Slurred languages vs clear languages (Specific Languages) Language Learning Forum

Slurred languages vs clear languages
Tags: Comprehension/understanding \| Listening
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages

55 messages over 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next >>

vonPeterhof
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Russian FederationRegistered users can see my Skype Name
Joined 4773 days ago
715 posts - 1527 votes

Speaks: Russian*, English^C2, Japanese, German
Studies: Kazakh, Korean, Norwegian, Turkish

Message 33 of 55

18 May 2012 at 7:45pm | IP Logged

IronFist wrote:

SoareyousayingtheonlyreasonwethinkEnglishiseasiertoreadwiths pacesisbecauseweareusedtothem? Similarlycouldwejustaseasilygetusedtoreadingitlikethis?

I was not condemning the use of spaces per se, all I was saying is that in many cases their placement is arbitrary because orthographic words don't always correspond to linguistic words. This section of the discussion I linked to deals with tests to determine what constitutes a linguistic word. The ending "-ed" and the article "the" in the first example fail the WH-substitution test (they cannot be replaced with question words), and so would most prepositions. Many languages have pre- or postpositions that are written as part of the modified word, and some, like Hebrew or Norwegian, have no problem doing the same with the definite article. Of course, in English you can insert additional words between the prepositions/articles and the nouns they modify, but it's not like you can't treat certain parts of words as detachable, but still functionally part of that word - case in point, the German separable prefixes (umziehen - Sie zieht in eine andere Stadt um; and you can even write umzuziehen).
3 persons have voted this message useful

geoffw
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 4689 days ago
1134 posts - 1865 votes

Speaks: English*, German, Yiddish
Studies: Modern Hebrew, French, Dutch, Italian, Russian

Message 34 of 55

18 May 2012 at 7:48pm | IP Logged

vonPeterhof wrote:

in many cases their placement is arbitrary because orthographic words don't always correspond to linguistic words.

This.

Why is "bookkeeper" one word, but "scuba diver" is two? Orthographic convention.
2 persons have voted this message useful

Arekkusu
Hexaglot
Senior Member
Canada
bit.ly/qc_10_lec
Joined 5382 days ago
3971 posts - 7747 votes

Speaks: English, French*, German^C1, Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto
Studies: Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Estonian

Message 35 of 55

18 May 2012 at 9:08pm | IP Logged

IronFist wrote:

SoareyousayingtheonlyreasonwethinkEnglishiseasiertoreadwiths pacesisbecauseweareusedtothem? Similarlycouldwejustaseasilygetusedtoreadingitlikethis?

Sure. However, I'd add that the Japanese system is such that every letter (or almost) is a syllable, whereas the English reader must regroup letters into syllables. Still, it's quite feasible.
3 persons have voted this message useful

Kartof
Bilingual Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5067 days ago
391 posts - 550 votes

Speaks: English*, Bulgarian*, Spanish
Studies: Danish

Message 36 of 55

18 May 2012 at 9:40pm | IP Logged

geoffw wrote:

vonPeterhof wrote:

in many cases their placement is arbitrary because orthographic
words don't always correspond to linguistic words.

This.

Why is "bookkeeper" one word, but "scuba diver" is two? Orthographic convention.

Yes but also scuba diver is a much newer phrase and scuba is actually an acronym. It may be that in a few
generations scuba diver will be treated as a single word.
3 persons have voted this message useful

geoffw
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 4689 days ago
1134 posts - 1865 votes

Speaks: English*, German, Yiddish
Studies: Modern Hebrew, French, Dutch, Italian, Russian

Message 37 of 55

18 May 2012 at 9:44pm | IP Logged

Kartof wrote:

Yes but also scuba diver is a much newer phrase and scuba is actually an acronym. It may be that in a few
generations scuba diver will be treated as a single word.

Exactly. It's a convention that came to be due to historical accident, not from some underlying inherent difference in the meaning or sound of the words.
1 person has voted this message useful

kanewai
Triglot
Senior Member
United States
justpaste.it/kanewai
Joined 4890 days ago
1386 posts - 3054 votes

Speaks: English*, French, Marshallese
Studies: Italian, Spanish

Message 38 of 55

18 May 2012 at 10:04pm | IP Logged

I read the original question more along the lines of, some languages sound clearer than
others to non-speakers.

I don't speak a word of Ilocano, but I can somewhat hear where the words or clauses
are, and if someone spoke slowly enough I might even be able to transcribe it. It just
sounds crisp to me.

Italian is similar. Even if I don't know a word or phrase, I can 'hear' it well enough
to repeat it, or look it up.

Spoken French is the other extreme for me. I told some friends from Tahiti that my
French was really improving. They said, ounen'en'y'est-ce'y'est. Seriously. I couldn't
make out a thing. I can follow a narrative, but am completely lost when listening to
small talk.

4 persons have voted this message useful

IronFist
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6438 days ago
663 posts - 941 votes

Speaks: English*
Studies: Japanese, Korean

Message 39 of 55

19 May 2012 at 6:17pm | IP Logged

LaughingChimp wrote:

tractor wrote:

It's a complicated convention if you look at phonology and phonetics only, but as soon as you try to analyse a
language in terms of syntax, parts of speech etc., "word" emerges as a necessary and obvious unity.

That's probably correct, but it doesn't necessarily correspond to spelling. For example Czech children have to learn where to make spaces in writing, because it doesn't come naturally to them, they write fewer spaces than the orthography requires.

What about Czech makes it hard to know where the spaces are supposed to go?
1 person has voted this message useful

IronFist
Senior Member
United States
Joined 6438 days ago
663 posts - 941 votes

Speaks: English*
Studies: Japanese, Korean

Message 40 of 55

19 May 2012 at 6:24pm | IP Logged

geoffw wrote:

vonPeterhof wrote:

in many cases their placement is arbitrary because orthographic words don't always correspond to linguistic words.

This.

Why is "bookkeeper" one word, but "scuba diver" is two? Orthographic convention.

I was replying to this post but I just said "scuba" too many times in my head and it just lost its meaning. Semantic satiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation

Also, as Kartof pointed out, scuba is actually an acronym. I don't think you can make words out of acronyms can you? S.C.U.B.Adiver? Looks funny. Eventually it may become a word by itself, written "scuba."

Another kind of diving, freediving, is one word.

Edited by IronFist on 19 May 2012 at 6:27pm

1 person has voted this message useful

This discussion contains 55 messages over 7 pages: << Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 2.0625 seconds.