Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Recent Trademark Filings Hint at Possible Names for macOS 10.14 - Mojave, Sequoia, Ventura or Sonoma

IJ Reilly said:
I've lived in California for decades, and learned these pronunciations long ago, yet I think you are being a bit snarky about who should know how to pronounce them correctly. Anyone who isn't familiar with Spanish (especially, the Spanish J and English H sound being the same sound) is bound to be puzzled, especially if neither Spanish nor English is their first language.
Click to expand...
I am frequently snarky but I am not being so in this thread. My point was quite clear in my first sentence: "You're conflating "easy to pronounce" with "easy to guess how to pronounce"."

I was replying to someone saying that these names are hard to pronounce. They aren't. The syllables are quite simple. You might not be able to guess how how to pronounce them, but that's the case for a huge number of words that are in common use. If you're uncertain how to pronounce it, you find out, once, and pronounce it the correct way from then on. Folks are making it out like there's going to be months of confusion. You say I'm being snarky about, "who should know how to pronounce them correctly". I'm not. I'm not saying that everyone will (or should) already know the relevant rules, I am saying, if you are unfamiliar with the word, take a few seconds to learn the correct pronunciation of that word, and move on (and if you're likely to run into a bunch of words from similar roots, then yes, pick up a few of the pronunciation rules - doing so well be worth the effort).

When Linux was starting to be a thing, I ran into dozens of people who would confidently assert, "No, see, it's pronounced Lie-nucks, because his name is Linus". And I'd point out that Linus Torvalds is Finnish and he pronounces his own name (roughly) "Lih-nus", and he pronounces the name of his creation, (roughly) "Lih-nucks". Now, the proper pronunciation of Linux is much more common (no, not because of me). We learn, we move on. If you're a Mac user, you're likely going to use the name of the OS somewhere between once a week and multiple times a day, for at least a year. Take a moment to memorize the pronunciation and then it's not a problem. Learning to type is hard. Learning to say "Mojave" is easy.

IJ Reilly said:
Complicating matters in the one case at least is the fact that the Spanish spelling of Mojave isn't always used. In some places it's spelled Mohave, English phonetically
Click to expand...
I've lived in Southern California all my life, traveled through much of the area, and I've never seen "Mohave" written anywhere.

Personally, I'd vote for Sequoia, BTW. I like forest more than desert, though I can appreciate the beauty in both.

(And, really, go listen to the pronunciation of "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch" - it's quite impressive and worth the 19 seconds of video. I would not recommend it for a macOS version name.)
 
Last edited:
CarlJ said:
I am frequently snarky but I am not being so in this thread. My point was quite clear in my first sentence: "You're conflating "easy to pronounce" with "easy to guess how to pronounce"."

I was replying to someone saying that these names are hard to pronounce. They aren't. The syllables are quite simple. You might not be able to guess how how to pronounce them, but that's the case for a huge number of words that are in common use. If you're uncertain how to pronounce it, you find out, once, and pronounce it the correct way from then on. Folks are making it out like there's going to be months of confusion. You say I'm being snarky about, "who should know how to pronounce them correctly". I'm not. I'm not saying that everyone will (or should) already know the relevant rules, I am saying, if you are unfamiliar with the word, take a few seconds to learn the correct pronunciation of that word, and move on (and if you're likely to run into a bunch of words from similar roots, then yes, pick up a few of the pronunciation rules - doing so well be worth the effort).

When Linux was starting to be a thing, I ran into dozens of people who would confidently assert, "No, see, it's pronounced Lie-nucks, because his name is Linus". And I'd point out that Linus Torvalds is Finnish and he pronounces his own name (roughly) "Lih-nus", and he pronounces the name of his creation, (roughly) "Lih-nucks". Now, the proper pronunciation of Linux is much more common (no, not because of me). We learn, we move on. If you're a Mac user, you're likely going to use the name of the OS somewhere between once a week and multiple times a day, for at least a year. Take a moment to memorize the pronunciation and then it's not a problem. Learning to type is hard. Learning to say "Mojave" is easy.

I've lived in Southern California all my life, traveled through much of the area, and I've never seen "Mohave" written anywhere.

Personally, I'd vote for Sequoia, BTW. I like forest more than desert, though I can appreciate the beauty in both.

(And, really, go listen to the pronunciation of "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch" - it's quite impressive and worth the 19 seconds of video. I would not recommend it for a macOS version name.)
Click to expand...

You are assuming that a person would not know how to pronounce a name even after they've been told, so we can settle on pedantic if you prefer. Either way, you are avoiding my other point, which is that multiple pronunciations can be quite acceptable. To that I would add that they change over time. So no easy right answers here no matter what you say.

My definition of some places extends beyond the borders of California. In Arizona, it's spelled Mohave.
 
IJ Reilly said:
You are assuming that a person would not know how to pronounce a name even after they've been told, so we can settle on pedantic if you prefer. Either way, you are avoiding my other point, which is that multiple pronunciations can be quite acceptable. To that I would add that they change over time. So no easy right answers here no matter what you say.
Click to expand...
I am not making that assumption - I have the impression that the original argument was making that assumption (or maybe assuming that most people would first encounter the name in text form rather than hearing it). But I'll happily take pedantic.

And the thing about multiple pronunciations is, if they are correct pronunciations, then we're in the clear - the original argument that was being made was that Mojave (and similar names derived, in this case, from Spanish or Native American languages) was a terrible choice for a macOS version name because it was hard to pronounce. Technically, that would mean "difficult to utter those syllables" (e.g. I can't roll R's properly to do numerous Spanish words proper justice), though I perceive the original argument was really going for, "unlikely that many people would know the proper sequence of syllables to utter". I was arguing that the syllables necessary for the names in question were all fairly simple, and limited in quantity, and thus the names were not, as argued, hard to pronounce.

What you're saying as your other point, if I understand correctly, is that there are cases where there are several sequences of syllables that would all be correct answers. And my response is: that's great! Then any one of those will do. Arguably, having multiple correct answers means it's slightly easier to pronounce correctly (in that there is more than one chance to be correct), which is a point supporting the notion that a name like Mojave would not be a bad choice. If such a name were chosen, folks who don't know how to pronounce it already can pick any one of the correct pronunciations, memorize that, and get on with their lives.

Yes, I agree that we are way down in the weeds of pedantry here. I'm going to continue to roll my eyes at folks who express horror or some form of outrage at the idea of a name like Yosemite or El Capitan or Sequoia or Mojave. If I can learn how to pronounce schadenfreude (as one tiny example), they can learn how to pronounce Mojave.

(I recently met a child whose name is Saoirse, and later saw her name in a message. I had to ask someone who that was, as the text reads to me more like "sow-erss", when what I hear is more like "sear-sha". It was a matter of connecting the two in my brain: "hey! the name 'Saoirse' is pronounced sear-sha", and then I go on to the next thing. It's not that hard.)
 
Last edited:
I would use Terra Alta. High Earth. Why not, MacOS is so high above anything else, right AppleHeads? JK
 
Last edited:
CarlJ said:
I am not making that assumption - I have the impression that the original argument was making that assumption (or maybe assuming that most people would first encounter the name in text form rather than hearing it). But I'll happily take pedantic.

And the thing about multiple pronunciations is, if they are correct pronunciations, then we're in the clear - the original argument that was being made was that Mojave (and similar names derived, in this case, from Spanish or Native American languages) was a terrible choice for a macOS version name because it was hard to pronounce. Technically, that would mean "difficult to utter those syllables" (e.g. I can't roll R's properly to do numerous Spanish words proper justice), though I perceive the original argument was really going for, "unlikely that many people would know the proper sequence of syllables to utter". I was arguing that the syllables necessary for the names in question were all fairly simple, and limited in quantity, and thus the names were not, as argued, hard to pronounce.

What you're saying as your other point, if I understand correctly, is that there are cases where there are several sequences of syllables that would all be correct answers. And my response is: that's great! Then any one of those will do. Arguably, having multiple correct answers means it's slightly easier to pronounce correctly (in that there is more than one chance to be correct), which is a point supporting the notion that a name like Mojave would not be a bad choice. If such a name were chosen, folks who don't know how to pronounce it already can pick any one of the correct pronunciations, memorize that, and get on with their lives.

Yes, I agree that we are way down in the weeds of pedantry here. I'm going to continue to roll my eyes at folks who express horror or some form of outrage at the idea of a name like Yosemite or El Capitan or Sequoia or Mojave. If I can learn how to pronounce schadenfreude (as one tiny example), they can learn how to pronounce Mojave.

(I recently met a child whose name is Saoirse, and later saw her name in a message. I had to ask someone who that was, as the text reads to me more like "sow-erss", when what I hear is more like "sear-sha". It was a matter of connecting the two in my brain: "hey! the name 'Saoirse' is pronounced sear-sha", and then I go on to the next thing. It's not that hard.)
Click to expand...

In the land of the perversity of English, why is Amarillo in Texas "am-a-rill-o" but Camarillo in California is "cam-a-ree-o," given that both names are Spanish? What's correct pronunciation of these names if you're a Spanish speaker in Texas or an English speaker in California? In the latter case saying "cam-a-rill-o" no matter what language is your mother tongue would immediately brand you as new in these parts (unless you are Frank Zappa). But I suspect a Spanish speaker could get away with am-a-ree-o, though seeing as it's Texas somebody might try to deport them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ and Morod
IJ Reilly said:
In the land of the perversity of English, why is Amarillo in Texas "am-a-rill-o" but Camarillo in California is "cam-a-ree-o," given that both names are Spanish? What's correct pronunciation of these names if you're a Spanish speaker in Texas or an English speaker in California?
Click to expand...
Yep, it gets weird. There are rules, and then there is regional historical precedent that can override rules.

There's a section of San Diego (Pacific Beach) that has a bunch of streets named after precious stones, and the main drag is "Garnet Ave". Except, the precious stone is "GARN-it", while everyone here (really, everyone) will tell you that, regardless of the precious stone pronunciation, the name of the street is "gahr-NETTE". And it's not like, "silly people they don't know better", that has become the proper and accepted name of the street over the past 100 years. Pronounced that way, it doesn't conjure up images of a precious stone, but rather of a particular part of town, and if you ask for directions using the precious-stone-version of the pronunciation, folks would rightly consider you a tourist or uninformed newcomer. It's not that the local pronunciation of the street name is wrong, it has evolved away from its roots. But if you come here equipped with the best English rules, they'll fail you in that instance (if you weren't already tripped up by the Spanish and Native American-derived names - we've got this bonus round).

And oddly enough, when I looked up the wikipedia link for Pacific Beach to add it above, the article lists the street names, and specifically points out the universally used local pronunciation of Garnet.
 
Last edited:
Sequoia seems like a good name to me. It reminds of something you can trust, that is going to last forever. A good name for a release meant to bring stability to the Mac.
 
I think in recognition of the contribution of Apple staff in other countries, they should include non-US OS names:

macOS Hollyhill (where the Cork facility is located)
macOS Blarney (a few miles away, and might inspire Siri somewhat?)
macO'S (needs no explanation)
mac An Taoiseach ('son of the chief'. Where the 'mac' name originates).

:p
 
macOS Rough and Ready.

Because it's still buggy, but we're gonna put it out anyway.
 
Last edited:
IJ Reilly said:
Sequoia isn't actually a National Park. A long time ago it was joined with Kings Canyon to create the current Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true. Sequoia and Kings Canyon are both national parks and they have not been combined into a single park. They are side by side however and have combined entrances.

From https://www.nps.gov/seki/index.htm:
"These two parks lie side by side..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back