MovieChat Forums > Rugrats (1991) Discussion > Rugrat mispronuncations further explaine...

Rugrat mispronuncations further explained


I know I've touched on this before, but I thought I'd try to explain it another way.


During the Germain era, the philosophy behind the talking babies was that they were perfectly capable of speaking, the adults just didn't know it. The writers never decided whether it was because they were speaking behind the adults' backs or because the adults simply couldn't understand their language.


But the key was that the babies were not limited intellectually by their cognitive development, they were limited by education. They were every bit as smart as the adults, they just had no education whatsoever aside from what they learned on their own through observation. This was what led to numerous misunderstandings, and these were among the key comedic devices for the series. The babies would draw false conclusions about something in the world in an amusing way, and their misunderstanding would often ironically turn out to be correct in a way.

The Rugrats didn't mispronounce words in this era, they mistakenly said the wrong words, or misunderstood the construction of a word, in a way that led to an amusing play on the word or expression.

For example, when Chuckie was talking about how nobody could make him stop wearing his diapers, not even the President of the United States, he said "B-Nited States" instead. This was not a matter of Chuckie not being able to pronounce the word, "United." It was the fact that while Chuckie had heard of the United States before, one of the things he remembered is that it started with a letter of the alphabet. He mixed up which one it was, hence "B-nited" instead of "U-nited/United."

Since Chuckie has never gone to school or received any kind of formal education, he has only overheard the name of the country, that there is a "President" of the country, and he has overheard some of the letters of the alphabet and recognized that the name of the country starts with one of those letters.

When Chuckie is narrating in "Blizzard," he says dates such as, "Septembruary 37th." This is because he confused the names for months he has overheard people mentioning, hence he says an amalgam month, and he does not know that there are no 37 day months. Again, this is a mistake that emanates from a lack of education, not a lack of cognitive development. Even when he said "Barch" to mean "March," it was simply him not remembering the proper name, not him being unable to pronounce it.

When Chuckie counts during Hide-and-Seek, he pronounces all the numbers just fine. He just says them out of order because he never learned the correct sequence. "Four, Seven, Twelve, Eight, Five, One, Seventeen. OK, here I come."



The problem with the newer writers is they mistakenly thought that the idea was that the babies were merely advanced for their age, hence they wrote their lines as though they were trying to imitate the limited way in which 3/4 year olds speak. They were trying to mimic a little kid's undeveloped speaking ability leading to struggles pronouncing words correctly. In the Germain era, the Rugrats had no difficulty pronouncing words correctly. A "diaper" was a "diaper." Because they weren't 3-4 year olds, they were babies the parents thought were mute who could actually articulate themselves perfectly. The only 3-year-olds on the show were Angelica and Suzie, and they pretty much openly spoke like adults, outside of their own educational limitations.

The new writers also projected that adult-created "cutesyness" onto the characters, leading to sickening faux-words like "diapees" coming out of the babies' mouths. This is the writers' demonstration that they're the type of people who use "baby talk" around their babies/very little children/pets and wishing that the babies and pets would actually talk the way they talk around them. "Awwww, you want a blankee? You need a diapee change? Are you sweepy, witto boy?" "My witto puppy, you're a good boy, yes you are. Yes you are."

In actuality, the cuteness from little children/pets in real life is unintentional. The puppy gets food all over its face getting into the pantry, for example. If a baby or small child ever uses one of those cutesy long-E ending words, it is only because an adult has taught them that's the word they should use.

The Rugrats misunderstanding things in the Germain era was naturally cute. They weren't trying to be cute, they were just falling victim to their limited experience. It was cuteness at a distance...the characters were trying their best but they were constrained by their circumstances.

reply

Wow. 

Just Blue Sweeeeeeet!

reply

I don't know though. This just seems to be yet another thread about how much the later seasons of this show supossedly sucked, which I can't really agree with. And I never minded that the babies said "diapy" or "blanky" rather than diaper and blanket, because babies and toddlers will talk like that.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

No, babies will not talk like that because:

1. Babies don't talk.
2. Kids don't invent cutesy words for things. Their parents do when talking down to them.

reply

Sigh... Okay...

1: My niece was fifteen months old when she started speaking, and we still saw her as a baby at the time. Of course, you might see a 15-months-old as a toddler rather than baby. But it can be difficult to know where to draw the line. And either way, her speech is still partly "baby talk" now when she's 2 and half years old.
2: But babies do learn how to talk through listening to the grown-ups and the older children around them. That's how it works! And trust me, "diapie" and "blankie" sound much more like what a 1-year-old or a 2-year-old would say that what "b-nited states of America" or "Septembuary 37th" does (those sound more like what a 4-year-old or 5-year-old would say).

Intelligence and purity.

reply

You have some nerve talking to me that way. The one who should be sighing is me, because I'm arguing with an obvious dolt. Yet you respond in an obnoxious, passive-aggressive tone when you state beliefs that are so childishly myopic?

1: By "speaking" you mean they may have a 2-3 word vocabulary. That's not speaking. That's your little relatives saying their first words. And it's completely irrelevant when it comes to Rugrats, anyway, because they are, in the show, too young to possibly speak, according to the parameters of the cartoon.

2. You just don't get it. They're not supposed to be able to talk at all to adults in the show. The literal age they give for them is completely irrelevant. This is them before they ever say their first word. Pretend Tommy is 1 month old, Chuckie 2 months old, and Phil & Lil are 1 1/2 months old instead if you want to apply it to "real life." Or a day old. It doesn't matter. In the show, the adults think it's impossible for them to talk. That's the concept of their role in the series. They're mute, except with each other. With each other, they're completely sentient and articulate.

They could be secretly talking dogs instead of secretly talking babies and it wouldn't make any difference to the intent. Their "speech" is top secret. They were not based on developing children; that's my point.

The original writers saw them as perceived mutes (by the adult characters) who could speak perfectly fine.

You have this mistaken idea that this series was ever supposed to delve into early childhood development. It wasn't. It was an adult satire. Yuppie, incompetent parents, incompetent adults, and a world in which babies who haven't even said their first word are perfectly articulate with each other, but never say anything to the adults.

Their constraint in the originals was never about speech restrictions; they had none. They could pronounce any word perfectly. They had educational restrictions that led to misinterpretations, some of which included misinterpreting the concept of a word, and role restrictions (i.e., they're still trapped in the baby surroundings the adults constructed for them).

In the original 65, they're not learning how to talk. They already know how to talk (whether it was because they spoke behind the adults' backs or they communicated in a different language the adults couldn't understand, the writers never decided). If they had wanted to depict them learning how to talk, they would not have made Tommy 1. They made Tommy 1 because it was symbolic. As Paul Germain said, "he represents the youngest person there is." It is impossible for the youngest person there is to talk or be aware of everything, but he does the impossible, and he does the impossible because the adults are stupid for assuming it is impossible. The joke is on the adults. That's the satire.

And as Paul Germain also said, they are very smart but they don't understand anything. They're the rough equivalent to an adult with severe amnesia. You can see this in action in "Regarding Stuie" - Stu forgets almost everything he knew, thinks he's a baby, but he remains completely articulate, and is able to perfectly communicate with the babies. He didn't lose any speech ability, he lost adult knowledge (and "adult knowledge" is often revealed to be trivial or silly when viewed at a distance, with the babies' misunderstandings actually hitting on a truth that adults miss amidst the corruption of the adult world).

Again, their portrayal has absolutely nothing to do with real life babies or children. I don't know how many different ways I have to explain this for it to sink in.

And no, 4 and 5-year-olds are not going to say either of my examples. Ever. Because both are the result of higher-level thinking to arrive at the misinterpretation.

reply

0 to 100... real quick....

http://www.beyondblackwhite.com/-My community

reply

If I'd read this first , I'd have agreed with you off the bat. Rugrats is brilliantly satirical!

reply

That's BS!

Off the top of my head, as a very young kid I said 'gardy' for garden and 'offist' instead of office, oh and cinemarket. Also, I work in child psychology and children absolutely do make up words, often by accidentally mispronouncing words!

reply

They don't change words into cutesy "y"/"ie"-ending words of their own volition. That's something adults do for them.

Not the main point, anyway. Germain and his staff had absolutely zero interest in early childhood development. The show had absolutely nothing to do with that under the original writers. This is something people just don't get. It's why you asked about Chuckie not speaking at "2."

The show was conceived of by Germain as a metaphor for the disconnect between children and adults. These babies are a metaphor for all children, and in this fictional world, it is the adults condescendingly believing they are babies, hence not able to speak or be aware of anything, that fuels the show. Only in actuality, they can speak perfectly and are completely aware. They just have misconceptions about the adult world because of the disconnect between them and the adults - the same as the adults in the show having misconceptions about their world.

And of course, many of the babies' misconceptions about the adult world turn out to be ironically true.

The babies in Rugrats are as smart as the adults, but limited by their lack of education. Everything they know they've figured out through observation.

reply

I never understood why Chuckie couldn't actually talk a bit aged 2 years though.

reply

Because you don't understand the concept of the series. His age wasn't meant to be taken literally. Tommy represented "the youngest person there is," rather than being a literal 1-year-old. Chuckie was "2" to represent having more experience than Tommy, hence his apprehension about the world.

reply