Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
My parents were Polish and said the name in what they knew as the pronunciation of "Szopen" and it was quite different from that....
How did you parents pronounce it? I'm familiar with the pronunciation maucycy gave but I know different regions of Poland slightly differ in pronunciation.
Last edited by 13bwl; 05/03/2210:48 PM.
Working On: Beethoven Op. 53 Beethoven Op. 90 Schubert Op. 90 No. 3 Chopin Op. 31 Ravel Sonatine
OK, let's see how to describe it.... (It takes a lot shorter time to say it than to describe it.)
Two syllables (of course) Accent on the 2nd syllable (no surprise there either)
The first syllable is sort of "shaw," but with a shorter vowel sound than how you'd say it in English. Kind of a short uttered "aw" with the mouth less open then when you say aw.
I think that enables it pretty well: say "shaw" quickly with the mouth less open than when you say shaw. It'll be a pretty familiar European sounding vowel, very similar to the "o" in Spanish or Italian, but I think a little shorter.
Now for the 2nd syllable:
The "e" is like a short "ehh." Very short. As for the "n": It doesn't sound like an English n at all. It's very similar to the French "en" ending, just a little "twangy"-er.
BTW, that means they said it as though the "n" wasn't a simple n, but one of these: ń
Were they right about that? Maybe not. Why I have some doubt: I don't find any online mentions where Szopen is spelled with that special Polish kind of n.
Except for one mention: my own, on here last year.
Those who want to "get" the IPA need only to do a little Google research where tables of the IPA symbols can be found with pronunciation examples (often audio) and explanations are given. Otherwise, short of a sound bite (which can often be found in Wikipedia entries by the way), there are few other ways to approximate "correct" pronunciation of certain words and terms.
Those who want to "get" the IPA need only to do a little Google research where tables of the IPA symbols can be found with pronunciation examples (often audio) and explanations are given.
That's certainly not true for everyone.
How I know? Because it's not true for me.
I've done what you say, and it does nothing. Maybe part of it is that the explanations I've seen aren't fully clear (to me), but I suspect that the main thing is that those IPA things are not at all intuitive, which in turn is because those symbols are as though they're a new and different language.
So: You want me to learn a new and different language?
Quote
Otherwise, short of a sound bite (which can often be found in Wikipedia entries by the way), there are few other ways to approximate "correct" pronunciation of certain words and terms.
I don't consider that true either.
Like, what about the methods of indicating pronunciation that we had when we (you and I) were kids, and what was shown in all the standard dictionaries? I never felt I had any problem with those, and I don't think I would now either.
International phonetic alphabet. It supports the worldwide community of scientists studying phonetics. The IPA allows to phonetically notate any word in any language instead of writing long imprecise sentances which are rather vague. Most modern dictionnary would give the phonetic transcription of the word. The International phonetic association is publishing a journal in english notated in IPA.
Mild prediction: Before long, IPA will go the way of Esperanto (which also seemed like "a good idea at the time").
And faster.
I see that some of you like it, and believe in it. In my little opinion it's just weird, and there are easier and better ways to indicate pronunciations -- for example, all the ways I know of that existed before.
Mild prediction: Before long, IPA will go the way of Esperanto (which also seemed like "a good idea at the time").
And faster.
I see that some of you like it, and believe in it. In my little opinion it's just weird, and there are easier and better ways to indicate pronunciations -- for example, all the ways I know of that existed before.
Could you give some examples of what you consider to be better ways?
Steinway A grand (1919), Yamaha P2 upright (1983), Kawai ES-100 (2019)
It varies somewhat by region, perhaps also somewhat by "sophistication," and also by whatever one feels like.
There's SHOW-pan. Then there's show-PAN. Maybe other things too, but mostly those -- the same basic thing but with different accenting.
I usually say the latter, but I think I sometimes say the other, according to either (maybe) how the person/people I'm talking with just said it, and maybe according to the 'phrasing' of whatever the sentence is -- which is a thing that I think most people do with all kinds of words and sounds, without necessarily knowing it.
Like.....let's see, what's an example....
Take the word "the." I think most people might say it as either "thuh" or thee," depending on what sound follows it or what degree of emphasis they want to give it.
A more analogous thing would be 2-syllable words on which we variously emphasize one syllable or the other, depending on context. I know that I have such words (and I think most people do) but I can't think of any....
BTW I don't mean words like "produce" which me might accent differently depending on part of speech; I mean the same usage.....
Former president: I experimented with marijuana a time or two. I didn't inHALE it. Patient, to doctor: It only hurts when I INhale.
Former president: I experimented with marijuana a time or two. I didn't inHALE it. Patient, to doctor: It only hurts when I INhale.
Great example -- including because at the Oscars ceremony which happened to be just a few days after that, Billy Crystal riffed on it, and (as I remember), while Clinton had said "inHale," Crystal said "INhale."
(....which I'd guess was related to those things of 'context' and 'emphasis.' Clinton said it as part of a sentence -- actually maybe his wording was "never inhaled" -- and had no wish to emphasize anything in it. Crystal said it just as the 2 words, "Didn't inhale" -- and the delivery was helped by giving 'inhale' the same rhythm as "Didn't.)
Could you give some examples of what you consider to be better ways?
I was surprised that I was able readily to find this detailed thing that describes the exact method that was the standard thing during my school years and which seemed to be the main thing that was ever used until recent years when I started seeing that weird stuff online.
Mild prediction: Before long, IPA will go the way of Esperanto (which also seemed like "a good idea at the time").
And faster.
I see that some of you like it, and believe in it. In my little opinion it's just weird, and there are easier and better ways to indicate pronunciations -- for example, all the ways I know of that existed before.
It is not a language but a phonetic notation. Just like you use math notation to describe physical laws. It is used by scientists who study phonetic. The phonetic association (IPA) exists since 1886 ....
If you look at a dictionnary, you will find the phonetic notation of a word that supports the proper proununciation, for example in merriam webster:
Could you give some examples of what you consider to be better ways?
I was surprised that I was able readily to find this detailed thing that describes the exact method that was the standard thing during my school years and which seemed to be the main thing that was ever used until recent years when I started seeing that weird stuff online.
That looks like a pronunciation respelling for English. There are many of these systems, but they are not useful for non-English speakers. Even as an English speaker, you need to learn the particular conventions of the system you are using: as that Merriam-Webster guide itself states, "No system of indicating pronunciation is self explanatory".
The International Phonetic Alphabet is not "weird stuff" that appeared in recent years, it is the most commonly used phonetic notation system in the world and has been around (see Sidokar's post above) for well over a century. It's an invaluable tool for linguists and a boon to opera singers: when I am teaching a French role to a singer from any other country, things go much faster and smoother if the singer knows IPA.
If you've been seeing more of it online recently, it's probably because it's becoming more widely-used.
Steinway A grand (1919), Yamaha P2 upright (1983), Kawai ES-100 (2019)
While I think that no one implied that the IPA was "intuitive," it nevertheless is a useful tool, for the "I" in IPA: International. To anyone who has studied and learned it (yes, it's not intuitive and has to be studied), it can help to determine the pronunciation of words and names in multiple languages, even if the user speaks only one language.
Most likely it is of more use to the language student and linguist, but once learned it is an efficient way to determine fairly accurate pronunciation. In this regard, it can be particularly helpful to singers who sing in languages not their own.
As mentioned above, it is not a new or different language but a pronunciation tool that can be applied to the pronunciation of words in many languages.
I don't understand what ever made anyone think there was a need to create a single system that would work for all people of all languages, or that it would be preferable to each language indicating it in its own way, which I'm not aware was a problem.
Subset question: Does anyone here think it was a problem in English before? I'm not aware that it was. I never had trouble understanding what was being indicated by that method that I linked. Never, at all, whatsoever.
I don't understand what ever made anyone think there was a need to create a single system that would work for all people of all languages, or that it would be preferable to each language indicating it in its own way, which I'm not aware was a problem.
Subset question: Does anyone here think it was a problem in English before? I'm not aware that it was. I never had trouble understanding what was being indicated by that method that I linked. Never, at all, whatsoever.
I dont think you understand the objectives of scientists who study linguistic and use phonetic notation. It is like saying that you dont understand what can the usage of mathematical notation since you are not using it in every day life.
it's just weird, and there are easier and better ways to indicate pronunciations -- for example, all the ways I know of that existed before.
