Klarinet Archive - Posting 001073.txt from 2003/04

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: [kl] Pronunciation/Spelling
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:46:49 -0400

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:18:31 +0100 (BST),
roger.shilcock@-----.uk said:

> "Rules" of pronunciation in a written language *always* involve
> interference from the conventions adopted to write them. There are
> several norms for Spanish pronunciation anyway, so Spanish is a bad
> example. It also seems reasonable to point out that if you are
> competent at speaking and reading a language, you will know how to
> pronounce the words in it - however they are spelt. Roger S.

Can I just ask you to clarify what you have written here? I am
genuinely curious, because I know you know something about all of this.

I can understand the second sentence:

> There are several norms for Spanish pronunciation anyway, so Spanish
> is a bad example.

....even though I don't think it really applies to what we're talking
about. I take it (I don't know much about Spanish) you mean that
Spanish has regional variations of pronunciation, and indeed that's true
of Italian too, where for example many Tuscans pronounce hard 'c' as
'h'. Is that right?

But if that is what you meant, that doesn't mean Italian is a bad
example of close correlation of spelling and pronunciation. Because in
any one region, the correlation *across the language* (ie in different
words) between a particular group of letters and how that group of
letters is pronounced, is close; and in another region the correlation
across the language between that particular group of letters and how it
is pronounced would be equally close -- even though it would be a
different correlation.

That leaves the first and third sentences.

> "Rules" of pronunciation in a written language *always* involve
> interference from the conventions adopted to write them.

To begin with, to use the term 'rules of pronunciation' to describe the
relationship between text and speech seems an odd choice of phrase.
Surely it's the other way around: we start with the spoken language, and
then have what we might call *rules of spelling*. And you seem to
agree; as you say in your third sentence,

> It also seems reasonable to point out that if you are competent at
> speaking and reading a language, you will know how to pronounce the
> words in it - however they are spelt.

Now, Wendy mentioned 'rules of pronunciation' in:

> For example, in Spanish, things sound just like they look. You
> can spell anything in Spanish as long as you can pronounce it
> correctly. The rules of pronunciation are very stringent.

....but I had taken her to mean, as above, "The rules of spelling are
very stringent" -- or perhaps just reinterpreted what she said as, "In
Spanish, there is a strict (1-1) correlation between spelling and
pronunciation."

So now, what do you mean in your first sentence by 'interference from
the conventions adopted to write them'? Is it something like, a change
in spelling for whatever reason results over time in a change in
pronunciation, or vice versa, respecting the correlation? Or is it that
the convention isn't respected, but drifts towards the situation we find
in English, where the connection between spelling and pronunciation
varies wildly?

Or what?

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE http://classicalplus.gmn.com/artists
tel/fax 01865 553339

.... So... Is this seat taken?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org