Re: How to Make Chicken Cacciatore (was: phonetics by guesswork)

En réponse à Philippe Caquant :

> >
>Not at all. The problem is not that there may be
>different way for Germans to pronounce "Bach".
No, the problem is that there are many ways people (not only Germans) may 
interpret "like 'ch' in 'Bach'". You've just pointed an exaggerated one.

>  The
>problem comes from the fact that French journalists
>are illiterate, and haven't the faintest idea about
>whatever possible pronunciation for "Bach". Or maybe
>they have no ears at all. This is something completely
>different.
The problem is that most *people* are just as illiterate as those French 
journalists when it comes to language sounds.

>Please note that in grammars, you normally can read at
>least two examples in two different foreign languages
>about the pronunciation of Russian "x". That's why I
>mentioned "like j in navaja or like ch in Bach" (one
>might probably add Arabic examples too).
Yeah, and the people that have been exposed to a version of Spanish that 
pronounces "j" [h] or [C] will look at you with wide eyes, wondering what 
you meant with "like j in navajo or like ch in Bach". It is *not* helpful, 
most of the time, unless, as I said earlier, you *know* what your audience 
has already been exposed too.

>  But if
>somebody wants to learn Russian and you explain him
>that "x" is an uvular cacciatorive, ehm, I mean
>fricative, or an epiglottal bilabial thrill, you may
>be right (or not), but you usually won't help him to
>go one inch further.
What about give both (a "comparison", and the correct sound description for 
the ones who are curious to check the *exact* pronunciation), and a tape or 
CD to boot? Eventually, that's the only way to get it right.

>  I haven't the faintest idea about
>what are such animals.
Learn. There's a whole world of things you don't know yet! Why close 
yourself to some good education?

>  When I listen to the word
>"uvular", it makes me think of wolves howling.
The French 'r' is an uvular fricative (except in the South of France, where 
it is an alveolar trill). And the 'r' of Edith Piaf is an uvular trill. 
Does that help you to get an idea of what 'uvular' means? Note that I use 
comparisons in this case, because I *know* you've been exposed to them 
already, so you will get my references right. I would *never* use such 
descriptions when targetting an English speaker from Utah for instance 
(unless I know he's a fan of Edith Piaf ;) ).

>  I never
>howl when pronouncing "uspex", neither does my wife,
>and yet we understand each other when we pronounce
>this word, and Germans understand me when I pronounce
>"Bach". Strange, isn't it ?
By the way, the sound you mean here is not uvular, it's velar (although 
many German dialects pronounce it uvular). It's just a little more in front 
of the mouth :) (at the position you pronounce 'k').
_________________________________________________________________________
En réponse à Philippe Caquant :


>I checked in my Assimil method and I found yet another
>description: "it is a k that is not completely closed,
>it lets air pass through, like an English "h" in
>"him".
>
>Oh ? I never thought of that. I just told my wife,
>hey, come here a minute, and say "uspex". To my utter
>surprise, she said "uspex" exactly the way I expected
>it (and added some disobliging remarks about me
>stupidly spending my time on the Internet), and to me,
>this with was not the way I always heard anglophones
>pronounce "him" (but I may have asked the wrong
>anglophones, of course). Nevertheless, both sounds are
>not very far from each other, so it can help to try
>with "him" if you don't know, neither navaja, neither
>Bach.
I think you misunderstand in purpose, and just keep on proving my point 
that unprecise descriptions are unhelping. What they meant was that the 
Russian "x" is pronounced at the same position as your 'k', but while 
letting air go through, producing an easy to hear frication, just like the 
one produced in "h" of "him" (but nowhere they said that you had to 
pronounce it *exactly* like "him"). The description is correct: "x" and "h" 
are both fricatives, i.e. sounds pronounced with a noticeable amount of 
frication. "h" is pronounced by frication at the level of the glottis, 
while "x" is pronounced by frication at the level of the velum, the same 
place you touch with your tongue when you pronounce "k".

Another correct description could have been "x is to k what s is to t". 
It's correct, but would you have got it?

>True, this is losing one's time. If you want to learn
>Russian, you just buy a f...ing cassette, or a f...ing
>CD, and you listen to it, and you repeat what you
>hear. Or you marry a russophone. That's what I did.
>Let's be pragmatic.
Absolutely. I learned Dutch the same way :) . Nothing like full immersion 
to learn a language :) . CDs and tapes are the closest you can get besides 
marrying someone or moving there ;) . And as you conclude yourself, indeed, 
using comparisons to teach sounds from a book are just not helpful. They 
are indeed "losing one's time".

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.