lmeck@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Loren Meck) (09/17/83)
Some comments on pronunciation and spelling of foreign words:
The surname "Jung" is not pronounced "young" in German; the "u" is
pronounced as in "put" or as "oo" in "foot" ("yoong" would be better).
The practice of incorporating foreign words using the most convenient
spelling (often the foreign one stripped of any marks not used in English,
if the foreign language uses the Roman alphabet), instead of a phonetic
spelling, is the reason for problems such as those with "San Jose", etc.
Not many people laugh at the usual pronunciation of Los Angeles (Lahs
Annjulus), but it's just as bad as the proverbial midwesterner's
pronunciation of San Jose. If these words had been incorporated
phonetically, we would have something like Sahn Hosay and Lohs Ahnhelase
("Lohs" rhymes with "dose"). Would this be better? I don't know.
In the discussion of "sake", it was mentioned that not only are the
pronunciations of the vowels impossible to determine from the spelling,
but the tones of the vowels are not conveyed either. In oriental languages,
the tone used for a vowel conveys meaning; in western languages, tone is
used to convey auxilliary information (attitude, etc.). Any representation
of an oriental word which ignores the tones of vowels is useless as a guide
to pronunciation. I'm not familiar with Japanese, but I'll give some
examples from Thai. The tone symbols I have used are ASCII approximations
of Thai tone symbols; the Thai characters for consonants and vowels cannot
even be appoximated in ASCII, so I have used phonetic Romanizations.
m
1a kow high tone he, she, him, her
+
1b kow rising tone (cow?) white
v
1c kow falling tone (cow!) rice
2a glei normal tone (rhymes with "pie") near
v
2b glei falling tone (glei!) far (!!)
----
Loren Meck (lived all my life in and around "Lahs Annjulus")stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (09/19/83)
The author of the original article suggested that oriental languages have tones. While that is true for some oriental languages (i.e.Chinese, Thai, etc) it is not true for Japanese. Japanese is a strange language from the linguistic point of view. It is not related language-family wise to any of it's neighbors. It is usually classed with Afganistani (sp?) and is perhaps related to one or two of the minor south pacific island languages. It is not related at all to Chinese or any of the south-east Asia languages. No tones in Japanese, but lots of synonyms that serve to make the language an interesting one. My qualifications on Japanese are not the greatest. I graduated from a Japanese high school in 1973, but have not used the language since about late '73 except for occasional conversations here in the U.S. I have also studied Chinese, and worked as a Chinese linguist from 1974-78, doing Chinese-English translations. Both languages have become very rusty, but I still remember most of the concepts of the languages, though not all of the vocabulary. don stanwyck : 312-979-6667 : ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck : bell labs @ naperville p.s. I gave up on natural languages when I decided I wanted to be able to support my family. I now specialize in formal (unnatural?) languages, and probably make a better salary than I ever could have as a Japanese or Chinese (or both) linguist. But I still find the field of linguistics fascinating, even if I can't spell.