Re: Foreign is foreign, right?


Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2006 03:42:38 -0800, Seán O'Leathlóbhair
> <jwlawler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> <news:1137066158.542296.115620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> >> On 12 Jan 2006 10:43:07 +0000, Des Small
> >> <vonbladet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >> <news:yyrj64opg210.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in sci.lang:
>
> >>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >>>> On 12 Jan 2006 02:00:12 -0800, Seán O'Leathlóbhair
> >>>> <jwlawler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >>>> <news:1137060012.720048.13030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> in sci.lang:
>
> >>>>> On Copenhagen, I will stick to my eI pronunciation since
> >>>>> that is what every Dane that I have met uses when he is
> >>>>> speaking English. Neither pronunciation is particularly
> >>>>> close to the Danish so why do you regard one as somehow
> >>>>> better than the other? Rather prescriptivist, isn't it?
>
> >>>> WTF?! Where do you see me (or for that matter Peter)
> >>>> offering any opinion on the relative merits of the two? The
> >>>> question was where the common U.S. pronunciation with [A:]
> >>>> came from.
>
> >>> Peter wrote, in <43C5097F.3DF1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>> """
> >>> That's just the well-known British tendency to disrespect the source
> >>> language, in this case German.
> >>> """
>
> >>> Seán seems to have taken "disrespect" as a negative value
> >>> judgement. Could happen, isn't it?
>
> > Thanks Des, that's right.
>
> >> I suppose, though I still don't see any *comparison*, i.e.,
> >> anything to suggest that the other pronunciation is better.
> >> But feel free to ignore the parenthetical comment, which was
> >> in any case an afterthought; Seán was addressing me, and I
> >> certainly said nothing to suggest that I think one
> >> pronunciation better than the other.
>
> > Peter's "disrespect" comment did seem a value judgement to me. You
> > appeared to be backing up his opinion hence my comment about
> > prescriptivism. If I have misunderstood you then I apologise.
>
> You simply didn't bother to read what I wrote. Here it is
> again, in context:
>
> >>> and that is still listed first in the AHD; but a lot of
> >>> Americans make it [koup@nhA:g@n], which does not at all
> >>> resemble the Danish word, but happens to be pretty
> >>> close to the German, which (I have been told) Danes of
> >>> a certain age would rather not be reminded of.
>
> >> Obviously the name entered English via German.

It is the use of "obviously" that is the root of my misunderstanding.
It is not so obvious to me. It would seem just as possible that it is
pronounced that way due to a false assumption of a German origin (as
you speculate below). I don't see the direction of cause and effect as
obvious or even that there is cause and effect.

> > Have you checked, or are you just assuming that because it
> > suits your opinions?
>
> It's the obvious inference from the data presented here.
> A reasonable alternative that occurs to me is that U.S.
> [A:] here is the result of marking the name [+foreign].
> Then again, perhaps many first heard it from (people
> who first heard it from (people who ...)) Danny Kaye,
> and I've no idea where he got his pronunciation.
>
> Your response to this, which still appears at the top of
> this post, is an obvious non sequitur, since (1) I was
> obviously discussing the source of the [A:] pronunciation,
> and (2) I obviously offered no value judgement. My support,
> somewhat qualified, is evidently confined to the assertion
> that the name entered English from German.

I will admit that I have read your posts too quickly and not fully
appreciated them. Hence, I apologise.

--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair

.

Relevant Pages
Loading