Re: Esperantist lies (Re: Learning a language)

From: Sean O'Leathlobhair (jwlawler_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/16/04 

Date: 16 Jul 2004 10:05:13 -0700

LEE Sau Dan <danlee@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message news:<m37jt4xsgq.fsf@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>...
> >>>>> "Tak" == Tak To <takto@alum.mit.edu.-> writes:
>
> Tak> Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote:
> >> LSD's last note gave the impression that he had not been taught
> >> the rules for English vowels e.g. why "i" is short in "sit" but
> >> long in "site". If this is right then it may explain why he
> >> thinks that English is so unphonetic.
>
> But I did know the rule. I've discovered that rule some 20 years ago.

I plan a fuller response to your latest note in the script discussion
but I have not had the time yet. This extract from the discussion was
the reason for my comment:

    Sean> Also, although the phonetic values of "i" in "write" and
    Sean> "written" are quite different, the association is automatic
    Sean> to me.

    LSD> I'm glad that it is written so consistently (morphologically
speaking,
    LSD> not phonetically speaking).

The "w"s in "write" and "written" are silent and hence unnecessary (a
bit of history) but otherwise these words are spelt correctly by
English rules. It is because you put the comment "not phonetically
speaking" that I got the impression that you did not understand the
rules for English vowel length.

In your next note (to which I have not yet responded) you say:

    Sean> What is wrong with the phonetics in the English spelling of
    Sean> man?

    LSD> You pick one specific example. I pick another: "I". How do
you know
    LSD> how "I" is pronounced, other than rote-memorization?

This word is also spelt correctly by English rules. The syllable is
open hence you would expect I to have its long sound. The only thing
wrong with this spelling is the use of upper case even when it is not
at the beginning of the sentence. The reason for this is that in hand
writing a lower case i by itself is small and could be easily missed.
 
> Tak> This is further complicated by the fact that to most
> Tak> Cantonese ears, the two vowel sounds differ more in quality
> Tak> ([aI] vs [I]) than in length(*).

True. Traditionally we call the vowel in "sit" a short "i" and the
vowel in "site" a long "i" but they differ more in quality than
length. Long ago, the principle difference was length but the sound
of many long vowels have changed since. English speakers are
accustomed to considering them closely related sounds because they
alternate so often in related words e.g. "write" and "written". This
makes English vowel usage quite different from most other languages
which use the same script but that does not English is unphonetic.
There is no reason why its spelling rules should be the same as other
languages. Spanish and Finnish are common examples of languages which
are quite phonetic but they use J and several other letters quite
differently. Does this mean that those languages are not phonetic?

On the other hand, the vowels in "sit" and "seat" are quite close
phonetically and are confused by some non-native speakers. Natives on
the other hand, tend to think of them as quite different since they do
not normally alternate in related words.

Do not worry so much about length. Regard "Short I" and "Long I" as
the names of two English phonemes and concentrate more on the quality
of the vowels than the length.
 
> I think Cantonese [aI] (I would say it's [@j] or [@i]) and [I] are in
> complementary distribution. Syllables with an [aI] final can't end in
> a consonant (/p/, /t/, /k/, /m/, /n/, /ng/). Syllables having an [I]
> must end in a velar consonant (/k/, /ng/). So, I can't find any
> minimal pairs to support your claim. But I think you're right: both
> [aI] and [I] _sound_ short to _me_.
 
> Tak> Thus the term "long" and "short" are somewhat meaningless.

Indeed, as I said above.

> Phonemically, only long and short /a/ are distinguished, and they have
> different qualities to our ears: [@] vs. [a:]. So, it may be even
> simpler to say they're two vowels /@/ vs. /a/ and forget about vowel
> length altogether. However, for phonetics and for foreigners to learn
> the Cantonese pronunciation accurately, one cannot avoid the parameter
> of vowel length.
 
Are you talking of English or Cantonese here?
 
> Tak> (*) Another complication is that in Cantonese, all syllables
> Tak> ending with -t (and -k and -p) are (relatively speaking)
> Tak> short,
>
> No. That's wrong. Remember how the "middle entering" tone [5] split
> off from the "high entering" tone [3]? It's determined by vowel
> length: a long vowel gives the ME tone; a short vowel goes with the HE
> tone. There are few exceptions. And amazingly, this distribution of
> HE/ME tone depending on vowel length does coincide with that of
> Zhuang!
>
> examples:
>
> [b@k5] = north [ba:k3] = hundred
> [f@t5] = suddenly [fa:t3] = to develop
> [h@p5] = coincidently [ha:p3] = narrow
> [d@p5] = to drip [da:p3] = to answer
> [s@t5] = to lose [sa:t3] = to kill
>
>
>
> Tak> to the extend that most Cantonese perceive "site" and "sign"
> Tak> to have different vowel sounds (something like [aI] vs
> Tak> [a:I]).
>
> To me, the former sounds more like [@i] than [aI]. And the latter
> sound more like [a:i].
>
>
> Tak> Btw, I myself was taught informally by a teacher (in Hong
> Tak> Kong) that the mute "e" signifies that the previous vowel
> Tak> should be pronounced "in the original sound", meaning how the
> Tak> letter is pronounced in an alphabetical list (i.e., "aye",
> Tak> "yee", "eye", "oh", "you").

"Original sound" is not a term that I am familiar with. The more
usual terms are short and long (but see comments above). The names of
the vowel letters are their long sounds. In your list, I would not
put the "y" in "yee". There is an obsolete pronoun "ye" which, to me,
sounds quite different for the name of the letter E. The difference
is because of the initial consonant and not the vowel.
 
> This is just another way to say "long vowel", if you understand the
> historical development of why the letter names are pronounced the way
> they are now. Which is easier to understand? I don't know.

Not just the development of the names of their letters but their
sounds where they used to be long.
 
> A more difficult one is: sulphite vs. sulphide.
> (American English: replace "ph" by "f".)

My chemistry is rusty but I think that "sulphite" and "sulphide" are
different radicals (chemical sense). I think that their valences are
different. Many would struggle with the chemical significance of the
terms but natives do not usually struggle with the sounds. Again,
this may be difficult for a leaner whose language does not distinguish
these phonemes but it does not mean that English is unphonetic.

The "ph" / "f" is indeed a redundancy in English. It is a small
impediment to predicting spelling from sound but not for predicting
sound from spelling. In this case the US has replaced the "ph" with
"f" but not in all cases.

Seán O'Leathlóbhair

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Esperantist lies (Re: Learning a language)
    ... Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote: ... > rules for English vowel length. ... for phonetics and for foreigners to learn ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Special letters
    ... >> None of these letters is native to English, ... >> diaeresis is only a reminder that the vowel is pronounced. ... was how does one sound these letters." ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: "Arent I?" okay implies "I arent" okay
    ... In my own speech, in careful speech, the unstressed /@/ in this ... who in his phonetics textbook ... But most speakers of British English will have a vowel of this ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Open a file and count vowels
    ... Even if the language used in the text file is always English and you ... anyone ever explaining when 'y' was considered a vowel and when it was ... And while many languages are written using the same letters that we ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: How do you pronounce "HLL"
    ... > sound at the beginning is a vowel. ... it's solely a "pronounciation thing" to use ... language, there are no "pauses" in spoken language, in fact - except for ... English) accent speaking it...definitely problematic is you've got the ...
    (alt.lang.asm)