Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

IPA tells one exactly how to pronounce words in an unknown language

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 07 Jan 2007 04:31 GMT
The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian. Can it be true?

Suppose a Tibetan to English dictionary has a broad transcription to
narrow transcription mapping table on page 1. Suppose the table has
entries for subphonemes of a neutral dialect (perhaps a synthetic
dialect) of English. Suppose the table has separate entries for [&],
[E] & [E:]. Let's say a Tibetan who knows no English but knows IPA in
minute detail looks over this table before looking up the Tibetan words
for marry, merry and merry and finds IPA transcriptions of English
pronunciations of marry, merry and mary. Let's say he sees [m&rI]
[mEri] [mE:rI]. Would he not know exactly how to pronounce them?
Jukka K. Korpela - 07 Jan 2007 08:51 GMT
Scripsit ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com:

> The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian.

Which claim? On Usenet, or elsewhere, you're supposed to write your message
into the message body. Besides, the Subject line is supposed to be
self-contained, too, so if you wish to ask a question, ask it, instead of
making a _claim_ as you did.

The claim, it seems, is "IPA tells one exactly how to pronounce words in an
unknown language", which is somewhat sloppily formulated, especially in
contexts where the reader cannot be assumed to know what "IPA" means (such
as two of the groups you posted to). Presumably you mean the following
claim: When one uses the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) to describe
the pronunciation of a word, a person who knows this alphabet will know
exactly how to pronounce the word, even if he does not know the language of
the word at all.

> Can it be true?

Of course not. IPA was not designed to express all the possible nuances of
pronunciation. Moreover, the way it is commonly used, is - for hopefully
apparent reasons - often rather coarse. Quite often, it only distinguishes
between phonemes and does not indicate (most of) allophonic variation.
Besides, "how to pronounce a word" is itself a vague notion. In real
languages, pronunciation varies between people and contexts and situations.

> Suppose

There's no need to suppose anything specific about some particular language
in this context. The claim was a very general one, so you could not possibly
prove it by discussing one particular language and one particular group of
people only. You could disprove it tha twat, but that's not particularly
interesting, since we know from the beginning that the claim is not true.

Followups narrowed.

Signature

Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Ruud Harmsen - 07 Jan 2007 08:53 GMT
6 Jan 2007 20:31:44 -0800: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>: in sci.lang:

>The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian. Can it be true?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>pronunciations of marry, merry and mary. Let's say he sees [m&rI]
>[mEri] [mE:rI]. Would he not know exactly how to pronounce them?

No, because the r gets in the way. Very hard to describe.
Signature

Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com

ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 07 Jan 2007 12:53 GMT
> 6 Jan 2007 20:31:44 -0800: "ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>: in sci.lang:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> No, because the r gets in the way. Very hard to describe.

Let's say r is described as [*] (tap). That would tell him exactly how
to pronounce it in the synthetic dialect. Anglos would understand it
since they can understand my tap even if they don't use a tap.
Peter T. Daniels - 07 Jan 2007 14:04 GMT
> The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian. Can it be true?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> pronunciations of marry, merry and mary. Let's say he sees [m&rI]
> [mEri] [mE:rI]. Would he not know exactly how to pronounce them?

In phonology class back in 1972, Howie Aronson told the story of a
couple of well-known European phoneticians (in the late 19th century)
who did not speak English (unfortunately I can't remember who the story
was told of) who for some reason needed to present a paper in English.
One of them had his talk translated into English and put into IPA; the
other had his talk translated into English and written with normal
orthography. The former could not be understood. The latter was
understood with little difficulty.

Se non e vero, e ben trovato.
Nigel Greenwood - 07 Jan 2007 14:29 GMT
> In phonology class back in 1972, Howie Aronson told the story of a
> couple of well-known European phoneticians (in the late 19th century)
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> other had his talk translated into English and written with normal
> orthography.

Normal orthography of source language or English?

Nigel

--
ScriptMaster language resources (Chinese/Modern & Classical
Greek/IPA/Persian/Russian/Turkish):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk
Peter T. Daniels - 07 Jan 2007 18:28 GMT
> > In phonology class back in 1972, Howie Aronson told the story of a
> > couple of well-known European phoneticians (in the late 19th century)
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Normal orthography of source language or English?

What would be the point of the story if it were the orthography of some
language other than English?
Nigel Greenwood - 08 Jan 2007 12:36 GMT
> > > In phonology class back in 1972, Howie Aronson told the story of a
> > > couple of well-known European phoneticians (in the late 19th century)
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> What would be the point of the story if it were the orthography of some
> language other than English?

I can't imagine.  I suppose it turns on what you mean by "did not speak
English".  I took it to mean "had no knowledge of English whatsoever"
-- but on re-reading your story that seems unlikely in a professional
phonetician.  Perhaps you could expand a bit on what _you_ think the
point of the story is.

Nigel

--
ScriptMaster language resources (Chinese/Modern & Classical
Greek/IPA/Persian/Russian/Turkish):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk
Peter T. Daniels - 08 Jan 2007 16:52 GMT
> > > > In phonology class back in 1972, Howie Aronson told the story of a
> > > > couple of well-known European phoneticians (in the late 19th century)
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> phonetician.  Perhaps you could expand a bit on what _you_ think the
> point of the story is.

That orthography is more useful than phonetic transcription in reading
out a language for the purpose of communication.
Nigel Greenwood - 08 Jan 2007 20:03 GMT
> >   I suppose it turns on what you mean by "did not speak
> > English".  I took it to mean "had no knowledge of English whatsoever"
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> That orthography is more useful than phonetic transcription in reading
> out a language for the purpose of communication.

In an "unknown language" (the thread title)?  I know it's only an
anecdote, but could you please spell out -- if that's the right phrase
-- how this might conceivably work if the unknown language is English?
I'm intrigued.

Nigel

--
ScriptMaster language resources (Chinese/Modern & Classical
Greek/IPA/Persian/Russian/Turkish):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 08 Jan 2007 20:32 GMT
> > That orthography is more useful than phonetic transcription in reading
> > out a language for the purpose of communication.

> In an "unknown language" (the thread title)?  I know it's only an
> anecdote, but could you please spell out -- if that's the right phrase
> -- how this might conceivably work if the unknown language is English?

... or French.
[dZEt adO:r]
Shut it yourself!

> I'm intrigued.

[ju:r. nAm, rVNk Vnd sErIAl nymbe: ple:As]:-)

In Chennai, someone once directed me to a store he called [jun.ikju:]
Enterprises. It turned out to be "Unique Enterprises".
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 07 Jan 2007 14:38 GMT
> > The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian. Can it be true?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Se non e vero, e ben trovato.

With respect to the former, perhaps either
1) the former wasn't given narrow transcriptions either in the form of
a table that mapped broad transcriptions to narrow transcription or in
the form of narrow transcription of the text itself, and
2) allophones were transcribed identically.

or

he couldn't use IPA effectively; there might not have been sound clips
at that time for him to be able to practice articulation of phones.

With the respect to the latter, by virtue of his European origin,
perhaps the audience was able to hear through his mispronunciations by
following etymological clues.
mb - 07 Jan 2007 18:39 GMT
From:  ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - view profile
Date:  Sat, Jan 6 2007 7:45 pm
Email:   "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>

hari.ku...@indero.com wrote:
> > A person trained in it can at once without knowing anything of a
> > language or any of its vocabulary or syntax when first encountered
> > record any language, even those without a writing system

> "Take a look at some recent threads on IPA at sci.lang, and you'll
> discover what a naive assertion that is."

> Skimming recent threads did not find one with an obvious subject line on
> the topic.  I would be happy as why, in a few brief points, this is your
> view.

It has barely enough vowels to cover many dialects of one language. So,

a Frenchman consulting the Oxford English Dictionary for pronunciation
hints has to learn how to use the IPA alphabet for English. If he has
learnt only how the IPA alphabet is used for French, he'll get his
pronunciations quite wrong.

> I know from time to time a new character is added to more exactly
> cover problem areas or some newly encountered phonetic variation but
> otherwise don't understand your point.

It is added only if it is phonetic variation that is phonemically
distinct within a single language. No new letter is added if a single
letter has to cover two different sounds in two different languages.
=============================
Above post by Ranjit Matthews
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 07 Jan 2007 18:51 GMT
> From:  ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - view profile
> Date:  Sat, Jan 6 2007 7:45 pm
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> =============================
> Above post by Ranjit Mathews

True, but the flip side of it is that a letter can have diacritics. For
example, an English-Spanish dictionary can have a table on page 1 with
a mapping saying that in descriptions of Spanish pronunciations, [t]
means [t[]. So long as such a table of narrow transcriptions is given
and the reader remembers it, it seems a distinct possibility that he
can get his pronunciations right to the point where a native can
understand each word he says in disconnected speech.
mb - 07 Jan 2007 19:26 GMT
...
> True, but the flip side of it is that a letter can have diacritics. For
> example, an English-Spanish dictionary can have a table on page 1 with
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> can get his pronunciations right to the point where a native can
> understand each word he says in disconnected speech.

More bullshit.

Forget your dictionary reader; even a guy who spends all of his adult
life in the target-language country hasn't got a prayer of ever
sounding like a native (with so few exceptions that we won't mention it
again). All one aims for is to get the phonemes within recognizable
range.

As for any and all phonetic alphabets, they are not reproducing any of
the mouth position, voice quality and other things that mark even a
phoneme-perfect utterance as totally foreign.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 07 Jan 2007 20:27 GMT
> ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com wrote: ...
> > True, but the flip side of it is that a letter can have diacritics. For
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> More bullshit.

Which part?

> Forget your dictionary reader; even a guy who spends all of his adult
> life in the target-language country hasn't got a prayer of ever
> sounding like a native (with so few exceptions that we won't mention it
> again). All one aims for is to get the phonemes within recognizable
> range.

I didn't say anything about souding like a native. If pronunciation is
in recognizable range, then  instruction in pronunciation is
successful, QED.

> As for any and all phonetic alphabets, they are not reproducing any of
> the mouth position, voice quality and other things that mark even a
> phoneme-perfect utterance as totally foreign.

They don't need to not sound foreign if all they need is to get people
to understand them; I can follow some non-natives' (eg. Kissinger's and
Brzezinski's) accents even better than many Anglos' accents.
Christian Weisgerber - 08 Jan 2007 23:15 GMT
> It has barely enough vowels to cover many dialects of one language. So,
> a Frenchman consulting the Oxford English Dictionary for pronunciation
> hints has to learn how to use the IPA alphabet for English.

Well, in practice the alternative found in phrasebooks and,
disturbingly, in some dictionaries, is to describe all phonemes of
language B by "equivalent" phonemes of language A.  If English is
involved, we're treated to such pairings as [eI] ~ [e:] and [oU] ~
[o:].  My Langenscheidt Russian dictionary tells me to pronounce
Russian hard y like short ü in German "dünn".  (They also give the
IPA transcription, which contradicts this advice.)  Hey, it's a
printed dictionary, not Wikipedia, so it must be right.

Signature

Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy@mips.inka.de

Dik T. Winter - 09 Jan 2007 01:12 GMT
> > It has barely enough vowels to cover many dialects of one language. So,
> > a Frenchman consulting the Oxford English Dictionary for pronunciation
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> disturbingly, in some dictionaries, is to describe all phonemes of
> language B by "equivalent" phonemes of language A.

That is done with some phrasebooks from the US.  I have a Dover phrasebook
for Yiddish that does do that, every Yiddish sentence is given with a
latin spelling that, when pronounced in American English, would sound like
it is in reality.  (Although they do not state which American dialect they
use...)  Strange enough, even with my inexact knowledge about pronunciation
of Amrican English, they guide me well enough to get a reasonably
approximation, but that is because I do also know German pronunciation.

Most other phrasebooks I have are not as crude as that.  They give a
pronunciation guide that gives information about the pronunciation of
the symbols used based on the phonemes of the source language.  Of course
these are approximate, but you can not do better.  You have to explain it
in such books in a way that can be understood by your public.  And not
everybody in your public knows IPA.  But even when you are using IPA,
that does not give complete information, because there are nuances that
are not catered for in IPA.  IPA is also only an approximation.

>                                                     If English is
> involved, we're treated to such pairings as [eI] ~ [e:] and [oU] ~
> [o:].  My Langenscheidt Russian dictionary tells me to pronounce
> Russian hard y like short ü in German "dünn".

Everything has to be explained in the language of the public.  It may
be not exactly right, but that is not a problem.  My experience is that
you will be understood (although the native probably thinks you are
speaking a quite funny accent).  Phrasebooks are intended for
communication, not for exact pronunciation.  And I think they do
pretty well, at least in the countries I have been in where I used
phrasebook pronunciation, I never had problems communicating with the
natives in their language.  In a sense this is even true in Germany.
Everybody will immediately spot me as not being native German (I will
go wrong with cases all the time, and with gender), but everybody
understands what I state without problem.
Signature

dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

Peter T. Daniels - 09 Jan 2007 03:39 GMT
>  > mb <azythos2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>  > > It has barely enough vowels to cover many dialects of one language. So,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> of Amrican English, they guide me well enough to get a reasonably
> approximation, but that is because I do also know German pronunciation.

Native-speaker Yiddish always strikes me as German with an American
accent (no ich-lauts, for instance).

And the speakers I knew were friends of my grandmother's, who were
refugees as adults and never got particularly good at English.
Robert Bannister - 09 Jan 2007 23:28 GMT
> Native-speaker Yiddish always strikes me as German with an American
> accent (no ich-lauts, for instance).

They don't sound like that in England.
Signature

Rob Bannister

mb - 09 Jan 2007 01:47 GMT
> mb wrote quoting matthews:

> > It has barely enough vowels to cover many dialects of one language. So,
> > a Frenchman consulting the Oxford English Dictionary for pronunciation
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> disturbingly, in some dictionaries, is to describe all phonemes of
> language B by "equivalent" phonemes of language A.

Can't see it as disturbing (except if their choice of correspondence is
incorrect).

> If English is
> involved, we're treated to such pairings as [eI] ~ [e:]

That one is an Anglo handicap, of course, and should be banned.

> and [oU] ~ [o:].  My Langenscheidt Russian dictionary tells me to pronounce
> Russian hard y like short ü in German "dünn".  (They also give the
> IPA transcription, which contradicts this advice.)

Not such bad advice if you can't bother with IPA (or do not know a
language with middle high vowels). IPA, by the way, works only with
people who already know the sounds.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 09 Jan 2007 02:26 GMT
> > mb wrote quoting matthews:

> IPA, by the way, works only with
> people who already know the sounds.

It's unfortunate that much of the world doesn't know a table of phones;
to describe English IPA vowels to a Malayali, these two tables would
get them most of the way:

<Malayalam vowel and diphthong graphemes>
a/E A i/e i: U/O u: e e: aI o o:/O: aU @
<examples; one Malayalam word per phone>

<Hindi vowel and diphthong graphemes>
a/E A I i: U/O u: e: aI/&/E: o: aU/A./O:
<examples; one Hindi word per phone>
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 09 Jan 2007 01:56 GMT
> > It has barely enough vowels to cover many dialects of one language. So,
> > a Frenchman consulting the Oxford English Dictionary for pronunciation
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> [o:].  My Langenscheidt Russian dictionary tells me to pronounce
> Russian hard y like short ü in German "dünn".

Isn't it the nearest sound you have in German? The Russian [i"]'s F2 or
rather, the second formant of  the high vowel, measured immediately
after the release of a back consonant, in the paper "Contrast
dispersion and Russian palatalization" that someone posted recently was
the same as the figure for a German short ü. Unfortunately, the paper
didn't give it's F1 & F3 but the height can't be all that different, so
the F1 must be within range which leaves only the F3 (rounding) in
question.

>  (They also give the
> IPA transcription, which contradicts this advice.)  Hey, it's a
> printed dictionary, not Wikipedia, so it must be right.
Robert Bannister - 09 Jan 2007 23:34 GMT
>>>It has barely enough vowels to cover many dialects of one language. So,
>>>a Frenchman consulting the Oxford English Dictionary for pronunciation
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> the F1 must be within range which leaves only the F3 (rounding) in
> question.

[UTF-8, I think]
I'd have thought it was pretty close too, although ы often seems a bit
of a diphthong: especially after б, в & м, to me it always sounds as if
there's a hint of a w at the beginning.
Signature

Rob Bannister

ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 10 Jan 2007 18:39 GMT
> >>My Langenscheidt Russian dictionary tells me to pronounce
> >>Russian hard y like short ü in German "dünn".
> >
> [UTF-8, I think]

Oh, dear; I'm not sure how to fix that.

> > Isn't that the closest ..
> I'd have thought it was pretty close too,> --

According to the data I have for short ü, length and rounding are its
primary differences from long ö. Its  having only 2/3 of the rounding
(see F3[I] - F3) which should help in its suitability for representing
ы.

Vowel F1 F2 F3 F3[I]-F3
[I] 385 1919 2596 0
short ü 380 1605 2418 178
long ö 367 1590 2344 252

> although ы often seems a bit of a diphthong:

Would an footnote that it's üj in certain contexts work?

> especially after б, в & м, to me it always sounds as if
> there's a hint of a w at the beginning.

büj, wüj, müj, as per the footnote.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 10 Jan 2007 19:02 GMT
> According to the data I have for short ü, length and rounding are its
> primary differences from long ö. Its  having only 2/3 of the rounding
> (see F3[I] - F3) which should help in its suitability for representing
> ы.

Correction of wording; substance remains unchanged:
According to the data I have for short ü, length and rounding are its
primary differences from long ö. Its  having only 2/3 of the rounding
should contribute to its suitability for representing ы.
Nigel Greenwood - 09 Jan 2007 10:22 GMT
> > It has barely enough vowels to cover many dialects of one language. So,
> > a Frenchman consulting the Oxford English Dictionary for pronunciation
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> involved, we're treated to such pairings as [eI] ~ [e:] and [oU] ~
> [o:].

The best example I've come across is the Berlitz Finnish dictionary.
Just picking a page at random, I find the following:

syntymäpaikka (birth place), "sewn-tew-mæ-pighk-ka"

säännönmukainen (regular), "sææn-nurm-moo-kigh-nayn"

I think I'm beginning to see the point of PTD's anecdote!

Nigel

--
ScriptMaster language resources (Chinese/Modern & Classical
Greek/IPA/Persian/Russian/Turkish):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk
mb - 10 Jan 2007 03:59 GMT
...
> The best example I've come across is the Berlitz Finnish dictionary.
> Just picking a page at random, I find the following:
>
> syntymäpaikka (birth place), "sewn-tew-mæ-pighk-ka"
>
> säännönmukainen (regular), "sææn-nurm-moo-kigh-nayn"

I refuse to believe that anyone even remotely likely to consult a
Finnish dictionary could be as desperate as that.
Jukka K. Korpela - 10 Jan 2007 09:41 GMT
Scripsit mb:

>> säännönmukainen (regular), "sææn-nurm-moo-kigh-nayn"
>
> I refuse to believe that anyone even remotely likely to consult a
> Finnish dictionary could be as desperate as that.

Would it help if you took a look at other Berlitz books? They aren't meant
for linguists but for common people who travel around, and they tend to sell
much more than linguistic books do. They might be used, for example, just to
check how local people pronounce a name, to give yourself a working chance
of finding your way or getting some food.

Relatively few people have even a vague idea of IPA, which is - as anyone
frequenting sci.lang should know - a phonetic notation that lets you
describe pronunciation more or less roughly (by your choice) but surely more
adequately than most of the notation used in guide books for tourists. Of
course IPA would be much better if it were generally understood, at least in
its simplest forms. At present, even many _authors_ of guide books don't
know IPA.

In this harsh reality, even very clumsy descriptions like
"sææn-nurm-moo-kigh-nayn" can be better than no description. (I have no idea
why they use "nayn" for the last syllable, since "nen" would be much more
adequate.)

Followups trimmed.

Signature

Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Peter T. Daniels - 10 Jan 2007 13:29 GMT
> Scripsit mb:
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> why they use "nayn" for the last syllable, since "nen" would be much more
> adequate.)

Because the basic pronunciation of <e> in English is [E] as in <men>.

The authors want the reader to say [e], and the closest the
English-speaker can come to that is [ej]. I noticed long ago that there
is in fact _no_ unambiguous spelling of "long a" (without going to a
following "silent e"); so in the front of the book they told you to
pronounce <ay> as in "day."

> Followups trimmed.

Fixed, since you are apparently not aware that some contributors to the
thread are reading it in auie.
Ruud Harmsen - 10 Jan 2007 14:46 GMT
10 Jan 2007 05:29:10 -0800: "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:

>Because the basic pronunciation of <e> in English is [E] as in <men>.

No, it's beween [E] and [e].

>The authors want the reader to say [e], and the closest the
>English-speaker can come to that is [ej].

<men> is usually much closer.

> noticed long ago that there
>is in fact _no_ unambiguous spelling of "long a" (without going to a
>following "silent e"); so in the front of the book they told you to
>pronounce <ay> as in "day."

Signature

Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com

ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 10 Jan 2007 16:23 GMT
> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
> >Because the basic pronunciation of <e> in English is [E] as in <men>.
> No, it's beween [E] and [e].

Definitively so? By virtue of its openness, the British realization of
/&/ is often described as [a] even if Wells' MA thesis writes it as
Sampa 'ae'. On the IPA chart, [E] is halfway between [e] and [a].

The halfway point between Wells' measurement of British [a] and a
Iivonen's measurement of stressed German [e:] would have an F1 of
(748+349)/2 = 548.5 Hz. Wells' measurement of British [E] has an F1 of
569 Hz. So, passing over recordings of IPA sounds, British [E] is
almost exactly halfway between British [a] and German [e:], i.e., just
where the IPA vowel chart puts its [E].

References:
RP English vowels by Wells
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/formants/table-2.htm
German stressed vowels by Iivonen
http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/hyfl/projektit/vokaalikartat_eng.html
Peter T. Daniels - 11 Jan 2007 04:01 GMT
> 10 Jan 2007 05:29:10 -0800: "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> <men> is usually much closer.

This from the fellow who claims he can't tell [E] from [&], or
something like that.

> > noticed long ago that there
> >is in fact _no_ unambiguous spelling of "long a" (without going to a
> >following "silent e"); so in the front of the book they told you to
> >pronounce <ay> as in "day."
Ruud Harmsen - 11 Jan 2007 08:01 GMT
10 Jan 2007 20:01:44 -0800: "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:

>> 10 Jan 2007 05:29:10 -0800: "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>This from the fellow who claims he can't tell [E] from [&], or
>something like that.

Listen for yourself at:
http://www.paulmeier.com/ipa/vowels.html
http://hctv.humnet.ucla.edu/departments/linguistics/VowelsandConsonants/course/c
hapter1/vowels.html

etc.
http://rudhar.com/foneport/en/lingglos.htm

>> > noticed long ago that there
>> >is in fact _no_ unambiguous spelling of "long a" (without going to a
>> >following "silent e"); so in the front of the book they told you to
>> >pronounce <ay> as in "day."

Signature

Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com

Peter T. Daniels - 11 Jan 2007 13:54 GMT
> 10 Jan 2007 20:01:44 -0800: "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Listen for yourself at:

Why? You're going to give me samples exhibiting a phonemic contrast in
English that you're unable to hear?

(Did I remember the troublesome pair correctly?)

You'd be a lot more likely to get someone to listen (or to have a good
reason for not listening) to your endless parade of samples if you
indicated _why_ one should listen to them.

> http://www.paulmeier.com/ipa/vowels.html
> http://hctv.humnet.ucla.edu/departments/linguistics/VowelsandConsonants/course/c
hapter1/vowels.html

> etc.
> http://rudhar.com/foneport/en/lingglos.htm
Peter Moylan - 10 Jan 2007 12:09 GMT
> The best example I've come across is the Berlitz Finnish dictionary.
> Just picking a page at random, I find the following:
>
> syntymäpaikka (birth place), "sewn-tew-mæ-pighk-ka"

My first attempt at reading this aloud came out as "Sewn to my pigtail".

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

Peter T. Daniels - 10 Jan 2007 13:24 GMT
> > The best example I've come across is the Berlitz Finnish dictionary.
> > Just picking a page at random, I find the following:
> >
> > syntymäpaikka (birth place), "sewn-tew-mæ-pighk-ka"
>
> My first attempt at reading this aloud came out as "Sewn to my pigtail".

Presumably in the front of the book it told you to say "ew" as in
"new"; it's unfortunate that you happened to pick one where it appears
after "s," so that it clashes with the exceptional pronunciation of
<sewn>.

And since it's for Americans, that's [nuw], not [njuw].
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 11 Jan 2007 16:00 GMT
> > The best example I've come across is the Berlitz Finnish dictionary.
> > Just picking a page at random, I find the following:
> >
> > syntymäpaikka (birth place), "sewn-tew-mæ-pighk-ka"
>
> My first attempt at reading this aloud came out as "Sewn to my pigtail".

Ha ha! Would <syntymapicka> give an Anglo pronunciation comprehensible
to a Finn?
Peter Moylan - 12 Jan 2007 08:26 GMT
>>> The best example I've come across is the Berlitz Finnish
>>> dictionary. Just picking a page at random, I find the following:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Ha ha! Would <syntymapicka> give an Anglo pronunciation
> comprehensible to a Finn?

If I've correctly understood the notation, "soon to map piker" would
come closer.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

M. Ranjit Mathews - 12 Jan 2007 13:34 GMT
> >>> The best example I've come across is the Berlitz Finnish
> >>> dictionary. Just picking a page at random, I find the following:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> If I've correctly understood the notation, "soon to map piker" would
> come closer.

In which word is <ick> pronounced [aik]?
Peter Moylan - 12 Jan 2007 14:50 GMT
>>>>> The best example I've come across is the Berlitz Finnish
>>>>> dictionary. Just picking a page at random, I find the following:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> In which word is <ick> pronounced [aik]?

There isn't any <ick> in "syntymäpaikka", so I'd guess that your
<syntymapicka> would come out as something a Finn wouldn't understand.
(I'm surprised that no Finn seems to have found this thread yet.)

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

Nigel Greenwood - 12 Jan 2007 18:11 GMT
> There isn't any <ick> in "syntymäpaikka", so I'd guess that your
> <syntymapicka> would come out as something a Finn wouldn't understand.
> (I'm surprised that no Finn seems to have found this thread yet.)

One at least has, & has contributed several times (Jukka).

Nigel

--
ScriptMaster language resources (Chinese/Modern & Classical
Greek/IPA/Persian/Russian/Turkish):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk
Lars Eighner - 10 Jan 2007 12:18 GMT
> Just picking a page at random, I find the following:

> syntymäpaikka (birth place), "sewn-tew-mæ-pighk-ka"

> säännönmukainen (regular), "sææn-nurm-moo-kigh-nayn"

Oh, that helps.  It looks like an explosion in an alphabet soup factory.

> I think I'm beginning to see the point of PTD's anecdote!

Signature

Lars Eighner     <http://larseighner.com/>     <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
             War on Terrorism:  Bad News from the Sanity Front
    "Tactical nuclear capabilities should be used against the bin Laden
 camps in the desert of Afghanistan."  -Thomas Woodrow,_Washington Times_

M. Ranjit Mathews - 11 Jan 2007 16:19 GMT
> > Well, in practice the alternative found in phrasebooks and,
> > disturbingly, in some dictionaries, is to describe all phonemes of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> The best example I've come across is the Berlitz Finnish dictionary.
> Just picking a page at random, I find the following:

What pronunciations do they give for
kukka=flower vs kuka=who

What would be the best way to get a non-IPA-using Anglo to pronounce
them in a manner comprehensible to a Finn? If these were Malayalam
words, the best way to describe them might be:

kookah (rhymes with hookah) vs. cougar ('g' because lax plosive sounds
unvoiced to Anglos).

> syntymäpaikka (birth place), "sewn-tew-mæ-pighk-ka"
> säännönmukainen (regular), "sææn-nurm-moo-kigh-nayn"
> I think I'm beginning to see the point of PTD's anecdote!
M. Ranjit Mathews - 11 Jan 2007 17:52 GMT
> What pronunciations do they give for
> kukka=flower vs kuka=who
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> kookah (rhymes with hookah) vs. cougar ('g' because lax plosive sounds
> voiced to Anglos).

Corrected to voiced.
Cece - 11 Jan 2007 20:41 GMT
Christian Weisgerber ha escrito:

> > It has barely enough vowels to cover many dialects of one language. So,
> > a Frenchman consulting the Oxford English Dictionary for pronunciation
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> --
> Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy@mips.inka.de

The Oxford English Dictionary, which uses IPA for its pronunciation
respellings, uses French to "explain" how /a/ and /A/ are pronounced.
A couple other vowels, too, I think.  And it uses German once or twice,
but at least those are for sounds common in German but used in English
only if one is pernickety about pronouncing borrowed words.  Still: Big
help!

Cece
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 11 Jan 2007 21:19 GMT
> The Oxford English Dictionary, which uses IPA for its pronunciation
> respellings, uses French to "explain" how /a/ and /A/ are pronounced.
> A couple other vowels, too, I think.  And it uses German once or twice,
> but at least those are for sounds common in German but used in English
> only if one is pernickety about pronouncing borrowed words.  Still: Big
> help!

You mean [e:] and [o:]? (They use [u:] for an English vowel, so they
can't use it also for its German counterpart).
Daniel al-Autistiqui - 12 Jan 2007 18:51 GMT
>[...]  Hey, it's a
>printed dictionary, not Wikipedia, so it must be right.

Oh yeah?  So then, by the same reasoning, must the book I own about
the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam be right when it defends the
transliteration <Mushtara>?  It claims that this is the pronunciation
used by some, but not all, speakers of the Persian (or perhaps Arabic)
word for the planet Jupiter.  I'm beginning to accept the information
that Yusuf Gursey gives me.

daniel mcgrath
Signature

Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"

Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
   Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
   & periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]

Colin Fine - 16 Jan 2007 00:13 GMT
>> [...]  Hey, it's a
>> printed dictionary, not Wikipedia, so it must be right.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> daniel mcgrath

I think Naddy's remark was ironic, Daniel.

Colin
Daniel al-Autistiqui - 17 Jan 2007 17:31 GMT
>>> [...]  Hey, it's a
>>> printed dictionary, not Wikipedia, so it must be right.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>I think Naddy's remark was ironic, Daniel.

Please go into more detail, Colin.  Do you mean "sarcastic"?

daniel mcgrath
Signature

Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"

Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
   Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
   & periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]

Colin Fine - 28 Jan 2007 11:35 GMT
>>>> [...]  Hey, it's a
>>>> printed dictionary, not Wikipedia, so it must be right.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> daniel mcgrath

For me, the words 'ironic' and 'sarcastic' are different mainly in
intent: 'sarcastic' to me conveys an intentional rudeness, that is not
conveyed by 'ironic'.

So when I say that the remark was ironic, I mean that I believe that the
remark does not reflect Naddy's genuine belief, and that he expects his
readers to realise this. He is saying something he does not mean, in
order to make some rhetorical implication, which can probably not be
construed without discourse or social context (in this case, poking fun
at those who believe that everything in print must be accurate). And he
is inviting his readers to join him in this intent.

If I had described it as 'sarcastic', I would indicate that I thought he
was been rude to his readers - probably, imputing that they were among
those he was castigating by his irony.

Colin
TakenEvent - 07 Jan 2007 20:19 GMT
> The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian. Can it be true?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> pronunciations of marry, merry and mary. Let's say he sees [m&rI]
> [mEri] [mE:rI]. Would he not know exactly how to pronounce them?

Regarding your subject, the hard part about speaking an unknown language is
determining the right people to speak it with.

Few words are pronounced exactly the same way by all English speakers.  That
aside, what is your real question?  Yes, people can be taught to pronounce
words whose meanings are unknown to them.  But from what I remember from
high school Spanish, knowing how to pronounce words in a foreign tongue is
not nearly enough to sound fluent.  So even if your Tibetan was familiar
with all the sounds normally used to speak English, it wouldn't really
accomplish much, would it?  Another question comes to mind--is it possible
to know English pronunciations without knowing some English?  If not, I
doubt the IPA would be of great service.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 12 Jan 2007 23:15 GMT
> Another question comes to mind--is it possible
> to know English pronunciations without knowing some English?

Sure. I've written pronunciations in Indian scripts to Indians who
didn't know English - words like Dallas, Natalya and Schwartzeneger ...
and the last two got pronounced close to their Russian and German
pronunciations unlike their pronunciations by English speakers.

> If not, I doubt the IPA would be of great service.

Interestingly, French eu and German oe are typically transcribed
differently in Katakana (Japanese) - as /e/ and /u/, respectively, even
though they are phonetically more or less identical.

Phonetics or Phonology in Loanword Adaptations?
http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/papers/zaspil/articles/zp42/dohlus.pdf

Would IPA therefore be of greater service than Katakana? Not without
samples of pronunciations, since without samples, letters are just
meaningless squiggles.
Peter Moylan - 13 Jan 2007 04:42 GMT
> Interestingly, French eu and German oe are typically transcribed
> differently in Katakana (Japanese) - as /e/ and /u/, respectively, even
> though they are phonetically more or less identical.

The judgment about "more or less identical" depends a lot on what your
native language is, among other factors. We see this all the time even
with different dialects of English. A given pair will be judged to be
identical by one speaker, and as being obviously and totally different
by another. The first speaker won't be able to hear the difference even
after hearing the opinion of the second speaker.

For what it's worth, I hear two different "eu" sounds in French; but the
distinction I hear is a length distinction, which I gather is not what
the native French speakers are hearing even though they too claim to
hear two different "eu" sounds.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org

Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses.  The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses.  The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.

Peter T. Daniels - 13 Jan 2007 04:18 GMT
> > The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian. Can it be true?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> to know English pronunciations without knowing some English?  If not, I
> doubt the IPA would be of great service.

Not many international opera singers can speak Czech, but Janacek's
operas are often performed in Czech in prominent opera houses.
Paul J Kriha - 13 Jan 2007 06:29 GMT
> > > The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian. Can it be true?
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Not many international opera singers can speak Czech, but Janacek's
> operas are often performed in Czech in prominent opera houses.

AFAIK, many professional operatic tutors include Russian and
Czech in the list of required operatic languages (Italian, French,
German, Czech, and Russian). The opera singers are to be
able to sing well in all of these languages. They are also
usually required to be able to speak and understand at least
two of the traditional operatic languages (Italian, French, German).

I heard more than one major opera singer remark during
an interview that even thought they don't necessarily perform
any of the Janáček, Smetana, or Dvořák's operas, they
consider singing selected parts as essential vocal excercise.

pjk

P.S. Unlike listening singing in other languages one is
supposed to be able to understand words of an unfamiliar
aria sang well in one of the five operatic languages.
Some singers manage it very well even though they
don't speak the particular language much at all.
Peter T. Daniels - 13 Jan 2007 13:46 GMT
> > > > The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian. Can it be true?
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> usually required to be able to speak and understand at least
> two of the traditional operatic languages (Italian, French, German).

Exactly. They can sing well in Czech and Russian, but are not expected
to speak them.

> I heard more than one major opera singer remark during
> an interview that even thought they don't necessarily perform
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Some singers manage it very well even though they
> don't speak the particular language much at all.

My point was that it is indeed possible to pronounce languages without
understanding them. (BTW Smetana and Dvorak operas aren't in the
international repertoire, but Janacek operas are.) English is also an
essential operatic language since the 20th century -- Stravinsky,
Britten, Tippett, plus a few Americans who _may_ be entering the
standard rotation.)
Paul J Kriha - 13 Jan 2007 20:04 GMT
>> > > > The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian. Can it be true?
>> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>My point was that it is indeed possible to pronounce languages without
>understanding them.

Yes, and good opera singers do it exceptionally well.
They of course put much more effort to correctly
annunciate then the next man. They also get an excellent
professional tutors.

The reason that operatic languages are so popular
as operatic languages is that the listeners are more likely
to understand the words even when they do not know the
text by heart.

>(BTW Smetana and Dvorak operas aren't in the
>international repertoire, but Janacek operas are.)

I am not sure what you mean by "international repertoire".

I don't particularly go to Czech operas these days.
I had more than my fill of compulsory visits in the primary
and secondary schools. However, I do go to Italian and
some German (Mozart) ones whenever I can. The last
time I was in Milan, I managed to "do" La Scala three
times in 10 days. :-)

I didn't go, but the last time I went through NY, I noticed
adverts for Smetana's Bartered Bride which was opening
again after a gap of few years in Juilliard(? AFAIR), before
then it used to be performed in the Met's(? I guess).
The publicity said it was around 100 years ago when it was
performed in NY for the first time. Sometimes it is
performed in the US in German as "Die verkaufte Braut".

> English is also an
>essential operatic language since the 20th century -- Stravinsky,
>Britten, Tippett, plus a few Americans who _may_ be entering the
>standard rotation.)

I find operatic singing in English next to impossible to
understand without knowing the words beforehand.

pjk
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com - 13 Jan 2007 23:53 GMT
> I find operatic singing in English next to impossible to
> understand without knowing the words beforehand.

Hmm, the Wright of Spring might be a springsmith unless you see it in
writing:-) (Not that it's an opera, but that was the only pun that came
to mind)
Brian M. Scott - 14 Jan 2007 00:11 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:04:34 +1300, Paul J Kriha
<paul.nospam.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
<news:45a93aeb@clear.net.nz> in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.indian:

[...]

>> English is also an essential operatic language since the
>> 20th century -- Stravinsky, Britten, Tippett, plus a few
>> Americans who _may_ be entering the standard rotation.)

> I find operatic singing in English next to impossible to
> understand without knowing the words beforehand.

With the possible exception of Mozart, I consider opera to
be at best a waste of good orchestral music.  The best I can
say for opera likely to be sung in English is that at least
it's not a waste of *good* orchestral music.

Brian
Peter T. Daniels - 14 Jan 2007 04:19 GMT
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:04:34 +1300, Paul J Kriha
> <paul.nospam.kriha@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> say for opera likely to be sung in English is that at least
> it's not a waste of *good* orchestral music.

Philistine.
Peter T. Daniels - 14 Jan 2007 04:28 GMT
> >> > > > The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian. Can it be true?
> >> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
> to understand the words even when they do not know the
> text by heart.

Not in this country, they're not.

> >(BTW Smetana and Dvorak operas aren't in the
> >international repertoire, but Janacek operas are.)
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "international repertoire".

Performed outside Czech-speaking realms.

Lyric Opera did *Bartered Bride* once (with astonishingly low
production values), and it turned out to be an operetta, about worthy
of a church basement. The overture was familiar, though.

They never did a Dvorak in my 24 years of attending. I think there's
very occasionally a Ruslan and Ludmilla somewhere.

> I don't particularly go to Czech operas these days.
> I had more than my fill of compulsory visits in the primary
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> performed in NY for the first time. Sometimes it is
> performed in the US in German as "Die verkaufte Braut".

Juilliard is a conservatory (the most prestigious one in the country,
actually), and they prepare their opera students by putting on
less-taxing works every so often. And the regional theaters where most
of their graduates end up working are likely to do it because it's not
too challenging for the amateurs.

I don't follow the Met, so I don't know when or whether they've done
Bartered Bride recently.

New York City Opera did a renowned Janacek series some time ago,
including a Cunning Little Vixen designed by the famous children's book
illustrator Maurice Sendak. The sets and costumes were destroyed or
severely damaged in a warehouse fire after its first production.

> > English is also an
> >essential operatic language since the 20th century -- Stravinsky,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I find operatic singing in English next to impossible to
> understand without knowing the words beforehand.

That is no different from any other language.
Brian M. Scott - 14 Jan 2007 05:31 GMT
On 13 Jan 2007 20:28:02 -0800, "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:1168748882.589346.125210@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.indian:

[...]

>> I find operatic singing in English next to impossible to
>> understand without knowing the words beforehand.

> That is no different from any other language.

I'm not so sure: I generally find it easier to identify the
words in German than in English.

Brian
Paul J Kriha - 14 Jan 2007 08:50 GMT
>> >> > > > The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian. Can it be true?
>> >> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
>
>Not in this country, they're not.

When talking about opera, I am more likely to think
from the point of view of a European. I know next to
nothing about operas in the US. When I visit the US
I usually concentrate on other art forms, such as
excellent modern painting, sculptures, and civic architecture
and, of course, jazz music.

>> >(BTW Smetana and Dvorak operas aren't in the
>> >international repertoire, but Janacek operas are.)
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean by "international repertoire".
>
>Performed outside Czech-speaking realms.

Such as in German, French, Polish, Russian, etc. realms?

>Lyric Opera did *Bartered Bride* once (with astonishingly low
>production values), and it turned out to be an operetta, about worthy
>of a church basement. The overture was familiar, though.

Sounds real grabby. If the orchestra was any good, I'd
probably stay for the overture and then go home.  :-)

>They never did a Dvorak in my 24 years of attending. I think there's
>very occasionally a Ruslan and Ludmilla somewhere.

You must be thinking of something else.  Dvořák's Rusalka?
Ruslan and Ludmilla is Russian, Glinka (based on Pushkin's poem).

Just as a matter of interest I had a look at what kind of operas are
currently on in Prague and which languages they are produced in.
The current productions in the three largest Prague opera houses,
Prague National Theatre, Theatre of the Estates, and Prague State
Opera are:

Magic Flute - German
Carmen - French
Candide - English
Rusalka - Czech
Lacrimae Alexandri Magni - not specified, probably Czech
Aida, Tosca, Boheme, Traviata, Don Pasquale,
Lucia di Lammermour, Barber of Seville, and
Turandot - all eight in Italian

Seems that Italian rules and it does in Vienna too. :-)

>> I don't particularly go to Czech operas these days.
>> I had more than my fill of compulsory visits in the primary
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
>That is no different from any other language.

You must get the crappiest non-English productions in the world. :-)

pjk
Peter T. Daniels - 14 Jan 2007 14:20 GMT
> >> >> > > > The claim was made by someone on soc.culture.indian. Can it be true?
> >> >> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
> excellent modern painting, sculptures, and civic architecture
> and, of course, jazz music.

Americans melded the operetta form (Rudolf Friml, Victor Herbert) with
vaudeville and produced the Broadway musical; even most of the few
American operas that have securely entered the repertoire, such as
Gershwin's Porgy and Bess and a few of Menotti's -- were first produced
on Broadway but later moved to the opera stage. The striking similarity
of the Lyric's production of Stravinsky's Rake's Progress and
Bernstein's Candide suggests that the former might have better been
done as a Broadway show -- indeed, the original cast (in Venice) paired
Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, then near the beginning of her career, with
Robert Rounseville, who was a Broadway star, not an opera singer.

I'd already left Chicago when Lyric did Sondheim's Sweeney Todd and A
Little Night Music -- both are largely through-composed, but I doubt
they would be enormously successful under operatic treatment.

In recent years, the Lyric and the Met have teamed for several
commissions, including Corigliano's Ghosts of Versailles (intended to
complete the Mozart/Rossini Beaumarchais trilogy), Bolcom's View from
the Bridge, and something of Harbison's; I don't think Previn's
Streetcar Named Desire has been seen in such a major house.

City Opera puts on a Broadway musical almost every year (among its 12
or so productions each season), usually unjustly neglected works like
Frank Loesser's Most Happy Fella, but they bring in Broadway personnel
rather than opera singers/directors/designers/conductors to do it. A
few years ago they even included Britten's Paul Bunyan, which was an
attempt by two Englishmen (Auden was the librettist) to create a show
in the New York style. (As another emigre, Kurt Weill, had already
successfully done; but Paul Bunyan was given just a few times in one
week at Columbia University and had no chance to prove its commercial
viability).

> >> >(BTW Smetana and Dvorak operas aren't in the
> >> >international repertoire, but Janacek operas are.)
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Such as in German, French, Polish, Russian, etc. realms?

The "etc." would include English and Italian; Poland is not famous for
operatic culture.

> >Lyric Opera did *Bartered Bride* once (with astonishingly low
> >production values), and it turned out to be an operetta, about worthy
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> You must be thinking of something else.  Dvořák's Rusalka?
> Ruslan and Ludmilla is Russian, Glinka (based on Pushkin's poem).

Sorry, that's how obscure Dvorak's operas are -- of a dozen or so, I
can't think of a single title.

> Just as a matter of interest I had a look at what kind of operas are
> currently on in Prague and which languages they are produced in.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Seems that Italian rules and it does in Vienna too. :-)

Andrew Porter argued vigorously for performing opera in translation (he
produced singing translations of Wagner and Verdi -- is the translator
for the Ricordi-Chicago critical edition of Verdi) but too much is
lost, especially, as he noted, with Janacek, whose melodies are so
specifically attuned to the Czech libretto that much is lost with
translation.

And, as has been noted, it's difficult to understand sung texts anyway,
and that for perfectly good physical reasons -- as the fundamental tone
reaches higher pitch, the acoustic space available for the formants to
resonate diminishes, so vocalic differences are obscured.

> >> I don't particularly go to Czech operas these days.
> >> I had more than my fill of compulsory visits in the primary
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> You must get the crappiest non-English productions in the world. :-)

Hardly ...

IIRC, the American operatic debut of Pavarotti (this was back when he
could still sing, 1971 or 72) was at Lyric Opera ...
Paul J Kriha - 15 Jan 2007 07:23 GMT
[...]

>> >> >My point was that it is indeed possible to pronounce languages without
>> >> >understanding them.
[quoted text clipped - 77 lines]
>Sorry, that's how obscure Dvorak's operas are -- of a dozen or so, I
>can't think of a single title.

Neither could I think of all of his operas.

I looked up their "English" names:
Rusalka,  Dimitrij,  The Devil and Kate,  Vanda,
The Jacobin,  Alfred,  King and Charcoal Burner,
Armida, The Cunning Peasant.

I am not sure if that's the whole lot.
In any case I don't think they'd make up a full dozen.

Even in the Czech texts the names of some of them
figure in sentences including words like "neglected"
and "revival of neglected..."  :-)

Fortunately, his symphonies is an entirely different story.  :-)

>> Just as a matter of interest I had a look at what kind of operas are
>> currently on in Prague and which languages they are produced in.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>specifically attuned to the Czech libretto that much is lost with
>translation.

I dislike translated opera with all my heart. I prefer listening
to opera sung in the original language, even if don't understand
the language at all, e.g. Italian or French.

>And, as has been noted, it's difficult to understand sung texts anyway,
>and that for perfectly good physical reasons -- as the fundamental tone
>reaches higher pitch, the acoustic space available for the formants to
>resonate diminishes, so vocalic differences are obscured.

I believe, the displays with simultaneous translation
solve most of the language related problems.

Some time ago I saw Magic Flute here downunder with
German cast and sung all in German. It was absolutely brilliant.
I had to go to see it again two days later. The first time I couldn't
resist the temptation of constantly reading the English translation.
Then when I saw it for the second time I felt free to watch
the singers and fully enjoy the music.

pjk

>> >> I don't particularly go to Czech operas these days.
>> >> I had more than my fill of compulsory visits in the primary
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>IIRC, the American operatic debut of Pavarotti (this was back when he
>could still sing, 1971 or 72) was at Lyric Opera ...
Robert Bannister - 13 Jan 2007 22:26 GMT
> P.S. Unlike listening singing in other languages one is
> supposed to be able to understand words of an unfamiliar
> aria sang well in one of the five operatic languages.
> Some singers manage it very well even though they
> don't speak the particular language much at all.

One of the many reasons I don't like opera (as opposed to operettas like
G&S) is that I can't understand the words even when they are in English.
Signature

Rob Bannister

Peter T. Daniels - 14 Jan 2007 04:20 GMT
> > P.S. Unlike listening singing in other languages one is
> > supposed to be able to understand words of an unfamiliar
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> One of the many reasons I don't like opera (as opposed to operettas like
> G&S) is that I can't understand the words even when they are in English.

That's why major opera houses these days use supertitles (even for
operas in English), and why the ENO's "Opera in English" mindset is
sort of silly.
Paul J Kriha - 14 Jan 2007 07:39 GMT
> > P.S. Unlike listening singing in other languages one is
> > supposed to be able to understand words of an unfamiliar
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> G&S) is that I can't understand the words even when they are in English.
> Rob Bannister

I know what you mean. However, I'd say not "even when they
are in English" but "because they are in English".  :-)

One of the main reasons for the five operatic languages being
called "operatic" is that the listener should be able to understand
every word of the aria sang in them. And from the singers'
point of view, singing in those languages should help them
establish good singing habits.

I don't speak Italian, but when I listen to a good Italian opera
at home and want to find the meaning of a particular phrase,
I freeze the player and look up the words in a dictionary.
I can be reasonably confident to remember what it is I heard
and guess the spelling of the words. Of course, Italian
spelling is more consistent than English, but first one has
to be certain of what consonants and vowels one actually
heard. Whenever I don't understand what an English opera
singer is singing (which unfortunately is often most of the time)
it's because I have no idea at all what consonants/vowels
are being sung.

pjk
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.