| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | Phonetics and Translation Thread poster: Lincoln Burr (X)
|
|---|
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:44
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Nicole Schnell wrote:
I am, however, tired of this ongoing America-bashing.
I didn't see any America-bashing. I'm puzzled.
| | | | Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:44
Hebrew to English
| Agree with Tom | Nov 8, 2011 |
I don't see any "America bashing" either.
On my part I was making light of the fact that what you called "brutalization" (by Brits) is actually a perfectly natural linguistic process.
If anyone was being "bashed", it was the British...for being so uncivilized we don't pronounce -age as the French do.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:44
Hebrew to English
| It was a joke Tom | Nov 8, 2011 |
Tom in London wrote:
Actually Webster, in his rationalis(z)ation of the English language, was very much in tune with the French Enlightenment. I don't think there was any intention on his part to annoy "the French". Or anyone else.
I was just kidding. The serious point I wanted to make is mentioned above. (That there is a logical linguistic rationale for Anglicising -age in English).
| | | |
Nicole Schnell wrote: Tom in London wrote:
Webster made a good stab at rationalising it with American English. But he didn't go far. I mean for example "rationalise" became "rationalize" but not "racionalize".
[Edited at 2011-10-03 14:33 GMT] Webster's made indeed a stab at explaining that French words such as "garage" are not supposed to be brutalized in their pronunciation as it happens in the UK where the soft sound of ɡəˈrɑːʒ/ gə-rahzh turns into an ear-grinding ˈɡærɨdʒ/ garr-ij.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but a ɡəˈrɑːʒ/ gə-rahzh isn't the same as aɡærɨdʒ/ garr-ij... the former is where you park your car at home, while the latter is where you take your car for repairs or to buy petrol/cigarettes at 4am.
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:44
Hebrew to English
| Could be dialectal differences | Nov 8, 2011 |
Paul Harrison wrote: Nicole Schnell wrote: Tom in London wrote:
Webster made a good stab at rationalising it with American English. But he didn't go far. I mean for example "rationalise" became "rationalize" but not "racionalize".
[Edited at 2011-10-03 14:33 GMT] Webster's made indeed a stab at explaining that French words such as "garage" are not supposed to be brutalized in their pronunciation as it happens in the UK where the soft sound of ɡəˈrɑːʒ/ gə-rahzh turns into an ear-grinding ˈɡærɨdʒ/ garr-ij. Maybe I'm alone in this, but a ɡəˈrɑːʒ/ gə-rahzh isn't the same as aɡærɨdʒ/ garr-ij... the former is where you park your car at home, while the latter is where you take your car for repairs or to buy petrol/cigarettes at 4am.
I don't think you're alone, it may be accent/dialect related. In my dialect a garage is a garage is a garage (all with the "brutal" - ij sound).
I am wondering if it is considered "brutalization" when the French pronounce "Le Hamburger" without aspirating the "h" and pronouncing it in a way more in line with French phonology: (ɑ̃buʀɡœʀ) - IPA doesn't work so well on here, but basically making the first syllable more nasal and using a different vowel in the final syllable.
Rather than the typical English pronunciation of (ˈhambəːgə) which fits English phonology patterns.
Surely it's not a case of brutalization, but of hospitality - making a foreign word more at home in the "foster/adoptive" language.
| | | | | spelling/pronunciation | Nov 8, 2011 |
I remember my 'disappointment' at an English class at my Primary School when the teacher taught us how to pronounce lieutenant[lɛfˈtɛnənt] and cupboard[ˈkʌbəd]. These two 'bast***s' still don't make sense
| | | | | issues with minimal phonological pairs in Polish | Nov 8, 2011 |
There is another good example of such an issue, in Polish. Not only, however, since it might be a pattern occurring in other languages having more minimal pairs (Japanese, Korean? - I can imagine are mostly run on such).
Let's say we are to interpret someone with a speech disorder/someone who knows basic Polish and says "Kaśka, kaszka, kaska" all the same. They stand for "Kate, grits, cash(slang)". Particularly important when you try to make a decision on which you wish to have ...
| | | | Lincoln Burr (X)
TOPIC STARTER | Missing the Point | Nov 8, 2011 |
I think you're all quite missing the point. The question was: "Is it helpful or necessary for a translator to know "Phonetics"? Why (not)?"
I hoped answers such as: "Yes, it is really helpful. For instance, distinguishing between Am. and Br. dialects may help a translator render the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5Xu9UcOdj0."
Just saying...
| | |
|
|
|
Mats Wiman
Sweden
Local time: 07:44
Member (2000)
German to Swedish
+ ...
In memoriam
Tom in London wrote:
Mats: the French word "téléphone" is in fact pronounced "telefon". "Les" is pronounced "Lé" and "regarder" is pronounced "regardé".
In fact, téléphone is pronounced téléfonn
Le is prounced lö, NOT le (ö = like i in 'first')
regarder is pronounced rögardé, NOT regardé (ö = like i in 'first')
the letter e is pronounced ö (see above) when when spelling AND in open syllables as in
'rEgarder' and é as in closed syllables ('regardEr', 'les')
Salutations sincères
Mats
| | | | Jessica Noyes
United States
Local time: 01:44
Member
Spanish to English
+ ...
Tom in London wrote: Mats Wiman wrote:
In many languages (especially French) you know how to spell if you know the pronunciation of the word. Examples: téléphone (many would write telephone), le, les, regarder etc.
Mats
Mats: the French word "téléphone" is in fact pronounced "telefon". "Les" is pronounced "Lé" and "regarder" is pronounced "regardé"...
French rules for silent letters, accents, and vowel sounds, and so on are complex (way more so than Spanish or Italian), but once you learn them, "what you hear is what you get." For example, the "e" on the word "téléphone" tells you to use a real "n" rather than a nasalized "n" at the end of the word.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:44
Hebrew to English
| Phonetically speaking... | Nov 9, 2011 |
Lincoln Burrows wrote: I think you're all quite missing the point. The question was: "Is it helpful or necessary for a translator to know "Phonetics"? Why (not)?" I hoped answers such as: "Yes, it is really helpful. For instance, distinguishing between Am. and Br. dialects may help a translator render the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5Xu9UcOdj0." Just saying...
Lincoln,
I don't think it is a simple black and white matter of Yes/No. In my opinion, a sound knowledge of phonetics would be an asset for anyone working with/interested in language.
It helps to explain and facilitate understanding of linguistic phenomena that you may be aware of before knowing phonetics, but phonetics enables you to explain it meta-linguistically and enhance your understanding (i.e. to be able to articulate what is going on).
For example, in the video you cited, the difference between the UK and US accents can be explained by phonetics.
The first issue is voicing. When he says "change the "t's" to "d's" he is saying that the unvoiced "t's" become voiced "d's".
...but then Hugh Grant overgeneralizes and pronounces a final "t" and a "d" (it - id).
So the issue also has to do with syllable structure and positioning of the "t" (the environment which affects the pronunciation).
Linguistically, the American "t" is pronounced as a "d" when it occupies a "onset" position in a syllable and it retains the "t" sound when it occupies a "coda" position in a syllable.
So in the sentence in the video:
Forget about it.....
When broken down into syllables (not forgetting the Principle of Maximal Onset) it becomes:
For.ge.ta.bou.tit
Therefore, the "t" in "ta" and the first "t" in "tit" are both pronounced as "d" (they occupy onset positions) but the final "t" in "tit" is pronounced as a "t" (it occupies coda position in the syllable).
**Onset position = initial position
**Coda position = final position
(The Nucleus [i.e. middle sound] is usually a vowel/diphthong in English)
The layman way of saying the above is that in American English (some variants) pronounce "t" as "d" at the start or in the middle of a word, but pronounce it as "t" if it appears at the end of a word.
The layman explanation is less accurate but doesn't require an in-depth knowledge of phonetics to wrap your head round it. To answer your question:
Is it helpful or necessary for a translator to know "Phonetics"? Why (not)?
It is indeed helpful, I can't imagine not having this knowledge, and it does come in handy in translation too on occasion. It can shed light on all manner of things, not just UK/US differences, but non-native pronunciation, dialectal differences, accents etc. I wouldn't quite go as far as to say it is necessary, I'm sure many linguists make their way just fine without it, but I'd say to their disadvantage/detriment.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:44
Hebrew to English
| To see the advantage.... | Nov 9, 2011 |
Following on from my last post, an advantage of having a knowledge of phonetics can be demonstrated as follows (using your example):
The "Forget about it" example.
•The Phonetic explanation is comprehensive and accurate. It explains thoroughly when and why the /t/ sounds become /d/ and when they don’t.
•The layman explanation isn’t accurate, it’s a generalization (and as you saw with Hugh Grant, doesn’t work). The “t” in “Forget” ... See more Following on from my last post, an advantage of having a knowledge of phonetics can be demonstrated as follows (using your example):
The "Forget about it" example.
•The Phonetic explanation is comprehensive and accurate. It explains thoroughly when and why the /t/ sounds become /d/ and when they don’t.
•The layman explanation isn’t accurate, it’s a generalization (and as you saw with Hugh Grant, doesn’t work). The “t” in “Forget” is the final (coda) position of the word “forget” but the initial (onset) position of the syllable “ta” (for.ge.ta.bou.tit).
Therefore, even in just this one example, it demonstrates that having the linguistic/phonetic knowledge is a definite advantage.
**Incidentally, the American use of /d/ (a voiced alveolar stop) in these environments isn't actually a /d/ at all, but a voiced alveolar tap. - but for the sake of simplicity, I've kept it /d/. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Phonetics and Translation | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
