I don’t think that IPA pronunciation is plausible given the spelling. English rarely stresses a schwa. I would probably pronounce it /’mʌmpsɪməs/ or less likely /mʌmp’siməs/.
FYI, you are probably being downvoted because this looks like another arrow in the tribalism quiver, rather than advice on how to actually become more rational. Many are the traditions, customs or notions that I have seen “proven” unreasonable in my life, which were either not unreasonable, or not yet plausibly replaceable by more reasonable ones.
I appreciate the comment on pronunciation; dictionary.com and wiktionary disagree with me, but I got the pronunciation from Google. I assume you’re correct.
I think that it’s reasonable to say that this quotes list should be restricted to quotes that help you become more rational, but if so, there should be some indication that this is the goal. Despite that, the idea applies to anyone, one’s self included, who persists in some action shown conclusively to be incorrect (Such as pronouncing nuclear “Nookular”). There may be a reason to do so, but that does not change the idea. It is attributed to either Erasmus, or his contemporary, Richard Pace.
Wikipedia has the story:
“The term originates from a story about a priest who misread sumpsimus [latin:”we have received”] as mumpsimus. After being told about his mistake he stated that he had been using mumpsimus for a number of years and was not about to change, saying “I’ve got so used to using the word mumpsimus that I’ll just go on saying it that way.”″
Your test case for “conclusively shown to be incorrect” should probably not be a pronunciation, given that pronunciations are basically matters of convention that inevitably change over time. How do you pronounce “February?” Or for that matter “laugh?” The mismatch between spelling and pronunciation in these words is not some crazy whim of English speakers for inserting extra letters; we really used to pronounce those letters and now we don’t because the fashion changed.
With regard to rationality, the point is that this quote is going to be a “force” for anti-rationality with a large subset of readers. New names to call one’s opponents rarely conduce to the best thinking; more often they merely serve to make both our minds and our social groups yet more insular. This is not always true, but it’s the way to bet.
In that case they probably incorrectly believed island to be derived to isle (same with the H in Anthony which comes from the Roman person name Antonius and not the Greek anthos ‘flower’), so I’m not sure I’d call it a whim… but certain letters were added at the end of words otherwise they’d be too short, and IIRC (I can’t seem to find a cite right now) money was spelled with a O and give with an E because the sequence un and final v would look bad in blackletter.
Not a quote, a word I have needed fro a long time to refer to people being stubbornly anti-rational:
Mumpsimus /ˈməmpsiməs/ - Noun
1) A traditional custom or notion adhered to although shown to be unreasonable. 2) A person who obstinately adheres to such a custom or notion.
I don’t think that IPA pronunciation is plausible given the spelling. English rarely stresses a schwa. I would probably pronounce it /’mʌmpsɪməs/ or less likely /mʌmp’siməs/.
FYI, you are probably being downvoted because this looks like another arrow in the tribalism quiver, rather than advice on how to actually become more rational. Many are the traditions, customs or notions that I have seen “proven” unreasonable in my life, which were either not unreasonable, or not yet plausibly replaceable by more reasonable ones.
I appreciate the comment on pronunciation; dictionary.com and wiktionary disagree with me, but I got the pronunciation from Google. I assume you’re correct.
I think that it’s reasonable to say that this quotes list should be restricted to quotes that help you become more rational, but if so, there should be some indication that this is the goal. Despite that, the idea applies to anyone, one’s self included, who persists in some action shown conclusively to be incorrect (Such as pronouncing nuclear “Nookular”). There may be a reason to do so, but that does not change the idea. It is attributed to either Erasmus, or his contemporary, Richard Pace.
Wikipedia has the story:
“The term originates from a story about a priest who misread sumpsimus [latin:”we have received”] as mumpsimus. After being told about his mistake he stated that he had been using mumpsimus for a number of years and was not about to change, saying “I’ve got so used to using the word mumpsimus that I’ll just go on saying it that way.”″
Your test case for “conclusively shown to be incorrect” should probably not be a pronunciation, given that pronunciations are basically matters of convention that inevitably change over time. How do you pronounce “February?” Or for that matter “laugh?” The mismatch between spelling and pronunciation in these words is not some crazy whim of English speakers for inserting extra letters; we really used to pronounce those letters and now we don’t because the fashion changed.
With regard to rationality, the point is that this quote is going to be a “force” for anti-rationality with a large subset of readers. New names to call one’s opponents rarely conduce to the best thinking; more often they merely serve to make both our minds and our social groups yet more insular. This is not always true, but it’s the way to bet.
Sometimes it is, for example the S in “island” was added to make it look like more like “isle”, from which it did not originate.
Wait, what? I’d always assumed...
In that case they probably incorrectly believed island to be derived to isle (same with the H in Anthony which comes from the Roman person name Antonius and not the Greek anthos ‘flower’), so I’m not sure I’d call it a whim… but certain letters were added at the end of words otherwise they’d be too short, and IIRC (I can’t seem to find a cite right now) money was spelled with a O and give with an E because the sequence un and final v would look bad in blackletter.