tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post7164095277324656269..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: women's tennisJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-42530469479931000162011-09-05T00:34:40.026+01:002011-09-05T00:34:40.026+01:00Having initial kv- in the first place causes needl...Having initial kv- in the first place causes needless difficulty for many speakers. The poor Japanese stuck with kɯb-, for a start. They must all find it very trying, seeing how many qu sequences in French and other languages are have been adopted with k instead of kv.mallambhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086916400059545681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-53373185626121422422011-08-29T11:24:00.435+01:002011-08-29T11:24:00.435+01:00Initial /kv/ for an English speaker doesn't re...Initial /kv/ for an English speaker doesn't really seem that difficult provided that you are allowed to realise it as [kf], but trickier if it has to be [kv].<br /><br />Esperanto of course has initial "kv" in many words. Fortunately initial "kf" doesn't exist, but the usual claim about Esperanto having phonemic spelling, if true, would tend to imply that you have to pronounce initial "kv" in a way which would contrast with a hypothetical initial "kf", adding needless difficulty for many speakers.Luke Howellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01462210164873135986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-51619379702190184032011-08-29T11:20:01.941+01:002011-08-29T11:20:01.941+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Luke Howellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01462210164873135986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-9046014304175018662011-07-11T00:21:19.536+01:002011-07-11T00:21:19.536+01:00Steve
Part of the problem is that WP is committed...Steve<br /><br />Part of the problem is that WP is committed not to truth or accuracy or informativeness but to the current state of received opinion, communis opinio doctorum, self-appointedorum doctorum in many cases... . Of course, truth and all is somehow implied or rather presupposed by this, but yet... In that sense, it is rather than a Council (or rather like a local synode) than like a Church Father.<br /><br />Sometimes you can do useful things on WP, eg I once authored a paragraph on Polish female forms of surnames (our -ova', like) --- a topic that seldom fails to baffle a non-Slavic native speaker --- for the German WP. Besides, Discussions on various WP Entries can be extremely entertaining.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-45027477799068369952011-07-10T23:13:20.138+01:002011-07-10T23:13:20.138+01:00Wojciech
When I know they're rubbish, I try t...Wojciech<br /><br />When I know they're rubbish, I try to put them straight. Of course the operative word is '<b>know</b>'. I wouldn't dream of correcting their phonetics, but I've corrected some idiocies on the subjects of Blues and the apostrophe.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-19740494580054368492011-07-10T13:11:53.170+01:002011-07-10T13:11:53.170+01:00David,
so, you refuse to bow to the not-to-be-que...David,<br /><br />so, you refuse to bow to the not-to-be-questioned authority of WP, the modern Church-Father of us all?Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-59925781499893867422011-07-10T13:01:14.704+01:002011-07-10T13:01:14.704+01:00Duchesse
But I think John is wrong and Wikipedia ...Duchesse<br /><br /><i>But I think John is wrong and Wikipedia is right.</i><br /><br />'Wrong' is not an appropriate word here.<br /><br />John was writing to English speakers (native and fluent non-native) on the pronunciations made by (native) English-speaking broadcasters. Wikipedia is a total irrelevance.<br /><br />The broad-ish transcription <b>ʃəˈrapəvə</b> gives easily enough information to make the point that <b>ʃəˈræpəvə</b> might be a more appropriate anglicisation than <b>ʃærəˈpəʊvə</b> or <b>ˌʃɑrəˈpoʊvə.</b>David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-48953384103779737012011-07-10T12:54:05.503+01:002011-07-10T12:54:05.503+01:00Ad gassalascajape
thank you for this interesting ...Ad gassalascajape<br /><br />thank you for this interesting piece of information on the MN and WS dialects.<br /><br /> Also some accents in German have the 'si' (ɕ) sound, like in 'ich' or 'Chemie'. Non-accepted, though, in literary German, scoffed at in the theatre and TV. Alternates with 'sch' in some other accents, so that there are speakers of German for whom 'Kirche' (church) and 'Kirsche' (cherry) are perfectly homonophonous.<br /><br />Personally, although I speak a near-native German, I can't help, being irremediably, irredeemably and irreparably Polish, substituting the Polish 'si' for the German 'ich-Laut', for instance in 'ich' or 'Kirche' even though I know better.<br /><br />Re retroflexive and stuff---may be that my ears simply ain't fine enough---as distinct from Her Ducal Highness'. Yet I do hear the retroflexiveness for instance in the Chinese 'shi ' (ten, dragon, stone). But Wikipedia says it's laminally retroflexive in Polish, and if Wikipedia says something, it must needs be true...<br /><br />I like, too, your proposal concerning ʃ - ʂ in Polish/Serbian or whatever else was left of the erstwhile Serbo-Croatian... .Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-19379802511124074252011-07-10T11:56:41.043+01:002011-07-10T11:56:41.043+01:00"no other Slavic tongue has it"
Some ac..."no other Slavic tongue has it"<br /><br />Some accents in Montenegro and western Serbia coalesce /sj/ to /ɕ/. <br /><br />So imperative form of the verb 'to sit' is /'sedi/ in ekavian varieties, /'sjedi/ in most ijekavian varieties, and /'ɕedi/ in others.<br /><br /><br />As regards the Polish 'sz', it is to my ears the same as the Serbian sound, in which I definitely detect a degree of retroflexness. I would call the English sound [ʃ], and the Serbian and Polish sound halfway between that and the properly retroflex [ʂ], found in Chinese and some accents of northern Serbia. <br />Seeing as how neither Polish nor Serbian have a ʃ - ʂ opposition, either symbol is fine I suppose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-15373722210485410062011-07-10T09:55:45.584+01:002011-07-10T09:55:45.584+01:00Ad Duchesse de Guermantes
Your Ducal Majesty,
Of...Ad Duchesse de Guermantes<br /><br />Your Ducal Majesty,<br /><br />Of course, given that our ears are trained differently, we just can't hear the same similarities and differences, no matter how hard we try. I wasn't taught either, no. I was taught to pronounce 'ciao' with a Polish 'cz', and 'sciare' with the Polish 'sz', and this works fine because both sound (pairwise) are virtually indistinguishable. However, I hear (much as you don't) a world of difference between the Italian 'sc' and the Polish 'si' (ɕ). The latter is a rare sound in Europe; no other Slavic tongue has it, the closest to Poland is Danish ('sj' like in 'Varsjava', Warsaw), then maybe the Japanese 'sh' ('oshima', island), and maybe maybe the Chinese 'x' like in 'xiao' (small). In any event it is nowhere like the Italian 'sc'.<br /><br />That Polish 'sz' (sh) is retroflex I can't believe, maybe they built their theory on the basis of a sole native speaker who had a speech-defect. I hear very well the retroflexivity of the Chinese 'sh', but the Polish sound is not like that. Neither is it like the English 'sh', which to us sounds like intermediary between our 'sz' and our 'si' (ɕ).Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-80458305256825425632011-07-09T22:29:07.020+01:002011-07-09T22:29:07.020+01:00I just don't agree. Perhaps you were taught to...I just don't agree. Perhaps you were taught to say <i>ciao</i> with a Czech <i>č</i> and <i>sciare</i> with a French <i>ch</i>, but that doesn't mean it sounds like that. Because it doesn't.Duchesse de Guermanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12198316853449400624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-58845587750165233032011-07-09T20:59:12.496+01:002011-07-09T20:59:12.496+01:00Ad Duchesse de Guermantes
Forvo Lisicki doesn'...Ad Duchesse de Guermantes<br /><br />Forvo Lisicki doesn't sound native at all. Maybe some dialectal pronunciation. As I said before, Italian 'sc' and Polish 'si' ARE, in very deed, quite different, whereas the former and Polish 'sz' (or ʃ, as it is usually transcribed) are quite close, though I am not now sure if really identical. <br /><br />The theory that Polish ʃ is retroflex is one of those oversmart theories whose chief merit is supposed to reside in having found weird properties in 'exotic' languages. IMHO, at least. As I said I am not sure it if its 100 p.c. identical with the Italian 'sc', but it is with the German 'sch' or the French 'ch'. Let's not look for complexities where there are ... well ... hardly any.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-91609293087872828902011-07-09T20:40:32.884+01:002011-07-09T20:40:32.884+01:00Official as in official for Wikipedia, not on the ...<i>Official</i> as in <i>official for Wikipedia</i>, not on the planetary level. But I think John is wrong and Wikipedia is right.Duchesse de Guermanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12198316853449400624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-2228442457203088122011-07-09T20:38:47.138+01:002011-07-09T20:38:47.138+01:00I just don't agree. Although ʃ, tʃ and dʒ in I...I just don't agree. Although <b>ʃ</b>, <b>tʃ</b> and <b>dʒ</b> in Italian are classified as <i>postalveolar</i>, to me they are vastly different from, say, Czech <i>š, č</i> and Serbo-Croatian <i>dž</i>. In Polish <b>ɕ</b>, <b>ʑ</b> and <b>tɕ</b> are palatal and to me, that's how Italian phonemes sound.<br /><br />Though, I have to say <a href="http://www.forvo.com/word/lisicki/#pl" rel="nofollow">Forvo's <i>Lisicki</i></a> comes close, but it's not perfectly Italian. On the other hand, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lech_kaczy%C5%84ski" rel="nofollow">Lech Kaczyński</a> is positively atrocious. The retroflexes don't sound retroflex enough and <b>ɲ</b> isn't really the same as Spanish <b>ɲ</b>, which, I guess, it should be?Duchesse de Guermanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12198316853449400624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-3189108182591920332011-07-09T19:50:21.277+01:002011-07-09T19:50:21.277+01:00Duchesse
What exactly did you edit?
'tro:jaj...Duchesse<br /><br /><i>What exactly did you edit?</i><br /><br /><b>'tro:jaj</b> — It seemed to be what you and Wojciech were agreed on.<br /><br />I don't particularly object to the <i>Wikipedia</i> transcription of Russian but I don't see it as 'official'. I prefer the way John transcribed <i> Sharapova</i>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-6820357893889289572011-07-09T18:49:08.000+01:002011-07-09T18:49:08.000+01:00Ad Duchesse de Guermantes
"
I think ʂ is OK ...Ad Duchesse de Guermantes<br /><br />"<br />I think ʂ is OK here. There are plenty of other baffling IPA choices, such as using ʃ for Italian sc or dʒ, which to me sound more like Polosh ɕ and Chinese dʑ."<br /><br />I think ʃ for Italian 'sc' (lasciare, fascia ecc.) is quite correct. The sound is quite different from the Polish ɕ (LiSIcki)and is to all ends and purposes identical with the Polish ʃ (spelt 'sz‘). Which, again, is NOT identical with, though similar to, and by Polish speakers often substituted for, the English 'sh'.Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-17330739699180728242011-07-09T17:59:26.625+01:002011-07-09T17:59:26.625+01:00vp, what would you like me to fix? Your typo in ˈt...vp, what would you like me to fix? Your typo in <b>ˈtroːjjae</b> (second <b>j</b> and <b>a</b> should switch places and the final <b>e</b> is redundant)? I can't, but it doesn't matter, I think we clarified it. :)<br /><br />David, I think you should follow <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Russian" rel="nofollow">the official Wikipedia IPA for Russian</a>. In my browser <b>[mɐˈrʲijə ˈjurʲjɪvnə ʂɐˈrapəvə]</b> still appears as the transcription. What exactly did you edit?<br /><br />If you read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_phonology" rel="nofollow">the article on Russian phonology</a>, you will see that <b>[ɐ]</b> is an allophone of the phoneme <b>a</b> (and <b>o</b>) in pre-tonic and absolute word-initial positions. So I think it shouldn't be changed to the STRUT vowel. Wikipedia doesn't usually modify the IPA to suit the English speakers.<br /><br />I think <b>ʂ</b> is OK here. There are plenty of other baffling IPA choices, such as using <b>ʃ</b> for Italian <i>sc</i> or <b>dʒ</b>, which to me sound more like Polosh <b>ɕ</b> and Chinese <b>dʑ</b>.<br /><br />Given the number of Russian allophones, I'm not surprised you wonder about certain choices.Duchesse de Guermanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12198316853449400624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-27916565283217547742011-07-09T15:59:56.971+01:002011-07-09T15:59:56.971+01:00But is it outdated wisdom that the poetic stress (...But is it outdated wisdom that the poetic stress (ictus) is a different thing than the regular word-stress in classical Latin? The former being energy, the latter peak? So that both can occur and get along well in one and the same word... . Have you, guys, any new findings in this area? <br /><br />Re Russian 'sh' versus English 'sh': this-—alveolar, that—-dental, perhaps? This difference sets English apart from some continental languages,such as Polish (sz), Hungarian (s), German (sch) — all of these are dental, sound 'dark', 'hard', 'rough', whereas the English 'sh', being alveolar, sounds rather palatal-ish, 'soft', 'fine'...Podpora społeczeństwahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08339088245843399386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-66392034692187134172011-07-09T15:35:08.675+01:002011-07-09T15:35:08.675+01:00vp, Duchesse
I've fixed Wikipedia, I think. P...vp, Duchesse<br /><br />I've fixed Wikipedia, I think. Perhaps you should check.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-57189749377898170982011-07-09T15:24:21.361+01:002011-07-09T15:24:21.361+01:00Duchesse
My system won't play the sound file ...Duchesse<br /><br />My system won't play the sound file in Wikipedia, but I can hear how my native-speaker wife pronounces <b>Мария Юрьевна Шарапова</b>.<br /><br />1. The initial consonant of her surname doesn't sound like a retroflex <b>ʂ</b>, and my wife considers it to be just like an English <b>ʃ</b>.<br /><br />2. The symbol used for the unstressed <b>а</b> vowel preceding stressed syllables in both <b>Мария</b> and <b>Шарапова</b> looks very much like the IPA symbol for the English vowel in RP pronunciations of LOT words. Many of us prefer <b>ʌ</b> to represent this allophone. However, it's so close in value to unstressed of allophones of <b>а</b> and <b>о</b> in other positions that the use of <b>ə</b>, as in John's OP, is arguably just as informative — especially as so many English-speakers fail to make a distinction between an unstressed STRUT vowel and a lettER vowel.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-6258591900774546852011-07-09T13:38:23.353+01:002011-07-09T13:38:23.353+01:00@Duchesse:
I think that you're right that [ae...@Duchesse:<br /><br />I think that you're right that [ae] is a typographical error. Maybe one of us could fix it.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-68615989128616548162011-07-09T13:24:34.816+01:002011-07-09T13:24:34.816+01:00Wiktionary also has a page about Latin pronunciati...<i>Wiktionary</i> also has <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:About_Latin/Pronunciation" rel="nofollow">a page about Latin pronunciation</a>.Duchesse de Guermanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12198316853449400624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-87949729862485792892011-07-09T13:20:05.079+01:002011-07-09T13:20:05.079+01:00Yes, vp, I know I've made a mistake in that u ...Yes, vp, I know I've made a mistake in that <b>u</b> is nasalized, <i>v</i> is <b>w</b> and that <b>k</b> is labio-palatalized. And I wasn't sure about the lenghts in <i>oris</i>. <br /><br />However, are you sure about <i>Troiae</i>? Isn't <i>ae</i> <b>aj</b> and <i>oi</i> should be <b>oj</b>?Duchesse de Guermanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12198316853449400624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-56844609307903008792011-07-09T13:16:28.615+01:002011-07-09T13:16:28.615+01:00My browser doesn't make clear what your supers...My browser doesn't make clear what your superscript symbol is meant to be. <br /><br />If it's a stress mark, then, yes that's what Wojciech indicated through <b>bold</b> in the 11:57 posting on 8 July.<br /><br />If it's a pitch mark, I'm not so sure. Yes, the pitch would have been high, but perhaps another symbol would better represent the <b>movement</b>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-86605983264416143882011-07-09T13:07:29.213+01:002011-07-09T13:07:29.213+01:00@Duchesse:
Wikipedia gives
[ˈarma wiˈrũːkᶣe ˈkan...@Duchesse:<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#From_Classical_Latin" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> gives<br /><br />[ˈarma wiˈrũːkᶣe ˈkanoː ˈtroːjjae kᶣiː ˈpriːmus ab ˈoːriːs]<br /><br />I'm not sure exactly when Classical Latin [w] lost its velar component to become [β~ʋ~v]: there is some evidence of this in the 3rd century AD Appendix Probi.vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.com