Re: Esperantist lies (Re: Learning a language)
From: Tak To (takto_at_alum.mit.edu.-)
Date: 07/19/04
- Next message: Sean O'Leathlobhair: "Re: Esperantist lies (Re: Learning a language)"
- Previous message: piotrpanek: "Re: What's the different between /tS/ as one phoneme and as two?"
- In reply to: Sean O'Leathlobhair: "Re: Esperantist lies (Re: Learning a language)"
- Next in thread: Tak To: "re: Cantonese and English vowel lengths (Re: Esperantist lies)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:27:59 -0400
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote:
> 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 To wrote:
> Btw, I myself was taught informally by a teacher (in Hong
> Kong) that the mute "e" signifies that the previous vowel
> should be pronounced "in the original sound", meaning how the
> letter is pronounced in an alphabetical list (i.e., "aye",
> "yee", "eye", "oh", "you").
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote:
> "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.
I was taught the name was "yee", and I am just reporting what the teacher
said here. This is just another example of how teachers of a foreign
language are typically rather uninformed about the phonetics of that
language. In any case, even though the teacher said that the vowel
sound (and name) is [ji:], he doesn't actually put in the [j] part when
using it (the sound) in words. E.g., "em yee --> me". :-)
Btw, I meant "ay", not "aye", as you might probably have guessed.
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To takto@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
- Next message: Sean O'Leathlobhair: "Re: Esperantist lies (Re: Learning a language)"
- Previous message: piotrpanek: "Re: What's the different between /tS/ as one phoneme and as two?"
- In reply to: Sean O'Leathlobhair: "Re: Esperantist lies (Re: Learning a language)"
- Next in thread: Tak To: "re: Cantonese and English vowel lengths (Re: Esperantist lies)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
