Re: BBC does it again
- From: Andrew Woode <andrew_woode@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
On 5 Jun, 17:32, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bahía de Guantánamo, (not hard to check if you didn't know the Spanish
"Barack Obama" and "Guantanamo Bay" (NB not Baio di Guantanamo or
whatever)
word).
are American names with standard pronounciations. Why doesYou don't indicate the correct pronunciation. Would you agree with
the BBC feel it doesn't need to pronounce them as they are pronounced
by the people who use them?
Merriam-Webster online, whose
\gwän-ˈtä-nä-ˌmō\ appears to mean /gwAn'tAnAmou/ (ä as in 'mop',
ō as in 'go' according to their pronunciation guide)?
Assuming that's right, would you recommend /A/ ('father') or /A./
('mop') as the RP equivalent of the /A/? The first option feels very
strange as an option in the first two syllables, while the second is
gratuitously further away from the American (and, as it happens,
Spanish pronunciation).
/gw&n't&n@m@U/ is an entirely natural transfer of the Spanish
pronunciation into British English, as well as a fairly plausible
spelling pronunciation (if one knows where the stress falls), and
feels entirely comfortable to a British English ear.
The pronunciation of 'Birming-ham' is fairly well known in the UK,
What if they had to refer to Birmingham, Alabama? or the Thames River
in Connecticut? (New London is on it.)
though it can feel a little artificial to use it when the
pronunciation of the British city is so ingrained. (Americans
presumably have the reverse problem).
Incidentally, we do normally say /&l@'b&m@/, which I can never
convince myself is congruent with British spelling rules (surely final
<a - single consonant - a>, where the penultimate is stressed, should
be /eI... @/ or /A ..... @/. (I have similar problems with Cincinnati
- while I have heard it enough to know the pronunciation, and have
enough Latin to remember the spelling, I find it hard to reconcile the
two; final /'neItai/, /'nAti/, or some permutation would seem far more
logical.)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: BBC does it again
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: BBC does it again
- References:
- BBC does it again
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: BBC does it again
- From: Harlan Messinger
- Re: BBC does it again
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: BBC does it again
- From: Harlan Messinger
- Re: BBC does it again
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- BBC does it again
- Prev by Date: Re: Arabic phonetics, Al-jazeera etc,
- Next by Date: Re: BBC does it again
- Previous by thread: Re: BBC does it again
- Next by thread: Re: BBC does it again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|