Klarinet Archive - Posting 001074.txt from 2003/04
From: Roger Shilcock <roger.shilcock@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Pronunciation/Spelling
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:46:50 -0400
I'm not sure I'm competent to deal with all your questions. I did mean that speakers of a language with a written form tend to regard the written form and as the norm and so pronunciations come into use based on the sounds which the
written characters are held to represent. I wasn't trying to say anything in particular about Italian, which is a case of a language which was originally
a written standard becoming a widespread spoken language; Urdu is another such example. Re Spanish: I was really trying to say not that there are various dialectal pronunciations, but that there are local standards, notably within Latin America. I think I missed the original point about Italian. It may be relevant to the "Partit(t)a" issue that the Italian and the local dialects prevalent in Austrian Italy had *no* "lengthened" consonants. I believe that
- at least, I read that - many speakers in the north who consider themselves to be primarily Italian-speakers nowadays don't use these consonant forms consistently.
Roger S.
In message <4BE7A4EA2D%Tony@-----.org writes:
> 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/
>
>
--
Cet animal est méchant. Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.
---- Alleged sign in French zoo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/
