0

I was just thinking about this when I typed out "processes" and realized that I've heard it pronounced both "process-izz" and "process-eez". Is one incorrect, or is it considered an accent thing, or are they both completely acceptable?

I also thought of words like "parentheses" and "menses" as being strictly -eez but can see how those may be special exceptions.

Are there any other questionable words like this?

feelinferrety
  • 153
  • parenthesis (singular) has a short last vowel; parentheses (plural) a long one. It helps distinguish the words when pronounced. It is the same for emphasis/emphases. – Born2Smile Sep 04 '15 at 23:15
  • 2
    The process-eez pronunciation is a hypercorrection, based on the misconception that process belongs to the other class of plurals which you've identified. Latin singular nouns ending in -is are pluralized as -es '-eez': e.g. thesis, theses; axis, axes; metropolis, metropoles. Some of them have only reached us in their plural forms: e.g. menses, testes. – Anonym Sep 04 '15 at 23:26

1 Answers1

-1

Process may be a verb or a noun. In early texts on computers the workings of the machine was sometimes described as the workings between a processor and a processee, (the thing that processes, and the thing being processed). A common way to describe it was

The processor is called a CPU (short for Central Processing Unit), and the processee is called a process

"Processor" was absorbed as a noun in the dictionary to mean a CPU (Central Processing Unit), "processee", however, was not absorbed. Perhaps because it was thought to be sufficiently close to "process"? Whatever the reason, suddenly there were two words in circulation that meant the same,

  • process (singular), processes (plural, pronounced with a short last e), and
  • processee (singular), processees (plural, pronounced with a long ee);

but only 'process' was in the dictionary. In time the auto-correct revolution won, or whatever the cause was. The fact of the matter is that, except for a few books that still talk of the processor and processees, in writing only 'process' and 'processes' have survived. In speech, however, 'processees' to this day lives a happy and merry life in disguise as 'processes', and both pronunciations are considered perfectly valid ways of pronouncing 'processes'.

Born2Smile
  • 1,652
  • They are both considered perfectly valid by whom? Also, is there any evidence that the "processeez" pronunciation is at all related to the suffix -ee? – herisson Sep 04 '15 at 23:49
  • @sumelic The reference in the question referenced as duplicate, documents the validity of both pronunciations. I saw no need to repeat that. I should have to get my old text books out of storage to tell you which used what. Apologies, if you feel I should have done that. I was expecting the question would be closed, and wanted to post the answer in time. – Born2Smile Sep 05 '15 at 07:00
  • Why did you want to post an answer here? (I don't just mean this in an aggressive fashion; I'm actually curious about what the benefits are.) The only mention of a possible relation to "-ee" in the answers to the duplicate question is in an answer with 3 downvotes. – herisson Sep 05 '15 at 07:06
  • @sumelic, as for evidence that the pronunciations are related, naturally I cannot tell you what reason you might have for choosing the -ees ending, maybe you feel it is similar to those other words mentioned, and thus should be pronounced thus, how am I to know your reasons. What I can tell you is the story above as best I remember it, tell you that people used to make the distinction between the verb with -ees ending and the plural noun, and the question: How would you pronounce "... in this scenario the processees would be the processes we wrote earlier." – Born2Smile Sep 05 '15 at 07:16
  • @sumelic the accepted answer describes 4 valid pronunciations and has 12 upvotes and a reference. – Born2Smile Sep 05 '15 at 07:19
  • @sumelic, Why here? No real reason, other than I began typing the answer here. I don't write too quickly, and so when suddenly half way through, a comment appeared that the question was being closed, I just hurried as best I could to finish it. – Born2Smile Sep 05 '15 at 07:26
  • @sumelic in conclusion: Sure I may be biased by my own history and experiences, but the best I can do is explain it as I know it. If someone else knows better they can say so, and if they have better arguments than mine, naturally I shall yield :) Also, personally, I enjoy reading when people describe how words evolve over time, and so I opt to do the same, when I feel confident that what I know is generally true. – Born2Smile Sep 05 '15 at 07:45
  • OK. I'm wondering what makes you feel confident that what you know is true in this case. You state: "In speech, however, 'processees' to this day lives a happy and merry life in disguise as 'processes.'" The way I read this, it is saying that one pronunciation of the plural of "process" is derived from the originally distinct word "processes." But, how could you tell? – herisson Sep 05 '15 at 07:48
  • In my own experience the plural of "process" used to always be processes (short e), even at international gatherings, conferences, etc. "processee" and the pronunciation "processees" were only ever used to describe the more general concept of "the thing(s) being processed". Much later I witnessed colleagues and students suddenly spelling the general "processees" as "processes", at first it was just a few, but slowly it grew in usage. I blamed it on auto-correct, because that is the reason a student gave me once... I feel like I am repeating myself. The point is I saw the change happen. – Born2Smile Sep 05 '15 at 08:23