Re: Two questions about Esperanto

Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:27:32PM -0400, Ph. D. wrote:
> > I don't think I'd agree that [e] for Esperanto |e| is allowed. That's
> > a mispronunciation. It should always be [E].
>
> Based on what?  I thought the allowed range of allophones for each E-o
> phoneme was intentionally broad to avoid worries about "proper"
> pronunciation, which is a discouraging factor in IAL land.   There
> is a "standard" set of phones, but it is only a recommendation;
I don't think Zamenhof put enough thought into the phonetics
of E-o for an intentionally broad range of allophones. I believe
the "standard" set of phones is more than just a recommendation;
E-o speakers are strongly encouraged to try as far as possible to
adhere to the standard.

Allow me to quote Richardson in _Learning_and_Using_the_International
_Language_:

   To get the sound of "e" really right, do this: Place two fingers lightly
   across your mouth . . . and say "they" very carefully. Feel how the
   lips and jaw shift position midway through the "ey" sound. That's
   because in English, the sound of "ey" is really made up of two sounds:
   "eh" followed by "ee".  Now practice saying just the "eh" without
   sliding into the "ee" sound. That is how you pronounce "e" correctly
   in Esperanto.

And Jordan in _Being_Colloquial_in_Esperanto:

   Speakers who do not make a continuing effort toward proper
   pronunciation show varying influences from their native languages.
   . . .  [W]e Americans tend to have trouble keeping our vowels pure.
   "E" for example tends to be drawn out as though it were spelled "EJ"
   (as in English "dAY"). This is inelegant, although it can usually be
   understood. Similarly "O" is sometimes shortened to something
   more like the "OU" in English "OUght" and begins to sound enough
   like "A" to confuse some listeners. . . .  All these tendencies must
   be resisted if one is to be easily understood internationally.


> the important thing is that the sounds be close enough to the
recommendation
> to be recognizable, and far enough apart that there's no ambiguity.
Well, some E-o words do have [e] in them. This sound is spelled "ej",
although I can't think of a minimal pair at the moment.

Perhaps you are thinking of [Gode's] Interlingua, which was designed
to have wide variances in pronunciation. Allow me to quote from the
official Interlingua grammar:

   sec 2. The norm of pronunciation is "continental." The sound values
   of the various letters are fluid within type limits. They may be
naturally
   influenced by neighboring sounds as also by native habits of individual
   speakers. For instance, the sound of "u" -- described in the phrase,
   "like u in 'plural' " -- may well be pronounced like "oo" in "good" or in
   "loom" but not like "u" in "stutter" or in French "lune."

   sec. 4. . . .
   "e" always like "e" in "met" or, better, like "é" in French "risqué."


> I've heard [A] for |a|, [e] for |e|, [I] for |i|, [O] for |o|,
> [N] for |n| before velars, [p^h] for |p|, [r\] for |r| (usually from
> Americans who can't roll their |r|s), etc, all considered correct
> pronunciation by the listening Esperantists.
How many of these were not native Anglophones? Perhaps they
were being polite in not correcting others' pronunciation? I believe
all the Esperantists I've met tended to use [N] for [n] before velars.


> In fact, I seem to recall that someone's doing a study about this -
dialects
> of Esperanto speech and how people react to them.  There's a web page
> where you can listen to snippets and rate them . . . let me dig up the
> URL . . . here we go:
>
>         http://sfo.ab.ru/~oxy/index.php
At the moment, I can't get that page to load. I'll take a look when I get
a chance. It's been very hot here lately, and I have no air conditioning.


> > However, all the Esperantists I know pronounce it as [e] when
> > it's immediately followed by another vowel, as in the word "teo"
> > (= tea).
>
> In general I hear [e] when |e| is not followed by a consonant, whether
> because it's followed by another vowel in hiatus, as in your examples,
> or by nothing at all (as in the word "ne").
I've only heard a few beginners use [e] when it's the final letter in a
word, such as "tre" or "ne."  Everyone else, including non-native
Anglophones, always use [E] (at least as far as I could tell).

--Ph. D.

Reply