Why Grammar Matters: A Place To Discuss Matters Of Grammar

[Haleth]

Ok. We'll go with that. ;)

[Sandman87]

The ABC national news reported today that a drug lord in Mexico has been arrested, partly because he had tried to have a "by-opic" made about him. Took me a minute to realize that they meant "bio-pic."

[riley702]

Huh.

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/biopic

[legaleagle53]

Huh.

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/biopi

 

Seriously.  I've never in my life heard it pronounced that way in the US.  I've only heard the British pronunciation here.

[FormerMod-a1]

I've always heard it Bi-op-ic.

[riley702]

Seriously.  I've never in my life heard it pronounced that way in the US.  I've only heard the British pronunciation here.

 

I've never heard it pronounced at all - just read it in print and wondered about it. Yeah, I know - I need more people in my life that would know and use that word, but I'm in the Midwest and they can be sparse on the ground here. But that's what I have you guys for!

Edited January 11, 2016 by riley702

[Bastet]

I don't think I've ever heard it said, either, but I hear it in my head as the British pronunciation -- it's a bio(graphical) pic(ture), so I've always read it that way.

[GHScorpiosRule]

It's "I couldn't care less" NOT "I could care less" because the latter infers that you care some! Watching The Commish on the Heroes & Icons channel, Michale Chiklis's character, keeps using this phrase and it drives me bonkers.

[Demented Daisy]

It's "I couldn't care less" NOT "I could care less" because the latter infers that you care some! Watching The Commish on the Heroes & Icons channel, Michale Chiklis's character, keeps using this phrase and it drives me bonkers.

 

 

Shouldn't the latter imply that you care some?

[GHScorpiosRule]

Shouldn't the latter imply that you care some?

 

Yes! Sorry! Mea Culpa! {hanging head in shame}.

 

My excuse is I haven't had anything to eat in 10 hours! That kind of stuff affects the brain cells!

[Sandman87]

Look at the bright side: At least you didn't say that it effects the brain cells.

[backformore]

On Hell's Kitchen tonight, A contestant gave Gordon Ramsey her plate and said that it was LITERALLY her heart and soul on a plate.

I so wanted Ramsey to refuse to eat a dish containing human organs.

[dargosmydaddy]

The local news had a (very brief, completely random) story on fat squirrels seen in the area... and the reporter referred to them as "glutenous" rather than "gluttonous."

 

Now I'm picturing gluten-averse people having to give up their squirrel stew...

[shapeshifter]

The local news had a (very brief, completely random) story on fat squirrels seen in the area... and the reporter referred to them as "glutenous" rather than "gluttonous."

 

Now I'm picturing gluten-averse people having to give up their squirrel stew...

From June-December of the past year I lived in sight of a college dorm dumpster. I often saw very plump squirrels struggling to carry away hamburger buns and other high-gluten food. I wonder if squirrel stew would have a higher gluten content if made from these particularly gluttonous squirels--whose gluteus maximus and other muscles might contain more gluten than their more forest-bound counterparts.

I hope the local news story mentioned that fat squirrels often point toward a long and/or cold winter ahead, rather than squirrels living in food deserts.

[dargosmydaddy]

 

I hope the local news story mentioned that fat squirrels often point toward a long and/or cold winter ahead, rather than squirrels living in food deserts.

They really didn't. I thought that was where it was headed-- and they did briefly mention the squirrels' thick coats-- but they didn't reference the weather or their diets. It was completely random. Just like, "Hey, there are a lot of fat squirrels around! And moving on..." And this was NYC area news, so it's not like there weren't plenty of other things to report...

[ABay]

The crawl on one of the local news broadcasts referred to MLK as Dr. Kink.

[shapeshifter]

The crawl on one of the local news broadcasts referred to MLK as Dr. Kink.

Oh dear. I hope if there is an afterlife that he was amused.

[shapeshifter]

They really didn't. I thought that was where it was headed-- and they did briefly mention the squirrels' thick coats-- but they didn't reference the weather or their diets. It was completely random. Just like, "Hey, there are a lot of fat squirrels around! And moving on..." And this was NYC area news, so it's not like there weren't plenty of other things to report...

Well, it has been pretty mild in New York, and until it got cold here near Chicago, I was wondering if it was just a squirrel obesity epidemic caused by them eating too much refined food from the dumpsters. So it's better for them to just report what they see if they don't have "experts" to interpret.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On Hell's Kitchen tonight, A contestant gave Gordon Ramsey her plate and said that it was LITERALLY her heart and soul on a plate.

I so wanted Ramsey to refuse to eat a dish containing human organs.

 

This "literally" business is getting completely out of hand.  Which means that shortly, the definition will be changed to mean "figuratively" because of common usage.

[legaleagle53]

This "literally" business is getting completely out of hand.  Which means that shortly, the definition will be changed to mean "figuratively" because of common usage.

 

It already has that meaning, according to Merriam-Webster.  The caveat is that "figuratively" is still secondary to the first meaning of "actually."

[backformore]

It already has that meaning, according to Merriam-Webster.  The caveat is that "figuratively" is still secondary to the first meaning of "actually."

Great!  So the word Literally, can be used to convey its original meaning,  OR the opposite.   How do we know when people literally mean LITERALLY and when they mean "Not- literally"?    

[SVNBob]

How do we know when people literally mean LITERALLY and when they mean "Not- literally"?

 

We literally don't.

[StatisticalOutlier]

It already has that meaning, according to Merriam-Webster.  The caveat is that "figuratively" is still secondary to the first meaning of "actually."

 

This literally makes my blood boil.  Heh.

 

Why can't something just be wrong, and stay wrong, no matter how many people are doing it? 

 

What are Merriam-Webster's standards?  Did their mothers not say, "If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?"?  Or I guess they did, and M-W's editors all answered, "Of course." 

 

So now an alternate spelling of "definitely" is going to be "definately"?  How long until "defiantly" is also accepted?  Or will they change the meaning of "defiantly" to be a synonym for "definitely"?

 

Used to be, uneducated language abusers weren't on TV all the time, except for the occasional mine collapse in West Virginia, and nobody could understand what they were saying anyway.  But with reality TV and now youtube putting anybody in front of the viewing public, their language mangling is what we hear as part of general conversation.  These are the same people who have turned "it was a fight between she and I" into common usage, along with "I'd like your guys's opinion on this." 

 

When what we were exposed to was written by writers, or spoken by generally literate people who ascended to being on our screens, you didn't get this crap.  Now that's all you hear. 

 

And it's the written language, too.  Websites and blogs (which are NOT the same thing, but I digress) are bad enough--those have plenty of space to craft sentences properly, and presumably aren't emergencies, so there's time to put thought into what one writes there, if one is so inclined.  But now with Twitter and Facebook, it's a BAD thing to spend more than one second thinking about what you're going to say, never mind wasting time making it readable.  Or even coherent.

 

My question is:  Why are we letting that dictate what is right?  

 

Isn't language supposed to be a tool for communication, and presumably a tool that makes it easier?  How is changing it to give an individual word two completely opposite meanings advancing communication? 

 

If a person says, "I literally throw up when someone mentions caviar," a halfway intelligent listener will have to stop and consider whether actual upchucking occurs, or whether the person simply finds caviar to be gross.  If "literally" now means "literally" OR "figuratively," the listener STILL has to stop and figure out what the speaker meant.  How is that any better, except making the speaker "not wrong"?

 

What's next...mathematics?  Because up there with the prevalence of misusing "literally" is people saying, "He did a 360" when they mean someone changed his mind.  So in common usage, "360 degrees" now means "180 degrees." Will we be changing math books to reflect the popular consensus?

[Sandman87]

If a person says, "I literally throw up when someone mentions caviar," a halfway intelligent listener will have to stop and consider whether actual upchucking occurs, or whether the person simply finds caviar to be gross.  If "literally" now means "literally" OR "figuratively," the listener STILL has to stop and figure out what the speaker meant.  How is that any better, except making the speaker "not wrong"?

 

I hadn't considered that aspect of the situation. Given the all-inclusive "all viewpoints are equally valid" relativism crap that many people seem to subscribe to, it's a wonder that our words have any definitions at all.

[CoderLady]

The description for A&E's new program Fit to Fat to Fit: "In the series premiere, a man wants to lose weight to help he and his wife adopt a child."

 

I don't understand how someone could write that sentence without sounding it out in his/her head and feeling at least a little bit uneasy. This makes me sad.

[supposebly]

 

Why can't something just be wrong, and stay wrong, no matter how many people are doing it?

Welcome to the fact of natural living languages. Languages change as long as they are being used and what is wrong/right changes with usage. Once they are not, they are dead and only learned as second languages for specific purposes (if you are lucky and your name is Latin). If you are not, your name might be, oh I don't know Old English. Be glad you speak English, the most powerful language today and in no small degree one reason for dying of languages today, one every 2 weeks.

 

The meaning of words change over time. Any etymological dictionary will tell you that. And the same goes for the rules of grammar. A little bit on 19th century English and how people despaired over the language changing so much: http://public.oed.com/aspects-of-english/english-in-time/nineteenth-century-english-an-overview/

 

Language isn't math. That's why I can use 2 negators in French, 1-5 negators in Bavarian German or in Russian without ever meaning something positive. Purely for emphasis.

[Haleth]

The description for A&E's new program Fit to Fat to Fit: "In the series premiere, a man wants to lose weight to help he and his wife adopt a child."

 

I don't understand how someone could write that sentence without sounding it out in his/her head and feeling at least a little bit uneasy. This makes me sad.

Ugh.  It drives me crazy when people abuse pronouns.  It's not that difficult!

[StatisticalOutlier]

The description for A&E's new program Fit to Fat to Fit: "In the series premiere, a man wants to lose weight to help he and his wife adopt a child."

 

I don't understand how someone could write that sentence without sounding it out in his/her head and feeling at least a little bit uneasy. This makes me sad.

 

Will a hilarious AND well-written piece about that very show make you less sad? 

 

http://previously.tv/fit-to-fat-to-fit/should-you-sit-down-for-a-big-helping-of-fit-to-fat-to-fit/

 

"No, I cannot do a single pull-up, but I can polish off a plate of cheese enchiladas without bursting into tears, falling into a fugue state, or vomiting, making me tougher than and superior to nearly every trainer on this show. I win!"  She said "tougher than and superior to" in a piece about a stupid TV show.  Warms my heart.

 

 

The meaning of words change over time. Any etymological dictionary will tell you that.

 

Am I wrong about the purpose of language?  I always figured we came up with words because they were better than grunts, the goal being to communicate better.  And if language changes make communicating more difficult, why should the gate-keepers capitulate?

 

Why have "figuratively" as a secondary meaning for "literally," when it literally means the opposite?  What is being advanced?  Certainly not clarity.

 

I understand that words change, and that they can take on quite different meanings.  Like "bad."  It started to be used as somewhat of a synonym for "good" in certain cases.  Not a 100% synonym, because "bad" for "good" generally implied an edginess of sorts. 

 

However, you could tell from the context and usage whether that alternate meaning was intended.  And when spoken, it often had a different inflection that would help indicate its meaning.  It was also predominantly used in very casual speech.  And perhaps most important:  people knew they were using the word to mean something other than its traditional meaning.  I would bet big money that every single person who used "bad" as a synonym for "good" had a reflex the first time they ever heard it used that way, and then adopted it.

 

But none of this is the case with "literally" vs. "figuratively."  People who are misusing it don't know they're misusing it, and definitely aren't intending any sort of ironic twist.  And it's not used only in very casual speech, or only situations that would tip one off that the "alternate" meaning was being used.

 

I refer back to the very first post in this thread, by candall:

 

I just saw Nancy Grace fuming with righteous indignation (for a change.)  She said:

 

"Dr. Phil, this crime LITERALLY makes my blood boil!"

 

I waited, but the top of her head did not blow off

 

Only because it's such a ridiculous usage do we know that she didn't really mean "literally."  But even then, you still have to stop and evaluate.  My beef is that there are other words that would convey the same thing without abusing poor old "literally."  Like, "This crime really makes my blood boil."  Or, "This crime totally makes my blood boil."  Or even, "This crime makes my blood boil" because do you really need to make that "more"?  Boiling blood isn't enough?

 

(And if you want to double over laughing, read walnutqueen's reply.)

 

So take my example of, "I literally throw up when someone mentions caviar."  If "literally" and "figuratively" mean the same thing, there's no way to know what he meant.  How can that possibly be a good thing?  Or even acceptable?  Leave "literally" meaning "literally," and if people are going to misuse it, so be it.  But don't change the very meaning of the word "literally" as a way of acknowledging the misuse.

 

Are we just going to crowd-source dictionaries now?  I definitely don't want the one on my desk to read like the Urban Dictionary that's online.  But that's sure what it looks like the editors at Merriam-Webster are doing.

 

What they're also doing is eliminating a very useful word because if "literally" can mean either "literally" or "figuratively," then someone who really does mean "literally" just can't use it any more.  How is that acceptable?

 

The only substitute I can think of is "actually," and that one's already being mangled to death.  House Hunters is the worst:  Agent invariably says, "This home actually has three bedrooms," when the HH is looking for a three-bedroom house and all the other houses the agent has shown have three bedrooms.  On some other show, I heard a woman say, "My mother actually died last year."  

 

So I'm resentful that a very good word, "literally," is not only being grossly misused but is furthermore being taken away from careful writers/speakers everywhere, with no good substitute.  How is that okay?

 

What's next?  "Penultimate"?  I guarantee you that the vast majority of English speakers think it means "really good" and not "second-to-last." I just can't accept that that's a reason to change its dictionary meaning.

 

Wait, here's a thought:  Maybe dip into mathematics and use a superscript "2" if you mean literally as literally.  Like, "I literally² throw up when someone mentions caviar."  "Literally squared" in speech sound awkward.  Maybe something like "air quotes"?  Just one "air quote" with the right hand?

Edited January 25, 2016 by StatisticalOutlier

[Qoass]

I agree that language marches on but it should do so in order to make us more articulate, not less.  My pet peeve is "presently" meaning both right now and in the near future.  As long as "currently" exists, there's just no reason for this.

 

I also mourn the disappearance of adverbs.  People seem to have abandoned that "-ly" that makes their speech correct.  Unless they're using the word "literally".  Or "currently".

[ByTor]

I found this funny...http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/09/language_bullies_pedants_and_grammar_nerds_who_correct_people_all_the_time.html

[CoderLady]

Will a hilarious AND well-written piece about that very show make you less sad? 

 

http://previously.tv/fit-to-fat-to-fit/should-you-sit-down-for-a-big-helping-of-fit-to-fat-to-fit/

 

"No, I cannot do a single pull-up, but I can polish off a plate of cheese enchiladas without bursting into tears, falling into a fugue state, or vomiting, making me tougher than and superior to nearly every trainer on this show. I win!"  She said "tougher than and superior to" in a piece about a stupid TV show.  Warms my heart.

 

Thanks. A well-turned phrase is an excellent palate cleanser. Cheers!

[shapeshifter]

Ugh.  It drives me crazy when people abuse pronouns.  It's not that difficult!

Perhaps I will start muttering "pronoun abuse" when I hear subjects used as objects and vice versa. But I promise not to do it for someone whose first language isn't English. They always get a pass on prepositions, and I'll give them one on pronouns too.

[supposebly]

Don't worry, eventually, there will be only 1 or two pronoun forms left. English used to have an abundance of pronoun forms! It's just part of how English has been losing them over time. Languages don't change for the "better" or "worse" they just change because every generation uses them a little differently. Some languages have no pronouns, others have hundreds of verb forms with each serving the function of  pronouns that indicating different types of objects, some languages differentiate between one, 2 and more than 2.

This Wikipedia article has among other forms we lost, a table with the pronouns we used to have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_grammar#Pronouns

 

None of that is better or worse. It all works. And if speakers start using literally as its opposite, one day, that's what it will mean. We speakers determine what something means not some deity of grammar.

This is the entry for literally in the Online etymological dictionary. Apparently its so-called "misuse" has been around for a long time.

literally (adv.):
    1530s, "in a literal sense," from literal + -ly (2). Erroneously used in reference to metaphors, hyperbole, etc., even by writers like Dryden and Pope, to indicate "what follows must be taken in the strongest admissible sense" (1680s), which is opposite to the word's real meaning and a long step down the path to the modern misuse of it.

        We have come to such a pass with this emphasizer that where the truth would require us to insert with a strong expression 'not literally, of course, but in a manner of speaking', we do not hesitate to insert the very word we ought to be at pains to repudiate; ... such false coin makes honest traffic in words impossible. [Fowler, 1924]

Edited January 26, 2016 by supposebly

[MaryPatShelby]

So now an alternate spelling of "definitely" is going to be "definately"?  How long until "defiantly" is also accepted?  Or will they change the meaning of "defiantly" to be a synonym for "definitely"?

 

 

I don't know if this is in any dictionary, urban or otherwise, but I'm really sick of seeing "redic", meaning "ridiculous".  Are we going to start spelling it "rediculous" soon, and is that going to become acceptable?  And why was an "I" changed to an "e" for absolutely no reason?  I'm just not cool, I guess....

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I don't know if this is in any dictionary, urban or otherwise, but I'm really sick of seeing "redic", meaning "ridiculous".  Are we going to start spelling it "rediculous" soon, and is that going to become acceptable?  And why was an "I" changed to an "e" for absolutely no reason?  I'm just not cool, I guess....

 

While I have never seen 'redic', some people already do spell it 'rediculous'. I must not be cool either.

[Ohwell]

It makes my teeth grate to see "noone" for "no one."

[StatisticalOutlier]

None of that is better or worse. It all works. And if speakers start using literally as its opposite, one day, that's what it will mean. We speakers determine what something means not some deity of grammar.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree because I think a lot of it IS worse if it causes confusion. 

 

So what is the role of dictionary editors?  They obviously don't include every single variation of every single word or usage, so there is some selection going on. 

 

 

I don't know if this is in any dictionary, urban or otherwise, but I'm really sick of seeing "redic", meaning "ridiculous".  Are we going to start spelling it "rediculous" soon, and is that going to become acceptable?  And why was an "I" changed to an "e" for absolutely no reason?  I'm just not cool, I guess....

 

I think the reason the "i" was changed to an "e" was that's how people hear it pronounced:  ree dik u lus.  And the "ree" becomes even more pronounced for emphasis:  "That is reeee DIK u lus."

 

I would venture that you've actually read the word correctly spelled, and even thought for a second and realized it's derived from "ridicule," which is not pronounced with "ree" at the beginning. In fact, it's really hard to put a "ree" at the beginning of "ridicule," so it's obvious that it's "ri" at the beginning and not "re."  But that's the province of people who see it spelled correctly.

 

"Redic" just grates even more.

 

I think the same thing has happened with "should have" becoming "should of."  People are saying "should've" as a contraction of "should have," and it definitely sounds like "should of."  The problem is that so much of what people read these days isn't edited, or even written by people who take the time to write correctly, so you start seeing "should of" everywhere and there's nothing to indicate it's not correct. 

 

I don't really have a problem with people mis-hearing things, and actually find it kind of charming sometimes.  That's what an egg-corn is:  something that people mis-hear.  However, it's vastly different from turning "should have" into "should of" because a true eggcorn requires the person to come up with a basis for the substituted word.  Eggcorn=acorn because people think of the little oval thing that falls from a tree as an egg.  So they come up with "eggcorn." 

 

But I respect those because at least they have thought, and sometimes clever thought, behind them.  Saying "should of" or using "literally" incorrectly doesn't.  They're just wrong.

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

So what is the role of dictionary editors?  They obviously don't include every single variation of every single word or usage, so there is some selection going on.

 

They pick the most commonly used meanings. Of course, many a dictionary editor have tried to stem the tide by not including changes in meaning they have deemed silly or offensive but that is usually about as successful as trying to stop an avalanche.

[Ohwell]

I'm also annoyed by people who don't use apostrophes.  It's as if they're too lazy or too cool to insert them.

[ByTor]

I think the reason the "i" was changed to an "e" was that's how people hear it pronounced:  ree dik u lus.

I don't know if that is a regional pronunciation, but I have literally (notice what I did there hee hee) never heard anyone pronounce the 1st syllable of ridiculous as "ree".

[Bastet]

I've heard the first syllable pronounced that way when people are saying the word with exaggerated effect - the emphasis shifts to the first syllable and the i turns into a long e ("That is REE-diculous") - but never when just saying it normally.

[StatisticalOutlier]

Oops--I may have outed myself as having been raised in Texas, where mispronunciations abound.  If it's a regional thing, then I can't figure out why people think it's spelled rediculous. 

[supposebly]

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree because I think a lot of it IS worse if it causes confusion.

 

So what is the role of dictionary editors?  They obviously don't include every single variation of every single word or usage, so there is some selection going on.

Once speakers agree what it means, there is no confusion. All the people who use literally in the way we complain about, know what it means. For them. Every substantive change has a period of variation, where some speakers take part, others do not. Eventually, it's established. It's a generational thing.

 

We don't have trouble with the changes that happened before our time and the generations after us won't have trouble with the current ones. They will however complain about some other change they might not be part of.

 

This is a nice and short intro on the topic:

 

About dictionaries, I just read an interesting post on how their selection of example shows the sexism inherent in our society.

https://debuk.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/a-rabid-feminist-writes/

 

Generally, speaking, dictionary editors are pretty much always behind change. They are a lot closer to it now with online dictionaries and they are not tied to publishing/printing cycles which take years to get a new edition out. They start recording it once it reaches a critical mass or usage.

[Rick Kitchen]

 

 

Are we just going to crowd-source dictionaries now?

 

See wiktionary.

 

Speaking of pronouns, the American Dialect Society's word of the year is "they" as used as a replacement for "he/she".

Edited January 27, 2016 by Rick Kitchen

[Haleth]

Once speakers agree what it means, there is no confusion. All the people who use literally in the way we complain about, know what it means. For them. Every substantive change has a period of variation, where some speakers take part, others do not. Eventually, it's established. It's a generational thing.

 

We don't have trouble with the changes that happened before our time and the generations after us won't have trouble with the current ones. They will however complain about some other change they might not be part of.

So says supposebly.  (I just thought your user name was appropriate for the discussion.)

[shapeshifter]

It makes my teeth grate to see "noone" for "no one."

I don't use it, but I keep typing it and waiting for the squiggly red underline to appear because I wish it was correct and hope it might have become so.

[supposebly]

 

So says supposebly.  (I just thought your user name was appropriate for the discussion.)

Since my first language isn't English, it's not a (mis)pronunciation that would have occurred to me, so when I heard it on Friends in an early season I found it rather surprising.

It's hard to spell. Some people seem to want to spell it supposably. Which didn't occur to me either. Phonologically, it's hard to explain why this one happens. If it's because of the [p], that would be new since English doesn't have what's called consonant harmony except in children's speech when they are very young.

 

Back on topic:

Is anyone else bothered when hearing: I was waiting on someone. instead of I was waiting FOR someone?

When I learned English, waiting on meant to serve someone, being a waiter. waiting for was: waiting for someone to arrive. It seems pretty common but it still bugs me.

Edited January 28, 2016 by supposebly

[riley702]

I think the same thing has happened with "should have" becoming "should of."  People are saying "should've" as a contraction of "should have," and it definitely sounds like "should of."  The problem is that so much of what people read these days isn't edited, or even written by people who take the time to write correctly, so you start seeing "should of" everywhere and there's nothing to indicate it's not correct. 

 

I don't really have a problem with people mishearing things, and actually find it kind of charming sometimes.  That's what an egg-corn is:  something that people mis-hear.  However, it's vastly different from turning "should have" into "should of" because a true eggcorn requires the person to come up with a basis for the substituted word.  Eggcorn=acorn because people think of the little oval thing that falls from a tree as an egg.  So they come up with "eggcorn." .

 

People using "of" instead of "have" grates my cheese. I hate it. My Dad's egg-corns were intentional to be funny. So, he'd call Alzheimer's disease "old-timer's disease" and Oil of Olay became "oil of old age"

Edited January 28, 2016 by riley702

[ByTor]

I can't figure out why people think it's spelled rediculous.

I'm getting off topic, but the misspelling I don't get is "plutonic", which is a real word and doesn't mean the same thing as "platonic".

[legaleagle53]

Since my first language isn't English, it's not a (mis)pronunciation that would have occurred to me, so when I heard it on Friends in an early season I found it rather surprising.

It's hard to spell. Some people seem to want to spell it supposably. Which didn't occur to me either. Phonologically, it's hard to explain why this one happens. If it's because of the [p], that would be new since English doesn't have what's called consonant harmony except in children's speech when they are very young.

 

Consonant harmony isn't the problem.  The problem is that the correct spelling ("supposably") looks strange to us because we're used to the final silent "e" in the root word, "suppose," so we think it belongs where it really doesn't.  It's one of the reasons that English drives non-native speakers crazy; they look at the many exceptions to the rules of spelling and pronunciation in English, throw up their hands, and wonder whether there are really any rules at all.