I've been a on-again/off-again esperantist for a while, and began actively attempting to learn it again, with a keen interest in reading through Zamenhof's «Fundamento de Esperanto». As I read through it, I tend to say what I'm reading at the same time, and have noticed that my personal tendencies deviate from Zamenhof's pronunciation key, but align with that of Lernu!'s. Some areas of descrepency:

Litero | Zamenhof » Lernu!
a | last » father
o | not » November
u | bull » moose

Okay, so it's really differences in vowel sounds, but they have such a profound effect on the feel of the language. The key that Lernu! publishes feels natural and fluid to me; Zamenhof's key seems rough and exagerrated.

I know that Esperanto is tolerant of different accents and pronunciations, but I don't necessarily want other Esperantists to guess where I'm from based on how I say "amiko." Has anyone else read the «Fundamento» and wondered about this issue? Has the language and its pronunciation just changed this drastically since Zamenhof firsnt introduced it? Or did Zamenhof, perhaps, have a completely different idea of English pronunciation, i.e. "last" is pronounced "lost"?

deadlyhead:

Litero | Zamenhof » Lernu!
a | last » father
o | not » November
u | bull » moose

According to wiktionary (IPA):

last: /lɑːst/
father: /ˈfɑː.ðə(ɹ)/
not: /nɒt/
november: /nəʊˈvɛmbə/
bull: /bʊl/
moose: /muːs/

I must say that especially 'November' seems to be a pretty silly example. Is that really what lernu! is telling? That surely is not how 'o' should be pronounced. All in all I think the examples of Zamĉjo himself might actually be better...

But of course there is quite a bit of variation in how english itself is pronounced. At least some of the confusion is explained by that. Zamenhof obviously meant the British pronounciation.

mihxil:
But of course there is quite a bit of variation in how english itself is pronounced. At least some of the confusion is explained by that. Zamenhof obviously meant the British pronounciation.

I am not sure that Zamenhof spoke English excellently, most certainly he could read and write it, but as far as pronounciation is concerned, I guess he had more the French phonetic in mind.

...and when he gives "november " as an example, he clearly thinks about the French "o", not the english "əʊ".

custinne:...and when he gives "november " as an example, he clearly thinks about the French "o", not the english "əʊ".

Zamenhof does not give 'november' as an example. Lernu! does.

It is possible that Zamenhof didn't speak english very well, but his examples in the english section of la Fundamento are english words, not french words.

mihxil:Zamenhof does not give 'november' as an example. Lernu! does.

Ho, right, sorry, I misread that.

mihxil:

deadlyhead:

Litero | Zamenhof » Lernu!
a | last » father
o | not » November
u | bull » moose

According to wiktionary (IPA):

last: /lɑːst/
father: /ˈfɑː.ðə(ɹ)/
not: /nɒt/
november: /nəʊˈvɛmbə/
bull: /bʊl/
moose: /muːs/

I must say that especially 'November' seems to be a pretty silly example.

Haha, Seasoned linguist: "AHA! I see what they mean! They're trying to teach the Esperanto "o" sound by letting the reader approximate a sound somewhere between ɒ and əʊ! What genius!"

Layman: "AHA! I see what they mean! You're allowed to pronounce it however you like as long as it has an "o" sound, so I can say anything from "nəʉ'vembə" to "no:'vember"! What genius!" (Clearly the layman is not actually imagining the exact IPA of both those regional pronunciations, but imagining the sounds )

That's the problem with language aficionados, mathematicians, and chemists, we forget that beginners and the rest of the world by large have no idea what's going in on our minds when we try explaining ourselves, unless we also profess in the most incomprehensible field of them all, professional-explaining

mihxil:
According to wiktionary (IPA):

last: /lɑːst/
father: /ˈfɑː.ðə(ɹ)/
not: /nɒt/
november: /nəʊˈvɛmbə/
bull: /bʊl/
moose: /muːs/

I must say that especially 'November' seems to be a pretty silly example. Is that really what lernu! is telling? That surely is not how 'o' should be pronounced. All in all I think the examples of Zamĉjo himself might actually be better...

But of course there is quite a bit of variation in how english itself is pronounced. At least some of the confusion is explained by that. Zamenhof obviously meant the British pronounciation.

Okay, I see. The pronunciation for November you're citing is the UK pronunciation. I tend toward the US pronunciation, e.g. /noʊˈvɛmbəɹ/. Also, "last" => /læst/ in my dialect, which has a much more nasal sound to it. And "bull" is closer to /bɐˑl/ or /bʌˑl/ when I say it (the vowels are half-long), which makes it just that much more confusing.

Seems that lernu! is more US-centric whereas Zamenhof was obviously UK-oriented, but with the qualifier that English was not his first language. I guess I'll go on pronouncing Esperanto as I have been, and not worry about it.

ceigered:
Haha, Seasoned linguist: "AHA! I see what they mean! They're trying to teach the Esperanto "o" sound by letting the reader approximate a sound somewhere between ɒ and əʊ! What genius!"

Layman: "AHA! I see what they mean! You're allowed to pronounce it however you like as long as it has an "o" sound, so I can say anything from "nəʉ'vembə" to "no:'vember"! What genius!" (Clearly the layman is not actually imagining the exact IPA of both those regional pronunciations, but imagining the sounds )

That's the problem with language aficionados, mathematicians, and chemists, we forget that beginners and the rest of the world by large have no idea what's going in on our minds when we try explaining ourselves, unless we also profess in the most incomprehensible field of them all, professional-explaining

Man, now I feel just a bit silly. Wrote my previous post before reading this one!

deadlyhead:Man, now I feel just a bit silly. Wrote my previous post before reading this one!

There's no reason to feel silly, I was feeling the same thing as you, that the key back there must be more US-centric. I just thought it was funny how the phonetic keys were probably more helpful to those who live and breath it rather than the learners who're trying to learn it

A US person's long "o" sound is probably more acceptable for EO than the "o" from those of us in the UK or commonwealth, so having US pronunciation in mind would help it all make sense. And heck, if you get us Aussies in the mix, the whole idea of having those words there falls apart for the most part, since all of us have very strange long "o" sounds, we have very dark L sounds, and half of us (like in the UK) do an æ sound in things like "last" rather than a more drawn out a:.

Then again, having the most "neutrally pronounced" words in the key doesn't work out quite so nicely either because from experiences I've had, US speakers tend to pronounce their "o"s a lot closer to the "a" in "father" than other English speakers, which isn't really much like EO either.

Alas, I'd go:
a | father
o | not~caught
u | moose~put
But O and U present difficulties since US English pronounces short "o" and "aw" sounds uniquely, Australian English has a much further forward "oo" sound than other English dialects, but other English dialects have a less-u-ish sounding "u" in "put". So either way it looks as if anywhere to 20-200million English speakers will be disadvantaged immediately no matter what key is given

Here's my pronunciation key, as told to myself:

Pronounce the vowels like you did when learning German and Spanish. Oh, and stop dipthongizing them, you blasted American!

Done.