ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (12/31/85)
>> Lee Gold > Albert Hanyong Yuhan >> ..Nikon would be Nee-kohn (rhymes with keytone). >> Nissan is Nees-sahn... > > For borrowed words and foreign names, it is, in general, not only >futile, but also harmful to attempt to be loyal to the pronunciation of >the word in the original language. Every language has, again in general, >a phonemic system different from other languages. Importing foreign >words with forced foreign readings contributes to mess up the host >language. Note that, in English, we do not read Paris [p'aRi]. But how long has `Paris' been in our language? A thousand years ago, I suspect even the French said /paris/. >There is no phonological rule that even lets us suspect that the >reading of "Nikon" would be /Nee-kohn/. Nearly every language that uses the roman alphabet (except English) would pronounce "Nikon" as nee-kohn /nikon/, that is, reasonably close to the Japanese. English speakers, especially americans, are notoriously ignorant about the languages of other cultures on this planet. Consequently, one often (usually?) hears "nigh-kon" /naykan/. >We have to understand that, >no matter what our reading for "Nikon" is, it is going to sound weird >to Japanese native speakers anyway. "Nikon" should be plainly Nikon >in America. I agree that it is foolish to expect most people to produce a flawless simulation of a foreign language. However, I do not think that is the point. Most people I have met from other countries appreciate any attempt whatsoever to pronounce names or words in their language correctly. Employing a best-fit of the available native phonemes for new foreign words or names, especially in languages that are spelled as rationally as Japanese or Spanish, would seem to be a natural way to encourage international understanding. >In Japan, they say Coffee [kohi], and they are not wrong in doing so. But Japanese has no such phoneme as `f', which, as I'm sure you are aware, is an allophone of `h' occurring only before `u'. In other words, /kohi/ is as close as Japanese phonetics (and traditional orthography) can get to `coffee'. To my knowledge, Japanese (like most languages) usually selects the closest native equivalent when incorporating foreign words or names. Why should we not do the same in English? > Along the same line, I argue that we should stop reading "J"s >as if they were an "h" whenever it is found in a Spanish-origined >words unless we re-spell such words to preserve the original readings >rather than the letters. English /h/ is the most obvious match for spanish /j/, and most people are familiar with names like Juan, Jose, etc. Furthermore, we can expect much larger percentage of Spanish-speaking people in this country in the near future. What you suggest is no less than a reversion to the xenophobia of America's past, a time when anything foreign was considered inferior. I realize this is not your intention; however, considering how logically most foreign languages are spelled or romanized, it is a simple matter to learn how to approximate international pronunciations using the phonemes at hand. This should be taught in public schools. Another problem with your suggestion is that english spelling cannot even accurately represent many sounds and phonetic sequences that are native to the language! For example, we cannot unambiguously represent the vowel of `put', or a "long vowel" followed by two of more consonants, as in `ninth'. There are many other difficulties, but the result is that many, if not most, foreign words whose pronunciation can be closely approximated in a reasonably natural way within the phonetic system of english admit no respelling whatsoever. The converse problem is equally bad -- there is usually no obvious way to pronounce the unusual spellings of foreign words as though they were ordinary english words. -michael