|
 |
The most phonetic languages | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Philological Room |  | |
| tractor Tetraglot Senior Member Norway Joined 5455 days ago 1349 posts - 2292 votes  Speaks: Norwegian*, English, Spanish, Catalan Studies: French, German, Latin | Message 73 of 96 08 July 2012 at 1:53am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I can't remember that I, as a native speaker, have ever looked up a word because I was unsure about the pitch
accent. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Josquin Heptaglot Senior Member Germany Joined 4846 days ago 2266 posts - 3992 votes Speaks: German*, English, French, Latin, Italian, Russian, Swedish Studies: Japanese, Irish, Portuguese, Persian | Message 74 of 96 08 July 2012 at 1:58pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
So, my theory that marking the pitch accent is only necessary for learners is valid after all?
1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| tractor Tetraglot Senior Member Norway Joined 5455 days ago 1349 posts - 2292 votes Speaks: Norwegian*, English, Spanish, Catalan Studies: French, German, Latin | Message 75 of 96 08 July 2012 at 4:48pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Possibly. At least it's not a dumb theory.
I guess most Norwegians won't notice that there are different stress or pitch marks for words such as marmelade and marsipan in Bokmålsordboka and Nynorskordboka. Most words in these two dictionaries have no stress mark at all, for example tank (meaning tank) and tanke (meaning thought). They are both spelt tanken in the definate form (the tank or the thought) but pronounced with different pitch accents. Bokmålsordboka and Nynroskordboka are available here: http://nob-ordbok.uio.no/ Edited by tractor on 08 July 2012 at 4:56pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| joanignasi91 Newbie Luxembourg Joined 4377 days ago 1 posts - 1 votes | Message 76 of 96 03 December 2012 at 6:38pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I think Spanish is completely phonetic as pointed out by many people before. Following
the rules one spelling can only lead to one pronunciation, though not the other way round, also other people have pointed out that Mexico is an example of a word that isn't phonetic and they are right, but Mexico along with other names of American places, objects or civilizations were named before the reform of the Spanish language. While other words changed their spelling to become more phonetic, those words kept the x for cultural and political reasons. That being said I think those are the only exceptions to the rule. Another thing I think nobody has mentioned the Basque language I think that language is also completely phonetic. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Medulin Tetraglot Senior Member Croatia Joined 4670 days ago 1199 posts - 2192 votes Speaks: Croatian*, English, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Norwegian, Hindi, Nepali | Message 77 of 96 04 December 2012 at 1:13pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
This is not completely true. The print edition of SOED indicates only the pronunciation of rare and technical words, not the pronunciation of common words. The electronic version of SOED (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) does give pronunciation of all words tough, from everyday words to technical words. The greatest Croatian dictionary (available online) does indicates the pitch for every word: http://hjp.srce.hr/ For Norwegian, Pons Norwegian-German indicates the pitch accent, and is available online: http://de.pons.eu/dict/search/results/?q=bildet&l=deno&in=&l f=de In Norwegian, there are two areas of pitchless dialects: 1) large parts of the North (Northern Troms, and most Finnmark outside the cities of Alta and Hammerfest) lack the pitch accent opposition...this is explained as a result of contact between Norwegian and Saami languages; 2. Northern and Central parts of the county of Hordaland (but excluding the city of Bergen and Voss). known as Strilelandet, lacks the pitch accent opposition, No explanation has been found for the emergence of this pitchless accent. The ''problem'' with Norwegian pitch accent is its high intradialectal instability: for example, the realization of tones 1 and 2 in Stril : 1 HL, 2 HL (the same realization): bìlen, jènta in Bergen: 1 HL, 2: LHL: bìlen, jéntèn in Troms: 1 LHL; 2: LHL (but different timing: bîlen, jéntà) in Oslo 1: LH; 2 HLH: bilén, jèntá Edited by Medulin on 04 December 2012 at 1:34pm 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| tractor Tetraglot Senior Member Norway Joined 5455 days ago 1349 posts - 2292 votes Speaks: Norwegian*, English, Spanish, Catalan Studies: French, German, Latin | Message 78 of 96 04 December 2012 at 9:02pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
I have the 6th edition and it does indicate the pronunciation of every word. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Medulin Tetraglot Senior Member Croatia Joined 4670 days ago 1199 posts - 2192 votes Speaks: Croatian*, English, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Norwegian, Hindi, Nepali | Message 79 of 96 05 December 2012 at 2:50pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Pocket Oxford English Dictionary does not show pronunciation of common words:
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co m/ pdf/13/9780198610298.pdf Compact Oxford English Dictionary doesn't either: http://tinilink.com/CD4fDOSu Concise Oxford English Dictionary (the most sold dictionary in the UK) does not either: http://tinilink.com/TueWQA And the print version of (N)ODE ('[New] Oxford Dictionary of English) [the largest single volume dictionary for native speakers) does not either: http://tinilink.com/rlmYqTL7 although the American version of it (NOAD) does list pronunciation of all words (using respelling rather than IPA). Web version of NODE/NOAD does give pronunciation of all words, (technical+common): http://oxforddictionaries.com/ In these dictionaries for native speakers,, the pronunciation is given as: ''Pronunciation (for selected words)'' (as written in introduction of these dictionaries). Although I prefer the font of (New) Oxford Dictionary of English, and IPA symbols, the American version (Oxford American Dictionary) seems to be better because it indicates the pronunciation of all words (although given in some weird respelling reminiscent of the one used in the Webster Collegiate Dictionary). - ''Generally speaking, native speakers of English do not need information about the pronunciation of ordinary, everyday words....For this reason, no pronunciations are given for such words (or their compounds or derivatives)....the principle followed is that pronunciations are given where they are likely to cause problems for the native speaker of English", The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University Press, 1998, ed. Judy Pearsall et al, Introduction, p xvii.'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ New_Oxford_Dictionary_of_English Edited by Medulin on 05 December 2012 at 3:23pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| stifa Triglot Senior Member Norway lang-8.com/448715 Joined 4875 days ago 629 posts - 813 votes Speaks: Norwegian*, EnglishC2, German Studies: Japanese, Spanish | Message 80 of 96 05 December 2012 at 3:50pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Japanese is most phonetic when using kana. Each hiragana represent one more (though
they are somtimes supplied by a small ゃぃゅぇょ to modify the mora. Romanised Japanese represent each mora by 1, 2 or 3 characters, and relies on the use of apostrophes, like in Man'yōgana (万葉仮名) and romaji puts space between words and their respective particles. When texts are written hiragana-only, their usually written with the word-stem and particle together. An ideal phonetic written system for Japanese would have one character representing each more and some sort of pich mark on morae with raised pitch, or at least show where the pitch changes. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
