Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Phonetically correct
- Thread starter blastbass
- Start date
To which two posts are you referring? And could you explain, please?
Last edited:
Well, that was actually the reason why I first posted in the thread, and I was simply asking for clarification of the what the OP meant.
No. As I mentioned earlier, I am Danish. Why do you ask?
The first two in this thread. I don't know where you get your ideas or information, but I find them to be totally incorrect and indicate you knowledge of English is academic and that you don't speak it on a daily basis. What happens in real life is not always in text books. I can, for example, compliment or insult you using the exact same words only with different inflections and pronunciations.
This doesn't really have much to do with the topic, but I am very aware of that distinction. I have lived in an English-speaking country for a number of years, and you are quite right that I work with the language on an academic level on a daily basis. However, a part of that work entails informal speech.
The thing is that "phonetics" is a specialised term, which made me ask for a clarification. And as it turned out, it wasn't really about "correct phonetics" (paraphrased), and we've since moved on.
I am curious, though - which ideas of mine are totally incorrect in my first post? As I've pointed out earlier, I meant no disrespect. If you read that into my comments, you have mistaken me for someone else.
About my second post, I was having an exchange with the OP, and he asked whether his second explanation made sense. When I answer him honestly, how can you come here and say that I am wrong about that? And really, what are you adding to this thread other than suggesting that I have no business commenting in a thread about language unless I am a native English-speaker? If that was not your intention, you're welcome to explain. I work with the English language and I happen to know a couple of things about phonetics, so I chimed. If another TB member started a thread asking about which pentatonic chord is in F, I would also ask for clarification. Not to be disrespectful, but to narrow in on what the actual question is.
@blastbass - sorry to talk about you like you're not here!
I think we've got a little tempest in a teacup here. @blastbass ' OP was a little vague and the expression "phonetically correct" isn't very clear - what would it mean for a word to be phonetically "incorrect?" But I think it's clear enough what he was getting at, that there are some words (not all) whose phonetic qualities do reinforce or enhance their strict lexical meaning. I listed some in an earlier post, all those English "gr-" words with Germanic roots that have dark overtones.
One way to think about it would be foreign expressions that enter common usage, even when the speakers no longer know what the actual original meaning of the word or expression was. How many English speakers say "Gesundheit" when someone sneezes? (Many). How many know that the word means "health" in German? (Hardly any). Why don't English speakers use an Italian phrase, or a Chinese one, or a Zulu one, when someone sneezes? I would say it's because, phonetically, there's something about "Gesundheit" that matches our perception of the force and disruptiveness of a big sneeze.
One could use "Hallelujah" as another example. Only religious people are likely to be really conscious that the expression means "praise the Lord" in Hebrew, let alone to use it with that precise meaning. But plenty of non-religious people will use it too. Some may do so ironically, "quoting" religious people, so to speak. But even so, I would argue that they do so because the rhythm, the open vowels of the word, that burst of that initial H, give it such intuitive force as an outburst of joy and relief and thankfulness, apart from its actual meaning. Note, for instance, that even through Greek and Latin were the language of religion for so many centuries, people still prefer to shout a HEBREW "hallelujah" with the punch of that initial H rather than the more sedate "alleluia" that it was rendered into Greek and Latin as.
One way to think about it would be foreign expressions that enter common usage, even when the speakers no longer know what the actual original meaning of the word or expression was. How many English speakers say "Gesundheit" when someone sneezes? (Many). How many know that the word means "health" in German? (Hardly any). Why don't English speakers use an Italian phrase, or a Chinese one, or a Zulu one, when someone sneezes? I would say it's because, phonetically, there's something about "Gesundheit" that matches our perception of the force and disruptiveness of a big sneeze.
One could use "Hallelujah" as another example. Only religious people are likely to be really conscious that the expression means "praise the Lord" in Hebrew, let alone to use it with that precise meaning. But plenty of non-religious people will use it too. Some may do so ironically, "quoting" religious people, so to speak. But even so, I would argue that they do so because the rhythm, the open vowels of the word, that burst of that initial H, give it such intuitive force as an outburst of joy and relief and thankfulness, apart from its actual meaning. Note, for instance, that even through Greek and Latin were the language of religion for so many centuries, people still prefer to shout a HEBREW "hallelujah" with the punch of that initial H rather than the more sedate "alleluia" that it was rendered into Greek and Latin as.
They are speaking of inflection which can help define a words meaning when using two words that sound the same but, in this instance, have two very different meaning.
ex 1:
You can love your pet, just don't love your pet.
ex 2:
You can love your pet, just don't love your pet.
With inflection used on the second love in ex 1 you get the meaning because it is sonically (sic) made different than ex 2. In example 2 you just wish the person would make up their mind.
Well stated.Hey no offence taken whatsoever MB, also all your posts are totally valid and actually helped me clarify some "discrepancies"
This was the statement that set me off, "Phonetics is purely about sound". Phonetics is about the graphic or textual representation sound. It is probably even more inexact than weather prediction. On that I will agree. But it does describe how a word most likely be pronounced.
Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. What I read was like saying "music is about notes".
Since you seem to delve into the academic of the subject, maybe you can answer a question I've had for a long time.
Is there anything like phonetics in languages such as Chinese or Japanese that are purely symbols
Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure if I understand your point there. Phonetics describes sound, and isn't concerned with the spelling of words. We use the phonetic alphabet and other symbols to notate the actual (or ideal) sounds, but phonetics doesn't care whether a word a spelled "knight" or "night".
Sorry, haven't got a clue!
Okay, I think this is just a difference in the way we see things. My point was they symbols used to indicate the sound, so, I think we are in agreement.
I'm surprised it got this far..I C this thred got off 2 N eggs-sell-ant start!
This may be too much of a stretch, but:
"Elizabeth Barrett Browning" sounds like a poet.
"Bronko Nagurski" sounds like a football player.
"Elizabeth Barrett Browning" sounds like a poet.
"Bronko Nagurski" sounds like a football player.
