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