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

On Friday, July 16, 2004, at 09:03 , Philippe Caquant wrote:

[snip]
> what are such animals. When I listen to the word
> "uvular", it makes me think of wolves howling.
Eh?? What planet do you live on? Why on earth should 'uvular' even faintly
suggest wolves howling?

Or are you, perchance, confusing 'uvular' with 'ululate'? *shrug* - I
guess both have repeating |u| and the |la| combo. (I suppose Mark's next
recipe will get salmagundi and salami confused)

> I never
> howl when pronouncing "uspex", neither does my wife,
Why should either of you?

> and yet we understand each other when we pronounce
> this word, and Germans understand me when I pronounce
> "Bach". Strange, isn't it ?
Probably because you pronounce Bach and "uspex" with either a velar
voiceless fricative. I fail to see anything remotely strange about that.
========================================================

Also on Friday, July 16, 2004, at 09:26 , Philippe Caquant wrote:

[snip]
> 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.
..and being rational might help a bit, also.

I fail to see why the casette or CD has to be having sex. I'd have thought
an ordinary casette or CD would do. Isn't this the most common method for
those you actually want to speak a language?

Marrying is rather restricting, however. The laws of the UK do not allow
bigamy; so if you wanted to learn to speak more than one foreign language
it would mean, presumably, a few divorces. Also there's the catch that one
must make sure the spouse speaks a reasonably standard form of the
language.
==========================================================

On Saturday, July 17, 2004, at 06:50 , Philippe Caquant wrote:
[snip]

> People sometimes tell me that my English pronunciation
> is good. Why is it so ? Because I didn't learn English
> at school (I was learning German at the time), but
> with tapes recorded by English natives.
Quite - and these tapes weren't fucking at the time, I guess.
==========================================================

On Friday, July 16, 2004, at 09:37 , Andreas Johansson wrote:
[snip]
> The distinction here is what degree of precision is required. If we're
> trying to
> discuss phonetics, we won't be coming far by refering to "English long a"
>  or
> "German ch". We're much better off using phonetic labels like "uvular"
> and/or
> phonetic representations, like IPA or CXS.
Indeed, if we're to have any _meaningful_ discussion, we have to have
precision. To discuss phonetics or phonology in terms of "like ..." is
pointless.

> Anyone wanting to participitate in
> such discussion ought to expend the fairly limited effort require to
> master
> them, for his sake, and for the sake of the other people in the
> discussion.
AMEN!

> If, OTOH, we're trying to get a linguistically naive reader to pronounce
> something more-or-less recognizably, but without any need for anything
> like a
> perfect native accent, we can't reasonably expect him to learn the IPA
> just for
> this.
Quite - or to learn what uvular or fricative means. But we can IMNSHO
expect someone discussing phonetics or phonology to do so.

[snip]
> If we're wanting to teach a linguistically naive person a foreign
> language to a
> functional level, we'd preferably start with bringing him into contact
> with a
> speaker of that language to begin with, and won't thus have to rely on
> written
> descriptions at all for inflicting proper pronunciation upon him.
Yep - either through actual contact or using tapes, CDs, radio broadcasts
etc.
 =======================================================================

On Friday, July 16, 2004, at 10:02 , Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> En réponse à Philippe Caquant :
[snip]

>> 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".
..and how many times have I been confronted with a similar dilemma!

Indeed, it's my understanding that the 'normal' Castilian pronunciation of
|j| is [X] and that the mot common German pronunciation of the ach-laut is
[x]. So which sound is the Russian one? OK - if all I require is to make
myself understood in Russian & don't mind two hoots whether I sound
foreign or not, then either sound will do. But if I'm really interested in
Russian phonology, I'm left confused. Which sound is it?

> It is *not* helpful, most of the time, unless, as I said earlier, you
> *know* what your audience has already been exposed too.
..which, in a text book, you are not likely to know.

>>  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.
You might if you said: "a voiceless velar fricative".

> 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.
Comparisons can never do the job properly and need to be given with care.
IME they so often are not. IPA transcriptions, however, are very helpful
for those with a knowledge of phonetics and phonology - and the tapes &
CDs are helpful for everyone  :)

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply