Meddelanden: 20
Språk: English
Hyperboreus (Visa profilen) 30 maj 2012 08:14:10
hebda999 (Visa profilen) 30 maj 2012 08:26:08
Hyperboreus:Yeah, only that most Polish except you pronounce "punkt" as [pũŋkt̪] with a [ŋ] and not a [n]. Most liquidae are assimilate to the place of articulation of the following plosive.You have missed something - I write about the ease of esperanto pronunciation, not about the Polish one. And I have shown you how to pronounce that:
pun-kto
If you don't believe that, come to Skype and I will show you.
fajrkapo (Visa profilen) 30 maj 2012 08:35:12
hebda999: And I have shown you how to pronounce that:Mi preferas punk-to al pun-kto...
pun-kto
I do prefer punk-to than pun-kto...
Hyperboreus (Visa profilen) 30 maj 2012 08:44:40
TatuLe (Visa profilen) 30 maj 2012 13:39:25
jchthys (Visa profilen) 30 maj 2012 13:47:58
Fenris_kcf:Well, it's not totally clear. For some words it's almost impossible to speak them the way they are written, for example punkto. It's extremely hard to pronounce this word the way it is written. Instead you use the sound "/ŋ/" for the "nk"-part. Most people also do this in words like "lingvo", though it is much easier to really pronounce it "lin-gvo".But this still follows the grapheme/phoneme rule. In laymen's terms: you don't ever distinguish words on the basis of 'n' versus 'ng', so if it's a bit easier to pronounce a word like "lingvo" with 'ng' instead of 'n', that's okay and doesn't break the rule that Esperanto is pronounced as written.
Now if the situation were like this, then the rules would be broken: what if pronouncing it with that 'ng' sound were the only correct pronunciation? Then there would be something about the spoken language that's not indicated in the written language. This would be especially true if some words were distinguished solely by this 'n'/'ng' difference.
(Cherokee comes to mind now, since I was reading about it yesterday: vowel length and tone are both part of the spoken language, but aren't indicated in writing, since there are few minimal pairs distinguished on the basis of tone or vowel quantity alone. I hope you can see how the case of [n] and [ŋ] in Esperanto is different.)
Hyperboreus (Visa profilen) 30 maj 2012 19:50:19
Bluemountain (Visa profilen) 30 maj 2012 21:25:39
Jezine:I know in English and French they aren't, but I wasn't sure if their was a huge difference in Esperanto.Are you asking if every letter etc is always pronounced the same way when spoken .. or are you asking if spoken "day to day" Esperanto is grammatically very similar to text-book written Esperanto?
I can speak Indonesian and in that language, similar to Esperanto, every letter is always pronounced the same way... so if you see an Indonesian word for the first time on paper you know how to pronounce it without having to be taught. Spoken Indonesian, however, is notorious for being significantly different to text-book Indonesian with regards to grammar, affix use, vocab use, suffix use etc etc .... a bigger gap than you find between written English and spoken English.
As someone who has just started studying Esperanto, I'd like to know the answer re spoken v written Esperanto
erinja (Visa profilen) 31 maj 2012 00:05:45
Very fluent speakers might use a few more informalities when they speak, perhaps omit a subject very slightly more often, use a bit more slang. But it normally wouldn't fall into the range of incorrect grammar.
Esperanto is a language that most people learn from books, for better or for worse. That means that the spoken form adheres more closely to the "book form" than languages that are mostly learned by children from their parents.
(and for what it's worth, "from birth" Esperanto speakers, who learned from their parents, do not generally speak better than another experienced speakers - generally, their grammar will be *worse* than an experienced speaker who learned the usual way, from books or classes)
sudanglo (Visa profilen) 31 maj 2012 08:35:40
There is also not much differentiation in Esperanto in what the linguists call register, vocabulary and style associated with particular situations.
The only difference I can think of which might stand up is the difference between academic writing and less formal communication.
It could be - you would need tape recordings of conversations at congresses to prove this - a greater tendency for unusual compounds in ordinary conversation, brought on by the inability to bring to mind 'le mot guste' on the spur of the moment, or a more playful inventiveness (in ordinary conversation there is a lot of help from context).