Do Elephants Jump? (20 page)

This is precisely what BK alluded to when he said that most American dictionaries render pronunciation phonemically, so that distinctions are not made between similar sounds, even if native speakers could distinguish them if pressed. Phonetic transcriptions attempt to describe every single sound made in a language — certainly not possible with the limited number of symbols with which dictionary editors must work.

But even if dictionaries are slow to amend, eventually they do, which is one reason we’re not unhappy that it has taken us twelve years to finally answer this Imponderable. For while twelve years ago, it was possible to find dictionaries that listed only “Sun-DEE,” or “Fri-DEE” before “Fri-Day,” the times they are a-changin’.

We recently contacted that reader, Richard Jackoway, and found out that he is a wordsmith himself — city editor of the San Luis Obispo
Tribune
. After being apprised of the
Reader’s Digest
version of the explanation above, Jackoway reiterated his plaintive wail: Do the editors really think anywhere near as many people say “Mon-DEE” as “Mon-DAA”? Are they really suggesting that people pronounce the word “Mon-DEE”?

We looked at all the current major dictionaries and found that, as all of our orthoepists suggested, you absolutely must look at the pronunciation guides in the front of each dictionary to learn how each word should be pronounced. And if you want to know the significance of the order in which variants are listed.

We have paraphrased each dictionary’s policy and rendered the pronunciation in our own scheme:

American Heritage Dictionary
(does not indicate which variants are preferred or popular, merely that variants are included “whenever necessary”): “Fri-DEE, Fri-DAA”

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(no preference for variant order): “Fri-DEE, Fri-DAA”

Oxford American Dictionary
(preferred pronunciation is listed first): “Fri-DAA”

American Century Dictionary
(unless there is an explanation, either variant is acceptable): “Fri-DAA, Fri-DEE”

Oxford American Dictionary of Current English
(the first listed is for “more frequent or preferred pronunciations”): “Fri-DAA, Fri-DEE”

Random House Webster’s Dictionary
(no stated policy about variants): “Fri-DAA, Fri-DEE”

Oxford English Dictionary
(“The order of variants need not be one of decreasing frequency.” Variants are shown “which can safely be regarded as allowable in British English at the present time, within the formal received pronunciation that does not give rise to any social judgement when heard by most native speakers.”): using IPA equivalents of “Fri-DAA, Fri-DEE”

Penguin Webster’s Handy College Dictionary
: (“The criterion for pronunciations is the best usage in regions where there is no marked peculiarity of speech and in normal conversation rather than in formal speech.” This is the only dictionary we’ve found that lists only one pronunciation per word): “Fri-DE” (the dotted
E
is defined as “sounding the
e
in
maybe
as opposed to the first
e
in
mete
).

Webster’s New World Dictionary
: (“Each variant pronunciation may be regarded as having wide currency in American English unless a qualifying note has been added to a particular variant indicating that it is less common.”) “Fri-Da”

Victory! While the
American Heritage Dictionary
remains unmoved,
Webster’s New World Dictionary
has not only pushed “Fri-DAA” to the front, but also banished “Fri-DEE” to “pron purgatory.” In your lifetime, Richard Jackoway, perhaps
AHD
will see the light.

Who would think that this humble mystery would be among the ten most-often asked here at
Imponderables Central
? Several readers compare fan controls to audio devices, which after all, don’t go from “off” to “ten” to “one.” The audio configuration saves a little energy and a lot of our residual hearing. When you are shutting off a piece of musical dreck, the last thing you want to hear is the noise at maximum volume right before you reach the exalted bliss of silence.

The analogy between radios or stereo system and electric fans (or air conditioners) isn’t perfect, though. When you turn on a fan, you are usually uncomfortable. The room is too warm, or too stuffy, or too humid, and you want relief. As Don Thompson, an engineer at fan manufacturer Comair Rotron, put it: “If I turn on a fan, I want maximum cooling to relieve myself or perform a task. Immediately!”

If the maximum setting isn’t strong enough to cool off the room, you need a stronger fan. If “max” is too much, that’s what “low” is for.

Thompson calls this approach the “period of patience” — customers want maximum relief as soon as possible. When the zone is reached, the device is switched to a lower mode to decrease the noise and conserve energy.

The speed configuration isn’t only for the benefit of us end users, though. Charles Richmond, vice president of engineering at cooling manufacturer EBM Industries, wrote
Imponderables
that the off-high-low configuration makes engineering sense. The greatest workload of a fan or air conditioner is right when it starts — when the motor must fight against inertia, the ambient air is the most stagnant, and the user’s point of patience is leaning toward the impatient.

Think of a merry-go-round. Its motor faces its heaviest load when it starts to spin from a standing start; once it is turning at its normal operating speed, it requires much less work for the engine to maintain the same speed. If you started the engine at a lower power, you might not have enough juice to start the merry - go - round from a dead start. There may be no wooden horses or brass rings on a fan, but the principle is the same.

As part of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the United States Congress mandated that twenty channels on the new FM band be reserved for noncommercial, educational use — 87.9 MHz through 91.9 MHz.

Of course,
we
know that men and women with pure hearts, untainted by avarice or ambition, populate our Congress. But more cynical folks might wonder why Congress would allocate such valuable “real estate” on the broadcast dial to educational, artsy-fartsy types who presumably had little lobbying power and even less money to contribute to political campaigns.

Maybe we should be more cynical. In reality, most of the pressure to lump the noncommercial broadcasters together on the FM dial came from commercial broadcasters who did have bucks to throw around. Prior to the 1967 allocation, many colleges ran “carrier current” AM stations, closed-circuit transmissions with low wattage that often managed to interfere with the signal of commercial stations. The big AM stations squawked about the problem, but the FCC did not have the manpower to police the problem.

But as Michael Starling, vice president of National Public Radio Engineering, explains, another issue was even more pressing:

The non-commercial stations are clumped at the bottom of the dial, where they can interfere only with one another’s signals. Why were they put at the low end of the dial instead of the high? No one seems to know.

Is there something specific about being in the family way that produces a sudden passion for a pickle sundae? A pork-and-banana sandwich? Or Twinkies with a dollop of mustard?

A few social scientists subscribe to the notion that cravings are “all in pregnant women’s heads,” but the nutritionists and medical experts we consulted dissent. Food cravings are prevalent all over the world: We found scores of studies that found at least some food cravings in one-half to more than 90 percent of pregnant women, with most falling in the 65 to 75 percent range.

Cravings are likely a result of hormonal changes that alter taste perception. One strong argument for hormones as the culprit is that women tend also to undergo strong food cravings (and aversions) during menopause, another period when hormones are raging and changing. Janet Pope, an associate professor of nutrition and dietetics at Louisiana Tech University, told
Imponderables
that pregnant women evaluate flavor differently, so they may try different foods or combinations of foods to find foods that will now satisfy them.

And then there is the indisputable fact that the little fetus is draining some nutrition from the mother. “You are now eating for two,” so the cliché goes. But most nutritionists believe the average female need consume only 300 extra calories a day of a well-balanced diet to compensate for the other life she is carrying. It would seem logical to assume that the fetus is taking in nutrients unevenly, and that is the reason for weird cravings and aversions. Ethiopian women believe that their sudden aversion to usual staples can be explained by their babies’ distaste for that particular food. But biologists and nutritionists still can’t explain the unpredictability in food preferences during pregnancy.

Some cravings are relatively easy to explain on a strictly nutritional basis. For example, a woman who craves olives or pickles might be low in sodium. A newfound peanut-butter fanatic might need additional protein, fat, or B vitamins. But sodium can be obtained from Triscuits or pretzels, too. Protein, fat, and B vitamins are contained in fish or meat, as well. Cross-cultural studies indicate that most mothers crave nutritious items that are
not
part of their regular diet. In the West, many expectant mothers swear off meat; where meat is prized but scarce, it is among the most common cravings. Unusual food cravings may also be, in part, an attempt to find new food combinations to stave off some of the unpleasant symptoms of pregnancy, such as morning sickness.

Almost as many women experience food aversions as strong cravings, often from foods and drinks that they enjoyed before pregnancy. One theory is that aversions are nature’s way of assuring the fetus obtains good nutrition by diversifying the diet of the mother. This might explain why in Third World countries, poor women often experience aversions to staple grains — many mothers’ normal diets contain too much cereal and starch, and not enough protein and fat.

Others contend that food aversions are a way of safeguarding the fetus by making dangerous substances unpalatable to the mother. Some chain - smoking, coffee - sipping, booze - guzzling females find it remarkably easy to shed their vices when pregnant. They might maintain that their sudden upgrading of habits is done out of altruism, but studies indicate that these were among the most common aversions even before their potential damage to the fetus was known. Likewise, many women find themselves nauseated at even the thought of consuming raw meat, sushi, or soft cheeses, substances that are usually safe to consume but do offer increased health risks if prepared inadequately.

But some cravings have no conceivable nutritional advantage. Perhaps the most popular craving of pregnant women is ice:
ice,
not water, a Popsicle, or a soda. Ella Lacey, a nutritionist at Southern Illinois University’s medical school, says that nobody understands why women often crave foods that offer few, if any nutrients, let alone the particular nutrients she might lack. She theorizes that it may be some form of addictive behavior, where there is a drive to gain satisfaction, even if the outcome doesn’t fulfill the deficiency.

The most aberrant addictive craving is pica, a condition most prevalent in the South of the United States and Central America, in which folks crave and eat non-food substances, often dirt, clay, chalk, dishwasher detergent, and, least scary, ice chips. Pregnant women comprise the largest, but by no means only, group of pica practitioners, but in most, the desire goes away once the baby is born.

Pica is more prevalent among poor folks, many of whom have nutritional deficiencies, leading some nutritionists to believe that pica, and especially geophagy (eating of dirt and clay), is a response to an iron or calcium deficiency. The more affluent woman is likely to detect such a deficiency by consulting a doctor or nutritionist, and once diagnosed, more likely to turn to spinach and liver than the backyard for a remedy.

All of a sudden, that pickle sundae is starting to sound awfully tempting.