@ men
How do you pronounce ''amen''?
Church Of England (Prot), Ah-men. I don't think it has anything to with which group you are from, its just accent isn't it? I don't go to curch any more.
Jim C--I would say it has everything to do with the way it was said at the church you went to as a child and how they said it there. No child will say Ah-men while everyone else in the church says Ay-men, and vice versa. In the United States, this division tends to follow denominational lines, so it does vary by denomination here.
<<Jim C--I would say it has everything to do with the way it was said at the church you went to as a child and how they said it there. No child will say Ah-men while everyone else in the church says Ay-men, and vice versa. In the United States, this division tends to follow denominational lines, so it does vary by denomination here.>>
Does it, tho? I'm not so sure. I've been to churches of various denominations (or non-denominations as it sometimes turns out) and even within the same individual church I've noticed different pronunciations by different people or even the same person but at different times. I don't think I could associate a particular pronunciation of the word with a particular denomination. Anyway, in the church I grew up going to (a Covenant Church--there are a lot of those in Minnesota, right?) people said both [e(I)"mEn] and [A"mEn], tho the former is probably more common. Even if we could vaguely and broadly associate a particular pronunciation with a particular denomination I would think it would often not hold true because people don't always stick with the same church or denomination thruout their lives.
Does it, tho? I'm not so sure. I've been to churches of various denominations (or non-denominations as it sometimes turns out) and even within the same individual church I've noticed different pronunciations by different people or even the same person but at different times. I don't think I could associate a particular pronunciation of the word with a particular denomination. Anyway, in the church I grew up going to (a Covenant Church--there are a lot of those in Minnesota, right?) people said both [e(I)"mEn] and [A"mEn], tho the former is probably more common. Even if we could vaguely and broadly associate a particular pronunciation with a particular denomination I would think it would often not hold true because people don't always stick with the same church or denomination thruout their lives.
"even the same person but at different times"
I'm guessing you've never heard different pronunciations by the same person at the same time.
I'm guessing you've never heard different pronunciations by the same person at the same time.
I think Kirk hit the nail on the head with his comparison of his & my pronunciations of "draw" and "drawer". For both of us "draw" rhymes with "law" & "saw". For both of us "drawer" rhymes with "lore" and "sore". Because I'm a speaker of nonrhotic English "lore" and "law" are homophones.
what criminals break = [lo:]
who criminals need when caught = ["loI.(j)@]
traditional stories passed on about such characters = [lo:]
a serrated tool which cuts wood = [so:]
someone who uses the aforementioned tool = ["so:.@]
last name of people decendants of these people = ["soI.(j)@]
how they used to feel after a hard day's work = [so:]
what criminals break = [lo:]
who criminals need when caught = ["loI.(j)@]
traditional stories passed on about such characters = [lo:]
a serrated tool which cuts wood = [so:]
someone who uses the aforementioned tool = ["so:.@]
last name of people decendants of these people = ["soI.(j)@]
how they used to feel after a hard day's work = [so:]
<<(What's truly weird to me are the rhotic Americans like Lazar who apparently clearly *do* use the word "draw" for what I call a "drawer." Never heard of that before!)>>
It's especially weird in the case of us New Englanders. You might think that my [dr\Q] for "drawer" might be the result of a general merger of "lore" words with "saw" words in non-rhotic English, followed by a phonemic reanalysis of "drawer" when rhotacism was reapplied. But unlike most contemporary non-rhotic varieties of English (like EngEng, AusEng, or NY-NJ-Eng), the Massachusetts accent has never merged "lore" words with "saw" words. In a traditional non-rhotic accent here, "lore" would be [lO@] and "saw" would be [sQ]. Thus, "drawer" and "draw" could theoretically have remained distinct as [dr\O@] and [dr\Q].
It's especially weird in the case of us New Englanders. You might think that my [dr\Q] for "drawer" might be the result of a general merger of "lore" words with "saw" words in non-rhotic English, followed by a phonemic reanalysis of "drawer" when rhotacism was reapplied. But unlike most contemporary non-rhotic varieties of English (like EngEng, AusEng, or NY-NJ-Eng), the Massachusetts accent has never merged "lore" words with "saw" words. In a traditional non-rhotic accent here, "lore" would be [lO@] and "saw" would be [sQ]. Thus, "drawer" and "draw" could theoretically have remained distinct as [dr\O@] and [dr\Q].
<<Glad to see I am not the only one who was curioius...only question is, "Would you be willing to change the way you say it if you found out that it was to be said the other way?">>
Umm...Why the heck would it matter??
In Japanese and Korean, Christians (Protestant and Catholics say "Ah-Menn".)
The point I'm making is that there is no "right" way of saying it. It's just a matter of accents. It does not change meanings.
Umm...Why the heck would it matter??
In Japanese and Korean, Christians (Protestant and Catholics say "Ah-Menn".)
The point I'm making is that there is no "right" way of saying it. It's just a matter of accents. It does not change meanings.
Neither protestant or Catholic, but I pronounce it "ah-men" out of instinct. So I am glad to see that my pronunciation is also used by half of you Christians out there. Glad, because my pronunciation sense is sometimes quite weird: as in, when I saw "Leicester" for the first time, my gut instinct was "lye-ches-ter" (as if the first syllable were German and the second Italian).
Kirk--Your right that the divide isn't completely defined (as little in linguistics is)--but I do know that the vast majority of Catholics I know say Ay-men, and most protestants (Lutherans mostly, I guess) say Ah-men. Like I said before, protestants other than Lutherans seem pretty divided between Ah-men and Ay-men. Although none of this may hold true for other parts of the country, for which I cannot claim to be an expert.
I'm a Unitarian and I definitely pronounce it 'ah-men'. I used to associated the other way with Americans, until I heard a South African congregation pronouncing it 'ay-men' as well.
And yes, draw and drawer are identical for me as well.
And yes, draw and drawer are identical for me as well.
Amen was used in Latin pronunciation but Brits began to say it different.
The a in "amen" should rhyme with the one in "about".
I don't have to think whether I say aymen or ahmen to show that I speak well. The right option of is to say the most used by all of us.
The a in "amen" should rhyme with the one in "about".
I don't have to think whether I say aymen or ahmen to show that I speak well. The right option of is to say the most used by all of us.
I have a dream for all the foreign learners. It is that the spelling of some or most words become easier to write in favor to the pronunciation.
If I said "your, yours, and yourselves", I'd certainly know they are written as "yor, yorz, or yorselvz".
If I said "your, yours, and yourselves", I'd certainly know they are written as "yor, yorz, or yorselvz".
<<It's especially weird in the case of us New Englanders. You might think that my [dr\Q] for "drawer" might be the result of a general merger of "lore" words with "saw" words in non-rhotic English, followed by a phonemic reanalysis of "drawer" when rhotacism was reapplied. But unlike most contemporary non-rhotic varieties of English (like EngEng, AusEng, or NY-NJ-Eng), the Massachusetts accent has never merged "lore" words with "saw" words. In a traditional non-rhotic accent here, "lore" would be [lO@] and "saw" would be [sQ]. Thus, "drawer" and "draw" could theoretically have remained distinct as [dr\O@] and [dr\Q].>>
That's interesting Lazar, because in my Caribbean accent, "drawer" is pronounced /d_Za:r/ homophonous with "jar" and doesn't rhyme with "lore" which is /lo:r/. So it's not only some Northeastern Americans that don't rhyme "drawer" and "lore". Are we both experiencing something weird going on with the word "drawer"? I should note that my speech has the card-cord merger and no horse-hoarse merger. So some example pronunciations in my speech are:
far - /fa:r/
for - /fa:r/
four - /fo:r/
are - /a:r/
or - /a:r/
ore - /o:r/
That's interesting Lazar, because in my Caribbean accent, "drawer" is pronounced /d_Za:r/ homophonous with "jar" and doesn't rhyme with "lore" which is /lo:r/. So it's not only some Northeastern Americans that don't rhyme "drawer" and "lore". Are we both experiencing something weird going on with the word "drawer"? I should note that my speech has the card-cord merger and no horse-hoarse merger. So some example pronunciations in my speech are:
far - /fa:r/
for - /fa:r/
four - /fo:r/
are - /a:r/
or - /a:r/
ore - /o:r/