes depend on the circumstance. I will throw this into the mix though - ever tried to read a Roddy Doyle book?!!

And yeah, Simu,

Basically, you should use your "social intelligence" to know what sort of language to use in any situation - When I find myself in the company of "skangers" as they're called, I try to use simpler words and roughen my accent a bit - I think it's normal, otherwise you'd alienate the people you're talking to and in the case of skangers, probably get a punch in the face for being "posh".

that was what I was getting at when I said I have found that it helps grease the wheels if you make some compromises in your diction, depending on who you're talking to.
Ever feel like you were a "Lisa Simpson" ?!!

By the way, you're all off topic now - you're supposed to be helping me rant about Martin Brundle!

Talliesin

Originally posted by ColinM
I say this because of the reason you mentioned earlier - basically that everybody used to say "Haitch" previously

And everybody used to talk like:

Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne,

And now they don't. (Well, they didn't generally talk in rhyming couplets). If you have real player you can listen to this at http://www.vmi.edu/english/audio/GP-Opening.rm

That quote is more recent than the move from "Haitch" to "aitch".

(I prefer "Heytch" though because the way the other is spelt might imply you have to say it with a Cockney accent)

The Cockney tendency to drop all H's is a different, though related, phenomenon to this. In those areas where H is called "aitch" the letter is simply not seen as beginning its own name, any more than X (ex) or s (es) do.
Interestingly dropping H's has been both an indicator of low and of high status at different points in time.

conciously set out to train themselves and their offspring to say "aitch" in order to differentiate themselves from the lower-orders/Irish etc.

The Irish practice of calling H "haitch" is a re-introduction of that sound, it is a Hibernicism rather than a case of us being conservative (unlike, say, our tendency to call cupboards "presses", which was once usual in England, and still found in Yorkshire). So it's incorrect to accuse others of a conscious decision to break with the pronunciation found in your dialect.

ColinM

You know Talliesin, I really wish you would stop using facts and references in your posts. It makes it so much more difficult for me to try to counter your arguments. I'll have a quick go anyway...

Ok, I'm too lazy to quote, so I'll do a breeze-through synopsis:
-You say there was a point at which people stopped pronouncing the "H in H" and at some point many dialects of English started pronouncing it "aitch" (bear in mind what I've already said about what constitutes a dialect).
- I say that therefore, prior to this, "haitch" (or "heytch") was the correct pronunciation and that because it was original, it is best.
-You say everybody used to talk to each other in romantic sonnets - the point being that I couldn't seriously argue that because that was original that was also best, thereby introducing an inconsistency into my argument that I wouldn't be able to support.

Now to that, I say good attempt to muddy the waters there, but sure you know you were only being facetious. After your "April Showers" poem, you admit yourself that nobody did, in actuality, go around comparing each other to summer days or remarking casually how roses would smell the same even if they were called something else.

I did listen to the ram file you linked to, and while it is interesting, I'd have to say I think it's a red herring as well. (By the way I found it a bit difficult to hear it properly aswell as it seems to have been recorded at a very low level).

You say that we pronounce the "H in H" because it is a reintroduction of the sound. So are you saying that at the same time as English (or protestant) people were training themselves to drop the sound are you saying that the Irish (or catholics) were training themselves to include the sound? Do you have any references to show that the Irish deliberately set out to pronounce the sound? If you do, then this must mean that at least some Irish (or catholics) started out from a point in time when they pronounced it "aitch". So this must mean that the Irish and the English actually swapped their positions on this?!! (I think I already have provided a good contemporary reference to show that at least some English people have been actively discouraged from pronouncing it "haitch").

There were two arguments that I didn't make before for my case that the pronunciation "Heytch" (or "Haitch if you prefer) is the correct one. I didn't make them because I thought they would be understood as obvious, and also because they are trivial arguments. I will include them now though, for completeness and in case they are not obvious:

1) "The stands to reason argument": H is spelt with a H, therefore it stands to reason that it would have a H sound in it. H makes a "huh" sound.

2) "The it is self-evident" argument: Looking at the letter H, and then the two choices of pronunciation, "Haitch" looks to suit better than "Aitch".

If I'm not wrong by the way Tallesin, we began this by you presuming that I was English and preferred the pronunciation "Aitch". Did you know, by the way, that when you presume something, you make a Pres out of U and Me? (Dammit, that didn't seem to work out right for some reason!)

Also, I have to remind you again that all this is off topic. You are supposed to be helping me rant about Martin Brundle saying "Sickth". You could suggest ways in which you would kill him every time he says this, or possibly suggest ways in which you would kill other people for similar transgressions.

Talliesin

Originally posted by ColinM
Now to that, I say good attempt to muddy the waters there, but sure you know you were only being facetious. After your "April Showers" poem, you admit yourself that nobody did, in actuality, go around comparing each other to summer days or remarking casually how roses would smell the same even if they were called something else.

They did however spell like that is spelt and pronounce like the sound file pronounces, Middle English is quite different to Modern English. The most immediately noticable point is probably that the final 'e' in "soote", "roote", "sonne" and so on isn't silent.

So are you saying that at the same time as English (or protestant) people were training themselves to drop the sound are you saying that the Irish (or catholics) were training themselves to include the sound?

No, I'm saying that when the English had long forgotten about pronouncing the letter's name any other way it became a feature of Hiberno-English, largely because it seemed like the obvious way of pronouncing it. The Protestant/Catholic thing is just something that got overlaid on top of English/Irish in ways we're all familar with.

Do you have any references to show that the Irish deliberately set out to pronounce the sound?

No, nor do I believe that it was deliberate.

I think I already have provided a good contemporary reference to show that at least some English people have been actively discouraged from pronouncing it "haitch"

You would of course be actively discouraged from pronouncing it "purpleflyingfish" as well You were actively discouraging people from pronouncing "sixth" "sickth". The motivation may be snobbery, or just a belief that "haitch" is incorrect, but active discouragement in recent times does not indicate that it was a deliberate invention.

1) "The stands to reason argument": H is spelt with a H, therefore it stands to reason that it would have a H sound in it. H makes a "huh" sound.

That is the argument that is generally made by those of us who prefer haitch to aitch. It doesn't stand though given that F, L, M, N, R, S, W and X all begin with sounds they do not normally represent.

My own justification for using "haitch" is that it's what I grew up with and my dialect is as valid as any other.

2) "The it is self-evident" argument: Looking at the letter H, and then the two choices of pronunciation, "Haitch" looks to suit better than "Aitch".

Likewise we would then say "…lel, mem, nen…"

If I'm not wrong by the way Tallesin, we began this by you presuming that I was English and preferred the pronunciation "Aitch".

No, I presumed you were Irish and would therefore differ from the received pronounciation "aitch" like I do, and found it amusing to pretend I thought you would insist on people talking in a way that differs from how I guess you talked yourself. Hence showing a flaw in your insistance upon received pronounciation.

If you actually did pronounce it "aitch" it wouldn't have been anywhere near as much fun.

You are supposed to be helping me rant about Martin Brundle saying "Sickth".

As I mentioned above I pronounce it "sickth" myself, a trace of a speech impediment I had as a child. While it's mostly corrected now f, v, and both forms of th (þ and ð) cause me a few problems, and s and z are closer than they should, pronouncing þ right after s just isn't going to happen with my tongue, so it ends up "sickth".

ColinM

I've been trepidacious (if you will excuse the verbosity) about returning to this thread, because now Tallesin, not content with the use of solely facts and references, you are also resorting to logic and reason in order to give credence to your arguments.
This is now becoming such hard work that it now feels as though I should be looking forward to a paycheck for this at the end of the month.

Ok, let's begin the slog so:

They did however spell like that is spelt and pronounce like the sound file pronounces, Middle English is quite different to Modern English. The most immediately noticable point is probably that the final 'e' in "soote", "roote", "sonne" and so on isn't silent.

I dunno whether it's just because I'm feeling jaded now but I'm going to try to dismiss this with the catch-all that this has got to be a bit of a red-herring really. I just don't think that "Ye Olde Pube" style of spelling or "Forsooth"-type of speak has got any bearing on the pronunciation of the letter H.

You would of course be actively discouraged from pronouncing it "purpleflyingfish"

Ok, again you are being facetious, but what you are saying is that of course anyone would be actively discouraged from pronouncing something in a way which is grossly incorrect. However, as you have said yourself in the same post, the Irish pronounced H "Haitch" because it was the most obvious way of pronouncing it. Even if you are arguing from the "Aitch" side, you cannot say that the "Haitch" pronunciation is grossly incorrect. Therefore, there must be another reason why English people are discouraged from pronouncing it "Haitch" and I would suggest that it is more likely to be because of the desire to differentiate oneself rather than a desire for "correctness".

That is the argument that is generally made by those of us who prefer haitch to aitch. It doesn't stand though given that F, L, M, N, R, S, W and X all begin with sounds they do not normally represent.

I think it does stand, if you take into account the fact that these consonants (ignoring W as a special case) are largely impossible to utter without making use of a preceeding vowel. H does not require a preceeding vowel in order to be able to pronounce it.

My own justification for using "haitch" is that it's what I grew up with and my dialect is as valid as any other.

I have already given you my justifications for using "haitch" and I am not arguing that it is as valid as other dialects, but rather that it is more correct than other dialects in this specific regard.

No, I presumed you were Irish and would therefore differ from the received pronounciation "aitch" like I do, and found it amusing to pretend I thought you would insist on people talking in a way that differs from how I guess you talked yourself. Hence showing a flaw in your insistance upon received pronounciation.

If you actually did pronounce it "aitch" it wouldn't have been anywhere near as much fun.

No - I don't see how this can be supported at all. I just don't get that impression whatsoever from your original post. To me, it seems to imply that you thought quite the opposite. Have another read of it yourself.
In any case, it doesn't matter, because we we don't necessarily have to believe our arguments so long as we can support them, as long as this is purely a debate.

As I mentioned above I pronounce it "sickth" myself, a trace of a speech impediment I had as a child.

Well, of course this may explain why you are reluctant to join me in vilifying that Brundle blighter - people in vitreous vestibules* not being advised to throw lithic fragments and all that. However, you may want to reconsider your tolerance of him if you consider this - you say "sickth", not out of choice, but out of necessity. I get the distinct impression that Martin Brundle, and others of his ilk are deliberately choosing to say "sickth" as some sort of fashion statement. It is for this reason that they must be stopped (or killed or mercilessly and viciously tortured - whatever's your fancy).

In closing, I would also like to apologise for the overall strangeness of this post. It is now about 5am, and my neurons seem to be misfiring in a way that is producing unusual results.

*I realise that this would tend to imply a conservatory of sorts, rather than a greenhouse, but I liked the alliteration

Talliesin

Originally posted by ColinM
I'm going to try to dismiss this with the catch-all that this has got to be a bit of a red-herring really. I just don't think that "Ye Olde Pube" style of spelling or "Forsooth"-type of speak has got any bearing on the pronunciation of the letter H.

It's relevant because it is more recent than the start of the move in English from "haitch" to "aitch" and is quite different in many ways from Modern English (different enough that for most purposes it is considered a separate language). As such it counters your claim that "haitch" (heytch, whatever) is more correct because it's older - in doing so you are claiming to be correct by the standards of a form of English older than Chaucer. For that matter English was quite varied at the time, an interesting thing about the Canterbery Tales as a whole (of which that was the first few lines) is that he uses quite different dialects for different tales (including some which had the Norman habit of dropping most Hs in words, as well as in its name, and the Saxon habit of pronouncing them).

Even if you are arguing from the "Aitch" side, you cannot say that the "Haitch" pronunciation is grossly incorrect.

There are quite a few aitchers (to coin a term) who do consider haitch to be grossly incorrect, or certainly as incorrect as other common deviations from received English that some educators discourage children from (say pronouncing "yellow" "yella", using "youse" as a plural form of "you", "sixth" "sickth" etc.).

I think it does stand, if you take into account the fact that these consonants (ignoring W as a special case) are largely impossible to utter without making use of a preceeding vowel. H does not require a preceeding vowel in order to be able to pronounce it.

All of those letters can be pronounced without a preceeding vowel. Phonetic systems of teaching spelling generally use such invented letter-names as "leh, meh, neh" and so on.
Hebrew has letters called Mem and Nun (not directly comparable to M and N though).
The French letter-name for H is "ash", not "hash". The Irish letter-name however is "haych", which is may be ther reason of the Hiberno-English letter-name.

I have already given you my justifications for using "haitch" and I am not arguing that it is as valid as other dialects, but rather that it is more correct than other dialects in this specific regard.

Then back it up with something, find a dictionary that gives it as the "correct" pronounciation of the "correct" letter name.

No - I don't see how this can be supported at all. I just don't get that impression whatsoever from your original post.

You need more knowledge of how my sense of humour works

That said, I was quite prepared to defend "haitch" against "aitch" if you insisted on the latter. Your assertion that "haitch" is the correct form falls down against considerable documentary evidence that cites "aitch" as the received form which makes my job easier, but it is your assertion that only one of these forms can be correct that I oppose, whichever of the two you choose to defend.

I get the distinct impression that Martin Brundle, and others of his ilk are deliberately choosing to say "sickth" as some sort of fashion statement.

Like the way you say "haitch" when the "correct" way is "aitch"

Yoda

Phonetic assimilation is common. For "sixth" [siksþ] to reduce to [sikþ] by assimlation of the dental and the dental [þ] is not uncommon, and occurs in numerous dialects of English. Likewise, and interestingly, "sixths" is often reduced from [siksþs] to [siks] (making "he divided the cake into sixths" into "he divided the cake into six").

Yoda

Talliesin a dúirt
My own justification for using "haitch" is that it's what I grew up with and my dialect is as valid as any other.

Of course on this point you are quite correct. (Unless you suggest that the s-less plurals of euro and cent can in any way be considered natural dialect items.)

Likewise we would then say "…lel, mem, nen…"

Bzzzt. False analogy.

English aitch derives from Old French ache, now spelled hache though the h- is orthographic and not pronounced. Dolan in his Dictionary of Hiberno-English suggests that it is either "hypercorrection" or "a survival of an earlier pronunciation of the name". This isn't tenable; ache is attested indicating that the h- was lost long ago.

Your false analogy however suggests to me that it might not be a hypercorrection, but simple analogy. This leads us to a the theory of our letter names.

Etruscans abandoned the Greek names alpha, beta, gamma etc. in favour of simple phonetic names. The alphabet was renamed with generic vowels following the consonants -- except for those consonants which were sonants, and can be pronounced more or less on their own. Since [t] by itself is hard to pronounce on its own, it was easier to say it [te]. Sonants like and [f] can be pronounced long [ssss] [ffff] so they came to be pronounced with the vowel in front: [es] and [ef]. Thus [a be ke de e ef ge he (or ha) i ka el em en o pe ku er es te u] (ignoring letters added later). French likely adopted [ash] after the initial h was lost in pronunciation to distinguish it from [a]. That was borrowed into English; when it got to Ireland, either hypercorrection or simple analogy with other consonantal sounds gave rise to the pronunciation with the prefixed [h-].

Yoda

One Hibernicism which always gives me pause is the preocclusion where only becomes ondly. As at Dublin Airport, where "the white zone is for loading and unloading ondly".

ColinM

Well Talliesin, in addition to using logic and reason, facts and references, I see I can now count unflinching tenacity as part of your arsenal.

I was beginning to feel like a man standing on a seaweed-covered rock, watching the tide come in all around him.

Thank you for tagging me, Yoda!