Mesaĝoj: 24
Lingvo: English
jchthys (Montri la profilon) 2009-aprilo-24 16:31:56
RiotNrrd:Well, they’d pronounce it differently, but the broad phonetic spelling given would still apply to any speaker of the language, even though the narrow IPA would be different.henma:Last word I had problems with was "thoroughly" (which I still don't know how to pronounce).If you're an American on the west coast, it's (soft th) THER-o-lee.
My guess is that the British, Australians, South Africans, etc., probably pronounce it slightly differently (and possibly differently amongst themselves as well).
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2009-aprilo-24 18:48:31
jchthys:It's a hard "th" in Britain, not soft. Must admit I've never heard it spoken by anyone with a soft th, I'll keep my ears open for that.RiotNrrd:Well, they’d pronounce it differently, but the broad phonetic spelling given would still apply to any speaker of the language, even though the narrow IPA would be different.henma:Last word I had problems with was "thoroughly" (which I still don't know how to pronounce).If you're an American on the west coast, it's (soft th) THER-o-lee.
My guess is that the British, Australians, South Africans, etc., probably pronounce it slightly differently (and possibly differently amongst themselves as well).
Edit: Oops! I got them mixed up! It is indeed soft th in Britain to.
jchthys (Montri la profilon) 2009-aprilo-24 19:24:04
henma (Montri la profilon) 2009-aprilo-24 22:24:00
jchthys:It is indeed the same sound. For those who aren’t quite sure what soft and hard are (as I was): soft means ‘voiced’ and hard means ‘unvoiced’. Thoroughly is pronounced with an unvoiced initial consonant [θ].Thanks for the clarification, but...
Most said it is the SOFT sound (so VOICED: ð)
You say it stats with the UNVOICED one (aka HARD: θ)
I know this is (almost) the same sound, except for the voicing, but it is the same difference you have between p/b or t/d, so not a small difference.
Amike,
Daniel.
RiotNrrd (Montri la profilon) 2009-aprilo-25 01:51:19
andogigi (Montri la profilon) 2009-aprilo-25 05:05:19
A journalist ran into his newspaper editor and said, "We just got this message over the wire. There was a massive earthquake in Poland, in the city of Szczecin." The editor simply replied, "Come back when you know the name of the city BEFORE the quake"
andogigi (Montri la profilon) 2009-aprilo-25 05:15:09
Vilinilo:Take a look at this post at New Scientist Technology blogs: "Outing Esperanto". Apparentely, more than one year ago, two guys have showed by statistical methods that Esperanto is somewhat different from "natural" languages, or rather, that Eo is somewhat different of English.This is silly. The answer to their question is in the study itself. They compared two books by the author Lewis Carrol which were orignally written in English. Then, they compared the same books in translation.
They found that the two books, statistically, used similar quantities of the same words. When they checked Esperanto translations of the same books, the statistics were quite different.
What type of control is this for an experiment??? Of course, the two English versions were similar. They were written by the same author, in the same style! Were the two Esperanto translations translated by the same translator? Difficult to say... And yet, this could easily account for the difference, no?
I would venture to say they would get a similar result if the translations had been in Russian using different translators. Isn't this obvious? The article does not say one way or the other if the Esperanto translator was the same person for both works.
It would also be interesting to see the same experiment done on two Esperanto works by the same author, translated into English. I bet they would find the same anomaly in the English language if the translators were different people.
tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2009-aprilo-25 08:05:34
jchthys:It is indeed the same sound. For those who aren’t quite sure what soft and hard are (as I was): soft means ‘voiced’ and hard means ‘unvoiced’. Thoroughly is pronounced with an unvoiced initial consonant [θ].You got it mixed up too
Hard is voiced, soft is unvoiced.
I guess you could say it's kind of counter intuitive. To my ear the unvoiced sound ("th" in thoroughly) sounds harder than "th" in "soothe", but there we go.
ceigered (Montri la profilon) 2009-aprilo-25 11:19:17
RiotNrrd:I'd go with 'thah-re-lee' (just to be different) - 'ah' in 'fAther', 'e' being more a schwa (not retroflex like the Americans often use in words like 'doER'), and 'ee' like in.. 'pee'henma:Last word I had problems with was "thoroughly" (which I still don't know how to pronounce).If you're an American on the west coast, it's (soft th) THER-o-lee.
My guess is that the British, Australians, South Africans, etc., probably pronounce it slightly differently (and possibly differently amongst themselves as well).
Using European spanish spelling though, I guess it would look like 'Zároli'.
I have to say that I like Wiktionary's method of showing English pronunciation in the English language version.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:English...
That would actually be a nice system to adopt for use in spelling reform, come to think of it.
A wiki based spelling reform, now that actually is more believable
ā wĭkē bāsd spĕlĭng rēfôrm, nou thăt ăkchuəlē ĭz môr bəlēvəbl
Only problem is that the 'th' conflict is then only solved thru means of italics
vejktoro (Montri la profilon) 2009-aprilo-25 20:22:53
Of course English and Esperanto are different.
They are different languages. Two different ways of encoding thoughts. I`m a native English speaker and have to flex my linguistic muscle in a different way when I speak Esperanto.
Sometimes it`s quite challenging. The Grammar system and especially the morphology of Esperanto is often alien to a poor old Anglophone like myself.
Thanks for the news flash New Scientist!
Also, taking what was done in this research, I have to say that Esperanto is international, English is not. Translating a literary work presents all kinds of problems when attempting to reach a wider audience.
In English I can say, "Are you pulling my leg?"
In French I can ask, "Do you take me for a suitcase?!"
Both mean the same.
A speaker here might even say, "Get your paws off my leg," knowing his English audience gets the reference. But it would likely confuse the international community if translated directly into Esperanto, so the thought must be rendered very differently.
The study might mean a little more if straight forward texts from various languages were translated and put through their analysis.