Open Mike: How to Say Kamala (OT)

It's COMMA-luh. Comma as in the punctuation mark. Luh, a schwa (the most common sound in English) with an L in front of it. (Link should open at the 28 second mark.)

Speaking of punctuation marks, here's something cool that I learned recently: two dots over a vowel in English are not an umlaut, but a diacritical mark indicating diæresis—that is, it indicates that the second of two vowels is pronounced separately rather than being "clubbed" (combined) with the vowel on one or the other side of it. (We do that a lot. English is hampered because we have up to 17 vowel sounds but we use the Roman alphabet, which has only five symbols for vowels.) So in "coöperate," for instance, the two dots indicate that the two Os are separated and the word has four syllables rather than three. Nifty. However, the mark is considered obsolescent, because too few people know it or what it does. The New Yorker is one of the only publications left that uses it. They apparently get complaints.

Here's another cool thing. You know the difference between to, too and two, of course, and there, they're and their. Those are homophones (pronounced the same way) but not homographs (written the same way). But did you know there are homographs in English that are not only not homophones, but are actually different words? Words like have, and that, and had, for instance, and a number of others. To clear up the mystery, it depends on whether they're spoken as the strong form or the weak form. The differences in meaning, the contribution of strong and weak forms to the rhythm of our language, and the difficulty non-native English speakers have learning it, are all explained in a video by the exemplary Dr. Geoff Lindsey. It's a delight to have it explained so clearly and thoroughly.

Finally, have you noticed that young people who like to tell us how to speak if we want to be considerate are sometimes the same people who think nothing of being persistently rude and inconsiderate to those who happen to have the name Karen? Just sayin'.

Have a nice Sunday!

Mike

P.S. I should add that when I know someone who prefers nontraditional pronouns and asks me to use them, I do. People should be called what they want to be called. That's been my position most of my life. I had to decide the issue for myself when I was young because I had two cousins who wanted to leave their childhood nicknames behind. Some family members resisted that, and I thought about it and decided that if they wanted to be called "Lou" and "Mary" instead of "Terry" and "Bunny," then I would do as they requested. Same with the more recent changes in gendered language.

The point is to be considerate to people.

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

William Lewis: "Re 'P.S. I should add that when I know someone who prefers nontraditional pronouns and asks me to use them, I do. People should be called what they want to be called.' Agree completely. In the military, I got used to saying 'sir' or 'ma'am' as appropriate to everyone in the context of my job as hotel clerk. I have a friend who is non-binary, who is biologically female and presents as such but uses male (he/him) pronouns and has chosen a preferred masculine name. I get double takes on a regular basis when I call him 'sir.'"

Arg: "Except, as a non-American, I don't think I will pronounce 'comma' the way you probably think I will. Your international English-speaking audience might, if I am guessing correctly how Americans pronounce 'comma,' be better served by the suggestion CUMMA-luh. Hmm!"

Nikhil Ramkarran: "A substantial part of our population (Guyana’s) originate out of the Indian subcontinent, me included. We have tons of Kamalas. I have several aunty Kamalas (aunties Kamala?). No one I know has ever pronounced it this way, though it is undoubtedly the 'correct' way. People here laugh at the American emphasis (or usage for that matter) of the second 'a.' We say 'Kamla.' In fact, the second 'a' in the name has started falling out of fashion as younger people without knowledge of the 'proper' spelling began using the phonetic spelling when naming their children. Just an irrelevant aside."

Timothy Auger: "The correct spelling of the name of the car manufacturer Citroën is a good example of a diæresis. The French say Sit-ro-en, whereas we lazily say Sit-ron."

Comments

[Kye Wood]

Sweeping generalisations diminish an observation and an argument.

As an old white guy, I see this a lot in my cohort. It's as inaccurate as it demeaning. Through intended purpose or error, it tries to strengthen a position of view by casting a pall over a swathe.

It's the first thing you've written that genuinely disappointed me.

[Mike Plews]

Just reread The Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson, highly recommended.
Also I have a cousin who may be the kindest person on the planet and her name is Karen.

[T. Edwards]

"have you noticed that young people who demand we use pronouns improperly"

You should tell that Shakespeare dude that he's doing English all wrong.

"There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend"

A Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3.

[I'm not sure that's a good example of traditional singular they. Presumably Shakespeare met many men, so he's actually saying "all of the many men [plural] I meet salute me as if I were their friend." So "their" is strictly proper in that situation. --Mike]

[Albert Smith]

The most clever pronunciation that I heard since she moved up on the ticket was from a news channel that, let's say is rooting for the old guy. Trying to disparage Harris, they invoked a pun that was based on a symbolic period under JFK: KAMA-LOT.

The anchor thought it was a burn, (she wasn't alive until Reagan was in office), but several pro Harris sites embraced it.

[joe]

Mastering the art of saying her name is just the appetizer to the following full-course chaos.

https://youtube.com/shorts/tb7S-uJdG_I?si=36AH9f2Vh3p5ITD2

[genX]

That last bit cracked me up. They're happily rude and inconsiderate with many, not just Karens.

[Timothy Auger]

Surely rendering the correct pronunciation of Kamala depends a bit on whether you are American or British. Americans don't pray to God - they pray to Gahd. Hence for a Brit, suggesting that her name is pronounced Kommala, as many have, may work for you Murricans, but it seems a bit dodgy to me, a speaker of English the proper way ..... [hides under desk ...].

[Well, it's her name, so the way she pronounces it is by definition the proper way. Hence the video of her saying her name. --Mike]

[aaron c greenman]

Coöl!

[Sean]

Thanks for that, I didn’t know . As Kamala might say. Our name is part of our story; our story is part of our name. Let us be known by our name so our name may be known.

[john s savoia]

I've been reading you daily since 2006 Mike, and today will be the last time. Incredibly disappointed in your dismissal of queer and trans identities. If insulting my 40 year old trans nonbinary correct usage of the singular they pronoun spouse was worth it (not to mention the countless others), then good for you. Not only are you grammatically wrong, you're on the wrong side of history.

[I apologized to John privately, modified the post, and added the P.S. --Mike]

[Jeff]

Depends…

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/07/kamala-harris-name-how-to-pronounce-pronunciation-indian.html

[How she says it is how it's pronounced. That's why I linked to that video clip. So you could hear her saying it. --Mike]

[Mark Cotter]

Interesting what you say about diæresis. On this side of the pond, we often insert a hyphen, so co-operate rather than cooperate or coöperate

[Hard to say with confidence, because what I read tends to be well-written, but I'd say we mostly write it that way over here, too. The New Yorker would be the exception. --Mike]

[Bradley R]

Interesting phenomena re names in the U.S....
I've lived in a few countries, and in those other countries whenever I introduced myself as Bradley I was immediately and always addressed as Bradley.

The only exception was in Thailand, where every person has a nickname. It's considered bad luck, a tradition in some southern areas of the country, to use a baby's formal name for the first six months after birth. My friends, all of them, addressed me with my nickname, while at work everyone called me Bradley.

When I was a kid I was called Brad; I don't know whether I preferred it, or if it was a result of what my parents called me. As I exited my teens I preferred my formal name, and by the time I reached my late 30s I only used Bradley, and let people know it was my preference. My family has never gotten used to it, and even now, many decades later, most still call me Brad despite my protestations.

I'm still friends with a few individuals I've known since high school. They don't refuse to call me Bradley, but they've apparently never gotten use to it, and when they do use my preference they almost always make an effort to point out the usage.

It seems to me it's just part of the American culture to want to used shortened names. Perhaps people feel closer, more friendly, when not using formal names:
"Hi, my name is Thomas." "Hello Tom."
"Hi, I'm William." "Hiya Bill."
"Let me introduce myself, I'm Richard." You know what follows...

Once at a dinner party I was introduced by the hostess to a guy who stood a foot taller than I:
"Marty, this is Bradley."
"Hello Marty."
"Hi Brad."
"No, I go by Bradley."
"Bradley, Brad, what's the f***in' difference."
The hostess smacked him on the arm, he walked away, and we didn't even make eye contact the rest of the evening.

[Jeff]

I watched the video last night. The author of my linked article writes it phonetically (on cover pic) in a way that better corresponds to the pronunciation IMO. That’s why I linked it.

[Greg]

One comment on being called what you want. I recently read about one pushback on that. Someone who was cisgendered wanted to be called 'they' to show solidarity with the real theys. The pushback was because by using the pronoun when you're not dilutes the meaning. Not well expressed by me, but wanted to get it out there.

,la (Not really, but had to throw it in.)

[Dennis Fairclough]

My current irritating dislike, is the substitution of 'who' (or whom) for 'that' in common and current written parlance. As in: "He's the guy that did it". I see it has crept into mainstream use - even here in Oz. Excruciating and ugly use of English. I suppose there's fat chance it will die the death it deserves anytime soon?

[Rand Scott Adams]

I have no problem with being polite and even kind. That’s my default position. But the alternative pronoun situation isn’t that simple. I wish it was. Pronouns have a function. The use of arbitrary pronouns renders pronouns irrelevant, as far as I can tell. An example from the “Oxford languages” web page says, ". . . he then publicly announced in September that he is changing his pronouns to ‘they/them’.” Well, I guess this is OK if the individual changing from he to they is declaring his plurality. But I don’t “think” that’s what is happening. So the pronoun in this example is rendered even worse than irrelevant, it becomes misleading. Of more concern are words chosen to function as pronouns that appear to be arbitrary made-up words with no previous meaning in language. I sometimes think this is more a game of “gotcha” than it is something significant for the individual. Is there going to be an established set of alternative pronouns that English speakers can learn and then apply per the preferences of the individuals? Or, are we, in the name of being polite, needing to learn an unlimited and ever expanding set of alternative pronouns? The whole purpose of language is to create a common symbology that allows persons to communicate as clearly as possible. Intentional obfuscation doesn’t seem to further that purpose. My approach is to quit using pronouns altogether. Or, to just use the word “pronoun” as a generic substitute. “Pronoun went to the store.” Bob and Tom said pronoun were going to the store. In this case it is especially apt because if Bob prefers one pronoun, and Tom another, I’d have not choice but to be rude to one of them.

[Bill Tyler]

I think it was Isaac Asimov who pointed out that "unionized" is really two completely different words, with different numbers of syllables. If you need a clue, think of the different ways a chemist and a labor leader might pronounce that combination of letters.

[Farhiz]

Over here we’d pronounce her name as Kuh.ma.la.

[Andy Round]

It's funny because this has caused some confusion among UK commentators, where we pronounce 'comma' differently to you guys, so British people who had been correctly pronouncing her name suddenly thought they had to switch to sounding that first 'a' as a short 'o'

https://x.com/nigelfletcher/status/1815334479721906388

the perils of pronunciation...

[gerry hiatt]

This post is a red flag for me. One of the main reasons I read, and support, your column is that you never mention anything related to politics. Please don’t change.

[There's nothing about politics in this post. And I've already announced that I'll be writing four political posts in the run-up to November, but they'll be labeled and put behind a page break for those who choose to avoid the subject. I cannot in good moral conscience be entirely silent. --Mike]

[Derek Kemp]

Mike, I have to disagree with the “There, They’re, and Their” comparison. There is an odd man out, that being “They’re”.
That is an abbreviation of two words, and shouldn’t be pronounced in the same manner anyway. Of course there is such an incredible amount of slovenliness in the way we speak today, no wonder you gave that as an example.

[Dave]

A little late with a comment, but I like Rand Scott Adam's solution; "just use the word “pronoun” as a generic substitute. “Pronoun went to the store.”"

Is everybody going to pretend that the emperor has clothes, regarding the pronoun usage?

I don't care what people do in their private lives, as long as they're not murdering, raping, etc.

Insisting that one person requires a plural pronoun makes no sense and brings more ridicule on the "pronoun person".

What does changing a pronoun really accomplish?

[John Krumm]

I figured you would catch heat for the pronoun statement. My daughter goes by they/them. We are slowly getting better at it, and since I am surrounded by lots of younger people, I'm getting used to catching myself and just asking people what they use. It's becoming a little more fluid for me. It will be interesting, linguistically, to see how much it's incorporated into everyday language over the next 20 years. I find myself using "they" for lots of people now, just because it's easier.

[SImon]

I find the noise and refusal of acceptance about the growth of alternative pronouns reminiscent of white people not accepting non-white people as equals.

Why is it so hard to adjust something as simple as pronoun usage based on the individual's preference?

[David Dyer-Bennet]

It's not just shortened names as nicknames; "Johnnie" is longer than "John". I guess you could say nicknames tend to be diminutives either in actual length or in meaning.

[Bill Tyler]

Two comments. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular "they" back to 1375 in the story of "William and the Werewolf". So anyone claiming it's purely a modern corruption of the language is wrong. Either that, or they are so old that the 14th century seems like recent times to them.

Simon asks, "Why is it so hard to adjust something as simple as pronoun usage based on the individual's preference?" While I agree with the principle that people should be called what they prefer, there's a reason it isn't easy. It's one more thing to remember about every single person you know, and it requires adjusting a life-long pattern of language usage. Those aren't easy things to do.